This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-166 
entitled 'Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve 
Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of 
Unneeded Property' which was released on January 30, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

GAO: 

January 2007: 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

Military Base Closures: 

Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and 
to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property: 

GAO-07-166: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-166, a report to congressional committees 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The cleanup of environmental contamination on unneeded property 
resulting from prior defense base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds 
has been a key impediment to the transfer of these properties and could 
be an issue in the transfer and reuse of unneeded property resulting 
from the 2005 BRAC round. GAO’s analysis of available data indicates 
that, when completed, the cleanup for the four prior BRAC rounds is 
expected to cost about $13.2 billion and additional costs will be 
needed for BRAC 2005 property. These costs reduce BRAC savings, 
especially in the short term. 

Because of broad congressional interest in BRAC, GAO prepared this 
report under the Comptroller General’s authority to conduct evaluations 
on his own initiative. GAO’s objectives were to examine costs to clean 
up 2005 BRAC properties, progress in transferring prior BRAC rounds 
properties to other users, and opportunities to expedite cleanups and 
transfers. To address these issues, GAO analyzed cleanup cost 
estimates, interviewed environmental officials and visited seven bases. 

What GAO Found: 

While expected environmental cleanup costs for unneeded property 
arising from the 2005 BRAC round are not yet fully known, Department of 
Defense (DOD) data indicate that about $950 million will be needed to 
clean up these bases, adding to the estimated $13.2 billion total 
cleanup cost for the prior rounds. Although DOD’s cleanup program has 
matured compared to prior BRAC rounds, there are still many unknowns 
and the cleanup estimate for the 2005 round should be considered 
preliminary. In fact, environmental cleanup costs are likely to 
increase as more intensive environmental investigations are undertaken, 
additional hazardous conditions are discovered, and future reuse plans 
are finalized. Furthermore, Congress does not have full visibility over 
the total cost of DOD’s BRAC cleanup efforts because none of the four 
reports DOD prepares on various aspects of environmental cleanup 
present all types of costs—past and future—to complete cleanup at each 
base. Compiling a complete picture of all costs requires extracting 
information from multiple reports, as GAO has done to estimate the 
total cleanup cost for the four prior BRAC rounds. More complete and 
transparent cost information would assist Congress in conducting its 
oversight responsibilities for this multibillion dollar effort. 

While GAO’s analysis shows that DOD continues to make progress in 
transferring over 502,500 acres of unneeded property from the four 
prior BRAC rounds—78 percent of the acres have now been transferred 
compared to 72 percent 2 years ago—over 112,300 acres remain 
untransferred. Comparatively, a total of about 102,000 acres are 
potentially transferable as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. 
Impediments to transfer continue to be related primarily to a variety 
of interrelated environmental cleanup issues, including limited 
technology to address unexploded ordnance and prolonged negotiations on 
compliance with environmental regulations. 

Opportunities exist to expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded 
2005 BRAC properties compared with other BRAC rounds. Congress provided 
DOD with a wide range of property transfer authorities for prior BRAC 
rounds. In the past DOD did not use some tools as much as others out of 
deference to community land reuse plans. For example, low- and no-cost 
transfer tools accounted for 65 percent of all acres transferred, 
whereas public and negotiated sales accounted for 5 percent. DOD’s 
March 2006 guidance now encourages the services to make full use of all 
tools for transferring properties resulting from both the 2005 and 
prior-year BRAC rounds. The services have processes in place to monitor 
their progress to clean up and transfer BRAC properties, but they are 
not required to report periodically to the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense on their successes and challenges in using various transfer 
authorities. Collectively, such lessons learned could help others 
expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded properties by maximizing 
the use of all available tools, thereby accelerating the economic 
benefits of property reuse to communities while also saving the ongoing 
caretaker costs being incurred by DOD for unneeded properties. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is recommending that DOD improve its reporting of BRAC 
environmental cleanup costs to Congress and share lessons learned in 
the use of all available tools to clean up and transfer property. DOD 
partially concurred with GAO’s recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-166]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Brian lepore (202)512-
4523 or leporeb@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: CERCLA Cleanup Requirements: 

Appendix III: Environmental Cleanup Cost Information in Four Selected 
Reports to Congress: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Appendix V: Key Prior GAO Reports on DOD Environmental Cleanup: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Comparison of BRAC 2005 Recommendations with Recommendations 
from Prior Rounds: 

Table 2: BRAC 2005 Major Closures' Estimated Environmental Cleanup 
Costs from Fiscal Year 2006 to Completion (in millions): 

Table 3: Total Expected Environmental Costs for Prior BRAC Rounds: 

Table 4: Top 10 Most Expensive Cost to Complete Cleanups at Prior Round 
BRAC Installations for Fiscal Year 2006 and Beyond (dollars in 
millions): 

Table 5: Property Transfer Alternatives under the BRAC Process: 

Table 6: Use of Early Transfer Authority at Prior BRAC Round Bases, as 
of July 2006: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Disposition of Unneeded BRAC Acreage from Prior Rounds, as of 
September 30, 2006: 

Figure 2: Workers Searching for UXO at the Former Fort Ord Using Hand- 
Held Detection Devices: 

Figure 3: Alternatives Used to Transfer Unneeded BRAC Acreage to 
Nonfederal Entities in Prior BRAC Rounds, as of September 30, 2006: 

Abbreviations: 

BRAC: base realignment and closure: 

CERCLA: Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and 
Liability Act: 

DERP: Defense Environmental Restoration Program: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

SARA: Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act: 

UXO: unexploded ordnance: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

January 30, 2007: 

Congressional Committees: 

The cleanup of environmental contaminants, such as hazardous chemicals 
or unexploded ordnance (UXO),[Footnote 1] found on bases closed under 
the base realignment and closure (BRAC) process has historically been a 
key impediment to the expeditious transfer of unneeded property to 
other federal and nonfederal parties who can put the property to new 
uses. While the Department of Defense (DOD) is obligated to ensure that 
former base property is cleaned up to a level that is protective of 
human health and the environment, the cleanup process can delay 
redevelopment in neighboring communities adversely impacted by the BRAC 
process. Our analysis of DOD data indicates that the estimated total 
cost to clean up environmental contaminants found on installations 
affected by the four prior BRAC rounds[Footnote 2] is approximately 
$13.2 billion, and while most of this cost has already been incurred, 
the cleanup process is expected to continue for many years at some 
closure sites. Environmental cleanup of unneeded property arising from 
the 2005 BRAC round closures will add additional costs. Cleanup costs, 
combined with additional caretaker costs DOD continues to incur for 
untransferred properties, cause some offset to projected net savings 
from BRAC with the greatest impact occurring in the short term. 

This report is one in a series of reports we have issued on DOD 
environmental cleanup liabilities and property transfer issues that 
relate to the BRAC process. (See app. V for a list of key prior GAO 
reports.) Our prior work[Footnote 3] showed that, as of September 30, 
2004, DOD had transferred about 72 percent of over 504,000 acres of 
unneeded BRAC property from the prior rounds to other entities for 
reuse, but about 140,000 acres of unneeded DOD property had not been 
transferred at that time, primarily because of issues related to 
environmental cleanup. Further, we reported that estimated costs for 
environmental cleanup at sites from the prior BRAC rounds remained 
within the range of prior estimates, but those costs could increase if 
unknown or undetermined future cleanup responsibilities, such as 
additional unexploded ordnance or other harmful contaminants, emerged. 

Because of the broad congressional interest in the BRAC process, we 
prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority to 
conduct evaluations on his own initiative to examine (1) potential 
environmental cleanup costs for 2005 BRAC properties, including an 
examination of how these costs are reported for all BRAC properties; 
(2) DOD's progress, since our prior work in 2005, to transfer unneeded 
properties from the four prior BRAC rounds; and (3) possible 
opportunities for DOD to expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded 
BRAC properties. This report is addressed to you because of your role 
in the oversight of DOD's infrastructure and BRAC implementation 
actions. 

To examine the potential cost to clean up unneeded properties resulting 
from the 2005 BRAC round, we analyzed various DOD reports submitted to 
Congress on the environmental cost of cleanups at military bases in 
general, and interviewed DOD and military service officials familiar 
with the environmental cleanup process at military bases for 
clarification of these reports as well as the cleanup process as it 
affects BRAC bases. We visited four bases identified for closure in the 
2005 BRAC round that reportedly have environmental cleanup needs--Fort 
Monroe, Hampton, Virginia; Umatilla Chemical Depot, Hermiston, Oregon; 
Brunswick Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine; and the Mississippi Army 
Ammunition Plant, Picayune, Mississippi. To assess DOD's progress in 
transferring properties from the four prior BRAC rounds since our prior 
work in 2005, we analyzed the Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal 
Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress and collected property transfer 
information from the cognizant offices in each of the military 
services. Although we found some discrepancies, we concluded that 
overall the DOD data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 
this report. To assess opportunities for DOD to expedite cleanup and 
transfer of unneeded properties due to environmental hazards, we 
reviewed the laws, regulations, and policies governing the cleanup and 
transfer of properties. We also visited three BRAC bases from the prior 
BRAC rounds--which represent the three bases with the most expensive 
estimated costs to complete environmental cleanup--and interviewed 
local community property reuse officials as well as military 
environmental cleanup specialists to obtain their perspective on 
cleanup and property transfer issues. The bases we visited were the 
former Fort Ord, Marina, California; the former McClellan Air Force 
Base, Sacramento, California; and the former Alameda Naval Air Station, 
Alameda, California. We also interviewed officials representing federal 
and state environmental regulatory agencies for their perspective on 
DOD cleanup activities and any opportunities for DOD to expedite the 
cleanup and property transfer process while adhering to cleanup 
standards and regulations. We conducted our work from January 2006 
through November 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Further details on our scope and methodology can be 
found in appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

While expected environmental cleanup costs for bases scheduled for 
closure as a result of the 2005 BRAC round are not yet fully known, 
DOD's data indicate that about $950 million will be needed to complete 
these cleanups, adding to the estimated $13.2 billion required for the 
prior BRAC rounds. About $590 million of DOD's $950 million for the 
2005 round is attributable to estimated cleanup costs at 25 expected 
major base closures[Footnote 4] consisting of about 102,000 
acres[Footnote 5] of potentially transferable properties. The remaining 
$360 million is attributable to DOD's estimated cleanup costs for minor 
base closures.[Footnote 6] However, these estimates should be viewed as 
preliminary. Although DOD's cleanup program for known environmental 
contamination has matured compared to that of prior BRAC rounds, the 
full extent of cleanup requirements and associated costs for the 2005 
round is likely to increase as more intensive environmental 
investigations are undertaken, additional hazardous conditions that may 
exist are found, and future reuse plans are finalized. In addition, 
DOD's munitions cleanup program is in its early stages, and the 
expected costs at many cleanup sites are not well defined or included 
in DOD's estimates, at this time. DOD is in the process of further 
identifying its cleanup requirements, but it may be several more years 
before more precise cost estimates are available. Furthermore, Congress 
does not have full visibility over the total cost of DOD's BRAC cleanup 
efforts because DOD does not, nor is it required to, present all types 
of costs--past and future--needed to complete the environmental cleanup 
at each BRAC installation in any one report, and because DOD does not 
fully explain the scope and limitations of the costs it does report. 
Transparency and accountability in financial reporting and budgeting 
are essential elements for providing Congress a complete picture of the 
total cost of BRAC environmental cleanups to make appropriate budgetary 
decisions. DOD prepares at least four different reports for Congress on 
the status and cost of environmental cleanup for each military base, 
including BRAC bases. Each report is designed to serve a different 
purpose, such as budgetary, financial, and program oversight, resulting 
in various presentations of estimated and actual cleanup costs. 
However, none of the reports provides the total expected cost--both the 
costs incurred to date as well as expected future costs--for 
environmental cleanup by installation. In order to get a more complete 
picture of cleanup costs, our analysis involved an in-depth examination 
of multiple DOD reports.[Footnote 7] In the absence of one report that 
presents all environmental cleanup costs and estimates for each 
military base, Congress will continue to be presented with a varying 
array of information. More complete and transparent cost reports would 
assist Congress in carrying out its oversight responsibilities for the 
multibillion dollar BRAC environmental cleanup effort. In order to 
provide more complete and transparent cost information for the 
environmental cleanup of unneeded properties from all BRAC rounds, we 
are recommending that DOD report all types of cleanup costs--past and 
expected future--required to complete environmental cleanup at each 
BRAC installation and fully explain the scope and limitations of the 
environmental cleanup costs it currently presents to Congress. 

