The Department of Defense (DOD) is in the process of realigning and closing military installations. An initial major round of installation realignments and closures occurred in 1988, subsequent rounds followed in 1991 and 1993, and another round is scheduled for 1995. Congress has expressed concern that environmental cleanup issues related to past activities at these installations are significantly affecting DOD’s ability to transfer these properties to local communities. This report focuses on that issue; however, other factors—disagreements between federal agencies, local community interests, and others over reuse plans, as well as revised laws and regulations designed to improve the property disposition process—have also affected property transfers. We have reported separately on these issues for bases closed in the 1988 and 1991 roundsand are reviewing 1993 closing bases now. For decades, DOD activities and industrial facilities generated, stored, recycled, and disposed of hazardous waste, which often contaminated nearby soil and groundwater. In many instances, these problems predate existing environmental laws and regulations. Hazardous waste contamination can significantly contribute to serious illness or death or pose a hazard to the environment and is extremely expensive to clean up. Types of hazardous waste found at most DOD installations include solvents and corrosives; paint strippers and thinners; metals, such as lead, cadmium, and chromium; and unexploded ordnance. Contamination usually results from disposal, leaks, or spills. Cleanup goals and strategies are usually site specific and depend upon the cleanup standards, exposure potential, affected population, and nature and extent of contamination. All of these determine the threat to human health and the environment. Cleanup efforts at closing installations are carried out primarily by contractors. DOD gives the highest priority for cleanup to installations on the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Priorities List (NPL), a register of the nation’s worst known hazardous waste sites, and to those scheduled to realign and close. The Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act (P.L. 100-526), enacted on October 24, 1988, established a bipartisan commission to make recommendations to Congress and the Secretary of Defense on base closures and realignments and specified the conditions and authorities to implement these actions. The Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (Part A of title XXIX of P.L. 101-510) also created an independent commission that would meet during calendar years 1991, 1993, and 1995 to review additional installations DOD recommended for realignment and closure. DOD is carrying out the approved installation closures and realignments and is reviewing installations to recommend for realignment and closure for the 1995 round. Figure 1.1 summarizes DOD information on installations and activities designated for closure and realignment in 1988, 1991, and 1993. We have reported separately on the recommendations and processes for each of these rounds. Federal property that is no longer needed is not automatically sold. The Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 requires a screening process to determine if property can be transferred to another government or nonprofit agency. DOD first screens excess property for possible use by other DOD agencies and then by other federal agencies. If no federal agency needs the property, it is declared surplus to the federal government and is made available to nonfederal parties, including state agencies, local agencies, agencies caring for homeless people, public benefit agencies, or the general public. Also, federal agencies, including DOD, must comply with environmental laws and regulations when disposing of real property. Pertinent environmental laws include the following: The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) (42 U.S.C. 9601), also known as Superfund, authorizes the federal government to respond to spills and other releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, as well as to leaking hazardous waste dumps. CERCLA provides the framework for responding to contamination problems. It requires that the government warrant that all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken before property is transferred by the United States to any other person or entity, such as communities or private parties. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) (42 U.S.C. 6901) was enacted to ensure that solid wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner. The Federal Facilities Compliance Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 note) amended RCRA and provides that federal facilities may be subject to federal, state, and local penalties for environmental violations. It also establishes specific requirements for waste generated by the Department of Energy and DOD. The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321) governs the environmental assessments and impact statement preparation for the disposal and reuse of base closure and realignment installations. CERCLA and RCRA govern much of the environmental and closure-related activities at base realignment and closure, or BRAC, installations. In compliance with CERCLA, EPA reviews DOD information to determine if the installation should be included on the NPL. The CERCLA process consists of several stages and may apply to any waste source and site containing hazardous substances at BRAC installations. (See app. I.) EPA does not have authority to delegate CERCLA enforcement to the states. However, CERCLA does call for substantial involvement by each state in initiating, developing, and selecting remedial actions to be taken. RCRA is designed to ensure that solid waste is managed in an environmentally sound manner and establishes a framework for managing hazardous waste. All BRAC installations are subject to RCRA because of practices that generated, stored, treated, or disposed of hazardous waste. RCRA, as amended in 1992 by the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, directed EPA to conduct annual inspections of federal facilities. RCRA allows EPA to authorize states to conduct equivalent state programs; in these cases, they have the primary responsibility for implementing corrective actions at a base that is designated as a treatment, storage, or disposal facility. States with an authorized hazardous waste program may inspect a federal facility to enforce compliance with state hazardous waste programs. DOD established the Installation Restoration Program in 1975 to study and clean up contaminated sites. In 1984, this program was made part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, and Congress provided funding through the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA). In the 1990 base closure law (P.L 101-510), Congress began providing separate cleanup funding for closing and realigning installations under the BRAC account. In May 1993, DOD created the Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security) position to oversee cleanup and other environmental efforts. In July 1993, the administration expressed concern that closing military installations had been cumbersome and slow, with environmental cleanup and other processes taking many years to complete. At that time, it announced a five-part program to help accelerate cleanup and community reuse of closing installations. The former Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment, Energy and Natural Resources, House Committee on Government Operations, and Representative George Miller, California, requested us to review DOD’s environmental cleanup efforts at installations being closed under the BRAC process. Specifically, they asked us to review issues related to the (1) cleanup cost, transferability, and reuse of property by nonfederal users and (2) progress, difficulties, and plans to address the problems. We performed work at the Office of Secretary of Defense, military services headquarters, and EPA. To determine costs being estimated for the program, we reviewed DOD’s BRAC budget data, including justification documents submitted to Congress in February 1994. In addition, we observed BRAC cleanup plan (BCP) training sessions held in San Francisco, California, in November 1993. Later, we analyzed cost information in 79 plans prepared by installations with property to be transferred to nonfederal users. (See app. III.) We also visited closing installations and environmental cleanup design and construction management commands to determine how cost data is developed by each of the services. (See app. II.) To determine transferability and reuse, we reviewed BRAC and environmental laws, DOD and EPA headquarters policies and guidance to the military services, and environmental cleanup and reuse programs at BRAC installations. We also reviewed data developed by the services to identify uncontaminated property that would be available for quick transfer. We identified progress and plans to address problems during discussions with DOD and EPA headquarters, DOD design and construction management, and closing base officials, as well with EPA regional officials. In addition, we observed training sessions on DOD’s Fast Track Cleanup program, reviewed data in installations’ BCPs, and visited a number of these installations. Furthermore, we attended meetings of the Defense Environmental Restoration Task Force in Austin, Texas; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Charleston, South Carolina. We also attended several public hearings during visits to installations, including the California Military Base Reuse Task Force, installations’ cleanup advisory board meetings, and a hearing on cleanup remedy selection. We visited the California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, California, and discussed specific issues with environmental officials of other states. As requested, we did not obtain written agency comments. However, we discussed the report’s contents with DOD and EPA officials and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We performed the review between February 1994 and January 1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Congress, DOD, and EPA have taken actions over the past several years to address a number of important matters relevant to resolving environmental cleanup issues at bases that are being closed and realigned. However, problems still remain with determining accurate cleanup costs, timing appropriations with cleanup needs, prioritizing available cleanup funds, and protecting the government’s interests when leasing or transferring property. As reported in its fiscal year 1995 BRAC budget justification document, DOD’s total estimate for cleaning up environmental problems at 123 closing and realigning installations and activities was about $4 billion.