The FUDS program is carried out by 22 Corps districts located throughout the nation. DOD carries out its roles and responsibilities in cleaning up FUDS primarily under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, which was established by section 211 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. Under the environmental restoration program, DOD is authorized to identify, investigate, and clean up environmental contamination at FUDS. The U.S. Army, through the Corps, is responsible for these activities and is carrying out the physical cleanup. DOD is required, under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which has its own authority to act at properties with hazardous substances. In general, EPA is the primary regulator for the 21 FUDS properties on EPA’s list of the most dangerous hazardous waste sites in the country—the National Priorities List. States are typically the primary regulators for FUDS properties that have hazardous and other wastes but have not been placed on the National Priorities List. To determine if a property is eligible for cleanup under the FUDS program, the Corps conducts a preliminary assessment of eligibility. This assessment determines if the property was ever owned or controlled by DOD and if hazards caused by DOD’s use may be present. If the Corps determines that the property was at one time owned or controlled by DOD but does not find evidence of any hazards caused by DOD, it designates the property as “no DOD action indicated” (NDAI). If, however, the Corps determines that a DOD-caused hazard that could require further study may exist on a former DOD-controlled property, the Corps begins a project to further study and/or clean up the hazard. FUDS cleanup projects fall into one of four categories, depending on the type of hazard to be addressed. Hazardous waste projects address hazardous, toxic, and radioactive substances, such as paints, solvents, and fuels. Containerized waste projects address containerized hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste associated with underground and aboveground storage tanks, transformers, hydraulic systems, and abandoned or inactive monitoring wells. Ordnance and explosive waste projects involve munitions, chemical warfare agents, and related products. Unsafe buildings and debris projects involve demolition and removal of unsafe buildings and other structures. The type and extent of the work that the Corps may need to perform at a project depend on the project category. Hazardous waste and ordnance and explosive waste projects involve a site inspection to confirm the presence, extent, and source of hazards; a study of cleanup alternatives; the design and implementation of the actual cleanup; and long-term monitoring to ensure the success of the cleanup. Containerized waste and unsafe buildings and debris projects, on the other hand, may involve only the design and implementation of the cleanup. While federal law requires DOD and the Corps to consult with regulators, including states and EPA, during the FUDS cleanup program, it does not define consultation. Similarly, the two primary DOD and Corps guidance documents for implementing the FUDS program emphasize the need for Corps coordination with regulators but do not provide clear direction or specific steps for involving regulators in the FUDS program. Our survey results show a lack of consistent coordination between the Corps and regulators throughout the history of the program that could be caused by the lack of specific requirements that state explicitly what the Corps needs to do to involve regulators. According to DOD, ongoing development of regulations that will revise the Corps’ FUDS Program Manual will provide clear direction and specific steps for involving regulators in the FUDS program. Federal law requires DOD and the Corps to consult with regulatory entities in carrying out the FUDS program. Under 10 U.S.C. 2701, the Corps must carry out the FUDS program “in consultation with” EPA. However, this section does not define consultation, mention the state regulators, or prescribe specific steps for the Corps to follow. More specific language regarding consultation as it relates to the cleanup of hazardous substances is provided in 10 U.S.C. 2705. At projects involving hazardous substances, the Corps must notify EPA and appropriate state officials and provide them an opportunity to review and comment on activities associated with (1) discovering releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances at FUDS, (2) determining the extent of the threat to public health and the environment that may be associated with such releases, (3) evaluating proposed cleanup actions, and (4) initiating each distinct phase of cleanup. In addition, CERCLA has specific consultation requirements for properties on the National Priorities List, including the 21 FUDS on the list for which EPA is the primary regulator. For many of these FUDS, EPA and DOD have signed a cleanup agreement stating that the two agencies agree on the nature of the cleanup action and the schedule for its completion. DOD and the Corps have two major guidance documents for implementing the FUDS program: the DOD Management Guidance for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program and the FUDS Program Manual. The DOD Management Guidance pertains to all DOD environmental cleanup activities, including FUDS