Although our analysis shows that DOD continues to make progress in 
transferring[Footnote 8] the over 502,500 acres[Footnote 9] of unneeded 
property resulting from the four prior BRAC rounds--78 percent (about 
390,300 acres) has now been transferred compared to 72 percent (about 
364,000 acres) 2 years ago--about 112,300 acres remain untransferred, 
and the cleanup of environmental contamination remains a key 
impediment. Environmental cleanup issues are unique to each site but 
cleanup delays, when they occur, usually result from a variety of 
interrelated factors, including limited available technology to address 
unexploded ordnance (UXO) cleanup issues, prolonged negotiations over 
how to comply with environmental regulations, and discovery of 
previously unknown and therefore unaddressed environmental hazards. 

Opportunities exist to expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded 
2005 BRAC properties. Over the years, Congress has provided DOD with a 
wide range of property transfer authorities to expedite the cleanup and 
transfer of unneeded BRAC property, including public sales and the so- 
called "Early Transfer Authority,"[Footnote 10] which allows property 
to be transferred under certain conditions before all necessary cleanup 
actions have been completed. In prior BRAC rounds, DOD did not use some 
tools as often as others, such as public and negotiated sales, because 
DOD wanted to give a high priority to each community's property reuse 
plans when disposing of unneeded BRAC properties. As of September 30, 
2006, low or no-cost transfer tools such as public benefit, 
conservation, and economic development conveyances accounted for 65 
percent of all acres transferred to nonfederal entities, whereas public 
and negotiated sales accounted for 5 percent. However, DOD's guidance 
on implementing the 2005 BRAC round suggests that more recent 
experience indicates that a broader range of approaches may now succeed 
where they would not have worked in the past. For example, at the 
former Alameda Naval Air Station, California, agreement was reached in 
2000 to transfer some of the installation's property using a no-cost 
economic development conveyance, but because of a subsequent decline in 
the economy, the local redevelopment authority could not meet the terms 
of the conveyance method (i.e., to create employment), and the Navy was 
reassessing its property transfer options, to include public sales, at 
the time of our review. 

DOD's March 2006 Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual encourages 
the services to make full use of all available property transfer tools 
for both the 2005 BRAC as well as prior BRAC round bases. Each of the 
military services has processes in place to monitor its progress to 
clean up and transfer BRAC properties. For example, along with a system 
to track property transfers, Army environmental personnel meet about 
every 6 months to informally discuss cleanup funding requirements and 
property transfer issues. However, the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense does not require the services to periodically report on their 
progress and challenges in transferring unneeded BRAC properties, or 
lessons learned in the application of various tools available to them, 
which collectively might provide more information and maximize the 
services' efforts to accelerate the cleanup and transfer of remaining 
as well as new 2005 BRAC properties. Without such a requirement, 
oversight of the services' compliance with the new BRAC guidance could 
be more limited than is desirable if one objective is to enhance 
opportunities for exploiting lessons learned from the experience of 
other BRAC bases. Ultimately, as long as unneeded properties remain in 
DOD possession, communities are denied the full economic benefit of 
property reuse and DOD continues to incur ongoing caretaker costs. In 
order to ensure that the military services are taking full advantage of 
all property cleanup and transfer mechanisms, we are recommending that 
DOD require the military services to periodically report to the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense actions both planned and taken to make full 
use of the transfer authorities available to them in the interest of 
expediting the property transfer process and sharing lessons learned. 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the 
fundamental aspects of both of our recommendations. DOD partially 
concurred with our first recommendation because it did not agree with 
our suggestion to include full cleanup cost information in the annual 
BRAC budget justification documentation, but wanted to find another 
vehicle for reporting the information. Nonetheless, DOD concurred with 
our basic recommendation for DOD to report all costs required to 
complete environmental cleanup at each BRAC installation and to fully 
explain the scope and limitations of these costs to Congress. DOD 
concurred with our second recommendation to require the military 
services to periodically report to the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense on the status and proposed strategy for transferring BRAC 
properties including an assessment of the usefulness of all tools at 
their disposal. 

Background: 

DOD has undergone five BRAC rounds with the most recent occurring in 
2005. Under the first four rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, DOD 
closed 97 major bases and had 55 major base realignments[Footnote 11] 
and hundreds of minor closures and realignments. DOD has reported that 
under the prior BRAC rounds it had reduced the size of its domestic 
infrastructure by about 20 percent and had generated about $6.6 billion 
in net annual recurring savings for those years following the 
completion of the 1995 round in 2001. As a result of the 2005 BRAC 
decisions, DOD was slated to close an additional 25 major bases, 
complete 32 major realignments, and complete 755 minor base closures 
and realignments. At the time the BRAC decisions were finalized in 
November 2005, the BRAC Commission projected that implementation of 
these decisions would generate over $4 billion in annual recurring net 
savings following the completion of implementing those decisions in 
2011. In accordance with BRAC statutory authority, DOD must complete 
closure and realignment actions by September 15, 2011---6 years 
following the date the President transmits his report on the BRAC 
recommendations to Congress.[Footnote 12] Environmental cleanup and 
property transfer actions can exceed the 6-year time limit, having no 
deadline for completion. 

In addition to reducing unneeded infrastructure and generating savings, 
DOD envisioned the 2005 BRAC round to be one that emphasized 
transformation by aligning the infrastructure with the defense strategy 
and fostered jointness by examining and implementing opportunities for 
greater jointness across DOD. As such, there are a considerably higher 
number of realignments to take place than in any of the four prior 
rounds, which has resulted in far more individual BRAC actions, many of 
which affect multiple bases. While the number of major closures and 
realignments are somewhat similar to those of previous rounds (see 
table 1), the number of minor closures and realignments is 
significantly greater than those in all previous rounds combined. 
Available data indicate that despite the larger number of actions 
associated with the 2005 BRAC round compared with previous rounds, the 
amount of property potentially available for transfer is likely to be 
much less than in prior BRAC rounds. Although the total amount of acres 
available for transfer resulting from the 2005 BRAC round is yet to be 
fully determined, the preliminary number of potentially transferable 
acres for the 25 major bases is about 102,000 acres[Footnote 13] 
compared with a total of about 502,500 acres from the prior BRAC rounds 
combined. The extent of additional transferable acreage arising from 
the hundreds of minor base closures and realignments was not available 
at the time of our review, but is likely to be limited given the 
smaller size of many of those locations. 

Table 1: Comparison of BRAC 2005 Recommendations with Recommendations 
from Prior Rounds: 

Round: 1988; 
Major base: Closures: 16; 
Major base: Realignments: 4; 
Minor base closures and realignments: 23. 

Round: 1991; 
Major base: Closures: 26; 
Major base: Realignments: 17; 
Minor base closures and realignments: 32. 

Round: 1993; 
Major base: Closures: 28; 
Major base: Realignments: 12; 
Minor base closures and realignments: 123. 

Round: 1995; 
Major base: Closures: 27; 
Major base: Realignments: 22; 
Minor base closures and realignments: 57. 

Round: Total: prior BRAC rounds; 
Major base: Closures: 97; 
Major base: Realignments: 55; 
Minor base closures and realignments: 235. 

Round: Total: 2005 BRAC round; 
Major base: Closures: 25; 
Major base: Realignments: 32; 
Minor base closures and realignments: 755[A]. 

Source: DOD. 

[A] An individual base may be affected by more than one realignment. 

[End of table] 

A critical component to the process of transferring unneeded property 
arising from BRAC actions is the need to address the environmental 
contamination that has occurred over time due to military operations 
being conducted when the bases were active installations. Types of 
environmental contaminants found at military installations include 
solvents and corrosives; fuels; paint strippers and thinners; metals, 
such as lead, cadmium, and chromium; and unique military substances, 
such as nerve agents and unexploded ordnance. According to DOD 
officials, while environmental cleanup of these contaminants has been 
an ongoing process on active military bases, the cleanups often receive 
greater attention once a base has been selected for closure. 
Environmental cleanup is necessary for the transfer of unneeded 
contaminated property, which becomes available as a result of base 
closures and realignments. While addressing the environmental cleanup 
of contaminated property is a requirement for property transfer to 
other users, the sometimes decades-long cleanup process is not bound by 
the 6-year limitation for implementing required BRAC actions. As we 
have reported in the past,[Footnote 14] addressing the cleanup of 
contaminated properties has been a key factor related to delays in 
transferring unneeded BRAC property to other parties for reuse. DOD 
officials told us that they expect environmental cleanup to be less of 
an impediment during the 2005 round since the Department now had a more 
mature cleanup program in place to address environmental contamination 
on its bases. 

In conducting assessments of potential contamination and to determine 
the degree of cleanup required (on both active and closed bases), DOD 
must comply with cleanup standards and processes under all applicable 
environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders. The 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980 (CERCLA), as amended,[Footnote 15] authorizes cleanup actions 
at federal facilities where there is a release of hazardous substances 
or the threat of such a release which can present a threat to public 
health and the environment. To clean up potentially contaminated sites 
on both active and closed bases, DOD generally follows the process that 
is required under CERCLA, which generally includes the following phases 
and activities: preliminary assessment, site investigation, remedial 
investigation and feasibility study, remedial design and remedial 
action, and long-term monitoring. (An explanation of these phases is 
provided in app. II.) 

The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986[Footnote 16] 
(SARA) added provisions to CERCLA specifically governing the cleanup of 
federal facilities, including active military bases and those that are 
slated for closure under BRAC and, among other things, required the 
Secretary of Defense to carry out the Defense Environmental Restoration 
Program (DERP).[Footnote 17] Following SARA's enactment, DOD 
established DERP, which now consists of two subprograms: (1) the 
Installation Restoration Program, which addresses the cleanup of 
hazardous substances that are primarily controlled under CERCLA and 
were released into the environment prior to October 17, 1986; and (2) 
the Military Munitions Response Program, which addresses the cleanup of 
munitions including UXO and the contaminants and metals related to 
munitions that were released into the environment prior to September 
30, 2002. Cleanups of hazardous substances released after 1986 and 
munitions released after 2002 are not eligible for DERP funds. These 
cleanups are generally referred to as non-DERP or "compliance" cleanups 
and often include activities that are regulated by the Resource 
Conservation and Recovery Act. These cleanups involve the closure and 
cleanup of operations associated with landfills, training ranges, and 
underground storage tanks and are generally funded under base 
operations and maintenance accounts for active bases. Once the property 
is determined to be unneeded and transferable to other users under 
BRAC, the cleanups are funded under the BRAC account. 

While SARA had originally required the government to warrant that all 
necessary cleanup actions had been taken before transferring property 
to nonfederal ownership, the act was amended in 1996 to expedite 
transfers of contaminated property.[Footnote 18] Now such property, 
under some circumstances, can be transferred to nonfederal users before 
all remedial action has been taken. However, certain conditions must 
exist before the department can exercise this early transfer authority, 
such as the property must be suitable for the intended reuse and the 
governor of the state must concur with the transfer. 

In addition to investigations into potential hazards, DOD is required 
to follow National Environmental Policy Act requirements and consult 
with local redevelopment authorities[Footnote 19] during the process of 
property disposal and during the process of relocating functions from 
one installation to another. Although the decision to close or realign 
installations is not subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, 
DOD is required to follow the act's requirements during the process of 
property disposal and during the process of relocating functions from 
one installation to another. The National Environmental Policy Act 
requires federal agencies, including DOD, to consult with and obtain 
the comments of other federal agencies that have jurisdiction by law or 
special expertise with respect to any environmental impact involved 
with the action. 

DOD's March 2006 Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual requires the 
military services to prepare an Environmental Condition of Property 
Report for closing BRAC bases. The report is used to evaluate the 
environmental condition of all transferable property based on already 
available information on contamination. It can be used to identify 
"gaps" in information regarding environmental conditions and where more 
study is required. Environmental Condition of Property reports have 
replaced the former baseline surveys that were required when SARA was 
enacted in 1986. According to Army officials, the Army plans to have a 
total of 183 Environmental Condition of Property reports completed for 
all of its 2005 major and minor base closures by January 31, 2007. With 
respect to Army National Guard properties, the states will be 
responsible for their Environmental Condition of Property reports 
except for the five bases located on federal lands[Footnote 20] for 
which the Army will prepare the reports, if required. According to Navy 
officials, the Navy has completed all reports for lands affected by 
2005 closures. Air Force officials reported that they will have the 
reports completed for all their bases, which require one, by April 
2007. 

DOD has had a long-standing policy of not considering environmental 
cleanup costs in its BRAC decision making. Accordingly, the estimates 
using the Cost of Base Realignment Actions[Footnote 21] model, which is 
used to compare alternative actions during BRAC decision making, do not 
include the cost of environmental cleanup for BRAC-affected bases. 
Historically, we have agreed with DOD's position that such costs are a 
liability to DOD regardless of its base closure recommendations. While 
such costs are not included in the Cost of Base Realignment Actions 
model, they are included in developing BRAC implementation budgets and 
recorded as a BRAC cost. 

Expected Environmental Cleanup Costs for the 2005 BRAC Round Are Not 
Yet Fully Known: 

Expected environmental cleanup costs for the 2005 BRAC round are not 
yet fully known, but they are likely to increase from current 
estimates. DOD's available data[Footnote 22] indicate that at least 
$950 million will be needed to complete the cleanups now underway for 
known hazards on the major and minor bases scheduled for closure for 
the 2005 BRAC round. However, our prior work has indicated that as 
closures are implemented, more intensive environmental investigations 
occur and additional hazardous contamination may be uncovered resulting 
in higher cleanup costs. Also, the services' estimates were based on 
cleanup standards that are applicable for the current use of the 
property, but reuse plans developed by communities sometimes lead to 
more stringent and thus more expensive cleanups.[Footnote 23] In 
addition, DOD is in the early phases of identifying and analyzing 
munitions hazards that may require additional cleanup at both active 
and BRAC bases. Furthermore, the manner in which DOD is required to 
report all these costs to Congress is fragmented. Of the four reports 
DOD annually provides to Congress on environmental cleanup costs and 
estimates for its bases, none gives the entire cost picture by service 
or base. 

Cleanup Cost Estimates for BRAC 2005 Round Bases Are Not Fully Known 
and Likely to Increase: 

Although DOD data indicate that at least $950 million will be needed 
for cleanup of the major and minor base closures resulting from the 
2005 BRAC round, this figure reflects preliminary amounts that are 
likely to increase as more information is collected during BRAC 
implementation on the extent of cleanup required to safely reuse 
property in communities where future land use decisions have yet to be 
made. DOD's best available data suggest that at least $590 million will 
be needed to complete the cleanup of the 25 major base closures and 
about $360 million will be needed for the minor closures. These amounts 
were developed from information contained in the Defense Environmental 
Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress, and they do not 
include all costs, such as program management costs and non-DERP 
costs.[Footnote 24] In addition, the 2005 BRAC round includes the 
closure of more than 100 reserve centers, the extent to which cleanups 
will be required and at what cost is largely unknown.[Footnote 25] Only 
2 of these centers reported cleanup estimates in the Defense 
Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress. Our 
experience with prior BRAC round bases has shown that estimates tend to 
increase significantly once more detailed studies and investigations 
are completed. 

The following table provides DOD's estimated cost to complete the 
environmental cleanup beyond fiscal year 2006 for the 25 major DOD base 
closures resulting from the 2005 BRAC round as reported in the Defense 
Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress. For 
certain bases, conflicting cost estimates appear between this report 
and those reported in the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission Report to the President.[Footnote 26] According to DOD 
officials, the data provided to the BRAC Commission is now outdated and 
estimates contained in the Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 
2005 Annual Report to Congress provide more current data. 

Table 2: BRAC 2005 Major Closures' Estimated Environmental Cleanup 
Costs from Fiscal Year 2006 to Completion (in millions): 

Service: Army (12): 

Installation: Fort Monroe, Virginia; 
Estimated cost: $201.  

Installation: Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah; 
Estimated cost: $178. 

Installation: Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, Kansas; 
Estimated cost: $23.  

Installation: Selfridge Army Activity, Michigan; 
Estimated cost: $13.  

Installation: Fort Gillem, Georgia; 
Estimated cost: $10. 

Installation: Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon[A]; 
Estimated cost: $9. 

Installation: Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, Mississippi; 
Estimated cost: $8. 

Installation: Fort McPherson, Georgia; 
Estimated cost: $. 

Installation: Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, California; 
Estimated cost: $5. 

Installation: Newport Chemical Depot, Indiana; 
Estimated cost: $5. 

Installation: Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; 
Estimated cost: $5. 

Installation: Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texas; 
Estimated cost: $1. 

Service: Navy (7): 

Installation: Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Concord Detachment, 
California; 
Estimated cost: $85. 

Installation: Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine; 
Estimated cost: $16. 

Installation: Naval Air Station Willow Grove, Pennsylvania; 
Estimated cost: $6. 

Installation: Broadway Complex, California[B]; 
Estimated cost: Not available[C]. 

Installation: Naval Air Station Atlanta, Georgia; 
Estimated cost: Not available[C].  

Installation: Naval Station Pascagoula, Mississippi;
Estimated cost: Not available[C].  

Installation: Naval Station Ingleside, Texas; 
Estimated cost: Not available[C]. 

Service: Air Force (6): 

Installation: Galena Forward Operating Location, Alaska; 
Estimated cost: $12. 

Installation: Brooks City Base, Texas; 
Estimated cost: $3. 

Installation: Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico[D]; 
Estimated cost: $2. 

Installation: General Mitchell Air Reserve Station, Wisconsin; 
Estimated cost: $1. 

Installation: Onizuka Air Force Station, California; 
Estimated cost: $0. 

Installation: Kulis Guard Station, Alaska; 
Estimated cost: Not available[C]. 

Total: $590. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD Defense Environmental Restoration Program 
(DERP) data. 

[A] The Army is funding a portion of the Umatilla Chemical Depot 
cleanup with prior BRAC round dollars. 

[B] The BRAC Commission recommended that the Broadway Complex close if 
the Navy could not enter into a long-term lease to redevelop the 
property January 1, 2007. During the course of our review, the Navy 
announced they had entered into such a lease on November 22, 2006. 

[C] Cleanup estimates were unavailable for these installations in the 
Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to 
Congress because they received no DERP funds. 

[D] The Cannon Air Force Base closure recommendation becomes effective 
if the Secretary of the Air Force does not designate a new mission for 
the installation by December 31, 2009. 

[End of table] 

Table 2 shows that DOD estimates it will spend at least $590 million to 
clean up the 25 major bases recommended for closure in 2005. However, 
we believe that this figure is low for several reasons. First, the 
amounts in table 2 only include the cost estimate for DERP eligible 
cleanups--those cleanups associated with contamination occurring prior 
to 1986 for hazardous waste and prior to 2002 for munitions. The cost 
for non-DERP cleanups and program management costs are not included. 
These additional costs could add millions to the overall cost estimate. 
Second, no cleanup cost estimates were available in the Defense 
Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress for 5 
of the 25 major base closures either because the cleanups were not 
eligible for DERP funding, or because the bases had not been thoroughly 
assessed for environmental damage. As the bases undergo more complete 
and in-depth environmental assessments, a clearer picture of 
environmental cleanup costs will likely emerge. Finally, these cost 
estimates will likely increase due to more in-depth investigations that 
are expected to address all environmental cleanup issues now that the 
bases have been scheduled for a BRAC closure. For example, during our 
visit to the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant in June 2006, we noted 
that Army and contract officials were preparing an environmental 
condition of property assessment to pull together all known 
environmental issues. Army officials told us that the ammunition plant 
had been closed and placed in standby status since 1990 and that no 
aggressive environmental cleanup had taken place. When the plant was 
recommended for closure in 2005, the Army estimated that $8.4 million 
would be required to address environmental contamination caused by 2 
inactive range munitions sites. Since that time, according to Army 
plant officials, as many as 46 more sites have been identified as 
having environmental concerns which will require further investigation 
and possible cleanup. Therefore, the total eventual cleanup costs are 
likely to be much higher than the current estimate of $8.4 million. 

DOD officials told us that the projected environmental cleanup cost 
estimates are relatively lower for the 2005 BRAC bases than for those 
of the prior rounds because the environmental conditions on the 
property of today's bases are much better than those closed in previous 
rounds. These officials told us that this is primarily due to ongoing 
actions associated with DOD's Installation Restoration Program (cleanup 
program) and the Military Munitions Response Program at active and BRAC 
bases. The restoration program addresses hazardous substances, 
pollutants, and other contaminants, and the munitions program addresses 
UXO and discarded munitions. The officials stated that contaminated 
sites identified under the installation restoration program are much 
farther along in the cleanup process than sites identified under the 
munitions program, primarily because the restoration program has been 
in existence since 1985 while the munitions program was only initiated 
in 2001. Our analysis of DOD-provided cleanup-phase[Footnote 27] data 
for the identified contaminated sites at 20 of the 25 major BRAC 2005 
closures supports this assertion. For example, DOD's data show that, as 
of September 30, 2005, 89 percent of the 571 installation restoration 
sites (508 sites) either had their cleanup remedy in place or had the 
remedy complete, and 91 percent (521 sites) had completed investigation 
studies. Comparatively, of the 50 identified munitions sites at the 20 
bases, only 8 percent (4 sites) reported cleanup action complete and 
only 10 percent (5 sites) had completed investigation studies. However, 
federal cleanup officials as well as military environmental specialists 
told us that many of these sites may require further investigation and 
cleanup--and greater cleanup costs--if, as expected, the future control 
and use of the property shifts from the military to the private sector. 
Furthermore, DOD officials stated that many munitions sites were not 
required to be cleaned when they were operational ranges on active 
bases, but will require cleanup now that the bases have been closed. 
The Army estimates that the cost to address active ranges on their 2005 
BRAC properties ranges from $37 million to $335 million and is not 
included in the $950 million estimate for cleanup of 2005 major and 
minor bases. 

DOD's Environmental Cleanup Reports Do Not Provide a Complete Picture 
of Environmental Cleanup Cost Information: 

Congress does not have complete visibility over the expected total cost 
of DOD's cleanup efforts for the 2005 BRAC round or for the prior BRAC 
rounds because of a variety of reports that individually are incomplete 
and which collectively may present a confusing picture of costs. 
Although DOD prepares multiple reports for Congress on various 
environmental cleanup costs, none of them presents an overall total 
cost estimate per base, nor is DOD required to present this 
information. DOD does not fully explain the scope and limitations of 
the cost information presented. Transparency and complete 
accountability in financial reporting and budgetary backup documents 
are essential elements for providing Congress with a more complete 
picture of the total cleanup costs so it can make appropriate budgetary 
trade-off decisions to ensure the expeditious cleanup and transfer of 
properties and ultimately realize savings for the U.S. government. In 
order to provide a complete picture of the total cleanup costs at BRAC 
bases, specific information must be extracted from various reports, 
which we have done in order to present the total costs to clean up 
properties resulting from prior BRAC round decisions. 

Congress annually receives the following four required reports[Footnote 
28] from DOD that contain environmental cleanup costs and estimates for 
BRAC bases, two of which also include costs for active bases. 

* Annual BRAC Budget Appropriations Request[Footnote 29] 

* Annual Government's Consolidated Financial Statement Report: 

* Annual Defense Environmental Programs Report: 

* Annual Section "2907" Report[Footnote 30] 

A detailed description of the environmental cleanup costs and estimates 
included in these reports is presented in appendix III. 

Our review showed that none of these reports provides information in 
one place on the total (spent plus estimated future environmental 
cleanup costs) expected for all environmental cost categories (DERP, 
non-DERP, and program management costs) by base. DOD officials told us 
that Congress will often mistakenly assume that the cost data presented 
in the Annual Defense Environmental Programs reports to Congress are 
the total expected cost of the program. While these costs are typically 
the majority of the overall total costs, the report excludes the cost 
of cleanups by base that do not qualify for DERP funding. Although 
these non-DERP costs are presented elsewhere in the report, they are 
only presented in aggregate terms by service. From information 
contained in two of the reports, we determined that the expected 
environmental costs for the first four BRAC rounds will total $13.2 
billion, as shown in table 3. 

Table 3: Total Expected Environmental Costs for Prior BRAC Rounds: 

Dollars in billions. 

Cost category: DERP eligible[A] cleanups (Installation Restoration 
Program and Military Munitions Response Program); 
Funds made available through fiscal year 2005: $ 9.0; 
Estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion: $ 3.8; 
Total: $ 12.8. 

Cost Category: Non-DERP cleanups (Compliance); 
Funds made available through fiscal year 2005: Included in cleanup 
amount; 
Estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion: 0.4; 
Total: 0.4. 

Cost Category: Program management and planning; 
Funds made available through fiscal year 2005: Included in cleanup 
amount; 
Estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion: Included in 
compliance amount; 
Total: Included in compliance amount. 

Total; 
Funds made available through fiscal year 2005: $9.0; 
Estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion: $ 4.2; 
Total: $ 13.2. 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD's budget documentation for fiscal year 2005 
and The Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report 
to Congress. 

[A] BRAC cleanups are funded from BRAC accounts within DOD's Military 
Construction appropriations. Cleanups of active bases are funded from 
DERP accounts for DERP eligible cleanups and Operation and Maintenance 
accounts for non-DERP cleanups. DOD continues to track DERP eligible 
cleanups by base even after closure (when the funding source has 
shifted to the BRAC accounts). 

[End of table] 

The $9.0 billion of funding made available for the four prior BRAC 
rounds for all cost categories was obtained from DOD's BRAC Budget 
Appropriations Request for fiscal year 2005. The budget request did not 
provide data on the total cost to complete the environmental cleanup at 
the bases. The $3.8 billion cost from fiscal year 2006 through 
completion for the DERP eligible cleanups (Installation Restoration 
Program and Military Munitions Response Program) came from one section 
(Appendix E, Restoration Budget Summary) in the Defense Environmental 
Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress. On the basis of 
information in this report, the time required to complete the cleanup 
for some bases will take decades. For example, the estimated date to 
complete cleanup at the former Mather Air Force Base, California, is 
reported as 2074, and the estimated date to complete cleanup at the 
former Toole Army Depot, Utah, is reported as 2032. The $0.4 billion 
estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion for compliance 
(non-DERP) and program management and planning was extracted from 
another section of the Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 
Annual Report to Congress (specifically, Appendix J, Installation 
Restoration Program and Military Munitions Response Program Status 
Tables) for each of the services. 

None of the environmental reports DOD submits to Congress provide 
information in one place on the total costs and future cost estimates 
for each of the environmental cost categories by service and by base. 
Further, the environmental cleanup costs and estimates DOD reports to 
Congress vary in their scope and limitations, but DOD does not fully 
explain their differences. As a result, the cost of cleaning up BRAC 
property lacks transparency and Congress does not have total visibility 
over this multibillion dollar BRAC environmental cleanup effort. 

DOD Continues to Make Progress in Transferring Unneeded Properties, but 
Environmental Cleanup Continues to be a Key Impediment to Transfer of 
Remaining Properties: 

DOD continues to make progress in transferring unneeded BRAC property 
since our last report on this subject.[Footnote 31] However, 
environmental cleanup of contamination continues to be a key impediment 
to transferring the remaining properties. Environmental cleanup issues 
are unique to each site but usually result from a variety of 
interrelated factors such as technological constraints, lengthy 
negotiations on regulatory compliance, and the discovery of previously 
unknown and therefore unaddressed environmental hazards. 

DOD Continues to Make Progress in Transferring Unneeded Properties: 

Since our last report on this subject in January 2005, DOD has made 
some progress in transferring remaining unneeded property, having 
transferred 78 percent, (about 390,300 acres) of the 502,500 total 
unneeded acres[Footnote 32] from prior BRAC rounds to federal and 
nonfederal entities--up from 72 percent (about 364,000 acres of the 
estimated 504,000 acres DOD reported at the end of fiscal year 2004) 
from 2 years ago. This represents an increase of about 26,300 acres 
from what we reported in January 2005. A breakdown of the current 
status of unneeded BRAC property shows that 63 percent had been 
transferred to nonfederal entities, 15 percent had been transferred to 
other federal agencies, 15 percent had been leased but not transferred, 
and 7 percent was untransferred and is awaiting future disposition (see 
fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Disposition of Unneeded BRAC Acreage from Prior Rounds, as of 
September 30, 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Note: Figures do not add due to rounding. 

[End of figure] 

Nearly 22 percent (112,300 acres) [Footnote 33] of the total acreage 
from prior BRAC rounds--7 percent (35,700 acres) of untransferred 
property plus 15 percent (76,600 acres) of untransferred but leased 
property--has not been transferred. In other words, over 68 percent 
(76,600 acres) of the approximate 112,300 acres of untransferred 
property is being leased, leaving only 32 percent (35,700 acres) that 
is not in reuse. Leased property, while not transferred to the user, 
can afford the user and DOD some benefits. Communities, for example, 
can choose leasing while awaiting final environmental cleanup as an 
interim measure to promote property reuse and job creation. DOD also 
benefits, in some cases, as the communities assume responsibility for 
costs of protecting and maintaining these leased properties. By adding 
leased acres to the number of transferred acres, the amount of unneeded 
BRAC property in reuse rises to 93 percent. However, while leasing can 
provide short-term reuse benefits in terms of economic development 
opportunities, it may delay DOD's larger goal to expedite property 
transfers. 

Cleanup of Environmental Contamination Continues to Cause Property 
Transfer Delays Due to a Variety of Interrelated Factors: 

As we have reported in the past, environmental cleanup issues have and 
continue to delay the services from rapidly transferring unneeded BRAC 
property. As of September 30, 2006, about 81 percent of the approximate 
112,300 acres remaining to be transferred from the prior BRAC rounds 
(about 91,200 acres), which is located on 44 installations, have 
environmental contamination issues. Environmental cleanup issues are 
unique to each site but usually result from interrelated issues such as 
technological constraints, cleanup negotiations, and previously unknown 
environmental hazards, as described in the following examples. 

* Sometimes the available technology needed to detect and clean up UXO 
is limited and not fully effective. For example, at the former Naval 
Air Facility in Adak, Alaska, over 5,500 acres of UXO-contaminated 
property have not been transferred because the technology for 
economically cleaning up the UXO on this remote Aleutian island does 
not currently exist. At the former Fort Ord Army Base in Marina, 
California, about 11,800 acres contaminated with UXO still require 
cleanup, and this effort is currently expected to take until 2021 due 
to the labor-intensive nature of current cleanup technology (see fig. 
2). We were told by DOD officials that the detection of UXO is not only 
labor intensive but difficult because the technology often used for 
this purpose cannot easily distinguish between UXO and waste scrap 
metals. 

Figure 2: Workers Searching for UXO at the Former Fort Ord Using Hand- 
Held Detection Devices: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: DOD. 

[End of figure] 

* Prolonged negotiations between environmental regulators and DOD about 
compliance with environmental regulations and laws can delay property 
transfers. For example, at the former Fort Wingate, New Mexico, which 
was closed by the 1988 BRAC Commission and has about 8,800 acres of 
transferable property with environmental impediments, it took years of 
active negotiation between the Army and regulators to reach agreement 
for closure requirements permitted under the Resource Conservation and 
Recovery Act.[Footnote 34] At the former Fort Ord, California, open 
burning of the coastal chaparral is necessary before discovery and 
removal of UXO and other munitions can begin. However, according to 
Army officials, the number of acres that can be burned annually must be 
negotiated with the state and is controlled by California's clean air 
standards. 

* Additional environmental contamination can be detected after a base 
is recommended for closure. For example, the former McClellan Air Force 
Base in Sacramento, California, was recommended for closure in 1995 and 
traces of plutonium were found during a routine cleanup in September 
2000, causing a cost increase of $21 million, and extending the 
completion schedule beyond 2030. 

Table 4 shows the most expensive "cost to complete" environmental 
cleanups on prior BRAC round bases. The estimated costs to complete 
cleanups at these 10 BRAC installations ($2.1 billion) account for more 
than half (55 percent) of DOD's $3.8 billion future BRAC environmental 
restoration and munitions cleanup estimates for all unneeded properties 
on bases from the previous BRAC rounds. 

Table 4: Top 10 Most Expensive Cost to Complete Cleanups at Prior Round 
BRAC Installations for Fiscal Year 2006 and Beyond (dollars in 
millions): 

Service: Air Force; 
Former military base: McClellan Air Force Base, California; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: $695.9. 

Service: Army; 
Former military base: Fort Ord, California; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: 342.3. 

Service: Navy; 
Former military base: Alameda Naval Air Station, California; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: 182.9. 

Service: Army; 
Former military base: Fort Wingate, New Mexico; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: 182.2. 

Service: Army; 
Former military base: Fort McClellan, Alabama; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: 152.7. 

Service: Air Force; 
Former military base: Kelly Air Force Base, Texas; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: 131.1. 

Service: Navy; 
Former military base: Hunters Point Annex, California; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: 127.7. 

Service: Army; 
Former military base: Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: 99.4. 

Service: Army; 
Former military base: Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: 88.0. 

Service: Navy; 
Former military base: Moffett Naval Air Station, California; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: 78.6. 

Service: Total; 
Former military base: [Empty]; 
Estimated future cleanup costs: $2,080.8. 

Source: DOD data. 

Note: These figures were extracted from the Defense Environmental 
Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress and only include 
DERP-eligible cleanups, which generally represent the majority, but not 
all, cleanup costs. As previously noted, these estimates are not 
necessarily complete. 

[End of table] 

Opportunities Exist to Expedite Cleanup and Transfer of Unneeded BRAC 
Properties: 

Although opportunities exist to expedite the cleanup and transfer of 
unneeded BRAC 2005 properties, as well as untransferred properties from 
prior BRAC rounds, it is not clear to what extent each of these 
opportunities are considered for BRAC properties nor what successes or 
challenges were seen in their application since the services are not 
required to report their strategies for addressing unclean and 
untransferred properties to the Office of the Secretary of Defense 
(OSD). Over the years, Congress has provided DOD with a wide range of 
property transfer authorities to expedite the cleanup and transfer of 
unneeded BRAC property, including public sales and the so-called "Early 
Transfer Authority,"[Footnote 35] which allows property to be 
transferred before all necessary cleanup actions have been completed. 
In prior BRAC rounds, there was more extensive use made of some tools 
than others, and as we previously reported, DOD could have given 
greater attention to early transfer authority. Each of the military 
services has processes in place to monitor their progress to clean and 
transfer BRAC properties. Also, DOD's March 2006 Base Redevelopment and 
Realignment Manual, which provides cleanup and disposal guidance for 
BRAC 2005 properties as well as untransferred properties from prior 
BRAC rounds, encourages the services to make wide use of all available 
property transfer tools. However, the services are not required to 
report to OSD on the status of monitoring their progress, their 
strategies for transferring BRAC properties, lessons learned, or 
whether they are taking advantage of all available property cleanup and 
transfer tools. 

Many Property Disposal Alternatives Exist: 

Congress has, over time, provided DOD with a wide range of property 
transfer mechanisms and tools to expedite the cleanup and transfer of 
unneeded BRAC property, including public sales, early transfer 
authority, and privatization.[Footnote 36] The closure and realignment 
of individual installations creates opportunities for those unneeded 
properties to be made available to others for reuse. When an 
installation becomes a BRAC action, the unneeded property is reported 
as excess. Federal property disposal laws require DOD to first screen 
excess property for possible reuse by defense and other federal 
agencies. If no federal agency needs the property, it is declared 
surplus and is made available to nonfederal parties, including state 
and local agencies, local redevelopment authorities, and the public, 
using various transfer tools as shown in table 5. 

Table 5: Property Transfer Alternatives under the BRAC Process: 

Property transfer alternatives: Public benefit conveyance; 
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Authorizes real and personal 
property transfers to state and local governments and certain nonprofit 
organizations for public purposes. Examples include schools, parks, 
airports, ports, public health facilities, historic monuments, and 
wildlife conservation. 

Property transfer alternatives: Conservation conveyance; 
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Authorizes a military 
department to convey surplus property that is suitable for conservation 
purposes to a state or local government, or to a nonprofit organization 
that exists primarily for the purpose of natural resource conservation. 

Property transfer alternatives: Economic development conveyance; 
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Authorizes a military 
department to convey real and personal BRAC property to a local 
redevelopment authority for the purposes of job generation on the 
installation. 

Property transfer alternatives: Negotiated sale; 
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Disposes of property by 
negotiated sale only under limited circumstances. Negotiated sales to 
public bodies can only be conducted if a public benefit, which would 
not be realized from competitive sale or authorized public benefit 
conveyance, will result from the negotiated sale. The grantee must pay 
no less than fair market value based upon highest and best use and an 
appraisal. 

Property transfer alternatives: Public sale; 
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Allows the military 
department, in consultation with the local redevelopment authority, to 
determine when public sale is the best method to dispose of a parcel. 
Public sale approaches include sealed bids, Internet auctions, and 
auction on the site to the highest bidder. 

Property transfer alternatives: Reversion; 
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Property for military 
installations was sometimes obtained from state and local governments 
at a reduced price or at no cost. In these cases, the deed or other 
instrument conveying the property to the military may contain 
reversionary rights or reverter clauses that provide for return of the 
property to its former owner once the military need has ended. 

Property transfer alternatives: Special legislation; 
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Congressional action through 
special legislation determining the terms and conditions for 
transferring BRAC properties. 

Property transfer alternatives: Disposal to depository institutions; 
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Conveys the property and 
improvements to a bank or credit union that conducted business on a 
closed installation and constructed or substantially renovated the 
facility with its funds. The military department must offer the land on 
which the facility is located to the financial institution before 
offering it to another entity; however, the depository institution must 
agree to pay fair market value. 

Property transfer alternatives: Exchange for military construction; 
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Provides an alternative 
authority for disposal of real property at a closing or realigning 
installation. This authority allows any real property at such an 
installation to be exchanged for military construction at that or 
another location. 

Source: DOD. 

[End of table] 

Use of the Wide Range of Tools Has Been Limited in the Past, but Has 
Greater Emphasis Now: 

Although prior DOD guidance to the military services promoted 
creativity within applicable laws and regulations to successfully close 
and reuse installations, DOD used some property transfer tools to a 
much greater extent than others. In some cases, DOD's deference to 
community plans for economic development led it to use low or no-cost 
transfer tools more often than property sales. As BRAC has evolved, 
there have been differing emphases placed on the approaches used to 
transfer unneeded property. For example, following the 1988 round, DOD 
emphasized revenue generation through the sale of unneeded properties. 
Following the BRAC rounds in the 1990s, however, DOD underscored 
economic development through direct, no-cost transfers of property to 
the public sector. The emphasis during the 2005 BRAC round appears to 
be headed towards a renewed importance on achieving fair market value 
through various transfer authorities and the consideration of all 
transfer tools available to quickly transfer unneeded property to 
others for reuse. 

The services have taken some steps to expand their use of the wide 
array of transfer tools in recent years, most notably the Navy, which 
realized over $850 million in revenues from the sale of unneeded BRAC 
properties at two former Marine Corps air stations in California. 
Figure 3 illustrates the alternatives used to transfer unneeded BRAC 
property from the prior BRAC rounds to nonfederal entities as of 
September 30, 2006. 

Figure 3: Alternatives Used to Transfer Unneeded BRAC Acreage to 
Nonfederal Entities in Prior BRAC Rounds, as of September 30, 2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. 

Notes: Acreage is rounded to the nearest 100 acres and individual 
entries do not total due to rounding. The "other" category refers to 
various other transfers mechanisms, including special legislation, 
transfer for use by depository institutions, and exchanges for military 
construction. See table 5 for details on property transfer 
alternatives. 

[End of figure] 

As shown in figure 3, low-and no-cost property conveyance mechanisms 
accounted for 65 percent (205,400) of all acres transferred--public 
benefit, conservation, and economic development conveyances were used 
in 17 percent, 19 percent, and 29 percent, respectively-whereas public 
and negotiated sales accounted for 5 percent (13,300) of all acres 
transferred. According to DOD officials, this trend reflected deference 
to local community organizations and their preference for low-and no- 
cost conveyances. Moreover, it also reflected the difficulty in using 
public and negotiated sales at that time, because more time was often 
needed to determine the nature and extent of environmental 
contamination and its potential cleanup cost, to attract private 
property developers. However, as more information is developed at these 
sites and as local economic conditions change, a different approach to 
transferring property may now be successful, an approach which would 
not have worked in the past. For example, while an agreement was 
reached in 2000 on a no-cost economic development conveyance at the 
former Alameda Naval Air Station, California, the local redevelopment 
authority could not follow through on the terms of this conveyance to 
create jobs because of a decline in the local economy. Therefore, both 
the local redevelopment authority and the Navy were reassessing other 
property transfer options, including public sales, at the time of our 
review. 

Use of Early Transfer Authority May Facilitate Property Transfers: 

Another tool for facilitating property transfers is the so-called 
"early transfer authority," which is not actually a property transfer 
mechanism but rather an amendment to SARA, allowing the services to 
transfer property that has not been entirely cleaned under an 
authorized transfer conveyance. Recognizing that environmental cleanup 
has often delayed the transfer of BRAC property, Congress enacted the 
early transfer authority provision[Footnote 37] in 1996 which allows, 
under certain conditions, property to be transferred before all 
necessary cleanup actions have been completed. The transfer agreement 
identifies who will complete the cleanup and what funding the service 
will provide, if any. In addition, the entity assuming cleanup 
responsibilities will often purchase environmental insurance to insure 
itself against possible cost overruns. We previously reported that this 
tool should receive greater DOD attention[Footnote 38] and DOD has 
increased its use of this authority, transferring a total of about 
23,700 acres using this method as of July 2006. 

There are typically two scenarios with which an early transfer is 
requested. In the first scenario, the deed to the property is provided 
to the new owner, such as a local redevelopment authority, and DOD 
continues the cleanup. For the other scenario, the user takes the deed 
to the property and as the new owner agrees to complete cleanup 
activities or to control the implementation of an ongoing cleanup at 
the time of transfer. Although this tool is officially called the 
"Transfer Authority in Connection with Payment of Environmental 
Remediation Costs," it is commonly referred to as "privatization." 
DOD's March 2006 Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual[Footnote 39] 
states that if the fair market value of the property is more than the 
cleanup cost, the purchaser must pay the military departments the 
difference. However, if fair market value is less than the cleanup 
costs, the military department may pay the purchaser the difference. 
Because the purchaser will be responsible for completing the cleanup, 
the services must confirm that the purchaser has the technical 
expertise and financial capability to do so before considering this 
approach. In terms of cost, DOD retains responsibility for funding the 
environmental cleanup, regardless of whether it is performed by DOD or 
the user. 

A primary advantage of using the early transfer authority is that it 
makes property available to the future user as soon as possible, thus 
allowing environmental cleanup and redevelopment activities to proceed 
concurrently. This can save time and costs and provide users with 
greater control over both activities. Furthermore, it provides 
communities with the means to quickly put property into productive use, 
create jobs, and possibly create tax revenue. DOD reported that some 
reasons why the services were not taking full advantage of this 
authority were due to a lack of information on early transfer authority 
by communities, how to use it, and how the process ensures the 
protection of public health, safety, and the environment. In addition, 
DOD cites a lack of support from state and local regulators as a reason 
for the previously limited use of this authority. However, a local 
redevelopment authority can purchase environmental insurance to 
transfer the risk of potential cost overruns from the property owner to 
the contractor and the insurance provider. By shifting the risk, 
contractors may be strongly motivated to complete the environmental 
cleanups in a timely and cost-efficient manner. According to one local 
redevelopment authority official, privatization of environmental 
cleanup (one scenario for achieving an early transfer) is now seen as a 
way to expedite the cleanup and transfer process significantly because 
DOD's approach can be too methodical, while the private sector can 
remediate the hazards more economically and in less time. 

As of July 2006, the number of completed early property transfers had 
increased from 12 (about 8,200 acres) as of September 30, 2001, to 23 
(about 23,700 acres). According to DOD officials, 8 early transfer 
authority actions are currently pending (in the process of being 
transferred), and 5 are currently being considered for the future. 
Table 6 provides a list of locations where early transfer authority has 
been completed, i.e., where a deeded transfer has been completed, as of 
July 2006. 

Table 6: Use of Early Transfer Authority at Prior BRAC Round Bases, as 
of July 2006: 

Installation: Fort McClellan, Alabama; 
Acres: 4,692. 

Installation: Naval Shipyard, Mare Island, California; 
Acres: 3,486. 

Installation: Fort Devens, Massachusetts; 
Acres: 2,358. 

Installation: Alabama Ammunition Plant, Alabama; 
Acres: 2,235. 

Installation: Naval Air Station Memphis, Tennessee; 
Acres: 1,863. 

Installation: Naval Air Station Agana, Guam; 
Acres: 1,798. 

Installation: Tooele Army Depot, Utah; 
Acres: 1,621. 

Installation: Naval Activities, Guam; 
Acres: 1,482. 

Installation: Fort Ord, California; 
Acres: 1,401. 

Installation: Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, California; 
Acres: 676. 

Installation: Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina; 
Acres: 436. 

Installation: Oakland Army Base, California; 
Acres: 364. 

Installation: Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana; 
Acres: 201. 

Installation: Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, New Jersey; 
Acres: 192. 

Installation: Griffiss Air Force Base, New York; 
Acres: 179. 

Installation: Mather Air Force Base, California; 
Acres: 165. 

Installation: Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan; 
Acres: 149. 

Installation: Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky; 
Acres: 142. 

Installation: Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado; 
Acres: 133. 

Installation: Naval Training Center, San Diego, California; 
Acres: 51. 

Installation: Public Works Center, Guam; 
Acres: 25. 

Installation: Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado; 
Acres: 12. 

Installation: Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida; 
Acres: 9. 

Installation: Total acres; 
Acres: 23,670. 

Source: DOD. 

[End of table] 

Services Monitor Progress, but DOD Does Not Require Them to Report 
Property Transfer Strategies and Progress: 

Although each of the military services has processes and procedures in 
place to monitor environmental cleanup and property transfer progress, 
DOD has not required the services to prepare and provide a BRAC 
property cleanup and transfer strategy to OSD, which has overall 
responsibility for overseeing the services' implementation of 
environmental cleanup on unneeded BRAC properties. Without such a 
requirement, OSD cannot readily monitor and track the transfer tools 
the services are using to expedite the cleanup and transfer of BRAC 
properties. Further, there is less likelihood of the sharing of lessons 
learned among the services, and communities could be denied full 
economic benefits that may be possible through expedited reuse of the 
property. 

In March 2006 guidance, DOD encouraged the military services to use all 
appropriate means to transfer unneeded property from the BRAC 2005 
round and prior BRAC rounds, and to dispose of property at the "highest 
and best use".[Footnote 40] As the disposing agency, the military 
department has the authority to select the methods of disposing of 
unneeded properties. The guidance states that DOD recognizes that 
federal law provides it with an array of legal authorities by which to 
transfer property, but also recognizes that the variety of installation 
types and the unique circumstances of the surrounding communities do 
not lend themselves to a single approach. 

We found that each of the services monitors BRAC property cleanup and 
disposal progress as part of their responsibility to dispose of 
unneeded BRAC property. According to the Army, discussions within the 
Army Conveyance Team[Footnote 41] can focus on progress and problems 
being encountered with a current property disposal method at an 
installation. The Army then attempts to resolve the problem with the 
local redevelopment authority. In addition, the Army has developed a 
system to track ongoing transfer conveyances for BRAC properties so it 
can identify slippage and track progress. Approximately every 6 months 
Army environmental personnel meet to discuss funding requirements and 
property transfer issues. Within the Air Force Real Property Agency, 
environmental program reviews are performed at least twice a year to 
determine the extent of cleanup progress at Air Force BRAC 
installations. In addition, the Air Force conducts bimonthly reviews to 
identify potential problems and to confirm that the transfer schedule 
is being maintained. We were told by a Navy official that each Program 
Management Office regional director[Footnote 42] meets monthly with 
each of their BRAC teams to discuss cleanup and property disposal 
progress at BRAC properties and, if needed, any potential alternative 
approaches that could expedite cleanup and disposal. 

According to a key OSD official responsible for monitoring the 
services' progress, the military services are not required to formally 
report their strategy for cleaning up and transferring BRAC properties, 
including sharing any challenges and successes they experienced in the 
use of various property disposal tools or that they fully considered 
using all the tools available to them. According to OSD and service 
officials in charge of monitoring the services' progress in the cleanup 
and transfer of unneeded properties, the services currently provide OSD 
with only informal, ad hoc progress reports. Furthermore, these 
officials believe that a more regular and formal process for 
periodically reporting and sharing experiences with various transfer 
tools would be helpful to both OSD (in tracking the use of these tools) 
and to the services (in learning from others' successes and failures). 
One service official went on to state that more is actually learned by 
the failures rather than the successes and those experiences should be 
shared. We believe that sharing information, possibly via the Internet, 
among and between the services, communities, and the private sector, 
could facilitate the exchange of ideas and the sharing of lessons 
learned which may in turn expedite the cleanup and transfer of BRAC 
properties. Without such a requirement, OSD is hampered in tracking the 
services' use of these tools to assure Congress that they are taking 
full advantage of all opportunities to expedite the cleanup and 
transfer of unneeded properties so that communities can realize the 
full economic benefits of expeditious property reuse. 

Conclusions: 

An incomplete picture of environmental cleanup costs at the beginning 
of the implementation of BRAC 2005 relates to a piecemeal reporting of 
environmental cleanup costs for bases when they are in an active 
status, coupled with the fact that environmental cleanup information 
evolves over time. DOD can ensure that Congress has the most complete 
information available by providing more clarification and explanation 
as to what is included and excluded in the environmental cleanup costs 
it presents to Congress and include the total expected cost--both 
incurred costs as well as the most current estimate of expected future 
costs--for the cleanup at BRAC bases. Without this information, 
Congress cannot ensure that scarce federal resources are used in the 
most efficient manner to address environmental cleanup issues at 
unneeded DOD properties so that productive new uses for these 
properties can be more quickly realized. 

Numerous tools have been made available to DOD to help expedite the 
transfer of unneeded BRAC property to other users. As DOD seeks to use 
these tools for 2005 BRAC round bases, OSD could more effectively 
conduct its oversight responsibilities by requiring the services to 
periodically report on their progress to transfer properties and plans 
to take full advantage of the tools available to them. In addition, 
each of the services may find it useful to learn and benefit from the 
property transfer experiences gained with these tools within and among 
the services. Delays in transferring unneeded properties result in 
additional expense to DOD to care for and maintain these properties 
while the affected community receives no benefit--economic or 
otherwise--as it waits for the property to be redeveloped for 
productive use. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

In order to provide more complete and transparent cost information for 
the environmental cleanup of properties from all BRAC rounds, we 
recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of 
Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to report all costs 
(DERP and non-DERP)--past and future--required to complete 
environmental cleanup at each BRAC installation and to fully explain 
the scope and limitations of all the environmental cleanup costs DOD 
reports to Congress. We suggest including this information in the 
annual BRAC budget justification documentation since it would accompany 
information Congress considers when making resource allocation 
decisions. 

In order to help ensure that the military services are taking full 
advantage of all tools available to clean up and transfer unneeded BRAC 
properties from the 2005 round, we recommend that the Secretary of 
Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, 
and Logistics) to require that the military services periodically 
report to OSD on the status and proposed strategy for transferring 
these properties and include an assessment of the usefulness of all 
tools at their disposal. We suggest placing this information in an 
easily shared location, such as a Web site, so that each service, and 
even the local communities and private sector, can share and benefit 
from lessons learned. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the 
fundamental aspects of both of our recommendations to take actions to 
improve its reporting of BRAC environmental cleanup costs to Congress 
and to require the military services to periodically report to the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense on the status and proposed strategy 
for transferring unneeded BRAC properties. DOD's comments are reprinted 
in appendix IV and addressed as appropriate in the body of the report. 
DOD further provided technical comments, which we also incorporated as 
appropriate into this report. 

In order to provide more complete and transparent cost information on 
the entire cost of environmental cleanup, DOD concurred with our basic 
recommendation to report all costs--past and future--required to 
complete environmental cleanup at each BRAC installation and to fully 
explain the scope and limitations of all the environmental cleanup 
costs DOD reports to Congress. However, DOD's comments reflect only a 
partial concurrence because DOD did not agree with our suggestion to 
include this information in the annual BRAC budget justification 
documentation. DOD stated its belief that this would be 
counterproductive and that Congress has prescribed the types of 
environmental information it wants presented in the budget 
documentation, which DOD complies with. In making our suggestion, it 
was not our intent that it be considered as part of the recommendation. 
However, we continue to believe that the annual BRAC budget 
justification documentation would be the most useful place for this 
cost-reporting information, since this documentation is referred to by 
Congress when deliberating BRAC environmental cleanup funding. 
Nonetheless, if the Department can meet the intent of our 
recommendation by submitting this information in another report, we 
defer to the Department on how best to report this information to 
Congress. 

In order to help ensure that the military services are taking full 
advantage of all tools available to clean up and transfer unneeded BRAC 
properties from the 2005 round, DOD concurred with our recommendation 
to require the military services to periodically report to the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense on the status and proposed strategy for 
transferring BRAC properties and include an assessment of the 
usefulness of all tools at their disposal. Although DOD did not comment 
on our suggestion to accomplish this through a shared Web site in order 
to maximize the lessons learned, DOD officials embraced the idea as 
something easily doable in comments made during our exit interview with 
the agency. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, Navy, and Air Force; 
and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make 
copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will 
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site on [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-4523, leporeb@gao.gov, or my Assistant 
Director, Jim Reifsnyder, at (202) 512-4166, reifsnyderj@gao.gov, if 
you or your staff has any questions concerning this report. Contact 
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Signed by: 

Brian Lepore, Acting Director: 
Defense Capabilities and Management: 

List of Congressional Committees: 

The Honorable Carl Levin: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable John McCain: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Ted Stevens: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Tim Johnson: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchinson: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Administration, and 
Related Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Ike Skelton: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Duncan Hunter: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Armed Services: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable John P. Murtha: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Defense: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

The Honorable Chet Edwards: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Roger F. Wicker: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs and Related 
Agencies: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To address our first objective to examine potential cleanup costs 
associated with the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, we 
collected and analyzed relevant documentation generated by the Office 
of the Secretary of Defense and the military departments, and we 
interviewed key officials with knowledge of BRAC cost reports and 
estimates. We collected and analyzed environmental cleanup cost 
estimates for the 25 major base closures and similar estimates for the 
minor closures and realignments for the 2005 BRAC round, as well as 
costs for the prior BRAC rounds. To gain a sense of the models used to 
estimate cleanup costs, we viewed a demonstration of the Remedial 
Action Cost Engineering Requirements System cost estimating tool used 
by the Army and the Air Force, and the Normalized Data cost estimating 
tool used by the Navy. We interviewed knowledgeable officials about 
BRAC environmental cleanup costs from the Army Environmental Center, 
the Air Force Real Property Agency, and the Navy's Northeast BRAC 
Program Management Office. In addition, we visited four BRAC 2005 
locations--Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia; Umatilla Chemical Depot, 
Hermiston, Oregon; Brunswick Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine; and 
the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, Picayune, Mississippi--to gain a 
better understanding of the environmental cleanup requirements facing 
these installations and the processes that base officials are following 
to estimate cleanup costs. We also interviewed Office of the Secretary 
of Defense and the services' officials to gain an understanding of how 
the estimates derived from the services' environmental cost estimating 
models are reported in various Department of Defense (DOD) 
environmental reports to Congress. In so doing, we analyzed the cost 
information contained in each report in order to derive estimated 
cleanup costs for the prior BRAC rounds. We also compared the cost 
estimates projected at the installation level with estimates that were 
reported to Congress to verify that the data were consistent. Although 
we found some discrepancies, we concluded that, overall, the DOD data 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

To address our second objective to examine DOD's progress in 
transferring unneeded properties from the four prior BRAC rounds, we 
reviewed our prior BRAC reports and reports prepared by the 
Congressional Research Service and DOD on this subject. Using property 
transfer information on the four prior BRAC rounds provided by the 
Office of the Secretary of Defense and the services, we updated the 
transfer acreage data reported in our January 2005 report in order to 
determine the extent of progress made in the transfer of unneeded 
property. We assessed the reliability of the reported transferred 
property acreage by interviewing knowledgeable officials and comparing 
acreage totals to GAO reports from prior years. Although the acreage 
totals change as property is transferred and more accurate land surveys 
are completed, we determined that the data were sufficiently reliable 
to provide overall comparisons. We interviewed officials from the 
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Federal Facilities and 
consulted with them about their concerns regarding environmental 
cleanup at prior BRAC round bases. We interviewed DOD and military 
service officials responsible for environmental cleanup at BRAC and 
active bases at both the headquarters and field level to clarify 
reasons for property transfer delays, such as technology and 
regulations. We visited the three BRAC bases from the four prior BRAC 
rounds with the most expensive estimated cost to complete for cleanups-
-the former McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, California; the 
former Fort Ord, Marina, California; and the former Alameda Naval Air 
Station, Alameda, California. During these visits, we spoke not only 
with military officials but also with officials from local 
redevelopment authorities at these installations, as well as officials 
from the California State Environmental Protection Agency, to determine 
the major impediments to property transfers. To supplement these 
discussions we collected data from the services on the extent that 
environmental issues were impeding property transfer. 

To address our third objective to assess possible opportunities for DOD 
to expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded BRAC properties, we 
reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and policies governing the cleanup 
and transfer of properties, and we also reviewed prior GAO and DOD 
reports on this subject. We also reviewed DOD's 2006 Base Redevelopment 
and Realignment Manual for an assessment of tools available to the 
services for expediting the cleanup and property transfer. We analyzed 
the use of these tools to date at selected BRAC installations and 
compiled overall statistics on the use of these authorities in the 
prior BRAC rounds. We interviewed officials representing federal and 
state environmental regulatory agencies for their perspective on DOD 
cleanup activities and any opportunities for DOD to expedite the 
cleanup process while adhering to legal cleanup standards. In addition, 
during our visits to the seven installations mentioned earlier, we 
interviewed community officials for their perspective on the speed and 
quality of environmental cleanups and property transfers, and 
opportunities for speeding up the process. We spoke with cognizant from 
the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and service officials to 
ascertain their views as to the extent of oversight of the services' 
use of existing transfer tools and the sharing of lessons learned from 
the property transfer process. 

During the course of our review, we contacted the following offices 
with responsibility for oversight, management, and implementation of 
the environmental cleanup of military and specifically, BRAC bases: 

Office of the Secretary of Defense: 

* Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, 
Technology and Logistics, Installations and Environment, Washington, 
D.C. 

* Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Washington, D.C. 

Army: 

* Army Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff of Installation 
Management, Base Realignment and Closure Division, Arlington, Virginia: 

* Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Environmental 
Safety and Occupational Health, Washington, D.C. 

* Army Installation Management Agency, Arlington, Virginia: 

* Army Materiel Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia: 

* Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen, Maryland: 

* Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Office for Formerly Used 
Defense Sites, Washington, D.C. 

* Army National Guard, Arlington, Virginia: 

Navy: 

* Navy BRAC Program Management Office Northeast, Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania: 

* Navy BRAC Program Management Office, West, San Diego, California: 

* Navy BRAC Environmental Office, Arlington, Virginia: 

Air Force: 

* Air Force Real Property Agency, Arlington, Virginia: 

* Air Force Audit Agency, Washington, D.C. 

* Air National Guard, Arlington, Virginia: 

* Air Force Office of the Civil Engineer, Environmental Division, 
Arlington, Virginia: 

Other agencies: 

* Federal Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Branch, 
Arlington, Virginia: 

* Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management 
Officials, Washington, D.C. 

* State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento, 
California: 

* Fort Ord Reuse Authority, Marina, California: 

* McClellan Local Reuse Authority, Sacramento, California: 

* Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Alameda, California: 

* Umatilla Reuse Authority, Hermiston, Oregon: 

* Brunswick Local Redevelopment Authority, Brunswick, Maine: 

* Fort Monroe Reuse Authority, Hampton, Virginia: 

We visited three bases closed during the prior BRAC rounds--chosen 
because they represent each of the three services and also have the 
three most expensive estimated costs to complete cleanups for sites 
currently undergoing cleanup: 

* Fort Ord, Marina, California: 

* McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, California: 

* Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, California: 

We also visited four bases scheduled for closure under the 2005 BRAC 
round--chosen to represent a variety of missions as well as geographic 
diversity: 

* Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia: 

* Umatilla Chemical Depot, Hermiston, Oregon: 

* Brunswick Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine: 

* Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, Picayune, Mississippi: 

We conducted our work from January 2006 through November 2006 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: CERCLA Cleanup Requirements: 

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980 (CERCLA),[Footnote 43] as amended, authorizes cleanup 
actions at federal facilities where there is a release of hazardous 
substances or threat of such a release. CERCLA section 120(h) contains 
provisions that establish requirements for the transfer or lease of 
federally owned property based on storage, disposal, or known release 
of hazardous substances. All contracts for transfer or lease must 
include notice of this storage, disposal, or release. Except as noted 
below, CERCLA section 120(h)(3) requires that transfers of federal real 
property by deed must also include: (a) a covenant by the United States 
that all remedial action necessary to protect human health and the 
environment has been taken prior to transfer, (b) a covenant by the 
United States to undertake any further remedial action found to be 
necessary after transfer, and (c) a clause granting access to the 
transferred property in case remedial action or corrective action is 
found to be necessary after transfer. 

To clean up potentially contaminated sites on both active and closed 
bases, the Department of Defense (DOD) generally follows the process 
that is required under CERCLA, which generally includes the following 
phases and activities: 

* Preliminary Assessment--Available information is collected regarding 
contamination, including a search of historical records, to confirm 
whether a potential environmental contamination or military munitions 
hazard could be present and to determine whether further action is 
needed. 

* Site Investigation--This step usually involves a walk around the site 
by an environmental engineer and may involve some limited soil and 
water sampling including an analysis to determine the extent and 
source(s) of the hazards. 

* Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study--More rigorous statistical 
sampling and analysis is conducted to determine the exact nature and 
extent of contamination and whether cleanup action is needed and, if 
so, select alternative cleanup approaches. This could include removal, 
limiting public contact, determining no further action is warranted, or 
cleaning of the hazardous media (soil, air, or water) on site. 

* Remedial Design/Remedial Action--This phase involves designing and 
constructing the actual cleanup remedy, such as a pump and treat system 
for underground water, or the removal of munitions. 

* Long-term Monitoring--At this phase, parties responsible for the 
cleanup periodically review the remedy in place to ensure its continued 
effectiveness, including checking for unexploded ordnance and 
conducting public education. 

While the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 had 
originally required the government to warrant that all necessary 
cleanup action had been taken before transferring property to 
nonfederal ownership, the act was amended in 1996 to expedite transfers 
of contaminated property.[Footnote 44] Now such property, under some 
circumstances, can be transferred to nonfederal users before all 
remedial action has been taken. However, certain conditions must exist 
before the department can exercise this "early transfer authority." For 
example, the property must be suitable for transfer for the intended 
use; transfer of the property must not delay any cleanup actions; and 
the governor of the state where the property is located must approve 
the transfer. The advantage of an early transfer is that property is 
made available under a transfer authority to the future user as soon as 
possible to allow for concurrent environmental cleanup and 
redevelopment. The law still requires that contaminated sites must be 
cleaned up to ensure that past environmental hazards due to former DOD 
activity on transferred BRAC property are not harmful to human health 
or to the environment and that the property can support new use; 
however, the early transfer authority does allow for the concurrent 
cleanup and reuse of the property. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Environmental Cleanup Cost Information in Four Selected 
Reports to Congress: 

The Department of Defense (DOD) annually provides Congress with four 
required reports that include information on environmental cleanup 
costs and estimates at active and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 
installations. Each report is prepared for a different purpose, such as 
budgetary, financial, or program oversight, resulting in various 
presentations of estimated and actual cleanup costs. None of the 
reports, however, provides the total environmental program costs and 
estimates for each service and their bases. The types of environmental 
program costs include restoration and munitions cleanup, compliance, 
and program management and planning. 

The four annual reports are[Footnote 45] the (1) Annual BRAC Budget 
Appropriations Request, (2) Annual Defense Environmental Programs 
Report to Congress, (3) Annual Government's Consolidated Financial 
Statement Report, and (4) Annual Section 2907 report.[Footnote 46] The 
following provides a description of the reports' mandates, when they 
are issued, and the information they contain. 

Annual BRAC Budget Appropriations Request: Section 206 of the Defense 
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, Public 
Law 100-526, specifies the type of information required in DOD's annual 
budget appropriation request for BRAC funding. DOD and the services 
prepare separate budget justification books that provide details for 
each BRAC round on funds made available for environmental cleanup and 
the budget request estimate for the fiscal year that the request is 
being made for. The environmental funded amounts and the estimate 
include information on all environmental costs, including restoration 
and munitions cleanup, compliance, and program management and planning. 

The information in DOD's fiscal year 2006 budget request indicates that 
$9.0 billion had been made available for DERP (environmental 
restoration and munitions) cleanup and non-DERP (compliance and program 
management and planning) through fiscal year 2005 for the prior four 
BRAC rounds. The fiscal year 2006 budget request estimate for the 
environmental cleanup costs was about $378 million. DOD also presented 
Congress with information on the 2005 BRAC closures and realignments, 
which shows that DOD and the services plan to spend about $426 million 
on the environmental cleanup cost categories between fiscal year 2006 
and 2011. The estimated amounts were presented in current or inflated 
dollars. 

Although the Annual BRAC Budget Appropriations Request report includes 
all categories of costs, it does not include--nor is DOD required to 
report--the total estimated cost to complete the environmental cleanup 
(past and future costs) for the BRAC bases. 

Annual Government's Consolidated Financial Statement Report: As 
required by the Chief Financial Officer Act of 1990 and the Government 
Management Reform Act of 1994, DOD is required to report on its 
estimated environmental liabilities in the federal government's annual 
fiscal year consolidated financial statements, and does so each year in 
its performance and accountability report to Congress. The 
environmental liability information for active and BRAC bases is 
contained in note 14 of the financial statements for fiscal year 2005 
and the information contains separate line item amounts for the 
restoration and compliance categories. The environmental program 
management and planning cost amounts were included in the restoration 
amount and DOD uses the installations' defense environmental programs 
data to compile a large portion of its environmental liabilities for 
financial statement reporting. 

The November 15, 2005, report for fiscal year 2005 activity indicates 
that the total BRAC restoration liability amount, or future cost to 
complete, was $3.5 billion. The BRAC environmental liability for 
compliance and program management and planning was reported as $206.5 
million. The data are not inflated and are stated in current dollars. 

The government's annual consolidated financial statement report 
presents the most complete information on the environmental cost 
categories for the cost to compete the cleanup. The information is 
reported in total for DOD and summarized for each service. However, the 
report does not provide information on how much has been made available 
for BRAC environmental cleanup, and there is no detailed information 
presented for individual bases. 

Annual Defense Environmental Programs Report to Congress: As required 
by section 2706 of Title 10, DOD annually submits this report to 
Congress. The latest report, which covered fiscal year 2005, was issued 
to Congress in March 2006. Different sections of the report discuss and 
provide planning and funding costs and cost estimate information for 
the various DOD environmental programs at active and BRAC bases. These 
sections have information on active and BRAC bases' restoration and 
munitions cleanup expenditures for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and the 
cost to complete the environmental cleanup from 2006 to completion. The 
report also presents information on non-DERP and program management and 
planning costs and estimates for BRAC activities in the aggregate (but 
not by base). 

The information on the expected cost to complete the restoration and 
munitions environmental cleanup at BRAC bases for the first four rounds 
shows that DOD estimates this cost at about $3.8 billion from 2006 to 
completion. From the section of the report that reconciles the 
services' cost to complete with the reported environmental liability, 
we were able to sum the services' compliance and management and support 
costs and determine that the total cost to complete from fiscal year 
2006 for these categories totaled about $0.4 billion. The dollar 
amounts for cost to complete from 2006 through 2011 were inflated and 
the dollar amounts from fiscal year 2012 to completion were in constant 
2011 dollars. 

While the defense environmental programs report provides ample 
information on environmental cleanup costs and estimates, it does not 
consolidate the information to obtain an overall or total environmental 
cleanup cost amount for each service and base. 

Annual Section 2907 Report: This report addresses reporting 
requirements specified in section 2907 of Public Law 101-510, commonly 
referred to as the BRAC Act, for all BRAC 2005 installations. Among 
other things, the 2907 report includes details on the known 
environmental remediation restoration and munitions cleanup issues at 
each base affected by the 2005 BRAC recommendation. The information 
provides details on the estimate to complete the cleanup at each 
identified site, and plans and time lines to address the cleanup. 
According to DOD officials, the first report issued for the 2005 BRAC 
was in March 2006 and the estimates are based on the restoration and 
munitions cleanup data contained in the defense environmental programs 
report. 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense: 

Acquisition Technology And Logistics: 
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense: 
3000 Defense Pentagon: 
Washington, DC 20301-3000: 

Jan 08 2007: 

Mr. Brian J. Lepore: 
Acting Director, Defense Capabilities and Management: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Lepore: 

This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft 
report, "Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve 
Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of 
Unneeded Property," dated November 17, 2006, (GAO Code 350792/GAO-07- 
166). 

The Department partially concurs with the GAO recommendation to report 
all costs-past and future-required to complete environmental cleanup at 
each Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installation and to fully 
explain the scope and limitations of all the environmental cleanup 
costs DoD reports to Congress. While DoD concurs with the basic 
recommendation as stated above, DoD nonconcurs with the GAO suggestion 
to include this information in the annual BRAC budget justification 
documentation. 

The Department concurs with the GAO recommendation to require the 
military services to periodically report to the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense (OSD) on the status and proposed strategy for transferring 
BRAC properties and include an assessment of the usefulness of all 
tools at their disposal. 

The Department's comments on the recommendations and additional 
technical comments are enclosed. Thank you for the opportunity to 
comment on the Draft Report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Philip W. Grone: 
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense: 
(Installations and Environment): 

Enclosures: 
as stated: 

GAO Draft Report - Dated November 17, 2006 GAO Code 350792/GAO-07-166: 

"Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental 
Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property" 

Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
Environment to report all costs (Defense Environmental Restoration 
Program (DERP) and non-DERP) - past and future - required to complete 
environmental cleanup at each Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 
installation and to fully explain the scope and limitations of all the 
environmental cleanup costs DoD reports to Congress. The GAO also 
suggested DoD include this information in the annual BRAC budget 
justification documentation since it would accompany information 
Congress considers when making resource allocation decisions. (page 40/ 
GAO Draft Report): 

DoD Response: The Department partially concurs with the recommendation 
in the draft report. The Department concurs with the GAO recommendation 
to report all costs-past and future-required to complete environmental 
cleanup at each Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installation and to 
fully explain the scope and limitations of all the environmental 
cleanup costs DoD reports to Congress. The Department does not concur 
with the GAO suggestion to include this information in the annual BRAC 
budget justification documentation. The Department believes that 
including such information in the annual BRAC budget submission would 
be counterproductive. The annual BRAC budget documentation is the 
vehicle for justifying resources to implement BRAC actions for the 
fiscal year that the request is being made. Congress has prescribed the 
type of environmental information it wants presented in the budget 
documentation and the Department is in full compliance with that 
congressional direction. The Department will determine the best vehicle 
for reporting all BRAC costs - past and future - required to complete 
environmental cleanup at each BRAC installation. 

Recommendation 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense 
direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and 
Environment to require that the Military Services periodically report 
to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on the status and proposed 
strategy for transferring BRAC properties and to include an assessment 
of the usefulness of all the tools at their disposal. The GAO also 
suggested DoD place this information in an easily shared location, such 
as a Website, so that each Service, and even the local communities and 
private sector, can share and benefit from lessons learned. (Page 40/ 
GAO Draft Report): 

DoD Response: The Department concurs with the recommendation in the 
draft report. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Key Prior GAO Reports on DOD Environmental Cleanup: 

Environmental Liabilities: Long-Term Planning Hampered by Control 
Weaknesses and Uncertainties in the Federal Government's Estimates. GAO-
06-427. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006. 

Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Selection Process and 
Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. GAO-05-785. 
Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005. 

Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC Rounds. 
GAO-05-614. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2005. 

Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments and 
Closures. GAO-05-138. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2005. 

DOD Operational Ranges: More Reliable Cleanup Cost Estimates and a 
Proactive Approach to Identifying Contamination Are Needed. GAO-04-601. 
Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004. 

Military Munitions: DOD Needs to Develop a Comprehensive Approach for 
Cleaning Up Contaminated Sites. GAO-04-147. Washington, D.C.: December 
19, 2003. 

Environmental Compliance: Better DOD Guidance Needed to Ensure That the 
Most Important Activities Are Funded. GAO-03-639. Washington, D.C.: 
June 17, 2003. 

Environmental Contamination: DOD Has Taken Steps to Improve Cleanup 
Coordination at Former Defense Sites but Clearer Guidance Is Needed to 
Ensure Consistency. GAO-03-146. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2003. 

Military Base Closures: Progress Completing Actions from Prior 
Realignments and Closures. GAO-02-433. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002. 

Military Bases: Status of Prior Base Realignment and Closure Rounds. 
GAO/NSIAD-99-36. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 1998. 

Military Base Closures: Reducing High Costs of Environmental Cleanup 
Requires Difficult Choices. GAO/NSIAD-96-172. Washington, D.C.: 
September 5, 1996. 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Brian Lepore, Acting Director (202) 512-4523: 

Jim Reifsnyder, Assistant Director (202) 512-4166: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individuals named above, Barry Holman, Karen Kemper, 
Andy Marek, Bob Poetta, and Angie Zeidan made significant contributions 
to this report. 

Other individuals also contributing to this report include Susan Ditto, 
Ron La Due Lake, Steve Lipscomb, Ken Patton, Charles Perdue, and Ed 
Zadjura. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] UXO refers to ordnance that remains unexploded either through 
malfunction or design and can injure personnel or damage material. 
Types of UXO include bombs, missiles, rockets, artillery rounds, 
ammunition, or mines and is sometimes referred to as munitions and 
explosives of concern. 

[2] BRAC rounds were conducted in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. 

[3] GAO, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base 
Realignments and Closures, GAO-05-138 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 
2005). 

[4] DOD defines a major closure as one where the installation's plant 
replacement value exceeds $100 million. Included in this figure is the 
Navy's Broadway Complex in California, which was to be a major closure 
if the Navy did not enter into a long-term lease to redevelop the 
Complex before January 1, 2007. The Complex was leased to a private 
firm in November 2006 and thus will not close. 

[5] This figure includes acreage at three chemical demilitarization 
bases slated for closure--Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah; Newport 
Chemical Depot, Indiana; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon. 

[6] DOD defines minor closures as those installations with plant 
replacement values of less than or equal to $100 million. 

[7] Our analysis compiled from multiple DOD reports indicates that for 
the first four BRAC rounds $9.0 billion has been made available for the 
environmental cleanup--restoration and munitions cleanup, compliance, 
and program management and planning--through fiscal year 2005, and that 
after fiscal year 2005 an estimated $4.2 billion more would be required 
to complete the cleanup, for an overall total of $13.2 billion. Similar 
information has not been compiled as yet for cleanup costs for the 2005 
BRAC round. 

[8] For the purposes of this report, the term transfer refers to 
property that has been deeded to another user; it does not include 
leased property. Transfer data represent the best available data 
provided by each of the services as of September 30, 2006. 

[9] In 2005, we reported approximately 72 percent of 504,000 unneeded 
acres were disposed of by DOD. This unneeded acreage differs from the 
approximate 502,500 acres currently reported because as property is 
transferred, more accurate surveys are being completed, which changes 
the amount of available acres from one year to another. Further, some 
acreage initially declared excess has been retained by DOD, thus 
decreasing the acreage available for transfer. 

[10] Pub. L. No. 104-201, § 334 (1996). 

[11] DOD defines a "'major base closure" as one where plant replacement 
value exceeds $100 million. DOD defines "plant replacement value" as 
the cost to replace an existing facility with a facility of the same 
size at the same location, using today's building standards. DOD 
defines a "major base realignment" as one with a net loss of 400 or 
more military and civilian personnel. 

[12] Pub. L. No. 101-510, § 2904 (1990). 

[13] This figure includes acreage at three chemical demilitarization 
bases slated for closure--Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah; Newport 
Chemical Depot, Indiana; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon. 

[14] GAO, Military Base Closures: Progress in Completing Actions from 
Prior Realignments and Closures, GAO-02-433 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 
2002). See app. V for a list of key related prior GAO reports. 

[15] 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9630; Pub. L. No. 99-499, (1986). 

[16] Pub. L. No. 99-499, § 120. 

[17] Pub. L. No. 99-499, § 211. 

[18] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Pub. 
L. No. 104-201 § 334. 

[19] According to the Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, dated 
March 1, 2006, a local redevelopment authority is any entity (including 
an entity established by a state or local government) recognized by the 
Secretary of Defense as the entity responsible for developing the 
redevelopment plan with respect to the installation or for directing 
the implementation of such a plan. 

[20] The five Army National Guard properties located on federal lands 
are Fort Chaffee Maneuver Training Center, Arkansas; National Guard 
Bell, California; Jackson Armory, Oregon; Oxford, Ohio; and the Army 
Aviation Support Facility, Wyoming. 

[21] The Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model is an 
analytical tool used to calculate the costs, savings, and return on 
investment of proposed realignment and closure actions. 

[22] Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to 
Congress. 

[23] In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD officials emphasized 
that the Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual states that DOD 
prefers that military department cleanup decisions be based on the 
current use of the property. 

[24] Non-DERP cleanups refer to those cleanups that are not eligible 
for Defense Environmental Program funds, i.e., cleanups of hazardous 
waste released after 1986 and cleanups of munitions released after 
2002. DOD uses the term compliance to refer to these cleanups. 

[25] In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD officials stated that 
the majority of these facilities are small acreage, single buildings 
with limited operations. 

[26] See Appendix P of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment 
Commission Report to the President. 

[27] See app. II for a description of DOD's environmental cleanup 
phases. 

[28] The report names listed are the names commonly used. The official 
titles of these reports are, DOD Base Realignment and Closure Executive 
Summary and Budget Justification, Department of Defense Performance and 
Accountability Report, Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to 
Congress, and Department of Defense Report on 2005 Defense Base Closure 
and Realignment Implementation, respectively. 

[29] For the purposes of this report, we considered this information to 
be a report since it provides support information for the annual budget 
submission to Congress. 

[30] This reporting requirement refers to Section 2907 of Public Law 
101-510. 

[31] In January 2005, we reported approximately 72 percent of 504,000 
unneeded acres was transferred by DOD to other users. That acreage 
differs from the approximate 502,500 acres currently reported because 
as property is transferred, more accurate surveys are completed and 
acres figures change. Further, some acreage initially declared excess 
has been retained by DOD, thus decreasing the acreage available for 
transfer. 

[32] The unneeded acreage does not include over 23,000 acres at the 
Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado, which, although designated as 
unneeded, will not be available for further disposition until the 
chemical demilitarization mission at these bases is completed. 

[33] Of this amount, approximately 16,600 acres belong to the Air 
Force, 11,600 acres belong to the Navy, and about 84,000 acres are 
owned by the Army. Included in the Army acreage is about 50,000 
untransferred acres at Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana, which is 
currently being retained by the Army and permitted to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service. 

[34] The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act governs the generation, 
transportation, and management of hazardous wastes in order to protect 
human health and the environment. 

[35] Pub. L. No. 104-201, § 334. 

[36] "Privatization" is when property is transferred in connection with 
a payment to the new owner for the cost to complete the environmental 
cleanup. 

[37] Pub. L. No. 104-201, § 334. 

[38] GAO, Military Base Closures: Progress in Completing Actions from 
Prior Realignments and Closures, GAO-02-433 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5, 
2002). 

[39] DOD, Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, 4165.66-M, March 
1, 2006. 

[40] The most likely use to which a property can be put, which will 
produce the highest monetary return, promote its maximum value, or 
serve a public or institutional purpose. 

[41] The Army Conveyance Team consists of the BRAC Program Manager; 
Base Transition Coordinator; Base Environmental Coordinator; 
representatives from the installation, Army Environmental Law Division, 
Corps of Engineers and Army Office of General Counsel; and other Army 
personnel as necessary. 

[42] The Navy Program Management Office (PMO) regions are: PMO West 
(San Diego, Calif.); PMO Southeast (Charleston, S.C.); and PMO 
Northeast (Philadelphia, Pa.) 

[43] Pub. L. No. 99-499 (1986). 

[44] Pub. L. No. 104-201, § 334. 

[45] The report titles listed are the titles commonly used. The 
official titles of these reports are, DOD Base Realignment and Closure 
Executive Summary and Budget Justification, Department of Defense 
Performance and Accountability Report, The Defense Environmental 
Programs Annual Report to Congress, and the Department of Defense 
Report on 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Implementation, 
respectively. 

[46] This reporting requirement refers to Section 2907 of Public Law 
101-510. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: