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
Published: 2009-10-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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 re-examine 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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  for additional actions, such as to address emerging contaminants. 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.
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,  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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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)  process. 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.  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.
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  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. 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.
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  demolition/debris removal site; and a hazardous, toxic, and radioactive  waste site.
DOD is responsible for cleaning up its releases of hazardous substances  under DERP, in accordance with CERCLA. The remedy chosen for such a  release must meet certain standards for contaminants set under state or  federal laws or regulations. 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  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. 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.
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. 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  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.
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.
section_title: The Corps Uses the CERCLA Process to Address Emerging Contaminants at FUDS, but Has Gaps in its 5-Year Review Procedures
paragraphs: 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  reports did not always receive the technical review by Corps experts  required by Corps policy.
subsections: section_title: The Corps Uses the CERCLA Process for Investigating and Responding to Emerging Contaminants
paragraphs: 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. 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- 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. The identification of toxicity values is a crucial step  that presents special challenges for emerging contaminants, for which  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. For example:    naphthalene, a component of jet fuel that has contaminated many military  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  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  selecting toxicity values when there are no values available from IRIS.  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.
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 ranges  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.
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. 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  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.
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.
section_title: The Corps Considers New Information on Contaminants in its 5-Year Reviews, but Has Problems with its Review Procedures
paragraphs: 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:    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, so 5-year reviews  are not required for actions to address petroleum contamination at  FUDS.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. 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  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. 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 program- wide 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)  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  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; 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. 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.
section_title: The Corps Infrequently Re- examines FUDS Outside of the 5-Year Review Process
paragraphs: 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 re- examined certain munitions sites to assess the potential for contamination  from munitions constituents, particularly lead—an emerging contaminant  on DOD’s watch list—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. 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  respond to changes in information or standards for contaminants may also  depend on agreements reached with EPA or state regulatory agencies.
section_title: DOD Proposes Funding for Cleanup at FUDS, Active Sites, and BRAC Sites Based on DERP Goals, and Funding Is Proportional to Site Inventories
paragraphs: 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. DOD’s DERP goals include:  reducing risk to human health and the environment;    preparing BRAC properties to be environmentally suitable for transfer;    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. A summary of these goals for the IRP and MMRP is shown  in table 2.
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,    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,    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.
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  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.
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. 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.
section_title: The Corps Uses Risk- Based Criteria to Prioritize FUDS for Cleanup, but Also Considers Other Factors
paragraphs: 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 high- risk 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).
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. 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  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;    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.
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. FUDS program data available on the  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 high- priority 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.
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.
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  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.
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.
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  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.
section_title: The Corps Has Reduced Direct Management and Support Costs for the FUDS Program and Implements Accountability Measures for these Costs
paragraphs: 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.
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. DOD submits a three-part  budget justification request to the Congress each year for each DERP  program. The first part of the budget submission is the overall Program  Management and Support budget, while the second part includes all site- specific 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.
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.
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:  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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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  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  appendix X.
section_title: Appendix I: Status of Cleanup Actions at the Former Almaden Air Force Radar Station
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
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.
section_title: Appendix II: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: 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  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.
To review the components and total amounts of management and support  costs for the FUDS program and how these costs have changed over time,  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.
section_title: Appendix III: Occurrence of Emerging Contaminants at Formerly Used Defense Sites with Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
paragraphs: 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. More  specifically, they include the numbers of HTRW sites where contaminants  on DOD’s action and watch lists 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix IV: Perchlorate and Trichloroethylene Contamination at Formerly Used Defense Sites
subsections: section_title: Perchlorate
paragraphs: 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.
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  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. 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. 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, Massachusetts and  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, sampling performed at FUDS before  June 2006 detected perchlorate at 13 of 32 FUDS properties sampled, five  of which had concentrations exceeding 4 ppb in water. The Corps took  action at 5 of the 13 FUDS properties where perchlorate was detected 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.
According to DOD, there are only two FUDS properties where DOD- caused perchlorate concentrations in groundwater have exceeded EPA’s  and DOD’s current preliminary remediation goal of 15 ppb. 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  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.
subsections: section_title: Trichloroethylene (TCE)
paragraphs: 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.
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  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  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.
section_title: Appendix V: Completion Status of Department of Defense Sites by Program Category and Military Component
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix VI: Department of Defense Obligations and Estimated Costs to Complete Environmental Restoration by Military Component and Program Category
paragraphs: 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 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 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 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.
section_title: Appendix VII: Department of Defense’s Inventory of Sites and Number of High Risk Sites by Military Component and Program Category
paragraphs: 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 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 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.
section_title: Appendix VIII: Formerly Used Defense Sites Program Costs Details
paragraphs: 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 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.
section_title: Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix X: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.