cleanup. It contains general guidance for the Corps’ coordination activities. According to the guidance, DOD is fully committed to the substantive involvement of state regulators and EPA throughout the FUDS cleanup program and encourages cooperative working relationships. The latest version of the guidance, published in September 2001, emphasizes a greater need for coordination with regulators. For example, the guidance states that the Corps shall establish communication channels with regulatory agencies; provide regulators access to information, including draft documents; establish procedures for obtaining pertinent information from regulators in a timely manner; and involve regulatory agencies in risk determination, project planning, completion of cleanup activities, and other tasks. Although the updated DOD Management Guidance articulates general steps that, if taken, would improve coordination between the Corps and regulatory agencies, the guidance does not specify procedures on how to take these steps. Further, some of the language is ambiguous and open to broad interpretation. For example, “establish communication channels” could mean anything from a telephone call once a year to weekly meetings. The second guidance document, the FUDS Program Manual, constitutes the Corps’ primary guidance for the program. Regarding coordination, the manual suggests, and sometimes requires, among other things, that the Corps notify states and EPA of discovery and cleanup activities related to ensure that states and EPA have adequate opportunity to participate in selecting and planning cleanup actions and in defining cleanup standards for FUDS projects; coordinate all cleanup activities with appropriate state regulatory and conduct cleanups of hazardous waste projects consistent with section 120 of CERCLA, which addresses cleanups of federal facilities; and try to meet state and EPA standards, requirements, and criteria for environmental cleanup where they are consistent with CERCLA. Beyond generally restating statutory requirements, however, the FUDS Program Manual provides no clear, specific guidance to its program managers on how to implement those steps and coordinate consistently with regulators. For example, “coordinate all cleanup activities” needs to be defined and how to carry out and maintain such coordination on a day- to-day basis should be described more clearly. According to DOD and Corps officials, the draft Engineer Regulation that is being developed to revise the FUDS Program Manual includes specific instructions for review of draft preliminary assessments of eligibility by regulators. Officials added that they are open to further suggestions to improve coordination and consultation with regulators. Although coordination is required during the cleanup phase for hazardous and containerized wastes, responses to our survey of FUDS properties covering FUDS work that took place during the period from 1986 through 2001 indicate that state project managers believe the Corps coordinated with them, on average, 34 percent of the time during cleanup, while the Corps believes it coordinated with states an average of 55 percent of the time during cleanup. Moreover, state and Corps respondents agree that coordination was better for projects in our sample that addressed hazardous substances than for projects that did not. For example, according to state respondents to our survey, coordination for hazardous waste projects was more than 25 percent higher than for ordnance and explosive waste projects. (See table 1.) For additional survey results, such as the percent of cases where respondents felt there wasn’t any coordination or gave “don’t know” responses, see appendix II. Despite the greater coordination for projects addressing hazardous substances, the Corps is not involving the states consistently. For example, for projects addressing hazardous substances, the Corps is required by law to inform states before starting each phase of any action and to provide states an opportunity to review and comment on proposed cleanup actions. However, according to the states, the Corps informed them of upcoming work at these hazardous waste projects 53 percent of the time and requested states’ input and participation 50 percent of the time. As shown in table 1, while the Corps thought it had coordinated at a higher rate, it was still less than the required 100 percent. The fact that DOD and Corps guidance does not offer specific requirements that describe exactly how the Corps should involve regulators could be a factor behind the historical lack of consistency in Corps coordination with regulators. The DOD Management Guidance and FUDS Program Manual are silent on regulators’ roles in preliminary assessments of eligibility, during which decisions on property eligibility and the need for cleanup are made, in part because the law requiring consultation with regulators is broad and does not mention consultation with the states, only with EPA. The Corps has historically regarded preliminary assessments of eligibility as an internal matter that does not require coordination with regulators. However, according to DOD, the draft Engineer Regulation, which will revise the FUDS Program Manual, will require the Corps to share information with the states, EPA, and local authorities during the development of the preliminary assessment of eligibility and will solicit their input.