GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Committee on Armed 

Services, House of Representatives 

FORMERLY USED 

DEFENSE SITES 

The U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers Needs to 

Improve Its Process 

for Reviewing 

Completed Cleanup 

Remedies to Ensure 

Continued Protection 

October 2009 

GAO-10-46 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

October 2009

FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Needs to Improve 

Its Process for Reviewing Completed Cleanup 

Highlights of GAO-10-46, a report to the Remedies to Ensure Continued Protection 

Committee on Armed Services, House of 

Representatives 

The Department of Defense (DOD) 

estimates that cleaning up known 

hazards at the over 4,700 formerly 

used defense sites (FUDS)—sites 

transferred to other owners before 

October 1986—will require more 

than 50 years and cost about $18 

billion. This estimate excludes any 

additional needed cleanup of 

emerging contaminants—generally, 

those not yet governed by a health 

standard. DOD delegated FUDS 

cleanup responsibility to the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 

In addition to FUDS, DOD is 

responsible for cleaning up about 

21,500 sites on active bases and 

5,400 sites on realigned or closed 

bases. The House Armed Services 

Committee directed GAO to 

examine (1) the extent to which the 

Corps reevaluates sites to identify 

emerging contaminants; (2) how 

DOD allocates cleanup funds; (3) 

how the Corps prioritizes FUDS for 

cleanup; and (4) FUDS program 

overhead costs. GAO analyzed 

nationwide FUDS property and 

project data; policies, guidance and 

budget documents; and interviewed 

DOD and Corps officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Corps 

conduct 5-year reviews for sites 

with emerging contaminants and is 

making recommendations for 

better management of these 

reviews. DOD generally agreed 

with the recommendations, but did 

not agree to conduct reviews not 

specifically required by law. We 

continue to believe additional 

reviews are needed, consistent 

with EPA guidance. 

The Corps has not often re-examined sites after they have been cleaned up to 

determine whether emerging contaminants are present or need to be 

addressed. Generally, the Corps reevaluates sites only when requested by 

states or others, or when reviewing the completed remedy to ensure its 

continuing protectiveness. Such reviews are required every 5 years for sites 

where the chosen remedy does not allow for unlimited use and unrestricted 

exposure. Corps officials said that they had not received many requests to reexamine sites and few FUDS had required 5-year reviews. Reports on the 15 5-

year reviews completed as of May 2009 within four Corps divisions indicated 

that the Corps has not consistently (1) conducted required 5-year reviews on 

time, (2) conducted reviews when they are not required but may be 

appropriate, as EPA recommends, and (3) submitted reports on these reviews 

for technical evaluation, as required by Corps policy. Also, DOD and the Corps 

lack accurate, complete information on the status of these reviews. Without 

timely, accurate, and complete reviews, the Corps cannot ensure that 

remedies continue to protect human health and the environment. 

DOD proposes funding to clean up defense sites based on the department’s 

environmental restoration goals and obligations are generally proportional to 

the number of sites in each site category. Funding is directed toward reducing 

risks to human health and the environment, among other goals. The Army, 

Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Defense Logistics Agency each determine 

the funding requirements to clean up sites based on these goals. 

The Corps prioritizes individual FUDS for cleanup on the basis of risk and 

other factors. The Corps assigns each site a risk level, considering such 

factors as the presence of hazards, the potential for human contact, and the 

concentrations of contaminants and their potential for migrating, among 

others. According to DOD officials, sites’ risk levels are the single most 

important criterion in determining cleanup priorities. However, the Corps also 

takes into account specific FUDS program goals, and other factors—such as 

regulators’ and the public’s concerns—that can influence the Corps’ decisions 

about which sites to address first. Consequently, high risk sites are not always 

addressed before low risk sites. 

Direct program management and support costs for the FUDS program have 

decreased slightly in recent years, mostly due to structural changes in the 

program. The Corps’ obligations for FUDS direct program management and 

support costs have declined from 11.0 percent of total program obligations in 

fiscal year 2004 to 9.0 percent in fiscal year 2008. In addition, to further 

reduce certain components of these costs to make more funds available for 

FUDS cleanup, the Corps reduced the number of employees managing the 

program and the number of districts responsible for FUDS from 22 to 14. 

Furthermore, Corps officials told GAO that they have implemented a number 

of controls—such as assigning tracking codes—to ensure that program 

management and support funds are spent only on approved items. View GAO-10-46 or key components.

For more information, contact John B. 

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841 or 

stephensonj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-46 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 3 

The Corps Uses the CERCLA Process to Address Emerging 

Contaminants at FUDS, but Has Gaps in its 5-Year Review 

Procedures 10 

DOD Proposes Funding for Cleanup at FUDS, Active Sites, and 

BRAC Sites Based on DERP Goals, and Funding Is Proportional 

to Site Inventories 22 

The Corps Uses Risk-Based Criteria to Prioritize FUDS for 

Cleanup, but Also Considers Other Factors 26 

The Corps Has Reduced Direct Management and Support Costs for 

the FUDS Program and Implements Accountability Measures for 

these Costs 32 

Conclusions 36 

Recommendations 37 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 37 

Appendix I Status of Cleanup Actions at the Former Almaden 

Air Force Radar Station 39 

Appendix II Scope and Methodology 41 

Appendix III Occurrence of Emerging Contaminants at Formerly 

Used Defense Sites with Hazardous, Toxic, and 

Radioactive Waste 44 

Appendix IV Perchlorate and Trichloroethylene Contamination 

at Formerly Used Defense Sites 49 

Appendix V Completion Status of Department of Defense Sites 

by Program Category and Military Component 56 

 Formerly Used Defense Sites 
Appendix VI Department of Defense Obligations and Estimated 

Costs to Complete Environmental Restoration by 

Military Component and Program Category 60 

Appendix VII Department of Defense’s Inventory of Sites and 

Number of High Risk Sites by Military Component 

and Program Category 64 

Appendix VIII Formerly Used Defense Sites Program Costs Details 68 

Appendix IX Comments from the Department of Defense 70 

Appendix X GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 73 

Tables 

Table 1: DOD’s Action and Watch Lists of Emerging Contaminants 10 

Table 2: Summary of DERP Goals for IRP and MMRP 23 

Table 3: Completion Status of Sites, FY 2008 24 

Table 4: Inventory of Sites, Obligations, and Proportions, FY 2008 25 

Table 5: High-Priority FUDS Receiving Funding From Corps 

Headquarters 28 

Table 6: Response Complete Rates by Project Category, FY 2008 29 

Table 7: Components of Direct and Indirect Program Management 

and Support Costs 33 

Table 8: FUDS Obligations, FY 2004 through 2008 34 

Table 9: Program Management and Support Obligations for FUDS, 

FY 2004 though 2008 34 

Table 10: Program Management and Support Proportions for 

FUDS, FY 2004 through 2008 35 

Table 11: Maximum Detected Concentrations of Emerging 

Contaminants in Groundwater at HTRW FUDS 45 

Table 12: Maximum Detected Concentrations of Emerging 

Contaminants in Surface Water at HTRW FUDS 46 

Page ii GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Table 13: Maximum Detected Concentrations of Emerging 

Contaminants in Soil at HTRW FUDS 47 

Table 14: Maximum Detected Concentrations of Emerging 

Contaminants in Sediment at HTRW FUDS 48 

Table 15: Perchlorate Detections at FUDS, June 2006 to April 2008 52 

Table 16: Active Sites Cleanup Completion Status for FY 2004 

through 2008 56 

Table 17: BRAC Sites Cleanup Completion Status for FY 2004 

through 2008 57 

Table 18: FUDS Sites Cleanup Completion Status for FY 2004 

through 2008 59 

Table 19: DOD Obligations for Cleanup at Active Sites under the 

IRP, MMRP and BD/DR, FY 2004 through 2008 60 

Table 20: DOD’s Obligations for Cleanup at BRAC Sites under the 

IRP and MMRP, FY 2004 through 2008 61 

Table 21: DOD’s Obligations for Cleanup at FUDS under the IRP, 

MMRP and BD/DR, FY 2004 through 2008 62 

Table 22: DOD’s Estimated Costs to Complete Environmental 

Cleanup for Active, BRAC, and FUDS sites by Program 

Category, FY 2004 through 2008 63 

Table 23: Inventory for Active DOD Sites, FY 2004 through 2008 64 

Table 24: Inventory for BRAC Sites, FY 2004 through 2008 65 

Table 25: Inventory for FUDS, FY 2004 through 2008 66 

Table 26: Total FUDS Program Obligations by Cost Component, FY 

2004 through 2008 68 

Table 27: FUDS Program Cost Components as a Percentage of 

Total FUDS Obligations, FY 2004 through 2008 69 

Figure 

Figure 1: DERP Program Categories and Project Types at FUDS 6 

Page iii GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Abbreviations 

ARAR applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements 

BD/DR building demolition and debris removal 

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure 

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act 

CON/HTRW containerized hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste 

Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program 

DOD Department of Defense 

DSMOA Defense State Memorandum of Agreements 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FUDS formerly used defense sites 

FUDSMIS Formerly Used Defense Sites Management Information 

System 

FY fiscal year 

HTRW hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste 

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System 

IRP Installation Restoration Program 

MMRP Military Munitions Response Program 

MROSD Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District 

MRSPP munitions response site prioritization protocol 

NCP National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution 

Contingency Plan 

PPB parts per billion 

RIP/RC remedy in place or response complete 

RRSE relative risk site evaluation 

SMAP Statewide Management Action Plan 

TCE trichloroethylene 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. 

Page iv GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Page 1 GAO-10-46 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

October 29, 2009 

The Honorable Ike Skelton 

Chairman 

The Honorable Howard P. “Buck” McKeon 

Ranking Member 

Committee on Armed Services 

House of Representatives 

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has invested about $4.4 billion 

since fiscal year (FY) 1984 to address contamination and hazards at 

formerly used defense sites (FUDS). These sites are located on properties 

that were under the jurisdiction of the Department of Defense (DOD) and 

owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by the United States prior to 

October 17, 1986, but have since been transferred to states, local 

governments, federal entities, and private parties.1

 They can range in size 

from less than an acre to many thousands of acres and are used as parks, 

airports, industrial and commercial facilities, schools, and homes, among 

other uses. FUDS can include hazards such as unsafe buildings, toxic and 

radioactive wastes, hazardous wastes in storage containers, ordnance, and 

explosive compounds. Under the Defense Environmental Restoration 

Program (DERP), DOD is authorized to identify, investigate, and clean up 

certain environmental contamination and address other hazards at both 

FUDS and active installations. In the case of some FUDS, they have been 

outside DOD jurisdiction for more than 100 years. DOD delegated its 

authority for administering the cleanup of FUDS to the Department of the 

Army, which, in turn, delegated its execution to the Corps. As of 

September 30, 2008, the Corps had identified over 4,700 sites that are 

eligible for cleanup under the program. 

The Corps estimates that, at current funding levels, cleaning up known 

DOD contamination and hazards at FUDS will take more than 50 years and 

cost about an additional $18 billion. However, this timeline and cost 

estimate may expand if further cleanup at FUDS is required due to 

changes in regulations, or if 5-year reviews of site cleanup reveal the need 

1

DOD notes that this jurisdiction extends to governmental entities that are the legal 

predecessors of DOD or the components—Army, Navy and Marine Corps, Air Force, and 

Defense Logistics Agency. 

 Formerly Used Defense Sites 
 

for additional actions, such as to address emerging contaminants.2 DOD 

defines an emerging contaminant as a contaminant that (1) has a 

reasonably possible pathway to enter the environment; (2) presents a 

potential unacceptable human health or environmental risk; and (3) either 

does not have regulatory standards based on peer-reviewed science or has 

regulatory standards that are evolving due to new science, detection 

capabilities, or exposure pathways.3

The House Armed Services Committee report accompanying the National 

Defense Authorization Act for FY 2009 directed us to conduct a study of 

DOD’s efforts to clean up FUDS. As discussed with the committee staff, 

we examined (1) how the Corps addresses emerging contaminants at 

FUDS, and the extent to which the Corps reevaluates sites during 5-year 

reviews or other circumstances to determine the need to address emerging 

contaminants; (2) DOD’s process for proposing funding for cleanup at 

FUDS and other sites in the defense cleanup program; (3) the Corps’ 

criteria for prioritizing FUDS for cleanup and how closely the Corps 

follows these criteria; and (4) the components and total amounts of 

management and support costs for the FUDS program, how these costs 

have changed over time, and the Corps’ accountability measures for these 

costs. In addition, at the request of the committee, this report provides 

information on the status of the Corps’ cleanup efforts at the former 

Almaden Air Force Station, a FUDS located near San Jose, California 

(see app. I). 

In conducting our work, we reviewed program information obtained from 

officials with DOD’s DERP; the Department of the Army; the Corps’ 

headquarters; the Corps’ Environmental and Munitions Center of 

Expertise; 4 of the 7 Corps military divisions; and 4 of the 14 districts 

responsible for FUDS program execution. We selected the 4 divisions 

based on geographic dispersion, the number of FUDS within a division, 

 

2

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

requires that reviews be conducted not less than every 5 years after the start of remedial 

action when the chosen remedy results in any hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants remaining at the property. The Environmental Protection Agency has 

interpreted this statutory language to mean that a 5-year review is required to assess the 

continuing protectiveness of a remedy when a property has not been cleaned up to a level 

that allows for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. 

3

This definition was developed in consultation with Environmental Protection Agency and 

the Environmental Council of the States—the national nonprofit, nonpartisan association 

of state and territorial environmental agency leaders. 

Page 2 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

and planned obligations for FY 2009. Within these divisions, we selected 

four districts with FUDS program management responsibilities. To 

evaluate the Corps’ process for addressing emerging contaminants and 

prioritizing sites for cleanup, we reviewed and analyzed the nationwide 

property and project data in the Corps’ FUDS Management Information 

System (FUDSMIS) through September 30, 2008. We assessed the 

reliability of relevant fields in this database. When we found 

inconsistencies, we worked with DOD and Corps officials to correct the 

discrepancies before conducting our analyses. We determined that the 

data needed for our analyses were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

our report. We reviewed relevant sections of key laws, regulations, 

policies, guidance, DOD budget justification documents, and DOD’s 

Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress. We also 

obtained information on the Corps’ completed and planned 5-year reviews. 

In addition, we interviewed officials of the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) and two state organizations—the National Governors 

Association and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste 

Management Officials—to obtain their perspectives on FUDS cleanup. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 through 

October 2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. A more detailed 

description of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix II. 

Under DERP, DOD is required to carry out a program of environmental 

restoration activities at sites located on former and active defense 

installations that were contaminated while under DOD’s jurisdiction. The 

goals of the program include the identification, investigation, research and 

development, and cleanup of contamination from hazardous substances, 

pollutants, and contaminants; the correction of other environmental 

damage (such as detection and disposal of unexploded ordnance) which 

creates an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health or 

welfare or the environment; and demolition and removal of unsafe 

buildings and structures. To that end, DOD has established performance 

measures and goals and identified over 31,600 sites that are eligible for 

cleanup, including about 4,700 FUDS, 21,500 sites on active installations, 

and 5,400 sites on installations that have been closed or are designated to 

be closed or realigned under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Background 

Page 3 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

process.4 The DERP was established by section 211 of the Superfund 

Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 which amended the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA) of 1980. In implementing the DERP, DOD is required to carry 

out its activities addressing hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants in a manner consistent with section 120 of CERCLA.5

Funding for DERP cleanup activities comes from the Environmental 

Restoration and BRAC accounts. The Environmental Restoration accounts 

fund cleanup activities at FUDS and active sites and the BRAC accounts 

fund cleanup activities at certain closing or realigning installations.6

To carry out the DERP at FUDS, DOD has established three major 

program categories: the Installation Restoration Program, the Military 

Munitions Response Program, and the Building Demolition/Debris 

Removal Program. Specifically: 

• Installation Restoration Program (IRP). DOD established the IRP in 1985 

to address the release of hazardous substances, pollutants, or 

contaminants resulting from past practices that pose environmental health 

and safety risks on both active sites and FUDS. For FUDS, the IRP 

includes (1) hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) sites and (2) 

containerized hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (CON/HTRW) sites, 

such as sites with transformers and aboveground or underground storage 

tanks. In FY 2008, 2,621 FUDS were included in the IRP. DOD has 

developed performance measures to assess progress toward the agency’s 

IRP goals. These goals are based on the achievement of certain CERCLA 

cleanup phases and include progress toward achieving DOD milestones of 

“remedy in place” and/or “response complete” at installations, and 

 

4

To enable DOD to close unneeded bases and realign others, the Congress enacted 

legislation that instituted five separate BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, and 2005. 

Independent commissions established for each BRAC round made specific 

recommendations to the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services for the 1988 

round and, thereafter, to the President, who in turn, sent the Commissions’ 

recommendations and his approval to the Congress. 

5

Section 120 of CERCLA makes the law applicable to federal government entities to the 

same extent it is applicable to nongovernmental entities, and establishes procedures 

governing the identification, assessment, evaluation, and cleanup of releases at federal 

facilities. 

6

The DERP establishes five separate environmental restoration accounts which receive 

separate appropriations: one for Defense-wide purposes, and one each for Army, Navy, Air 

Force, and FUDS. DOD notes that the FUDS account is managed by DOD, with the Army 

serving as Executive Agent. 

Page 4 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

progress in reducing overall risks. Specific IRP targets are included in 

DOD’s annual report to the Congress. 

• Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP). DOD established the 

MMRP in September 2001 as a separate program to focus on addressing 

potential explosive and environmental hazards associated with munitions 

sites on both active installations and FUDS, due to the unique issues 

associated with munitions sites. The MMRP includes sites with munitions 

and explosives of concern, munitions constituents, and chemical warfare 

materiel.7

 In FY 2008, 1,661 FUDS were included in the MMRP. The 

objectives of the program include compiling a comprehensive inventory of 

military munitions sites, establishing a prioritization protocol for cleanup 

work at these sites, and establishing program goals and performance 

measures to evaluate progress. In December 2001, shortly after DOD 

established the program, the Congress passed the National Defense 

Authorization Act for FY 2002, which, among other things, required DOD 

to develop, by May 31, 2003, an initial inventory of defense sites, other 

than military ranges still in operation, that are known or suspected to 

contain military munitions and to provide annual updates thereafter, 

among other requirements. DOD provides these updates as part of its 

Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress. 

• Building Demolition/Debris Removal Program (BD/DR). To address the 

demolition and removal of unsafe buildings or structures, DOD established 

the BD/DR Program. In FY 2008, the Corps had 423 FUDS in the BD/DR 

program. Because of the small number of FUDS in the BD/DR Program, 

DOD measures and reports cleanup progress at BD/DR sites with the IRP 

program.8

Figure 1 shows these three program categories and the types of cleanup 

projects within each category at FUDS. A FUDS property may have 

multiple types of cleanup projects, which we refer to as “sites.” For 

example, a single FUDS property could have a munitions site; a building 

 

7

Munitions constituents are defined as any materials originating from unexploded 

ordnance, discarded military munitions, or other military munitions, including explosive 

and nonexplosive materials, and emission, degradation, or breakdown elements of such 

ordnance or munitions. 10 U.S.C. § 2710(e)(3) (2006). 

8

In the BD/DR program, the Corps reviews documentation of the condition of the buildings 

and evidence of DOD debris at the time of disposal or transfer from DOD jurisdiction. 

According to DOD, unsafe and hazardous conditions resulting from subsequent owners’ 

neglect or lack of maintenance are not eligible to be addressed under the FUDS program. 

Page 5 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

demolition/debris removal site; and a hazardous, toxic, and radioactive 

waste site. 

Figure 1: DERP Program Categories and Project Types at FUDS 

Defense Environmental 

Restoration at FUDS

IRP MMRP BD/DR Program

Hazardous toxic 

and radioactive 

waste

Chemical 

warfare 

materiel

Unsafe 

buildings and 

structures

Munitions

and explosives

of concern and 

munitions

constituents

Source: GAO analysis of DOD information.

DOD is responsible for cleaning up its releases of hazardous substances 

under DERP, in accordance with CERCLA.9

 The remedy chosen for such a 

release must meet certain standards for contaminants set under state or 

federal laws or regulations.10 If there is no standard for a given 

contaminant, DOD must still achieve a degree of cleanup, which at a 

minimum, assures protection of human health and the environment. Thus, 

the absence of a federal or state standard for the cleanup of a particular 

 

9

A “hazardous substance” is defined by CERCLA as a substance that is listed as such under 

CERCLA, in addition to substances designated as hazardous under the Clean Water Act, 

hazardous waste as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, hazardous 

pollutants designated under the Clean Air Act, and substances that are deemed imminent 

hazards under the Toxic Substances Control Act. 

10Cleanups must meet standards that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate 

(ARAR). ARARs include standards promulgated under any federal environmental law, in 

addition to standards promulgated under certain state laws or regulations that are more 

stringent than federal law and are identified to the entity conducting the cleanup in a timely 

manner. 

Page 6 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

hazardous substance does not negate DOD’s responsibility to clean up 

releases of that substance. 

Currently, all seven of the Corps’ geographic military divisions and 14 of 

its 45 districts within these divisions have responsibilities for identifying, 

investigating, and cleaning up hazards at FUDS. The Corps’ Environmental 

and Munitions Center of Expertise provides specialized technical 

assistance to help the Corps’ divisions and districts execute their 

responsibilities. The Corps’ FUDS program policy follows DERP 

management guidance, provides specific policy and guidance for managing 

and executing the FUDS program, and applies to all Corps elements 

engaged in FUDS program activities.11 Depending on the types of hazards 

involved and their severity, either a state environmental regulatory agency 

or EPA is the lead regulator at a FUDS. The lead regulator is responsible 

for providing regulatory oversight of the Corp’s actions to clean up FUDS. 

In general, EPA is the lead regulator for all sites, including FUDS 

properties, on EPA’s list of some of the most contaminated sites in the 

country—the National Priorities List. Most FUDS are not on the National 

Priorities List, and states are typically the lead regulators for these FUDS 

properties.12

To be eligible for FUDS cleanup under the DERP and FUDS program 

policy, a property must have been under the jurisdiction of DOD and 

owned by, leased to, or otherwise possessed by the United States at the 

time of actions leading to contamination by hazardous substances or other 

hazards prior to October 17, 1986. In deciding which actions, if any, need 

to be taken at FUDS, the Corps uses the process outlined in the National 

Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) for 

identifying, investigating, and cleaning up releases of hazardous 

substances under CERCLA.13 The Corps describes its usual process in the 

following, generally sequential, phases: 

• Preliminary assessment—The Corps uses available information, including 

a search of historical records, to determine whether the property was ever 

under the jurisdiction of DOD and owned or controlled by the United 

States, and if hazards caused by DOD’s use may be present. If the Corps 

 

11Engineering Regulation 200-3-1, May 10, 2004. 

12As of October 8, 2008, 28 FUDS were listed on the National Priorities List. 

13The NCP contains procedures and standards for implementing CERCLA 40 C.F.R. pt. 300 

(2009). 

Page 7 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

determines that the property was under the jurisdiction of DOD and 

owned or controlled by the United States, but does not find evidence of 

any hazards caused by DOD, it designates the property as “no DOD action 

indicated.” If, however, the Corps determines that hazards caused by DOD 

prior to October 17, 1986, may be present, the Corps begins further study. 

• Site inspection—The Corps inspects the site to confirm the presence and 

possible sources of hazards; to confirm that a release has occurred; or 

eliminate from further consideration those sites that pose no significant 

threat to public health or the environment. The site inspection builds upon 

the preliminary assessment and involves sampling to determine the nature 

of contamination, potential pathways of exposure, and recommendations 

for further action. 

• Remedial investigation—The Corps conducts more rigorous sampling and 

analysis to determine the nature and extent of the release, evaluates the 

baseline risk to human health and the environment posed by the release, 

and determines if further response action is required to respond to an 

unacceptable risk. 

• Feasibility study—The Corps analyses the feasibility of alternative 

remedies to respond to the release using the CERCLA remedy selection 

criteria and establishes the cleanup criteria for the remedial action. 

• Proposed plan—The Corps proposes to the public and the lead regulator 

its recommendation for a remedial action to respond to the release and 

explains how it will satisfy the remedy selection criteria of CERCLA and 

the NCP. 

• Remedy selection—The Corps issues a record of decision or decision 

document signed by an authorized agency official to formally select the 

remedial action to be taken to respond to the release and explains the 

elements of the remedy and the basis for its selection using the remedy 

selection criteria of CERCLA and the NCP. 

• Remedial design—The Corps designs the remedy selected by the 

feasibility study. 

• Remedial action construction—The Corps constructs the selected remedy. 

At the end of construction, the DOD’s milestone “remedy-in-place” is met 

when testing of the remedy shows that it will function as designed. 

Page 8 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

• Remedial action operation—The Corps operates the selected remedy until 

the cleanup objective is achieved. At the end of operation, the DOD’s 

milestone, “response complete” is met. 

• Long-term management—The Corps may conduct ongoing environmental 

management for a number of years to ensure that the remedy continues to 

provide the protection it was designed to achieve for human health, safety, 

and the environment. Examples of long-term management activities are 

monitoring of a groundwater treatment system, maintenance of a landfill 

cap, and enforcement of land use controls. In addition, the NCP requires 

that the Corps, as the agency responsible for FUDS cleanup, conduct “5-

year reviews” of sites not less than every 5 years after the start of remedial 

action, when the chosen remedy does not allow for unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure. The Corps continues long-term management 

activities until they are no longer required. 

DOD has also established a three-tiered process for identifying and 

evaluating changes in the information about emerging contaminants or 

how these contaminants are regulated that may affect DOD’s actions or 

decisions in several areas, including cleanup of contaminated sites. DOD’s 

Chemical and Material Risk Management Directorate manages this 

process, called “scan-watch-action,” and has developed watch and action 

lists of emerging contaminants (see table 1). The watch list identifies 

chemicals for which there is a potential for a regulatory change that may 

affect DOD and the action list includes chemicals for which there is 

significant potential for regulatory change that may affect DOD. 

Page 9 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

Table 1: DOD’s Action and Watch Lists of Emerging Contaminants 

Action List contaminants 

• Beryllium 

• Hexavalent chromium (Chromium VI) 

• Naphthalene 

• Perchlorate 

• Royal Demolition Explosive 

• Sulfur hexafluoridea

• Trichloroethylene (TCE) 

Watch List contaminants 

• 1,4-dioxane 

• Cadmium and compounds 

• Cerium and compounds 

• Cobalt and compounds 

• Dioxins 

• Lead compounds 

• Manganese and compounds 

• Nanomaterialsa

• Nickel 

• Perfluorooctanoic acid 

• Perfluorooctyle sulfonate 

• Di-nitrotoluene 

• Tetrachloroethylene 

• Tungsten 

• Tungsten alloys 

Source: DOD. 

a

DOD officials told us that sulfur hexafluoride and nanomaterials are not relevant to FUDS. 

According to DOD and Corps officials, the Corps addresses emerging 

contaminants at FUDS the same way it does other contaminants—by using 

the established CERCLA process. However, using this process has not 

often led the Corps to re-examine sites after response actions are 

completed to determine whether emerging contaminants are present or 

need to be addressed. Further, our analysis of information on the 5-year 

reviews completed in 4 divisions identified problems with the Corps’ 5-

year review procedures. We found that (1) reviews were not completed on 

time; (2) DOD and the Corps do not have accurate, complete information 

on how many 5-year reviews are required, completed, or planned; (3) 

divisions are inconsistent in their approaches to conducting 5-year reviews 

for sites where they are recommended, but not required; and (4) review 

The Corps Uses the 

CERCLA Process to 

Address Emerging 

Contaminants at 

FUDS, but Has Gaps 

in its 5-Year Review 

Procedures 

Page 10 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

reports did not always receive the technical review by Corps experts 

required by Corps policy. 

The Corps Uses the 

CERCLA Process for 

Investigating and 

Responding to Emerging 

Contaminants 

The Corps identifies and addresses emerging contaminants at FUDS, as it 

does other contaminants—using the CERCLA process for identifying, 

investigating, and cleaning up releases of hazardous substances that is 

outlined in the NCP. Corps officials told us that in their initial evaluations 

of FUDS under CERCLA, the agency tested for most known emerging 

contaminants at those sites where there was a reason to suspect these 

contaminants were present and caused by DOD. They also told us that the 

Corps would sample a site for a contaminant, if appropriate, regardless of 

whether there is a federal or state standard for it. Appendix III provides 

information on the occurrence of emerging contaminants in groundwater, 

surface water, soil, and sediment at HTRW FUDS, based on the samples 

taken as of September 30, 2008. 

To make informed decisions on which contaminants to sample for at a 

site, the Corps’ districts review records of DOD’s past use of the site. In 

2002, we reported that the Corps lacked comprehensive guidance on the 

typical hazards that may be present at DOD properties as a result of 

certain types of DOD activities.14 However, the Corps subsequently 

developed guidance, and between 2003 and 2008, issued a series of reports 

identifying potential chemicals that past military activities may have 

released. District officials told us that they use this guidance, called 

“Common Operations Reports,” in conjunction with historical information 

about a site to determine which contaminants may have been released 

there. After sampling for contaminants at a site, the Corps uses the 

sampling results and other site-specific information to assign relative risk 

levels to sites. These relative risk levels are not based on a comprehensive 

risk assessment, but are a tool used to prioritize the site for cleanup based 

on information collected early in the cleanup process. 

After further defining the nature and extent of contamination at a site, the 

Corps then uses scientific information on contaminants, sampling results, 

and other site-specific data—such as information on exposure pathways, 

potential receptors, and site use—to conduct more comprehensive site-

 

14GAO, Environmental Contamination: Corps Needs to Reassess Its Determinations That 

Many Former Defense Sites Do Not Need Cleanup, GAO-02-658 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 23, 

2002). 

Page 11 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

specific risk assessments that are to be used in making cleanup decisions 

for the site. This requires the Corps to identify and select appropriate 

contaminant toxicity values to use in assessing risks to human health and 

the environment.15 The identification of toxicity values is a crucial step 

that presents special challenges for emerging contaminants, for wh

information on human health effects may be insufficient, limited, or 

evolving. DOD’s and EPA’s preferred source for the fundamental toxicity 

information needed to develop human health risk assessments is EPA’s 

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a database that contains EPA’s 

scientific position on the potential human health effects of exposure to 

more than 540 chemicals. However, IRIS does not contain final 

assessments for some emerging contaminants.

ich 

 

16 For example: 

• naphthalene, a component of jet fuel that has contaminated many military 

bases; 

• trichloroethylene (TCE), a solvent widely used in industrial and 

manufacturing settings; 

• cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine, which is also known as Royal Demolition 

Explosive, a highly powerful explosive used by the U.S. military in 

thousands of munitions; 

• dioxin, a chemical that is often the byproduct of combustion and other 

industrial processes; and 

• tetrachloroethylene, which is also known as perchloroethylene, a 

manufactured chemical widely used for dry cleaning fabrics, metal 

degreasing, and production of some consumer products and other 

chemicals. 

DOD worked with EPA and the Environmental Council of States (ECOS) 

to develop a white paper in 2007 on the process to use for identifying and 

15Toxicity information includes, for example, the oral reference dose for noncancer health 

effects, which estimates the daily exposure to a chemical that is likely to be without an 

appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a person’s lifetime. 

16GAO, Chemical Assessments: Low Productivity and New Interagency Review Process 

Limit the Usefulness and Credibility of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System, 

GAO-08-440 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 7, 2008). 

Page 12 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

selecting toxicity values when there are no values available from IRIS.17

ECOS endorsed the white paper by a formal resolution of the member 

states. DOD formalized the process outlined in this paper with a June 2009 

policy on emerging contaminants.18

Using the site-specific risk assessments, the Corps develops site-specific, 

risk-based cleanup levels for contaminants at FUDS. Under CERCLA, the 

Corps must choose a cleanup alternative that, at a minimum, assures 

protection of human health and the environment. In developing a 

protective remedy, the Corps considers generally acceptable risk ranges19

and must choose a remedy which will comply with the applicable or 

relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR) that have been identified 

for the site. The Corps and most FUDS state regulators identify ARARs 

based on site-specific factors such as the contaminants present, site 

location and physical features, and response actions being considered. 

Federal or state standards are not automatically applied to a site—they 

must first be identified as ARARs for the site. ARARs, which are used as a 

starting point to assess the protectiveness of a remedy, consist of the 

following two sets of requirements: 

• Applicable requirements are cleanup standards; standards of control; and 

other substantive requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under 

federal environmental or state environmental or facility siting laws that 

specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, 

remedial action, location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site. 

Only those state standards that are identified by a state in a timely manner 

and that are more stringent than federal requirements may be applicable. 

• Relevant and appropriate requirements are requirements that do not 

meet this definition of “applicable,” but address situations sufficiently 

similar to those encountered at a CERCLA site that their use is well suited 

to the particular site. State standards must be identified in a timely manner 

and be more stringent than federal requirements to be considered relevant 

and appropriate. 

 

17ECOS-DOD Sustainability Work Group, Emerging Contaminants Task Group, 

Identification and Selection of Toxicity Values/Criteria for CERCLA and Hazardous 

Waste Site Risk Assessments in the Absence of IRIS Values (Washington, D.C., April 2007). 

18DOD Instruction Number 4715.18, June 11, 2009. 

19EPA and Corps guidance define acceptable risks as an excess upperbound lifetime cancer 

risk of 10-4 to 10-6, or for noncancer health risks, a hazard index below 1. 

Page 13 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

If there are no ARARs for contaminants at a site, cleanup levels for the 

contaminants are established based on the Corps’ site-specific risk 

assessments. In addition, as part of the ARAR identification process, the 

Corps also identifies other information that may be considered under 

CERCLA in establishing cleanup levels. This information is not legally 

binding and can include nonpromulgated guidelines, advisories, or 

guidance issued by states or the federal government—for example, 

drinking water health advisories issued by EPA. 

After the Corps selects a remedy under CERCLA, if the remedy results in 

any hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the 

site, the Corps must review the remedy no less often than each 5 years 

after the remedial action was initiated to assure that the remedy is 

protecting human health and the environment. EPA, the primary 

regulatory agency for CERCLA, interprets the 5-year review requirement 

to apply when the remedy for a site will not clean up the site to a level that 

allows for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure. In addition, EPA 

guidance notes that 5-year reviews are appropriate, even if not required, 

for sites where the cleanup will eventually allow unlimited use and 

unrestricted exposure, but will require more than 5 years to complete. 

EPA and Corps guidance recommend that 5-year review reports include, 

among other things, a history of the site, a description of the response 

actions, a summary of the review process, and certain analysis. This 

analysis should identify whether (1) the response action—for example, a 

groundwater treatment system to reduce contaminant concentrations, or 

land use controls to prevent access to a site—is functioning as intended; 

(2) assumptions—such as exposure assumptions, toxicity of 

contaminants, and cleanup levels—used at the time of selecting the 

response action are still valid; and (3) any new information—such as on 

changes in the use and accessibility of the site—that indicates the 

response action may no longer be protective of human health, safety, and 

the environment.20 In addition, although CERCLA does not require the 

collection of new samples to determine the presence of additional 

contaminants during the 5-year review, the review provides a mechanism 

 

20The Corps’ FUDS program policy does not specify what the 5-year review reports are to 

include; instead, it refers the districts generally to EPA’s Comprehensive Five-Year Review 

Guidance (2001) and the Corps’ Engineer Pamphlet on Recurring Reviews of Ordnance 

and Explosives (OE) Response Actions (2003) for military munitions response actions. 

These two guidance documents specify recommended procedures for developing and 

implementing 5-year reviews. 

Page 14 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

to consider available evidence of new contamination that is brought to the 

attention of the districts. In this regard, EPA guidance instructs those 

conducting 5-year reviews to consider whether new contaminants have 

been identified when evaluating the continuing validity of the assumptions 

used at the time of remedy selection. Finally, EPA and Corps guidance 

recommend that the 5-year review reports include recommendations for 

follow-up actions, if necessary, to address identified deficiencies. The 

Corps may need to modify the cleanup actions at a site if the 5-year review 

identifies significant changes in contaminant or site information that call 

into question the protectiveness of the remedy, as determined by a 

comparison of site-specific risks with the generally acceptable risk 

ranges.21

In addition to using the CERCLA process, the Corps also uses EPA, DOD, 

and Army policies or guidance specific to certain contaminants or issues, 

including perchlorate and TCE, emerging contaminants that are of 

particular concern to DOD because they have significant potential to affect 

people or DOD’s mission. Appendix IV provides more information on these 

contaminants at FUDS. 

The Corps Considers New 

Information on 

Contaminants in its 5-Year 

Reviews, but Has 

Problems with its Review 

Procedures 

Our analysis of information on the Corps’ 5-year reviews for FUDS in 4 

divisions identified the following problems with the Corps’ review process: 

(1) the reviews were not completed on time; (2) DOD and the Corps lack 

accurate, complete information on these reviews; (3) Corps divisions are 

inconsistent in their approaches to conducting 5-year reviews for sites 

where they are recommended, but not required; and (4) the reports 

resulting from these reviews did not always receive the technical review 

by Corps experts as required by Corps policy. These 5-year reviews can be 

conducted in the remedial action construction, remedial action operation, 

and long-term management phases. These reviews provide a mechanism 

for identifying and responding to changes that may occur, such as new 

scientific knowledge, regulation of emerging contaminants, or the 

discovery of additional munitions at a site. Corps officials told us that, to 

date, few FUDS have required 5-year reviews, due to a variety of factors. 

For example: 

 

21As previously noted, EPA and Corps guidance define acceptable risks as an excess 

upperbound lifetime cancer risk of 10-4 to 10-6, or for noncancer health risks, a hazard index 

below 1. 

Page 15 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

• The Corps strives to clean up FUDS to a level that allows unlimited use 

and unrestricted exposure, which does not require a 5-year review—

preventing exposure to contaminants left in place can be more difficult at 

FUDS properties than active DOD installations because DOD no longer 

owns or controls FUDS properties and does not have the same ability to 

restrict land use. 

• The Corps has completed cleanup at a higher percentage of building 

demolition/debris removal sites and containerized waste sites than 

hazardous, toxic, and radioactive sites. This is because, while cleanup is 

under way at hazardous, toxic, and radioactive sites, these sites are 

typically much more complex than building demolition/debris removal 

sites and containerized waste sites, and significantly more time and 

investment is required to complete cleanup. Building demolition/debris 

removal sites do not generally require 5-year reviews because these types 

of sites involve unsafe buildings, or structures and generally not the 

hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants to which CERCLA 

applies. Containerized waste sites can require 5-year reviews, but Corps 

officials in 2 divisions told us that most of these sites were cleaned up to a 

level that did not require 5-year reviews. In addition, one division told us 

that most of the containerized waste site cleanups completed by the Corps 

to date were for petroleum storage tanks. Petroleum is not a hazardous 

substance, pollutant, or contaminant under CERCLA,22 so 5-year reviews 

are not required for actions to address petroleum contamination at 

FUDS.23

• In some divisions and for certain types of sites, the Corps has not yet 

reached the point at which 5-year reviews become required. For example, 

one division official told us that they have only recently begun completing 

cleanup of HTRW sites, and another division official said that most of the 

sites that might need a 5-year review have not yet been cleaned up. 

Further, many munitions sites have not yet reached the trigger date for 5-

year reviews—the initiation of remedial actions—because they are still in 

the investigation phase. Corps’ guidance states that all FUDS where an 

ordnance and explosives response action is implemented require 5-year 

reviews. 

 

2242 U.S.C. § 9601(14), (33) (2006). 

23DOD notes that petroleum contamination may be addressed by other applicable 

requirements, such as state requirements. 

Page 16 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

Corps officials told us that the districts will be conducting more 5-year 

reviews in the future. For example, officials in the 4 districts we contacted 

told us that they will be responsible for completing a total of 30 5-year 

reviews from FY 2009 through 2014. As of May 2009, these districts had 

completed a total of 15 5-year reviews—5 for IRP sites and 10 for MMRP 

sites. However, our examination of information on these 15 reviews 

indicated that these districts have not consistently implemented the 5-year 

review process in accordance with CERCLA or Corps and EPA guidance. 

We found that: 

• 5-year reviews were not always completed on time.24 For example, all of 

the five 5-year reviews conducted for IRP sites and at least five of the 

reviews for MMRP sites were completed late, with the reports being late 

by 3 months to 9 years.25 In addition, for three of the five IRP sites for 

which 5-year reviews had been completed, we determined that the Corps 

incorrectly identified the trigger dates for initial 5-year reviews as the 

completion, rather than initiation, of the remedial action.26 We also found 

that one additional review for an IRP site is already overdue by more than 

3 years, and at least 3 additional reviews for MMRP sites are overdue by 1 

to 5 years.27 Corps officials cited a variety of reasons for these delays, 

including turnover of program and project managers; lack of internal 

staffing resources for conducting the reviews; and multiple report 

iterations resulting from lengthy internal and external reviews involving 

 

24EPA guidance provides that 5-year reviews which are required by statute occur no less 

often than 5 years after the initiation of the remedial action. Where no review is required 

but is instead recommended, EPA provides that the reviews occur no less often than 5 

years after construction of the remedy is complete. Corps guidance specific to MMRP sites 

does not distinguish between required and policy reviews and provides, as EPA guidance 

does, that reviews occur no less often than 5 years after the initiation of the response 

action. 

25We evaluated the timeliness of 5-year review reports for IRP sites, all of which were 

required by statute, using a due date of 5 years from the initiation of the remedial action. 

Reports on the MMRP sites did not indicate whether or not reviews were required. 

However, the reports were late regardless of whether the due date was calculated from the 

initiation or the completion of the response action. For one MMRP site, we relied on the 

trigger date listed in the 5-year review report because we were unable to identify the date 

of remedial or removal action. 

26We were unable to evaluate whether the Corps correctly identified the trigger dates for 

initial MMRP 5-year reviews because in four of the five 5-year review reports we examined 

for MMRP sites, the Corps did not identify the trigger dates. 

27Based on EPA and Corps guidance, we evaluated the timeliness of subsequent 5-year 

review reports for IRP and MMRP sites using a due date of 5 years from the signature date 

of previous reports. 

Page 17 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

Corps staff, EPA headquarters and regional offices, and state regulators. 

Officials also cited program budget and resource constraints, with one 

district highlighting a higher programmatic emphasis on meeting DOD’s 

goal of completing site inspections for MMRP sites by September 30, 

2010.28 In addition, the delay for the 5-year review for an IRP site at the 

Former Weldon Spring Ordnance Works in Missouri resulted from the 

discovery of additional contamination during the Corps’ activities to close 

the site. 

• DOD and the Corps do not have accurate, complete information on how 

many 5-year reviews are required, completed, or planned for the FUDS 

program. DOD and the Corps rely on data from FUDSMIS for programwide information on the status of 5-year reviews at FUDS. To manage and 

implement the FUDS program, DOD, the Army, and the Corps use 

FUDSMIS to support planning, programming, budgeting, annual workplan 

development, execution, and reporting requirements for the FUDS 

program. This system includes data fields to indicate whether a 5-year 

review is required at a site, record the actual date the 5-year review was 

completed, and record the scheduled date of subsequent 5-year reviews, 

among other things. Moreover, DOD uses these data from FUDSMIS to 

provide information on the status of 5-year reviews at each FUDS property 

in its Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress. Corps 

policy requires the districts to enter this information in the available data 

fields in FUDSMIS, and the divisions also have responsibility for ensuring 

that the data are accurate and complete. In addition, the accuracy and 

completeness of FUDSMIS data on 5-year review planning is part of one of 

the FUDS Program Management Indicators established by the Corps to 

evaluate divisions’ and districts’ performance and to measure and 

demonstrate progress toward cleaning up contamination at FUDS. 

However, we found that the three divisions we spoke with did not 

consistently track 5-year reviews in FUDSMIS. Of these three divisions, 

officials at one division were not aware of the data fields in FUDSMIS 

related to 5-year reviews. Officials at the remaining two divisions told us 

that neither they nor their districts enter the required information on 5-

year reviews because there is no way for them to later retrieve that 

information in a way that would be useful to them in managing their work, 

such as a report listing sites that require such reviews. In addition, they 

noted that improvements to the system are needed—particularly to (1) 

 

28The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 directed the 

Secretary of Defense to set a goal of completing site inspections by September 30, 2010, for 

unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, and munitions constituents sites at all 

active installations (other than operational ranges) and FUDS. 

Page 18 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

alert them to upcoming reviews they need to conduct, (2) better track the 

dates that trigger the reviews, and (3) enable the generation of reports on 

5-year reviews. 

• Divisions are inconsistent in their approaches to conducting 5-year 

reviews for sites where they are recommended but not required. Officials 

in only one division told us that their districts would conduct 5-year 

reviews for sites where the cleanup will eventually allow unlimited use 

and unrestricted exposure, but where the cleanup will require more than 5 

years to complete—sites for which 5-year reviews are recommended by 

EPA but not required. Conducting reviews under these circumstances may 

be important for sites where cleanup may require many years, during 

which information on emerging contaminants may evolve. For example, 

the Corps estimates that cleanup of TCE in groundwater at the former 

Nebraska Ordnance Plant will take more than 100 years. According to 

division officials, the district managing cleanup of this FUDS is in the 

process of finalizing the site’s first IRP 5-year review, which will indicate 

that the remedy remains protective of human health and the environment. 

The 5-year review will recommend an evaluation of a newly identified 

exposure pathway—intrusion of TCE vapors from the subsurface into 

buildings—at a limited portion of the site that is currently residential. In 

addition, the review discusses changes in toxicity data for carcinogenic 

and noncarcinogenic effects of TCE. The 5-year review also evaluates the 

potential long-term impacts of a newly identified exposure pathway at the 

site—intrusion of TCE vapors from the subsurface into buildings—on the 

protectiveness of the remedy. Conducting 5-year reviews at this site in the 

future, although not required under CERCLA and the NCP, will allow the 

Corps the opportunity to periodically identify whether information on TCE 

has changed to a degree that may affect the protectiveness of the remedy. 

• 5-year review reports did not always receive the required technical 

review by Corps’ experts. Since 1999 and 2004, Corps policy has required 

districts to provide their 5-year review reports for MMRP sites and IRP 

sites, respectively, to the Corps’ Center of Expertise for comment. 

According to Corps officials, the Center of Expertise’s staff has up-to-date 

technical expertise that enables them to help the districts identify and 

respond to potentially important changes that may occur with respect to 

emerging contaminants—for example, changes in contaminant standards, 

toxicity information, and exposure pathways, such as vapor intrusion. 

When conducting their technical review of the districts’ 5-year review 

reports, specialists at the Center of Expertise are to assess whether the 

reports are well-documented, follow relevant guidance, such as EPA’s 

2001 guidance on conducting 5-year reviews, and include the necessary 

statement on the protectiveness of the response actions. They also are to 

Page 19 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

evaluate how the reports address whether the assumptions used at the 

time of selecting the response action are still valid—such as exposure 

assumptions, toxicity of contaminants, and cleanup levels. Nine of the ten 

5-year reviews completed for MMRP sites were completed after the Corps’ 

1999 policy requiring submission of review reports was issued;29 however, 

we found that the districts in one division did not submit three of their five 

reports to the Center of Expertise for technical review and comment.30 In 

addition, four of the five 5-year reviews completed for IRP sites were 

completed after the Corps’ 2004 policy was issued, but we found that one 

of these four reports was not submitted for technical review and comment. 

The Corps Infrequently Reexamines FUDS Outside of 

the 5-Year Review Process 

The Corps has reevaluated some sites outside the 5-year review process, 

but these reevaluations have been infrequent, and officials told us that 

they have generally not been for the purpose of addressing emerging 

contaminants. Outside the 5-year review process, Corps districts generally 

only reevaluate sites at the request of state regulators or other 

stakeholders. For eligible FUDS properties that were previously 

determined to have no FUDS eligible projects or no further action 

required, Corps policy allows districts to re-examine up to five FUDS 

properties per state per year upon request by states, tribes, EPA, or other 

stakeholders. In responding to such requests, the Corps may review the 

records or other original information for the property, as well as any 

additional information provided by EPA, the state, or tribe concerning 

potential DOD contamination. However, Corps officials told us that they 

have not received many requests for re-examination, and the requests 

received by the divisions and districts we visited were generally not for the 

purpose of addressing emerging contaminants. For example, officials in 

one district told us that their re-examination of sites has mostly been in 

response to concerns about petroleum contamination and munitions 

issues. 

In addition, in some instances, the Corps reports that it has re-examined 

certain FUDS on its own initiative. For example, in 2004, the Corps reexamined certain munitions sites to assess the potential for contamination 

 

29The 5-year review report for one MMRP site predates the Corps’ requirement for review 

by the Center of Expertise. However, the Center of Expertise participated in conducting 

the 5-year review for this site. 

30The districts in another division did not submit two of their 5-year review reports for 

MMRP sites to the Center of Expertise; however, at these FUDS, the Center of Expertise 

had participated in conducting the 5-year reviews. 

Page 20 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

from munitions constituents, particularly lead—an emerging contaminant 

on DOD’s watch list31—and other heavy metals. Corps officials note that 

this effort was in response to an Army policy change requiring that 

munitions constituents be addressed as part of MMRP cleanup projects. 

The Corps re-examined 196 FUDS munitions sites—many of which were 

former small arms ranges with no issues relating to munitions or 

explosives of concern—that had previously been determined to have 

negligible risk and no need for DOD action.32 We also found that one of the 

districts we contacted is in the process of re-examining 513 sites, 

beginning with records research in 2002. 

While the Corps has not often re-examined FUDS outside the 5-year 

review process to date, DOD and Corps officials told us that they would 

reevaluate the need for additional response actions at sites if there were 

changes in information on a contaminant. If a hazardous substance release 

is discovered at a FUDS that was never previously addressed at the site 

but occurred when the site was under DOD’s jurisdiction, DOD is 

responsible for addressing that release in accordance with the DERP and 

CERCLA, regardless of whether the Corps has already completed cleanup 

of other releases at the site. In addition, DOD may need to initiate further 

response actions at a site where it has already addressed some releases 

and no 5-year review is required, but new information becomes available 

for a contaminant, to fulfill its responsibility in accordance with the DERP 

and CERCLA. For example, new standards may be established for such 

contaminants, or previously existing standards or toxicity values may be 

revised. In addition, new exposure pathways may be identified. Until fairly 

recently, vapor intrusion—the migration of volatile chemicals such as TCE 

from subsurface media into the indoor air of overlying buildings—was 

rarely evaluated as part of human health risk assessments and was not 

well understood. However, given the current inventory of FUDS still 

requiring cleanup, there may be practical limitations to re-opening sites for 

further cleanup. In addition, the need for DOD to re-open FUDS to 

 

31Lead is also a hazardous substance under CERCLA. 

32More specifically, the Corps re-examined all munitions sites that had been designated as 

“No DOD Action Indicated” on the basis of a Risk Assessment Code score of 5 in response 

to revised DOD guidance. The Corps designates a FUDS in this manner if: (1) the property 

or project is not eligible for consideration under the FUDS program, (2) the property or 

project is categorically excluded from the FUDS program, or (3) the hazards found were 

not the result of DOD actions on or before October 17 1986, pose no threat to human health 

or safety or the environment, and no additional environmental restoration activities are 

required. 

Page 21 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

respond to changes in information or standards for contaminants may also 

depend on agreements reached with EPA or state regulatory agencies. 

DOD uses the same method to propose funding for cleanup at FUDS, 

active sites, and BRAC sites; cleanup funding is based on DERP goals and 

is generally proportional to the number of sites in each of these categories. 

Officials in the Military Departments, Defense Agencies, and FUDS 

program who are responsible for executing the environmental restoration 

activities at the sites for which they are responsible formulate cleanup 

budget proposals based on instructions provided in DOD’s financial 

management regulation and DERP environmental restoration performance 

goals.33 DOD’s DERP goals include: 

• reducing risk to human health and the environment; 

• preparing BRAC properties to be environmentally suitable for transfer; 

DOD Proposes 

Funding for Cleanup 

at FUDS, Active Sites, 

and BRAC Sites Based 

on DERP Goals, and 

Funding Is 

Proportional to Site 

Inventories 

• having final remedies in place and completing response actions; and 

• fulfilling other established milestones to demonstrate progress toward 

meeting program performance goals. 

DERP goals are target dates representing when the current inventory of 

active and BRAC sites and FUDS are expected to complete the preliminary 

assessment phase, site inspection phase, or achieve the remedy in place or 

response complete (RIP/RC) milestone. In addition, Congress has required 

the Secretary of Defense to establish specific performance goals for 

MMRP sites.34 A summary of these goals for the IRP and MMRP is shown 

in table 2. 

 

33DOD Financial Management Regulation 7000.14-R, October 2008. 

34The most recent set of such goals is established by the John Warner National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-364 § 313, 120 Stat. 2083, 2138 

(2006). 

Page 22 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

Table 2: Summary of DERP Goals for IRP and MMRP 

Target Year for Completing Cleanup Phase or Milestone for All Sites 

IRP MMRP Cleanup phase or 

milestone Active BRAC FUDS Active BRAC FUDS

Preliminary assessment No goala No goalaNo goala2007b No goal 2007b,f

Site inspections No goalaNo goala No goala2010b No goal 2010b

Remedy in place or 

response completec

 

2014 2014 (BRAC 2005)d

2015 (Legacy 

BRAC)d

2020 2020 2009 (Legacy 

BRAC)b,d

2017 (BRAC 

2005)b,d

No goale

Source: DOD-provided data, DOD Financial Management Regulation, 7000.14-R, Vol. 2B, Ch. 13, October 2008. 

a

Because IRP is more mature than MMRP, DOD’s goals for IRP are focused on achieving remedy in 

place or response complete. 

b

Goals for MMRP sites contained in P.L. No. 109-364 § 313, 120 Stat. 2083, 2138; DOD Financial 

Management Regulation 7000.14-R, Vol. 2B, Ch. 13, October 2008; and DOD Defense 

Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress, FY 2008, Appendix K. The statute requires the 

Secretary of Defense to set a RIP/RC date for active, BRAC 2005, and FUDS. 

c

Remedy in place or response complete goals apply to all IRP and MMRP sites, with the exception of 

MMRP sites at FUDS, which do not have a RIP/RC goal yet. 

d

Congress enacted legislation that instituted five separate BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, 1995, 

and 2005. “Legacy BRAC” refers to the base closure rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. The 

most current closures are being conducted under the “2005 BRAC” round. 

e

DOD has not yet set a RIP/RC date for FUDS MMRP sites. In FY 2009, the Corps is beginning to 

develop a long-term strategy for MMRP sites at FUDS. 

f

The Corps completed preliminary assessments at 99 percent of FUDS MMRP sites by the end of FY 

2008. 

DOD components plan cleanup actions that are required to meet these 

goals at the installation or site level. DOD requires components to rank 

their inventory of sites by relative risk to help make informed decisions 

about which sites to clean up first. Using these risk rankings, as well as 

other factors, components set more specific restoration targets each fiscal 

year to demonstrate progress and prepare a budget to achieve those goals 

and targets. The Department of the Army has established more specific 

performance goals for FUDS in its Environmental Cleanup Strategic Plan. 

For example, the Corps’ goals for the FUDS IRP are to achieve RIP/RC at 

• 46 percent of all 357 high-risk sites containing HTRW by the end of FY 

2008,35

 

35The Corps achieved this goal by the end of FY 2008. 

Page 23 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

• 48 percent of all 147 medium-risk HTRW sites by the end of FY 2011, and 

• all low-risk HTRW sites by the end of FY 2020. 

For the FUDS MMRP, the Corps’ goals are to complete 

• 40 percent of the baseline site inspections by the end of FY 2008,36

• 55 percent of the baseline site inspections by the end of FY 2009, 

• 100 percent of the baseline site inspections by the end of FY 2012, and 

• all site inspections by the end of FY 2014. 

Another factor that can influence the proposed budgets and obligations 

among site categories is the need to fund long-term management activities. 

While DOD uses the number of sites achieving RIP/RC status as a primary 

performance metric, sites that have reached this goal may still require 

long-term management and, therefore, additional funding for a number of 

years. Table 3 shows the completion status for active and BRAC sites and 

FUDS, as of the end of FY 2008. See appendix V for the completion status 

of these sites by component for FY 2004 through 2008. 

Table 3: Completion Status of Sites, FY 2008 

Status of sites Active BRAC FUDS

Sites that have reached response complete status 16,810 3,953 2,682

Sites that have not reached response complete status 4,703 1,492 2,023

Sites that have reached response complete status but still 

require long-term management 

760 440 55

Source: GAO analysis of DOD-provided data. 

The data show that there are currently significantly fewer FUDS that 

require long-term management—and, consequently, require less funding 

for this activity—than do active and BRAC sites. Corps officials told us 

that since FUDS are located on properties that have been transferred 

outside DOD’s control, they prefer to clean sites to allow unlimited use 

 

36Baseline refers to the number of MMRP sites originally identified in 2004 and is the 

number on which the performance goals are based. The Corps achieved this goal by the 

end of FY 2008. 

Page 24 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

and unrestricted exposure, when possible. However, Corps officials also 

said that ongoing site inspections at FUDS MMRP sites indicates that more 

of these sites may require long-term management in the future. 

DOD data show that, in applying the broad restoration goals, performance 

goals, and targets, cleanup funding is generally proportional to the number 

of sites in the active, BRAC, and FUDS site categories. Table 4 shows the 

total DERP inventory of sites, obligations, and proportions for FY 2008. 

Table 4: Inventory of Sites, Obligations, and Proportions, FY 2008 

Active BRAC FUDS Totals 

Number/ 

amount 

Percentage 

of total

Number/ 

amount

Percentage 

of total

Number/ 

amount

Percentage 

of total 

Number/ 

amount

Percentage 

of total

Total number of sites 21,513 68 5,445 17 4,705 15 31,663 100

Amount obligated (in 

millions of dollars)a

 

1,056.1 61 440.2 25 245.4 14 1,741.7 100

Source: GAO analysis of DOD provided data. 

a

The amounts obligated are for cleanup activities for each category under the IRP, MMRP, and 

Building Demolition/Debris Removal programs. 

Since DERP was established, approximately $18.4 billion dollars has been 

obligated for environmental cleanup at individual sites on active military 

bases, $7.7 billion for cleanup at sites located on installations designated 

for closure under BRAC, and about $3.7 billion to clean up FUDS sites. 

During FY 2004 through 2008, about $4.8 billion was spent on 

environmental cleanup of sites on active bases, $1.8 billion for cleanup at 

BRAC sites, and $1.1 billion for FUDS sites.37 Appendix VI provides DOD’s 

funding obligations and estimated costs to complete environmental 

cleanup by military component and program category for FY 2004 through 

2008. 

 

37All dollar amounts in this section reflect installation project funding allocated to 

individual sites for cleanup under the IRP, MMRP, and BD/DR programs, and do not 

include program management and other support costs. 

Page 25 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

The Corps uses risk-based criteria and other factors to prioritize FUDS for 

cleanup. Since cleanup projects or phases of work cannot all be completed 

in any given year with the funding the Corps receives for the FUDS 

program, the Corps must prioritize sites for cleanup. Based on sites’ risks, 

as well as other factors, districts prepare annual work plans prioritizing 

their projects and submit these to their division, which combines the 

districts’ work plans into a single division work plan. Divisions send their 

annual work plans to the Corps’ headquarters, which sends the FUDS 

annual work plan to the Department of the Army for approval. While the 

risk levels of sites are a significant factor in determining cleanup priorities, 

high risk sites are not always addressed before low risk sites. FUDS 

program data indicate that, as of the end of FY 2008, 35 percent of highrisk MMRP and HTRW sites (218 of 622 sites) had achieved response 

complete status, compared to 28 percent of medium risk sites (86 of 303 

sites) and 21 percent of low-risk sites (110 of 530 sites).38

The Corps Uses RiskBased Criteria to 

Prioritize FUDS for 

Cleanup, but Also 

Considers Other 

Factors 

Based on site-specific information, the Corps uses several methods to 

assign risk-based priority levels to sites to categorize them for cleanup. 

The method used depends on whether the site contains HTRW, which fall 

under the IRP; munitions under the MMRP; or building debris under the 

BD/DR program.39 Consequently, the Corps may use multiple methods at a 

single FUDS property that contains multiple types of sites—for example, a 

munitions site and a hazardous waste site. According to DOD guidance, 

the components also use the same methods to prioritize HTRW and MMRP 

sites at active and BRAC installations for cleanup. Appendix VII provides 

information on the number of high-risk sites at FUDS and active and 

BRAC installations, for FY 2004 through 2008. 

At HTRW sites, the Corps uses the Relative Risk Site Evaluation (RRSE) to 

assign a relative risk level of high, medium, or low, based on an evaluation 

 

38In analyzing data from FUDSMIS, we used the Corps’ risk categories as follows: (1) highrisk sites are those with a Relative Risk Site Evaluation risk level of high or Risk 

Assessment Code score of 1 or 2; (2) medium-risk sites are those with a Relative Risk Site 

Evaluation level of medium or Risk Assessment Code score of 3; and (3) low-risk sites are 

those with a Relative Risk Site Evaluation level of low or Risk Assessment Code score of 4. 

We did not include containerized waste or building demolition and debris removal sites in 

these risk categories because the Corps has already achieved response complete status at a 

majority of these sites and does not include them in its high, medium, and low risk 

categories. 

39The methods are tools to prioritize sites for cleanup—they do not represent 

comprehensive assessments of a site’s potential risks to human health and the 

environment. 

Page 26 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

of three factors for four environmental media: sediment, surface soil, 

surface water, and groundwater. These factors include the: 

• contaminant hazard factor, which compares the maximum 

concentrations of contaminants detected to benchmark comparison 

values;40

• migration pathway factor, which summarizes the likelihood that 

contamination will migrate; and 

• receptor factor, which summarizes human or ecological receptors that 

could be exposed to contamination. 

At MMRP sites, the Corps uses the Munitions Response Site Prioritization 

Protocol (MRSPP), which DOD began implementing in FY 2007 to assign 

sites a relative priority level of 1 (highest hazard) to 8 (lowest hazard) 

using three modules.41

• Explosive hazard evaluation and chemical warfare materiel hazard 

evaluation modules, which evaluate the presence and accessibility of 

these hazards and the receptors that may be affected, and 

• A health hazard evaluation module, which evaluates chronic health and 

environmental hazards associated with munitions constituents—as well as 

incidental nonmunitions-related contaminants—and builds on the 

framework established in the RRSE. 

According to DOD and Corps officials, the Corps is in the process of 

applying the MRSPP to FUDS, but as of the end of FY 2008, no FUDS had 

been assigned a final MRSPP score.42 FUDS program data available on the 

 

40Naturally occurring contaminants are not included if they are detected within established 

background concentration ranges. 

41If a numerical priority level is inappropriate, a site may be assigned an alternative rating 

of Evaluation Pending (sufficient information is not available to complete any of the three 

modules), No Longer Required (no longer requires prioritization because all necessary 

munitions responses have been completed), or No Known or Suspected Hazard (physical 

or historical evidence affirms that there are no known or suspected hazards associated 

with unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions, or munitions constituents). 

42According to DOD officials, FUDS with a Risk Assessment Code score and a response 

already under way will not be assigned a numerical MRSPP score. In addition, DOD 

officials told us that the Corps is in the process of applying the MRSPP scores to FUDS but 

because the scores have not been reviewed by the quality assurance panel, they have not 

been reported outside of DOD, as of the end of FY 2008. 

Page 27 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

relative risk levels of MMRP sites are based on the method used prior to 

implementation of the MRSPP—the Risk Assessment Code, which the 

Corps used to assign munitions sites a risk-based score of 1 (highest 

priority) to 5 (no DOD action necessary). This method evaluated potential 

safety hazards associated with explosives based on the severity and 

probability of the hazard. According to DOD and Corps officials, Risk 

Assessment Code scores are no longer used and are being replaced by the 

relative priority assigned by the MRSPP. 

The Corps assigns a risk-based priority level to containerized waste sites, 

based on the condition and location of the storage tanks. For example, a 

site with known leaks or spills would have a priority of 1, while sites with 

tanks that are not leaking and located in urban and rural areas would have 

priority levels of 2 and 3, respectively. The Corps assigns a risk-based 

priority level to building demolition and debris removal sites, based on the 

location of the site and ease of access to the site. For example, a site in an 

urban or densely populated area and with unrestricted access would have 

a priority of 1, while a site in a rural area or remote island with a guarded 

entrance would have a priority of 9. 

In addition, DOD and Corps officials told us that a small number of highpriority FUDS receive separate funding from the Corps’ headquarters—in 

addition to the funds they receive from the relevant district—to guarantee 

that cleanup at these sites is funded. These are high-risk, high-visibility sites 

with cleanup costs high enough to consume a district’s entire budget. 

According to DOD and Corps officials, the list of such sites may change 

from year to year. Table 5 identifies the FUDS that received such funding in 

FY 2008 and the Corps’ estimated costs to complete cleanup at these sites. 

Table 5: High-Priority FUDS Receiving Funding From Corps Headquarters 

Dollars in millions 

 Costs through FY 2008 Estimated costs, FY 2009 to completion 

FUDS IRP MMRP Total IRP MMRP Total

Estimated 

total cost 

Waikoloa Maneuver 

Area, HI 

 $0.810 $78.402 $79.212 $0.0 $810.573 $810.573 $889.785 

Spring Valley, 

Washington, D.C. 

 65.762 89.243 155.005 9.701 16.177 25.878 180.883 

Buckley Field, CO 0.543 102.805 103.348 0.0 41.462 41.462 144.810 

Camp Sibert, AL 5.134 28.422 33.556 6.596 30.398 36.994 70.550 

Source: DOD. 

Page 28 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

DOD and Corps officials told us that in addition to considering a site’s risk 

level, the Corps sets cleanup priorities based on program goals, which 

have evolved over time. In the past, according to these officials, the Corps 

initially focused on addressing building demolition and debris removal 

sites and containerized waste sites—FUDS program data indicate that 81 

percent of building demolition and debris removal sites and 82 percent of 

containerized waste sites have reached response complete status, 

compared to 54 percent of HTRW sites and 33 percent of MMRP sites 

without chemical warfare materiel. DOD officials also said that the Corps 

has made significant progress in completing cleanup at building 

demolition and debris removal sites and containerized waste sites because 

they can be completed quickly and at less cost. In contrast, they told us 

that hazardous, toxic, and radioactive sites and MMRP sites are generally 

larger and more complex than building demolition/debris removal sites 

and containerized waste sites, and require more time and investment to 

clean up. Table 6 shows the percentage of sites that have achieved 

response complete status by project category, as of the end of FY 2008. 

Table 6: Response Complete Rates by Project Category, FY 2008 

Program category Project category Number of sites 

Percentage at 

response complete

Building Demolition and Debris Removal 423 81

IRP Containerized hazardous, toxic, and 

radioactive waste 

1,278 82

Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste 1,343 54

MMRP Without chemical warfare materiel 1,566 33

With chemical warfare materiel 95 61

Total 4,705 57

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

According to DOD and Corps officials, containerized waste and building 

demolition/debris removal sites are now a low priority for the Corps 

because it is trying to focus on meeting DOD’s goals for the FUDS program 

and these goals do not measure cleanup of containerized waste and 

building demolition sites. Specifically: 

• IRP: DOD’s goal is to reduce risk, have a remedy in place, or achieve 

response complete status at high, medium, and low risk sites by the end of 

FY 2007, 2011, and 2020, respectively. According to DOD’s FY 2008 

Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress, DOD did 

not meet its goal for high relative risk FUDS by the end of FY 2007, but is 

Page 29 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

working aggressively to complete required cleanup actions at these sites, 

while mitigating potential threats to human health and the environment. 

• MMRP: The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2007 

specified the following two goals for adoption by DOD: complete 

preliminary assessments by the end of FY 2007 and complete site 

inspections by the end of FY 2010 and complete remedy in place or 

response complete by a date set by the Secretary of Defense. However, 

because the Corps centrally funds MMRP site inspections with a budget 

established by the Corps’ headquarters and Center of Expertise, other sites 

do not compete with MMRP site inspections in cleanup prioritization. By 

the end of FY 2008, DOD had completed preliminary assessments for 99 

percent of the FUDS MMRP sites, according to DOD’s FY 2008 Defense 

Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress, and will reevaluate 

current goals at the end of FY 2010. DOD has not yet established a date for 

achieving remedy in place or response complete status for FUDS MMRP 

sites. 

The Corps’ headquarters sets annual performance measures for its 

divisions and districts—such as achieving remedy in place or response 

complete status at a certain number of sites each year—that can also play 

a role in how districts prioritize sites. For example, officials at two 

districts we visited told us that in order to meet the remedy in place or 

response complete measure, they try to focus on sites where work is 

already in progress and cleanup can be completed. Officials at one of these 

districts told us that it is not appropriate to use risk rankings exclusively in 

deciding which sites to clean up and that they cannot stop work on sites 

where actions are already under way because they face pressure to meet 

the cleanup performance measures. Although containerized waste sites 

are currently a low priority for the FUDS program, officials at this district 

also told us they are working on many such sites that are not high-risk, but 

are low-cost and can be completed in a matter of months. Similarly, 

officials at another district told us that once a site enters a phase of the 

CERCLA cleanup process, they try to complete that phase before starting 

work on another site. However, cleanup costs for sites can also influence 

the order in which districts address sites. Officials at one district told us 

that a high-cost site could consume the district’s entire annual budget. 

While certain high-risk sites with high costs may receive additional 

funding from the Corps’ headquarters, another district also told us that 

they may delay a cleanup action until they can allocate enough funds to 

complete that action. 

Page 30 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

The Corps also recognizes in its FUDS program policy and FUDS program 

management plan for FY 2009 that the concerns of regulators, the 

Congress, and the public can influence the Corps’ decisions about which 

sites to address first and can potentially result in decisions to fund 

projects that are not high-risk. For example, the Corps’ FUDS program 

policy states that regulator involvement through Statewide Management 

Action Plans (SMAP) is essential to the successful implementation of the 

relative risk concept. The SMAP program at FUDS began in 2001, and the 

primary purpose of a SMAP is to involve regulators in the development of 

life-cycle plans for the investigation and cleanup of all FUDS properties 

within a state. EPA, states, and the Corps may participate in jointly 

developing the SMAP, which is a living document that had, among its 

goals, determining a statewide cleanup priority for each property and 

project. Of the 57 states and territories, over 30 had SMAPs or equivalent 

agreements, as of December 2008, according to the Association of State 

and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials. In the spring of 2008, 

the association surveyed the states about the effectiveness of SMAPs. 

Based on responses from 41 states, it reported that the overall 

effectiveness of SMAPs varied with regard to prioritizing and funding sites 

for cleanup, among other things. 

In addition, the Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA), 

which provides a mechanism for state or territory involvement in 

environmental restoration activities at DOD installations—including 

FUDS—and state laws and regulations play a role in how the Corps 

prioritizes and funds sites for cleanup. The districts record certain factors 

that may drive prioritization and funding of sites in the “legal drivers” data 

fields in FUDSMIS. Our analysis of FUDS program data for one of these 

legal drivers indicated that 72 percent of sites with memorandum of 

agreement commitments—such as DSMOAs between the Corps and state 

regulatory agencies—had reached response complete status, compared to 

56 percent of sites without such agreements. Similarly, we found that 74 

percent of sites subject to state laws and regulations requiring a response 

within a specified period had reached response complete status, compared 

to the 56 percent of sites not subject to such requirements.43

Community or public concerns, as well as owner or congressional interest, 

also shape the Corps’ decisions on which sites to address first. In 

particular, officials at all four of the districts we contacted noted that 

 

43FUDS data analyzed, as of the end of FY 2008. 

Page 31 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

congressional interest can influence decisions on the order in which sites 

are addressed. Officials at one district told us that this would not lead a 

medium or low-risk site to be prioritized and funded for cleanup above a 

high-risk site, but officials at another district and the FUDS program 

management plan for FY 2009 note that congressional interest could 

potentially result in a decision to fund a site not considered high risk. 

However, our analysis of FUDS program data for the congressional or 

owner interest legal driver showed that 59 percent of sites with this driver 

had reached response complete status, compared to 57 percent of sites 

without this legal driver. In addition, officials at one division told us that 

the Corps’ past focus on addressing containerized waste and building 

demolition and debris removal projects was because these were the types 

of hazards that politicians wanted addressed. Moreover, DOD and Corps 

officials told us that the Corps may still work on these types of sites, 

which are currently low risk priority, if Congress or other stakeholders, 

such as state regulators were to demand it. 

DOD and the Corps report what they consider to be management and 

support costs for the FUDS program as part of their overall budget 

proposal to the Congress. DOD and the Corps track program management 

and support costs, such as salaries for FUDS personnel staffed at the 

Corps’ headquarters and the operating costs for FUDSMIS. Overall 

management and support costs and direct management and support costs, 

as a proportion of the total FUDS budget, have decreased slightly between 

FY 2004 and 2008, largely due to a restructuring of FUDS responsibilities 

among the Corps’ field districts and specific DOD direction to the Corps to 

lower certain costs. The Corps implements several measures to ensure 

control over how these funds are spent, both by restricting who records 

expenditures in the financial management information system and 

assigning these funds a specific tracking code. 

The Corps Has 

Reduced Direct 

Management and 

Support Costs for the 

FUDS Program and 

Implements 

Accountability 

Measures for these 

Costs 

Federal agencies and programs are not required to use any specific 

definition of overhead for budgeting or reporting purposes. However, 

DOD’s Financial Management Regulation for environmental restoration 

programs—including FUDS—directs that administrative and overhead 

expenses be identified under the “Program Management and Support” 

element in budget justification materials.44 DOD submits a three-part 

budget justification request to the Congress each year for each DERP 

 

44DOD FMR 7000.14-R, Volume 2B, Chapter 13, October 2008. 

Page 32 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

program. The first part of the budget submission is the overall Program 

Management and Support budget, while the second part includes all sitespecific cleanup costs, and the third part includes progress toward the 

DERP goals. DOD divides program management and support funding for 

the FUDS program into direct and indirect costs. The components of 

direct and indirect program management and support costs are shown in 

table 7. 

Table 7: Components of Direct and Indirect Program Management and Support 

Costs 

Components of Direct Program 

Management and Support Costs 

Components of Indirect Program 

Management and Support Costs 

Salaries for the Corps’ headquarters staff 

and division personnel 

A limited amount of funding to district 

managers for program management 

Operating costs for FUDSMIS Remedial 

Action Cost Engineering and Requirements 

system used to calculate cost-to-complete 

estimates 

Salaries for Army headquarters contractors 

Operating costs for 

DSMOAa

Agency for Toxic Substances and 

Disease Registryb

SMAPc 

Restoration Advisory Boards/Technical 

Assistance for Public Participationd

MMRP realignmente

FUDS Information Improvement 

Program 

Source: DOD. 

a

The DSMOA program allows states and territories to be reimbursed for certain technical services in 

support of environmental restoration efforts at the DOD installations within their boundaries. The 

DSMOA provides a mechanism for state or territory involvement in environmental restoration 

activities and establishes the terms and conditions required to reimburse a state or territory for 

technical support. 

b

The Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry is a subagency of the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services responsible for conducting public health assessments at all sites on or 

propsed for the National Priority List. 

c

SMAPs are used to identify and monitor environmental restoration requirements, schedules, and 

estimates of cost, and serve as the basis for identifying regulatory agency support requirements that 

fall under the DSMOA program. 

d

Restoration Advisory Boards are established at installations or FUDS properties that have sufficient 

and sustained public interest in the cleanup process so that community members can provide 

meaningful input in the remedy selection. The Technical Assistance for Public Program allows DOD 

to purchase independent technical support for the Restoration Advisory Board. 

e

MMRP realignment is a process that the Corps has undertaken to realign MMRP projects with the 

definition of Munitions Response Sites. As part of this process, the sites are being reduced in size to 

more manageable areas that will show the progress of site cleanup more effectively. 

The following table shows the amounts obligated for all FUDS activities 

from FY 2004 through 2008. See appendix VIII for more detailed cost 

information for the FUDS program. 

Page 33 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

Table 8: FUDS Obligations, FY 2004 through 2008 

Dollars in millions 

FUDS obligations 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

IRPa $156.861 $126.718 $118.873 $116.522 $129.805

MMRP 82.806 94.199 91.482 102.858 115.545

Total program management and support 44.540 44.756 43.483 43.393 41.363

Total obligations $284.207 $265.673 $253.838 $262.773 $286.713

Source: DOD-provided data. 

a

BD/DR obligations are included. 

From FY 2004 through 2008, direct program management and support 

costs for the FUDS program have generally decreased, both in dollar 

amount and as a percentage of the overall dollars obligated for the FUDS 

program, largely as a result of a restructuring effort by the Corps. Table 9 

shows the total amount that the Corps obligated for both direct and 

indirect program management and support costs and Table 10 shows both 

as a percentage of the total program management and support budget and 

as a percentage of the overall amount obligated for the FUDS budget from 

FY 2004 through 2008: 

Table 9: Program Management and Support Obligations for FUDS, FY 2004 though 2008 

Dollars in millions 

 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Direct $31.252 $25.837 $20.746 $26.161 $25.812

Indirect 13.288 18.919 22.737 17.232 15.551

Total program management and support 44.540 44.756 43.483 43.393 41.363

Total FUDS $284.207 $265.673 $253.838 $262.773 $286.713

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Page 34 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

Table 10: Program Management and Support Proportions for FUDS, FY 2004 through 2008 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Program management and support obligations as a percentage of the total management and support obligations 

Direct 70.2% 57.7% 47.7% 60.3% 62.4%

Indirect 29.8 42.3 52.3 39.7 37.6

Program management and support obligations as a percentage of total FUDS obligations 

Direct 11.0 9.7 8.2 10.0 9.0

Indirect 4.7 7.1 9.0 6.6 5.4

Total 15.7% 16.8% 17.1% 16.5% 14.4%

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

In FY 2006, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environmental, 

Safety and Occupational Health directed the FUDS program to reduce the 

program management and support costs of the program in order to make 

more funds available for cleanup projects. In addition, the Corps set goals 

which began taking effect in FY 2007 to reduce direct program 

management and support funding from FY 2006 levels. Under these goals, 

by the end of FY 2009, direct management and support costs need to be 

reduced by 25 percent of the FY 2006 funding level, and this level has to be 

maintained through FY 2010 and beyond. In order to achieve these goals, 

the Corps restructured the way the FUDS program was administered by 

reducing the number of districts with FUDS responsibilities from 22 

districts to 14 districts. These 14 districts operate within 7 regional 

divisions, with 2 Corps districts with FUDS program or project 

management responsibilities in each Corps division. However, Corps 

officials told us they cannot determine the overall savings they have 

achieved to reduce program management and support costs. For example, 

they said the Corps cannot measure the reduction in full-time employees 

assigned to FUDS program as a reduction in program management and 

support costs because a variety of employees, such as those who provide 

legal and real estate expertise at the district level, must continue to charge 

their time to the FUDS program. In addition, Corps officials in the 

divisions and districts we visited told us that they now charge time to the 

FUDS program for activities that they would have charged to program 

management and support prior to the FUDS transformation. 

Several factors help to ensure that overall program management and 

support funds are spent only on items the Corps has approved. In this 

regard, only resource managers at the Corps’ headquarters are able to add 

money to the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System which is 

how money, including all program management and support funds, is 

Page 35 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

distributed for the FUDS program. The program management and support 

funding is also assigned a specific code, which can be used to track its 

expenditures in the financial system. Additionally, each division receives 

only a relatively small amount of program management and support 

funding in relation to their overall budget for the FUDS program. Corps’ 

officials in the divisions and districts we visited told us that these funds 

are critical to their operations, because they pay for manager’s salaries, 

travel for training, and respond to administrative requests from 

headquarters and state regulators. Due to the limited amount of these 

funds, division and district FUDS managers keep close watch on them, 

according to Corps officials, and vigorously question any expenditure of 

these funds, which helps to ensure that program management and support 

resources are spent only on the approved items. 

Although the issues we identified regarding the Corps’ 5-year review 

process have implications for all FUDS where 5-year reviews are required 

or may be appropriate, they are particularly relevant to sites with emerging 

contaminants. As more FUDS begin to reach the cleanup phase and 

knowledge on emerging contaminants continues to evolve, 5-year reviews 

may play a more important role in identifying and responding to changes 

in information used in FUDS cleanup decisions, such as toxicity values 

and standards. The issues we identified raise concerns about the extent to 

which the districts and divisions (1) will record and review data on 5-year 

reviews in the Corps’ information management systems, (2) will conduct 

all required 5-year reviews on time, and (3) will consistently conduct 

reviews when appropriate. In addition, the lack of technical review of 

some of these reports by the Corps’ Center of Expertise raises concerns 

about the Corps’ ability to fully identify and appropriately respond to 

changes, such as evolving knowledge and standards for emerging 

contaminants. Without timely, accurate, and complete 5-year reviews for 

sites and reliable information on the status of such reviews, the Corps 

cannot be certain that remedies at FUDS remain protective of human 

health and the environment and cannot adequately inform stakeholders—

including the Congress, the public, and regulators—regarding actual site 

conditions. 

Conclusions 

Page 36 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

To help ensure that the remedies at FUDS continue to protect human 

health, safety, and the environment, we are making three 

recommendations. We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the 

Corps to 

• conduct 5-year reviews for sites where emerging contaminants are present 

and the cleanup will eventually allow unlimited site use and unrestricted 

exposure, but will require more than 5 years to complete, consistent with 

EPA’s guidance that such reviews are appropriate, even if not required; 

• modify its FUDS program information management system to allow 

districts to more easily track information on 5-year reviews, and take steps 

to ensure that the districts utilize this system to plan for 5-year reviews 

and track progress on completing them; and 

• determine why districts have not always completed timely 5-year reviews 

and provided all 5-year review reports to the Center of Expertise for 

comment—consistent with Corps guidelines—and develop procedures 

and controls to address these causes. 

We provided a draft of this report to DOD for official review and comment. 

DOD agreed with two of our recommendations and partially agreed with 

one. Specifically, DOD agreed with our recommendation that the Corps 

modify its FUDS program information management system to allow 

districts to more easily track information on 5-year reviews, and take steps 

to ensure that the districts utilize this system to plan for 5-year reviews 

and track progress on completing them. DOD stated that the Army has 

initiated actions to modify the FUDS information management system to 

address the recommendation. DOD also agreed with our recommendation 

that the Corps determine why districts have not always completed timely 

5-year reviews and provided all 5-year review reports to the Center of 

Expertise for comment—consistent with Corps guidelines—and develop 

procedures and controls to address these causes. DOD said it will ensure 

that the Corps conducts a review of the FUDS 5-year review process, 

including management, tracking, and record keeping procedures. DOD 

partially agreed with our recommendation that the Corps conduct 5-year 

reviews at FUDS where emerging contaminants are present and the 

cleanup will eventually allow unlimited site use and unrestricted exposure, 

but will require more than 5 years to complete, consistent with EPA 

guidance that such reviews are appropriate, even if not required. DOD said 

that it will ensure that the Corps conducts 5-years reviews where required 

by CERCLA, but did not agree to conduct the additional precautionary 

Recommendations 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 37 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
 

reviews that are recommended by EPA. We continue to believe that, 

particularly for sites where emerging contaminants are present, it is 

important to conduct reviews when the cleanup will eventually allow 

unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, but will require more than 5 

years to complete. Over an extended cleanup period, information on these 

contaminants may evolve, and these reviews may play an important role in 

identifying and appropriately responding to such changes as revised 

toxicity values or standards and new exposure pathways. If the Corps 

does not conduct reviews under these circumstances, it is missing an 

important opportunity to evaluate whether remedies remain protective of 

human health and the environment and to fully inform stakeholders—

including the Congress, the public and regulators—regarding actual site 

conditions. DOD also provided technical and clarifying comments, which 

we incorporated as appropriate. DOD’s letter is included in appendix IX. 

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the report will be 

available at no charge on our Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

John B. Steph

appendix X. 

enson 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Page 38 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix I: Status of Cleanup Actions at the Appendix I: Status of Cleanup Actions at the Former Almaden Air Force Radar Station 

Former Almaden Air Force Radar Station 

Between 1958 and 1980, the United States Air Force operated a radar 

station on approximately 100 acres atop Mt. Umunhum and Mt. Thayer 

near San Jose, California. In 1986, the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space 

District (MROSD), a California state government entity, acquired the 

former Almaden Air Force Station.1

 The property contained various 

structures, including radar towers, operations buildings, housing facilities, 

a power plant, above- and below-ground fuel storage tanks, and a sewer 

treatment plant. MROSD staff occupied several buildings from 1986 to 

1998. A 1989 earthquake damaged some buildings, transformers, and fuel 

tanks. 

In 1991, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) determined that the site 

was eligible for cleanup under the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) 

program and ranked it as high risk due to the presence of various 

contaminants in transformers, drums, and storage tanks. Between 1994 

and 1996, the Corps removed transformers, above, and below-ground fuel 

storage tanks and associated piping, and drums filled with chemicals. After 

these removal actions, the Corps turned its attention to other FUDS in the 

Corps District for a number of years. In 2006, the Corps returned to 

remove more waste from buildings, pipes, generators, and sumps. In 2007, 

the Corps initiated a site inspection to determine if it had overlooked any 

contamination, particularly polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB) from 

electrical transformers and petroleum from underground storage tanks 

and to determine if any further remediation action is needed. Corps 

officials anticipated completing the investigation in 2009. From 1991 

through 2008, the Corps spent $3.5 million investigating, removing 

materials, and taking remedial actions at the site. 

In addition to cleaning up any remaining contamination, MROSD also 

wanted the Corps to demolish and remove all remaining structures—many 

of which contain deteriorating lead-based paint and asbestos—so that it 

may open the site to the public for recreational use. Department of 

Defense (DOD) and Corps officials told us that no building 

demolition/debris removal can be conducted at this property because the 

buildings and structures were not unsafe at the time of transfer out of 

DOD jurisdiction. They said that MROSD is responsible for maintaining all 

buildings and structures on the property, beginning on the date they took 

 

1

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District is an independent, nonprofit California state 

government entity established to preserve regional open space lands in a natural condition 

for public enjoyment. Funding is provided through property taxes, federal and state grants, 

interest and rental income, donations, and note issues. 

Page 39 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites 
Appendix I: Status of Cleanup Actions at the 

Former Almaden Air Force Radar Station 

title. DOD and Corps officials also said the Defense Environmental 

Restoration Program (DERP) authority does not extend to the removal of 

buildings and structures that become unsafe after they are transferred out 

of DOD jurisdiction and then not maintained by the subsequent owner.2

In fiscal year (FY) 2009, MROSD requested $4 million from Congress for 

economic adjustment programs, including feasibility studies, legal 

services, and other activities related to cleaning up the site and language in 

the National Defense Authorization or Appropriations Acts directing DOD 

to clean up the site under the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act 

of 1990. No language or funding regarding Almaden was included in either 

law. 

 

2

Engineering Regulation 200-3-1, May 10, 2004, paragraph 3-2.6.2. 

Page 40 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

To determine how the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) addresses 

emerging contaminants at formerly used defense sites (FUDS), and the 

extent to which the Corps reevaluates sites to determine the need to 

address emerging contaminants, we reviewed key laws, regulations, 

policy, and guidance for the Department of Defense (DOD), the 

Department of the Army, the Corps, and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). We interviewed officials from DOD’s Office of the Deputy 

Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment and 

Chemical and Material Risk Management Directorate; the Department of 

the Army’s Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations 

and Environment and Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation 

Management, and the Corps Directorate of Military Programs; and EPA’s 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response and Federal Facilities 

Restoration and Reuse Office. We also interviewed officials at two state 

associations—the National Governors Association and the Association of 

State and Territorial Solid Waste Management Officials—to obtain their 

perspectives on the approaches DOD and the Corps use to address 

emerging contaminants. We reviewed program information obtained from 

FUDS program managers in four of seven Corps military divisions—the 

North Atlantic, Northwestern, South Atlantic, and South Pacific 

divisions—and 4 of the 14 districts responsible for executing the FUDS 

program—the New England, Omaha, Sacramento, and Savannah 

districts—and technical experts at the Corps’ Environmental and 

Munitions Center of Expertise. We selected the four divisions based on 

(1) geographic dispersion, (2) the number of FUDS sites within each 

division, and (3) planned obligations for fiscal year (FY) 2009, and, within 

these four divisions, we selected 4 of the 8 districts with FUDS program 

management responsibility. We reviewed additional information from the 

Corps on their 5-year review process from the South Atlantic division and 

districts in Kansas City and Los Angeles, and examined the completed 5-

year review reports from the North Atlantic, Northwestern, and South 

Pacific divisions. 

To evaluate the Corps’ process for addressing emerging contaminants and 

prioritizing sites for cleanup, we reviewed and analyzed the nationwide 

property and project data in the Corps’ Formerly Used Defense Sites 

Management Information System (FUDSMIS) through September 30, 2008, 

the end of their most recent reporting cycle. We assessed the reliability of 

relevant fields in this database by electronically testing for obvious errors 

in accuracy and completeness, reviewing information about the data and 

the system that produced them, and interviewing agency officials 

knowledgeable about the data. When we found inconsistencies, we 

worked with DOD and Corp’s officials to correct the discrepancies before 

Page 41 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites 
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

conducting our analyses. We determined that the data needed for our 

analyses were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our report. 

To assess DOD’s process for determining funding levels for cleanup among 

FUDS and other sites with defense waste, we spoke with officials at the 

Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and 

Environment and officials at Corps headquarters who manage the FUDS 

program about how budget requirements are determined, and the targets 

or goals that exist for the overall Defense Environmental Restoration 

Program (DERP). We also reviewed DOD’s budget justification documents 

for FY 2004 through 2009 and budget data from officials at the Office of the 

Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installations and Environment and 

DOD’s Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress for 

FY 2004 through 2008. 

In order to determine the Corps’ criteria for prioritizing FUDS for cleanup 

and how closely the Corps follows these criteria, we obtained and 

reviewed relevant policy, guidance, laws, and regulations directing DOD’s 

cleanup activities, including relevant risk ranking protocols for 

contaminated sites. We interviewed and obtained information from 

officials from the Office of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for 

Installation and Environment, Corps headquarters personnel in charge of 

managing FUDS, three of seven Corps military divisions and 4 of 14 

districts responsible for executing the FUDS program, and the Corps’ 

Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise. We also gathered and 

analyzed data from FUDSMIS, as well as the Defense Environmental 

Programs Annual Reports to Congress. In addition, we interviewed 

officials at two state associations—the National Governors Association 

and the Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials—to obtain their perspectives on the approaches DOD and the 

Corps uses to prioritize FUDS for cleanup.1

To review the components and total amounts of management and support 

costs for the FUDS program and how these costs have changed over time, 

 

1

DOD officials told us that the Corps is in the process of applying the Munitions Response 

Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP) scores to FUDS, but as of the end of FY 2008, no 

FUDS had been assigned a final MRSPP score. Therefore, we used the most recently 

assigned Risk Assessment Code scores in our analysis of the prioritization of Military 

Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites at FUDS. GAO is currently assessing how 

military components and the Corps use MRSPP scores to prioritize and fund military 

munitions sites for cleanup and we expect to complete this review in 2010. 

Page 42 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology 

we reviewed DOD’s budget justification documents for FY 2004 through 

2009 and interviewed and obtained budget data from officials at the Office 

of the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Installation and Environment, 

who are in charge of compiling the overall DERP budget, as well as Corps 

officials in charge of budgeting for the FUDS program. We also reviewed 

relevant federal accounting standards, financial management regulations, 

and guidance. To determine the Corps’ accountability measures for these 

costs, we interviewed Corps headquarters personnel in charge of 

managing FUDS, and conducted interviews and gathered data from three 

of seven Corps Divisions responsible for executing the FUDS program, 

and 4 of 14 Corps Districts. We did not conduct a financial audit of the 

FUDS program. 

In addition, at the request of the committee, this report provides 

information on the status of the Corps’ cleanup efforts at the former 

Almaden Air Force Station. We conducted interviews and obtained 

information from the Corps district and division officials in charge of 

cleanup at Almaden and, in addition, we visited the site and interviewed 

and obtained detailed site information from the current owners, the 

Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 through 

October 2009, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Page 43 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix III: Occurrence of Emerging 

Contaminants at Formerly Used Defense Sites Appendix III: Occurrence of Emerging with Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 

Contaminants at Formerly Used Defense Sites 

with Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste

The Department of Defense (DOD) defines an emerging contaminant as a 

contaminant that (1) has a reasonably possible pathway to enter the 

environment; (2) presents a potential unacceptable human health or 

environmental risk; and (3) either does not have regulatory standards 

based on peer-reviewed science or has regulatory standards that are 

evolving due to new science, detection capabilities, or exposure pathways. 

Tables 10 through 13 provide information on the occurrence of emerging 

contaminants in groundwater, surface water, soil, and sediment at 

formerly used defense sites (FUDS) with hazardous, toxic, and radioactive 

waste (HTRW). The tables are based on the sampling information the U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers used in assigning risk levels to HTRW FUDS 

through its Relative Risk Site Evaluation (RRSE) process.1

 More 

specifically, they include the numbers of HTRW sites where contaminants 

on DOD’s action and watch lists2

 were detected and the range of the 

maximum concentrations detected across these sites. 

The data shown in Tables 11 through 14 do not necessarily represent all 

FUDS where these contaminants may have been detected, for several 

reasons. For example: 

• Some sites do not have a relative risk score. Certain sites are excluded, 

such as those with containerized hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste 

and those that have achieved the remedy-in-place or response complete 

(RIP/RC) milestone. For other sites, the Corps has not completed the 

relative-risk site evaluation process. 

• Naturally occurring contaminants are not included in the RRSE if they are 

detected within established background concentration ranges. 

• The contaminant data used in the RRSE are collected in the early phases 

of the cleanup process. Based on our interviews with selected Corps 

divisions and districts, the extent to which districts update the RRSE later 

is unclear. 

 

1

The RRSE is a tool used across DOD to evaluate the relative risk posed by a site in relation 

to other sites. The Corps uses the RRSE to prioritize FUDS with HTRW into three 

categories—high, medium, or low relative risk—based on the nature and extent of the site’s 

contamination, the likelihood that contaminants will migrate, and potential impacts on 

populations and ecosystems. 

2

DOD’s watch list identifies chemicals for which there is a potential for a regulatory change 

to impact DOD, and its action list is for chemicals for which there is significant potential 

for regulatory change to impact DOD. 

Page 44 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites 
Appendix III: Occurrence of Emerging 

Contaminants at Formerly Used Defense Sites 

with Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 

• The Corps is testing for some of these contaminants at munitions sites as 

part of the MMRP site inspections—those data are not included in these 

tables and are not yet available. 

Table 11: Maximum Detected Concentrations of Emerging Contaminants in Groundwater at HTRW FUDS 

Groundwater 

DOD status Chemical name 

Number of HTRW sites with 

detections

Range of maximum concentrations 

detected (parts per billion)

Action list Beryllium 34 0.9 to 5,100

Chromium VI a 

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine 12 1.8 to 13,000

Naphthalene 52 0.0041 to 98,000

Perchlorate a,b 

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 143 0.31 to 200,000

Watch list 1,4 dioxane a 

Cadmium and compounds 74 0.4 to 8,200

Cerium and compounds a 

Cobalt and compounds 14 0.01 to 103,000

Dinitrotoluene 2 42 to 771

Dioxins c 

Lead compounds 219 0.02 to 129,000

Manganese and compounds 76 0.86 to 3,320,000

Nickel 43 0.04 to 273,000

Perfluorooctanoic acid a 

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid a 

Sulfur hexafluoride a

Tetrachloroethylene 36 0.29 to 170,000

Tungsten a 

Tungsten alloys c 

Nanomaterials c

Source: GAO analysis of Corps data from the FUDS Management Information System (FUDSMIS) on the maximum detected 

concentrations of contaminants used in the RRSEs for HTRW sites, as of September 30, 2008. 

a

FUDSMIS contained no concentration data for some contaminants in some environmental media. No 

information was available in FUDSMIS on the extent to which the Corps had actually tested sites for 

those contaminants. 

b

According to DOD and Corps officials, all but one FUDS where perchlorate has been detected are 

military munitions sites, to which the RRSE does not apply. However, Appendix IV provides 

information on perchlorate sampling at FUDS. 

c

We analyzed FUDSMIS data on contaminants using the Chemical Abstract Service numbers DOD 

provided for these chemicals. No such numbers exist for dioxin compounds, tungsten alloys, or 

nanomaterials. 

Page 45 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix III: Occurrence of Emerging 

Contaminants at Formerly Used Defense Sites 

with Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 

Table 12: Maximum Detected Concentrations of Emerging Contaminants in Surface Water at HTRW FUDS 

Surface watera

DOD status Chemical name 

Number of HTRW sites with 

detections

Range of maximum concentrations 

detected (parts per billion)

Action list Beryllium 4 2.4 to 16

Chromium VI b 

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine 1 1.8 to 1.8

Naphthalene 3 100 to 780

Perchlorate b,c 

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 13 1.4 to 9,950

Watch list 1,4 dioxane b 

Cadmium and compounds 24 1.5 to 41,601,000

Cerium and compounds b 

Cobalt and compounds 4 37 to 114

Dinitrotoluene b 

Dioxins d 

Lead compounds 69 1.5 to 37,000

Manganese and compounds 37 9.6 to 14,400

Nickel 15 30.8 to 5,360

Perfluorooctanoic acid b 

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid b 

Sulfur hexafluoride b 

Tetrachloroethylene 2 8 to 1,180

Tungsten b 

Tungsten alloys d 

Nanomaterials d 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps data from FUDSMIS on the maximum detected concentrations of contaminants used in the RRSEs for 

HTRW sites, as of September 30, 2008. 

a

This includes multiple types of surface water. In the few instances where a contaminant was 

detected in two of types of surface water, we used the larger of the two maximum concentration 

values. 

b

FUDSMIS contained no concentration data for some contaminants in some environmental media. No 

information was available in FUDSMIS on the extent to which the Corps had actually tested sites for 

those contaminants. 

c

According to DOD and Corps officials, all but one FUDS where perchlorate has been detected are 

military munitions sites, to which the RRSE does not apply. However, Appendix IV provides 

information on perchlorate sampling at FUDS. 

d

We analyzed FUDSMIS data on contaminants using the Chemical Abstract Service numbers DOD 

provided for these chemicals. No such numbers exist for dioxin compounds, tungsten alloys, or 

nanomaterials. 

Page 46 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix III: Occurrence of Emerging 

Contaminants at Formerly Used Defense Sites 

with Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 

Table 13: Maximum Detected Concentrations of Emerging Contaminants in Soil at HTRW FUDS 

Soil 

DOD status Chemical name 

Number of HTRW sites with 

detections

Range of maximum concentrations 

detected (parts per million)

Action list Beryllium 60 0.0018 to 5.9

Chromium VI a 

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine 8 0.00015 to 85,600

Naphthalene 58 0.0036 to 2,600

Perchlorate a,b 

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 42 0.0014 to 6,300

Watch list 1,4 dioxane a 

Cadmium and compounds 127 0.00054 to 22,800

Cerium and compounds a 

Cobalt and compounds 25 1.9 to 125

Dinitrotoluene 4 0.0012 to 2,708

Dioxins c 

Lead compounds 337 0.00152 to 1,080,000

Manganese and compounds 64 0.584 to 1,940,000

Nickel 62 0.013 to 1,270

Perfluorooctanoic acid a 

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid a 

Sulfur hexafluoride a 

Tetrachloroethylene 24 0.0014 to 12,000

Tungsten a 

Tungsten alloys c 

Nanomaterials c 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps data from FUDSMIS on the maximum detected concentrations of contaminants used in the RRSEs for 

HTRW sites, as of September 30, 2008. 

a

FUDSMIS contained no concentration data for some contaminants in some environmental media. No 

information was available in FUDSMIS on the extent to which the Corps had actually tested sites for 

those contaminants. 

b

According to DOD and Corps officials, all but one FUDS where perchlorate has been detected are 

military munitions sites, to which the RRSE does not apply. However, Appendix IV provides 

information on perchlorate sampling at FUDS. 

c

We analyzed FUDSMIS data on contaminants using the Chemical Abstract Service numbers DOD 

provided for these chemicals. No such numbers exist for dioxin compounds, tungsten alloys, or 

nanomaterials. 

Page 47 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix III: Occurrence of Emerging 

Contaminants at Formerly Used Defense Sites 

with Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 

Table 14: Maximum Detected Concentrations of Emerging Contaminants in Sediment at HTRW FUDS 

Sedimenta

DOD status Chemical name 

Number of HTRW sites with 

detection

Range of maximum concentrations 

detected (parts per million)

Action list Beryllium 17 0.51 to 85

Chromium VI b 

Cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine b 

Naphthalene 7 0.38 to 210

Perchlorate b,c 

Trichloroethylene (TCE) 6 0.015 to 9,900

Watch list 1,4 dioxane b 

Cadmium and compounds 37 0.00005 to 4,200

Cerium and compounds b 

Cobalt and compounds 8 6.4 to 251

Dinitrotoluene b 

Dioxins d 

Lead compounds 76 0.0032 to 43,000

Manganese and compounds 30 0.0214 to 7,900

Nickel 24 4.2 to 403

Perfluorooctanoic acid b 

Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid b 

Sulfur hexafluoride b 

Tetrachloroethylene 2 2.182 to 13

Tungsten b 

Tungsten alloys d 

Nanomaterials d 

Source: GAO analysis of Corps data from FUDSMIS on the maximum detected concentrations of contaminants used in the RRSEs for 

HTRW sites, as of September 30, 2008. 

a

This includes multiple types of sediment. In the few instances where a contaminant was detected in 

two of types of sediment, we used the larger of the two maximum concentration values. 

b

FUDSMIS contained no concentration data for some contaminants in some environmental media. No 

information was available in FUDSMIS on the extent to which the Corps had actually tested sites for 

those contaminants. 

c

According to DOD and Corps officials, all but one FUDS where perchlorate has been detected are 

military munitions sites, to which the RRSE does not apply. However, Appendix IV provides 

information on perchlorate sampling at FUDS. 

d

We analyzed FUDSMIS data on contaminants using the Chemical Abstract Service numbers DOD 

provided for these chemicals. No such numbers exist for dioxin compounds, tungsten alloys, or 

nanomaterials. 

Page 48 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix IV: P

Trich

Used Defe

erchlorate and 

loroethylene Contamination at Formerly 

nse Sites 

Page 49 GAO-10-46 

Appendix IV: Perchlorate and 

Trichloroethylene Contamination at Formerly 

Used Defense Sites 

Perchlorate is a chemical used in propellant for certain rockets and 

missiles and is also found in fireworks, road flares, automobile air bags, 

and other manufactured items. Perchlorate can also occur naturally and is 

found in certain fertilizers. Exposure to perchlorate can affect the thyroid 

gland by blocking the uptake of iodide and may cause developmental 

impairments in fetuses of pregnant women. Perchlorate has been found in 

drinking water sources nationwide, although the extent of perchlorate 

contamination was not revealed until 1997, when new analytical methods 

enabled measurement of perchlorate at low concentrations. According to 

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in testing of 3,865 public 

water supplies between 2001 and 2005, approximately 160 systems (4.1 

percent)—located in 26 states and 2 territories—had at least one detection 

of perchlorate at levels greater than or equal to 4 micrograms per liter 

(μg/l, or parts per billion (ppb)). In addition, the Food and Drug 

Administration and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have 

identified perchlorate in a wide variety of foods, as well as commercially 

available powdered infant formulas. There are currently no federal 

standards for the presence of perchlorate in water. 

Perchlorate 

DOD has used perchlorate in propellant for certain rockets and military 

missiles since the 1940s. In 2003, DOD issued an Interim Policy on 

Perchlorate Sampling, which directed DOD components to 

• sample for perchlorate at any previously unexamined sites—including 

formerly used defense sites (FUDS)—where (1) there was a reasonable 

basis to suspect that a release has occurred as a result of DOD activities, 

and (2) a complete human exposure pathway was likely to exist; and 

• consider, in determining the likelihood of perchlorate occurrence, the 

volume of perchlorate used or disposed and/or the intensity of 

perchlorate-related activities at the site. 

Because of uncertainties as to the concentration at which perchlorate 

should be regulated, DOD, the Department of Energy, the National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, and EPA asked the National 

Research Council to assess the potential adverse health effects of 

perchlorate. At the conclusion of its study in 2005, the Council 

recommended a reference dose of 0.7 μg per kilogram of body weight per 

day, which translates to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 ppb. EPA 

adopted this recommended level and, in January 2006, directed its regional 

offices to use this concentration as a preliminary remediation goal when 

cleaning up sites under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National Oil and 

 Formerly Used Defense Sites 
Appendix IV: Perchlorate and 

Trichloroethylene Contamination at Formerly 

Used Defense Sites 

Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, the regulation that 

implements CERCLA. In response to the Council’s study and EPA’s new 

guidance, DOD updated its perchlorate policy in January 2006.1

 With 

regard to FUDS, the policy directed DOD to (1) test for perchlorate, (2) 

conduct a site-specific risk assessment if perchlorate levels in water 

exceed 24 ppb, and (3) prioritize the site for risk management if the risk 

assessment indicates that the perchlorate contamination could potentially 

result in adverse health effects. According to DOD, the sampling 

requirement applied to all media, and the “level of concern” of 24 ppb was 

intended to apply to current and potential sources of drinking water. 

In December 2008, EPA issued an Interim Drinking Water Health Advisory 

for perchlorate, which established 15 ppb as the advisory level for 

perchlorate in water.2

 Unlike the previous level of 24.5 ppb, this new level 

incorporates exposure to perchlorate from food sources. In January 2009, 

EPA directed its regional offices to use 15 ppb as a preliminary 

remediation goal when cleaning up sites under CERCLA where there is an 

actual or potential drinking water exposure pathway and no applicable or 

relevant and appropriate requirements (ARAR) for perchlorate. In April 

2009, DOD responded by again updating its perchlorate policy, adopting a 

preliminary remediation goal of 15 ppb for perchlorate where (1) there is 

an actual or potential drinking water exposure pathway, and (2) no ARARs 

exist under federal or state laws. 

While EPA has taken some steps to consider regulation of perchlorate 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act, it issued a preliminary determination 

in October 2008 not to regulate the chemical in drinking water, citing the 

lack of a “meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction” through a 

national drinking water regulation. As of August 2009, EPA is considering 

its final regulatory determination for perchlorate and expects to issue a 

final health advisory concurrent with the final regulatory determination. In 

the absence of a federal perchlorate standard, some states have 

established standards for the chemical—for example, Massachusetts3

 and 

 

1

Policy on DOD Required Actions Related to Perchlorate. 

2

Health Advisories serve as informal technical guidance to assist Federal, State, and local 

officials and managers of public or community water systems in protecting public health 

when emergency spills or contamination situations occur. They are not legally enforceable 

Federal standards and are subject to change as new information becomes available. 

3

Massachusetts has also established cleanup standards for perchlorate in soil and 

groundwater, including groundwater that is not a current or potential drinking water 

source. 

Page 50 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix IV: Perchlorate and 

Trichloroethylene Contamination at Formerly 

Used Defense Sites 

California have promulgated drinking water standards for perchlorate. In 

addition, some states have established nonregulatory action levels or 

advisories for perchlorate. 

The Corps has sampled, and is continuing to sample, for perchlorate at 

FUDS. As of April 2008, the Corps had sampled 95 FUDS properties for 

perchlorate. According to DOD data,4

 sampling performed at FUDS before 

June 2006 detected perchlorate at 13 of 32 FUDS properties sampled,5

 five 

of which had concentrations exceeding 4 ppb in water.6

 The Corps took 

action at 5 of the 13 FUDS properties where perchlorate was detected7

 and 

determined that the remaining 8 FUDS properties did not require any 

actions to address perchlorate. Table 15 presents data for the perchlorate 

sampling conducted at FUDS between June 2006 and April 2008, by 

environmental media. 

 

4

DOD provided perchlorate data for sampling conducted (1) prior to June 2006, and (2) 

June 2006 to April 2008. Data collected prior to June 2006 were available only in summary 

form. Detailed data by environmental media were available for June 2006 to April 2008. 

5

This includes two FUDS properties where DOD has attributed perchlorate contamination 

to subsequent private tenants and a nearby fireworks manufacturing operation. 

6

DOD data for 2 of the 13 FUDS properties where perchlorate was detected did not include 

the concentrations detected. One of these is the property where DOD has attributed 

perchlorate contamination to nearby fireworks manufacturing. At the other property, DOD 

data indicated that perchlorate was detected above the analysis method’s detection limit, 

but below the minimum reporting limit—the minimum value for which the analysis 

laboratory can provide detection results with reasonable certainty. For this property, DOD 

provided no numerical values for the sampling results, method detection limits, or 

reporting limits. 

7

These include the following FUDS properties: the Shumaker Naval Ammunition Depot in 

Arkansas, where DOD has attributed perchlorate contamination to subsequent private 

tenants; Spring Valley in Washington, D.C.; the Former Macon Naval Ordnance Plant in 

Georgia; the Sioux Army Depot in Nebraska; and the Boardman Air Force Range in Oregon. 

Page 51 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix IV: Perchlorate and 

Trichloroethylene Contamination at Formerly 

Used Defense Sites 

Table 15: Perchlorate Detections at FUDS, June 2006 to April 2008 

Concentrations 

detected (ppb) 

Media 

Number of FUDS 

properties 

sampled

Number of 

FUDS 

properties with 

detections Minimum Maximum

Groundwater 28 16 0.061 146

Surface Water 28 20 0.009 7.18

Drinking Water 19 13 0.013 1.8

Soil 5 2 0.27 3

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

According to DOD, there are only two FUDS properties where DODcaused perchlorate concentrations in groundwater have exceeded EPA’s 

and DOD’s current preliminary remediation goal of 15 ppb.8

 Specifically: 

• At the Spring Valley FUDS property in Washington, D.C., perchlorate was 

detected in 45 of 51 groundwater samples between June 2006 and April 

2008 at concentrations ranging from 0.093 ppb to 146 ppb. Perchlorate 

concentrations in six samples exceeded EPA’s and DOD’s preliminary 

remediation goal of 15 ppb. During this period, perchlorate was also 

detected in 22 of 23 surface water samples at concentrations ranging from 

0.361 ppb to 7.18 ppb. 

• At the Boardman Air Force Range FUDS property in Oregon, perchlorate 

was detected prior to June 2006 in seven of nine groundwater samples at 

concentrations ranging from 0.2 ppb to 20.1 ppb, as well as at 0.34 ppb in 

the single surface water sample collected. 

The Corps is testing FUDS for perchlorate during the site inspections 

currently being conducted under the Military Munitions Response 

Program (MMRP), which DOD established in September 2001 to address 

potential explosive and environmental hazards associated with munitions 

at active installations and FUDS. The MMRP includes sites with munitions 

and explosives of concern, munitions constituents, and chemical warfare 

material. Many of the FUDS sampled prior to FY 2007 will be resampled as 

part of the MMRP. According to DOD officials, sampling conducted as part 

 

8

According to DOD, the groundwater at these two properties is not currently used for 

drinking water. 

Page 52 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix IV: Perchlorate and 

Trichloroethylene Contamination at Formerly 

Used Defense Sites 

of the FUDS MMRP site inspections, as of July 2009, had identified 

perchlorate in: 

• 116 of 247 water samples analyzed, at concentrations ranging from 0.0088 

ppb to 1.91 ppb. These samples were collected from 85 FUDS MMRP sites. 

• 9 of 38 soil samples analyzed, at concentrations ranging from 0.27 ppb to 

3.0 ppb. These samples were collected from 6 FUDS MMRP sites.9

Trichloroethylene (TCE) TCE has been widely used as a degreasing agent in metal cleaning for 

industrial and maintenance processes since the 1950s. Low levels of 

exposure to TCE have been documented to cause headaches and difficulty 

concentrating. High-level exposure may cause dizziness, headaches, 

nausea, unconsciousness, cancer, and possibly death. TCE in groundwater 

can take decades to clean up—for example, cleaning up TCE at the 

Former Nebraska Ordnance Plant site is estimated to take 130 years. 

According to officials with the Corps’ Center of Expertise, TCE is the most 

significant emerging contaminant in terms of prevalence at FUDS and is 

the most significant emerging contaminant in terms of the cost of cleanup 

at FUDS. The Corps has detected TCE at a minimum of 166 sites—15 

percent of the hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW) sites—on 

143 FUDS properties.10

EPA has regulated TCE in drinking water since 1989 with a maximum 

contaminant level of 5 ppb. However, concerns about this contaminant 

have increased in recent years. For example, in 2006, NRC reported that 

the evidence on carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from exposure 

to TCE has strengthened since 2001. New information may lead to changes 

in the toxicity values used to assess risks of TCE exposure. In making 

cleanup decisions for FUDS, the Corps uses toxicity values for 

contaminants in conducting assessments of a site’s risks to human health 

and the environment. EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), a 

database that contains EPA’s scientific position on the potential human 

health effects of exposure to more than 540 chemicals, is DOD’s and EPA’s 

 

9

As of July 1, 2009, final analysis reports were available for samples collected up to January 

6, 2009. 

10These data are based on the sampling information the Corps used in assigning risk levels 

to HTRW sites through its Relative Risk Site Evaluation process. For the reasons outlined 

in Appendix III, these data do not necessarily represent all FUDS where TCE may have 

been detected. 

Page 53 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix IV: Perchlorate and 

Trichloroethylene Contamination at Formerly 

Used Defense Sites 

preferred source for the fundamental toxicity information needed to 

develop human health risk assessments. However, EPA has not finalized 

its IRIS assessment of the risks TCE may pose. Given EPA’s ongoing 

assessment and different preferences among regulatory agencies, DOD has 

used a variety of different toxicity values in assessing risks of TCE 

exposure at FUDS. In January 2009, EPA issued interim guidance 

recommending toxicity values to use in assessing potential cancer and 

noncancer risks from inhalation of or oral exposure to TCE. However, 

EPA withdrew this guidance in April 2009, stating that the agency would 

further evaluate the recommendations regarding the noncancer TCE 

toxicity value to use in assessing the risk of inhalation exposures. DOD 

plans to use the interim values in the withdrawn EPA guidance, but DOD 

officials noted that an EPA regional office or state regulatory agency may 

press DOD to use a value preferred by an individual risk assessor at that 

agency. According to DOD, in these cases, DOD works with EPA and state 

officials to develop an agreed-upon value. 

In addition, intrusion of TCE vapors from soil or groundwater into 

buildings is a relatively newly-identified exposure pathway. A federal 

standard exists for TCE in indoor air at places of work, but not in 

residences or other buildings. EPA, the Army, and DOD have issued 

guidance on vapor intrusion, and officials told us that the Corps evaluates 

the vapor intrusion pathway, when appropriate, through the site-specific 

risk assessment. In 2002, EPA issued its Office of Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response (OSWER) Draft Guidance for Evaluating the Vapor 

Intrusion to Indoor Air Pathway from Groundwater and Soils 

(Subsurface Vapor Intrusion Guidance), which has not been finalized 

and, according to DOD, is not followed by all state health agencies. In 

2006, the Army released its Interim Vapor Intrusion Policy for 

Environmental Response Actions, which established environmental 

response actions related to vapor intrusion modeling and investigation for 

existing and future buildings. It also noted that potential vapor intrusion 

risks in existing or future buildings will be evaluated as part of the 

CERCLA Five-Year Review, consistent with the guidelines in the policy, if 

these risks were not evaluated in the Record of Decision or Decision 

Document for the site. In January 2009, DOD published its Tri-Services 

Handbook for the Assessment of the Vapor Intrusion Pathway, a 

technical guidance manual that discusses various approaches for 

evaluating the vapor intrusion pathway, including information on 

developing and interpreting vapor intrusion investigations. 

As of July 2009, DOD was revising its 2001 Defense Environmental 

Restoration Program Management Guidance, which will outline the 

Page 54 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix IV: Perchlorate and 

Trichloroethylene Contamination at Formerly 

Used Defense Sites 

conditions under which the DOD components are instructed to evaluate 

whether contamination in soil or groundwater poses a potential for 

unacceptable risk from vapor intrusion into overlying or nearby existing 

structures. The revisions call for appropriate response actions for a vapor 

intrusion pathway in existing structures when the potential for vapor 

intrusion exists and “a site-specific risk assessment indicates an 

unacceptable risk to human health due to a release to the environment 

that is the responsibility of DOD and not the responsibility of any other 

party.” In addition, the revisions note that the DOD components are to 

notify non-DOD property owners in writing of potential vapor intrusion 

risks and, as appropriate, include this information in decision documents 

and/or transfer documents. Further, the revisions state that a transferee 

will address the potential for vapor intrusion in future structures at its 

own expense by adding appropriate mitigating measures during 

construction, and that these obligations are to be included in decisions 

documents and/or transfer documents for the site. 

Page 55 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix V: Completion Status of 

Department of Defense Sites by Program 

Category and Military Component 

Tables 16 through 18 show the completion status of Department of 

Defense (DOD) sites and those that require long-term management under 

the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the Military Munitions 

Response Program (MMRP) and the Building Demolition/Debris Removal 

(BD/DR) Program by military component, for fiscal year (FY) 2004 through 

2008. 

Table 16: Active Sites Cleanup Completion Status for FY 2004 through 2008 

Number of sites 

 Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force 

Defense 

Logistics 

Agency Total

IRP sites that have achieved response 

complete statusa

2004 9,296 2,464 3,173 333 15,266

2005 9,488 2,574 3,311 318 15,691

2006 9,568 2,672 3,471 324 16,035

2007 9,704 1,217 3,854 322 15,097

2008 9,775 2,111 4,049 325 16,260

IRP sites that have not achieved response 

complete statusa

2004 1,136 1,235 2,061 44 4,476

2005 1,024 1,140 1,978 26 4,168

2006 883 1,032 1,855 21 3,791

2007 783 2,499 1,436 23 4,741

2008 707 1,612 1,243 21 3,583

IRP sites that have achieved response 

complete status but remain under long term 

management 

2004 208 124 368 19 719

2005 248 139 285 1 673

2006 268 156 274 11 709

2007 268 34 317 19 638

2008 331 54 351 22 758

MMRP sites that have achieved response 

complete status 

2004 51 8 52 0 111

2005 82 16 60 0 158

2006 127 35 64 0 226

2007 195 31 111 0 337

2008 384 43 123 0 550

Appendix V: Completion Status of 

Department of Defense Sites by Program 

Category and Military Component 

Page 56 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites 
Appendix V: Completion Status of 

Department of Defense Sites by Program 

Category and Military Component 

 Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force 

Defense 

Logistics 

Agency Total

MMRP sites that have not achieved 

response complete status 

2004 751 204 241 0 1,196

2005 739 197 239 0 1,175

2006 658 186 240 0 1,084

2007 631 208 374 0 1,213

2008 512 214 394 0 1,120

MMRP sites that have achieved response 

complete status but remain under long term 

management 

2004 0 0 0 0 0

2005 1 0 0 0 1

2006 2 1 0 0 3

2007 2 0 0 0 2

2008 2 0 0 0 2

Source: DOD data. 

a

BD/DR sites are included. 

Table 17: BRAC Sites Cleanup Completion Status for FY 2004 through 2008 

Number of sites 

Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force 

Defense 

Logistics 

Agency Total

IRP sites that have achieved response 

complete statusa

2004 1,710 899 1,073 153 3,835

2005 1744 920 1127 157 3,948

2006 1781 914 1179 157 4,031

2007 1767 422 1226 157 3,572

2008 1778 558 1260 157 3,753

IRP sites that have not complete status 2004 181 164 641 11 997

2005 149 174 587 7 917

2006 186 210 576 7 979

2007 209 707 583 7 1,506

2008 221 572 549 7 1,349

Page 57 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix V: Completion Status of 

Department of Defense Sites by Program 

Category and Military Component 

 Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force 

Defense 

Logistics 

Agency Total

IRP sites that have achieved response 

complete status but remain under long term 

management 

2004 51 48 84 0 183

2005 56 46 82 0 184

2006 69 40 272 0 381

2007 80 16 289 0 385

2008 84 14 308 17 423

MMRP sites that have achieved response 

complete status 

2004 120 3 0 0 123

2005 109 5 0 0 114

2006 118 4 0 0 122

2007 87 1 92 0 180

2008 93 5 102 0 200

MMRP sites that have not achieved 

response complete status 

2004 53 16 126 0 195

2005 64 14 126 0 204

2006 99 26 126 0 251

2007 91 31 35 0 157

2008 91 27 25 0 143

MMRP sites that have achieved response 

complete status but remain under long term 

management 

2004 2 0 0 0 2

2005 6 0 0 0 6

2006 11 0 0 0 11

2007 9 0 8 0 17

2008 10 0 7 0 17

Source: DOD data. 

a

BD/DR sites are included. 

Page 58 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix V: Completion Status of 

Department of Defense Sites by Program 

Category and Military Component 

Table 18: FUDS Sites Cleanup Completion Status for FY 2004 through 2008 

Number of sites 

Program category FY Total

IRP sites that have achieved response complete statusa 2004 1,872

2005 1,887

2006 2,008

2007 2,046

2008 2,114

IRP sites that have not achieved response complete 

statusa 

2004 1,226

2005 1,123

2006 1,013

2007 988

2008 930

IRP sites that have achieved response complete status 

but remain under long term management 

2004 77

2005 15

2006 21

2007 32

2008 38

MMRP sites that have achieved response complete 

status 

2004 804

2005 482

2006 473

2007 403

2008 568

MMRP sites that have not achieved response 

complete status 

2004 969

2005 1,176

2006 1,160

2007 1,247

2008 1,093

MMRP sites that have achieved response complete 

status but remain under long term management 

2004 19

2005 11

2006 12

2007 15

2008 17

Source: DOD data. 

a

BD/DR sites are included. 

Page 59 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix VI: Department of Defense 

Obligations and Estimated Costs to Complete 

Environmental Restoration by Military 

Component and Program Category 

Page 60 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites 

Table 19 shows the Department of Defense’s (DOD) obligations for 

cleanup at active sites for the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the 

Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP), the Building 

Demolition/Debris Removal (BD/DR) Program, and program management 

and support for fiscal year (FY) 2004 through 2008. 

Table 19: DOD Obligations for Cleanup at Active Sites under the IRP, MMRP and BD/DR, FY 2004 through 2008 

Dollars in millions 

 Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force

Defense 

Logistics Agency Totala

IRPb 2004 $339.9 $214.6 $338.3 $17.9 $910.7

 2005 341.0 207.5 335.0 11.2 894.7

 2006 329.0 211.6 348.2 14.6 903.5

 2007 325.2 212.8 343.2 8.7 889.8

 2008 340.1 219.3 369.6 8.5 937.6

MMRP 2004 5.8 8.0 0.0 0.0 13.8

 2005 6.7 15.1 13.0 0.0 34.8

 2006 12.4 35.3 10.8 0.0 58.5

 2007 21.3 40.1 18.6 0.0 80.0

 2008 31.9 45.4 41.3 0.0 118.6

Program management 

and supportc

2004 — — — — —

 2005 53.5 43.2 48.6 0.7 146.0

 2006 53.8 49.0 42.1 4.0 148.8

 2007 56.4 48.8 39.7 2.3 147.1

 2008 65.5 48.3 45.3 2.8 161.9

Total obligations 2004 345.7 222.5 338.3 17.9 924.5

 2005 401.3 265.9 396.5 11.8 1,075.5

 2006 395.2 295.9 401.1 18.6 1,110.8

 2007 402.8 301.7 401.5 11.0 1,117.0

 2008 437.6 312.9 456.2 11.3 1,218.0

Source: DOD data. 

a

Due to rounding, subtotals may not equal total obligations. 

b

BD/DR obligations are included. 

c

Program management and support includes administrative and overhead expenses. These 

obligations were not reported in DOD’s DERP information system until FY 2005. 

Appendix VI: Department of Defense Obligations and 

Estimated Costs to Complete Environmental Restoration 

by Military Component and Program Category 
Appendix VI: Department of Defense 

Obligations and Estimated Costs to Complete 

Environmental Restoration by Military 

Component and Program Category 

Table 20 shows DOD’s obligations for cleanup at installations that have 

been closed or are designated to be closed or realigned under the Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process under the IRP, MMRP, and for 

program management and support for FY 2004 through 2008. 

Table 20: DOD’s Obligations for Cleanup at BRAC Sites under the IRP and MMRP, FY 2004 through 2008 

Dollars in millions 

Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force

Defense Logistics 

Agency Totala

IRP 2004 $18.3 $120.1 $146.0 $7.3 $291.7

2005 56.5 72.5 100.3 8.3 237.6

2006 43.2 219.5 81.0 4.3 348.0

2007 55.2 163.4 85.4 5.0 308.9

2008 42.0 256.2 91.1 1.6 390.8

MMRP 2004 22.2 0.6 0.2 0.0 23.0

2005 17.5 4.6 0.0 0.0 22.1

2006 46.1 6.8 0.0 0.0 52.8

2007 54.0 7.6 0.2 0.0 61.8

2008 22.4 25.2 1.8 0.0 49.4

Program management 

and supportb

2004 — — — — —

2005 16.1 25.5 41.7 0.0 83.3

2006 12.1 30.2 40.5 0.2 83.0

2007 13.5 23.8 29.4 1.0 67.7

2008 14.2 27.5 36.2 2.1 80.0

Total obligations 2004 40.6 $120.7 146.2 7.3 314.7

2005 90.1 $102.5 142.1 8.3 342.9

2006 101.4 $256.4 121.5 4.5 483.9

2007 122.7 $194.8 114.9 6.0 438.3

2008 78.6 $308.8 129.0 3.7 520.2

Source: DOD data. 

a

Due to rounding, subtotals may not equal total obligations. 

b

Program management and support includes administrative and overhead expenses. These 

obligations were not reported in DOD’s DERP information system until FY 2005. 

Page 61 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix VI: Department of Defense 

Obligations and Estimated Costs to Complete 

Environmental Restoration by Military 

Component and Program Category 

Table 21 shows DOD’s obligations to clean up formerly used defense sites 

(FUDS) under the IRP, MMRP, and BD/DR Program, and program 

management and support for FY 2004 through 2008. 

Table 21: DOD’s Obligations for Cleanup at FUDS under the IRP, MMRP and BD/DR, 

FY 2004 through 2008 

Dollars in millions 

Program category FY Total

IRPa2004 $156.9

2005 126.7

2006 118.9

2007 116.5

2008 129.8

MMRP 2004 82.8

2005 94.2

2006 91.5

2007 102.9

2008 115.5

Program management and supportb2004 44.5c

2005 44.8

2006 43.5

2007 43.4

2008 41.4

Total obligations 2004 284.2

2005 265.7

2006 253.8

2007 262.8

2008 286.7

Source: DOD data. 

a

BD/DR obligations are included. 

b

Program management and support includes administrative and overhead expenses. 

c

Program management and support obligations were not reported in DOD’s DERP information system 

until FY 2005. 

Page 62 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix VI: Department of Defense 

Obligations and Estimated Costs to Complete 

Environmental Restoration by Military 

Component and Program Category 

Table 22 shows the DOD’s estimated cost to complete environmental clean 

up for sites located at active installations, BRAC installations, and FUDS 

under the IRP, MMRP, and BD/DR Program for FY 2004 through 2008. 

Table 22: DOD’s Estimated Costs to Complete Environmental Cleanup for Active, 

BRAC, and FUDS sites by Program Category, FY 2004 through 2008 

Dollars in billions 

Program category 

FY IRP MMRP Total

 Active sitesa 2004 $9.0 $7.3 $16.3

2005 8.2 6.0 14.2

2006 7.5 5.1 12.6

2007 6.9 5.3 12.2

2008 6.3 4.9 11.3

BRAC sites 2004 2.7 0.5 3.2

2005 2.6 1.2 3.8

2006 3.0 0.9 3.9

2007 2.9 0.9 3.9

2008 2.8 1.0 3.7

FUDSa 2004 3.6 12.2 15.8

2005 3.5 12.9 16.4

2006 3.4 12.6 16.1

2007 3.2 13.0 16.3

2008 2.8 13.5 16.2

Source: DOD data. 

Note: Does not include program management and support costs. Totals may not add due to rounding. 

a

BD/DR costs estimates are included in IRP category. 

Page 63 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix VII: Department of Defense’s 

Inventory of Sites and Number of High Risk 

Sites by Military Component and Program 

Category 

Page 64 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites 

Table 23 shows the total inventory of Department of Defense (DOD) sites 

and number ranked high risk in the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) 

and the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) by military 

component, for fiscal year (FY) 2004 through 2008. 

Table 23: Inventory for Active DOD Sites, FY 2004 through 2008 

Number of sites 

 Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force

Defense 

Logistics Agency Total

IRPa 2004 10,432 3,699 5,234 377 19,742

 2005 10,512 3,714 5,289 344 19,859

 2006 10,451 3,704 5,326 345 19,826

 2007 10,487 3,716 5,290 345 19,838

 2008 10,482 3,723 5,292 346 19,843

MMRP 2004 802 212 293 0 1,307

 2005 821 213 299 0 1,333

 2006 785 221 304 0 1,310

 2007 826 239 485 0 1,550

 2008 896 257 517 0 1,670

Total sites 2004 11,234 3,911 5,527 377 21,049

 2005 11,333 3,927 5,588 344 21,192

 2006 11,236 3,925 5,630 345 21,136

 2007 11,313 3,955 5,775 345 21,388

 2008 11,378 3,980 5,809 346 21,513

IRP sites ranked as high riskb 2004 486 474 273 4 1,237

 2005 337 412 211 4 964

 2006 222 345 116 4 687

 2007 114 205 23 4 346

 2008 86 189 9 3 287

MMRP Sites ranked as high riskb,c 2004 235 32 54 0 321

 2005 236 31 54 0 321

 2006 203 28 53 0 284

 2007 — — — 0 —

 2008 — — — 0 —

 

Appendix VII: Department of Defense’s Inventory 

of Sites and Number of High Risk Sites by Military 

Component and Program Category 
Appendix VII: Department of Defense’s 

Inventory of Sites and Number of High Risk 

Sites by Military Component and Program 

Category 

 Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force

Defense 

Logistics Agency Total

Total high risk sitesc

2004 721 506 327 4 1,558

2005 573 443 265 4 1,285

2006 425 373 169 4 971

2007 — — — — —

2008 — — — — —

Source: DOD data. 

a

IRP numbers include Building Demolition/Debris Removal (BD/DR) Program sites. 

b

We defined risk categories as follows: IRP high risk sites are those with a relative risk site evaluation 

(RRSE) risk level of “high” and MMRP high risk sites are those with a risk assessment code (RAC) of 

1 or 2. 

c

The actual number of high risk MMRP sites are incomplete after FY 2006 since DOD is transitioning 

to the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP) scoring system. 

Table 24 shows the total inventory of Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) sites and number ranked high risk in the IRP and the MMRP by 

military component, for FY 2004 through 2008. 

Table 24: Inventory for BRAC Sites, FY 2004 through 2008 

Number of sites 

 Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force

Defense 

Logistics Agency Total

IRPa2004 1,891 1,063 1,714 164 4,832

2005 1,893 1,094 1,714 164 4,865

2006 1,967 1,124 1,755 164 5,010

2007 1,976 1,129 1,809 164 5,078

2008 1,999 1,130 1,809 164 5,102

MMRP 2004 173 19 126 0 318

2005 173 19 126 0 318

2006 217 30 126 0 373

2007 178 32 127 0 337

2008 184 32 127 0 343

Total sites 2004 2,064 1,082 1,840 164 5,150

2005 2,066 1,113 1,840 164 5,183

2006 2,184 1,154 1,881 164 5,383

2007 2,154 1,161 1,936 164 5,415

2008 2,183 1,162 1,936 164 5,445

Page 65 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix VII: Department of Defense’s 

Inventory of Sites and Number of High Risk 

Sites by Military Component and Program 

Category 

 Military component 

Program category FY Army Navy Air Force

Defense 

Logistics Agency Total

IRP high riskb

2004 75 71 125 4 275

2005 59 62 115 3 239

2006 71 67 111 2 251

2007 65 69 116 2 252

2008 67 62 103 2 234

MMRP high riskb,c 2004 34 0 0 0 34

2005 33 0 0 0 33

2006 50 0 0 0 50

2007 — — — — —

2008 — — — — —

Total high risk sitesc2004 109 71 125 4 309

2005 92 62 115 3 272

2006 121 67 111 2 301

2007 — — — —

2008 — — — —

Source: DOD data. 

a

IRP numbers include BD/DR Program sites. 

b

We defined risk categories as follows: IRP high risk sites are those with a relative risk site evaluation 

(RRSE) risk level of “high” and MMRP high risk sites are those with a risk assessment code of 1 or 2. 

c

The actual number of high risk MMRP sites are incomplete after FY 2006 because DOD is 

transitioning to the MRSPP scoring system. 

Table 25 shows the total inventory of formerly used defense sites (FUDS) 

and number ranked high risk in the IRP and MMRP for FY 2004 through 

2008. 

Table 25: Inventory for FUDS, FY 2004 through 2008 

Number of sites 

Program category FY Total 

IRPa2004 3,098

2005 3,010

2006 3,021

2007 3,034

2008 3,044

MMRP 2004 1,773

2005 1,658

Page 66 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix VII: Department of Defense’s 

Inventory of Sites and Number of High Risk 

Sites by Military Component and Program 

Category 

Program category FY Total 

2006 1,633

2007 1,650

2008 1,661

Total sites 2004 4,871

2005 4,668

2006 4,654

2007 4,684

2008 4,705

IRP high riskb2004 235

2005 222

2006 217

2007 213

2008 200

MMRP high riskb,c 2004 189

2005 199

2006 191

2007 —

2008 —

Total high risk sitesc2004 424

2005 421

2006 408

2007 —

2008 —

Source: DOD data. 

a

IRP numbers include BD/DR Program sites. 

b

We defined risk categories as follows: IRP high risk sites are those with a relative risk site evaluation 

risk level of “high” and MMRP high risk sites are those with a risk assessment code of 1 or 2. 

c

The actual number of high risk MMRP sites is not provided after FY 2006 because DOD is 

transitioning to the MRSPP scoring system. 

Page 67 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix VIII: Formerly Used Defense Sites Appendix VIII: Formerly Used Defense Sites Program Costs Details 

Program Costs Details 

Table 26 shows all of the line item costs for the formerly used defense 

sites (FUDS) program for fiscal year (FY) 2004 through 2008. It includes 

expenses for the Installation Restoration Program (IRP), the Military 

Munitions Response Program (MMRP), Building Demolition/Debris 

Removal (BD/DR) Program, and all program management costs (including 

direct and indirect costs). 

Table 26: Total FUDS Program Obligations by Cost Component, FY 2004 through 2008 

Dollars in millions 

FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

IRPa $156.861 $126.718 $118.873 $116.522 $129.805

MMRP 82.806 94.199 91.482 102.858 115.545

Direct Program Management 

Management 31.252 25.837 20.746 26.161 25.812

Indirect Program Management and Support 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 0.265 0.288 0.088 0.057 0.000

Defense State Memorandum of Agreements (DSMOA) 7.636 5.375 6.000 8.216 10.696

Finesb0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000

Restoration Advisory Boards 0.800 0.755 0.651 0.514 0.783

Technical Assistance for Public Participation 0.060 0.050 0.050 0.025 0.053

Preliminary Assessments and Inventory Project Reports 4.527 6.431 8.646 7.334 4.019

Otherc0.000 6.020 7.302 1.086 0.000

Total program management and support costs 44.540 44.756 43.483 43.393 41.363

Totald $284.207 $265.673 $253.838 $262.773 $286.713

Source: DOD data. 

Notes: The table details each cost component in the FUDS program. Management, Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry, Defense State Memorandum of Agreements, Fines, Restoration 

Advisory Boards, Technical Assistance for Public Participation, Preliminary Assessments and 

Inventory Project Reports, and Other are all subcomponents of the total program management and 

support costs. Direct program management costs include the management line. Indirect program 

management costs include all others: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Defense 

State Memorandum of Agreements, Fines, Restoration Advisory Boards, Technical Assistance for 

Public Participation, Preliminary Assessments and Inventory Project Reports, and Other. 

a

BD/DR obligations are included. 

b

Fines can be assessed against DOD by any state regulatory agency or the Environmental Protection 

Agency. However, no fines have been assessed for the past five fiscal years. 

c

‘Other’ includes items such as innovative technology costs, MRSPP Quality Assurance panel costs, 

FUDS Information Improvement Plan support, Engineering Regulation update costs, MMRP guidance 

costs, Cost To Complete process support costs, Remedial Action Cost Engineering and 

Requirements application, and training support. 

d

Totals may not add due to rounding. 

Page 68 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites 
Appendix VIII: Formerly Used Defense Sites 

Program Costs Details 

Table 26 shows the percentage of the total FUDS budget that is accounted 

for by each line item for FY 2004 through 2008. The subcomponents of the 

overall Program Management and Support budget are separately 

calculated as a percentage of total FUDS budget and the overall Program 

Management and Support budget is also calculated as a percentage of the 

total FUDS budget. 

Table 27: FUDS Program Cost Components as a Percentage of Total FUDS Obligations, FY 2004 through 2008 

 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008

IRPa 55.2% 47.7% 46.8% 44.3% 45.3%

MMRP 29.1 35.5 36.0 39.1 40.3

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0

Defense State Memorandum of Agreements (DSMOA) 2.7 2.0 2.4 3.1 3.7

Finesb 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Management 11.0 9.7 8.2 10.0 9.0

Restoration Advisory Boards 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3

Technical Assistance for Public Participation 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Preliminary Assessments and Inventory Project Reports 1.6 2.4 3.4 2.8 1.4

Otherc0.0 2.3 2.9 0.4 0.0

Total program management and support costs 15.7% 16.8% 17.1% 16.5% 14.4%

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Notes: The table details each cost component in the FUDS program. Agency for Toxic Substances 

and Disease Registry, Defense State Memorandum of Agreements, Fines, Management, Restoration 

Advisory Boards, Technical Assistance for Public Participation, Preliminary Assessments and 

Inventory Project Reports, and Other are all subcomponents of the total program management and 

support costs. Direct program management costs include the management line. Indirect program 

management costs include all others: Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Defense 

State Memorandum of Agreements, Fines, Restoration Advisory Boards, Technical Assistance for 

Public Participation, Preliminary Assessments and Inventory Project Reports, and Other. 

a

BD/DR obligations are included. 

b

Fines can be assessed against DOD by any state regulatory agency or the Environmental Protection 

Agency. However, no fines have been assessed for the past five fiscal years. 

c

‘Other’ includes items such as innovative technology costs, Munitions Response Site Prioritization 

Protocol Quality Assurance panel costs, FUDS Information Improvement Plan support, Engineering 

Regulation update costs, Military Munitions Response Program guidance costs, Cost To Complete 

process support costs, Remedial Action Cost Engineering and Requirements application, and training 

support. 

Page 69 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department Appendix IX: Comments from the of Defense 

Department of Defense 

Page 70 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites 
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 71 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix IX: Comments from the Department 

of Defense 

Page 72 GAO-10-46 Formerly Used Defense Sites
Appendix X: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 73 GAO-10-46 

Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841 or stephensonj@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Vincent P. Price, Assistant 

Director; Krista Anderson; Melissa Hermes; and John Smith made key 

contributions to this report. Mark Braza, Antoinette Capaccio, Pamela 

Davidson, Arthur James, Jr., and Allison O’Neill also made important 

contributions. 

 Formerly Used Defense Sites 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(360993) 
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. 

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 afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper