This  assessment determines if the property was ever owned or controlled by  DOD and if hazards caused by DOD’s use may be present. If, however, the Corps  determines that a DOD-caused hazard that could require further study may  exist on a former DOD-controlled property, the Corps begins a project to  further study and/or clean up the hazard. Similarly, the two primary DOD and Corps guidance  documents for implementing the FUDS program emphasize the need for  Corps coordination with regulators but do not provide clear direction or  specific steps for involving regulators in the FUDS program. More  specific language regarding consultation as it relates to the cleanup of  hazardous substances is provided in 10 U.S.C. In addition, CERCLA has specific consultation  requirements for properties on the National Priorities List, including the 21  FUDS on the list for which EPA is the primary regulator. Guidance Does Not Cover the Preliminary Assessment of Eligibility and Very Little Coordination Took Place During This Phase

The DOD Management Guidance and FUDS Program Manual are silent on  regulators’ roles in preliminary assessments of eligibility, during which  decisions on property eligibility and the need for cleanup are made, in part  because the law requiring consultation with regulators is broad and does  not mention consultation with the states, only with EPA. Individual Corps districts also took steps to improve  coordination. For example,  the memorandum required the Corps to  inform states of FUDS that are likely to go through a preliminary  assessment of eligibility,    provide states with updated lists of all ongoing and future activities at   involve states in setting priorities for FUDS work,    provide states a final list of FUDS that will undergo some type of work  in the coming year,  inform states of any Corps deviation from planned work and provide  them with the rationale for any such changes, and  involve states in developing the final report of the preliminary  assessment of eligibility. To better promote greater and more  consistent coordination with regulators, DOD and the Corps will need to  assess the success of individual district efforts to determine which lessons  learned from these activities should be included in program guidance. Some State Regulators Believe Poor Coordination by the Corps Makes It Difficult for Them to Ensure That Environmental Standards Are Met

Some state regulators we contacted believe that when the Corps does not  inform them of its FUDS cleanup activities or involve them in the various  stages of the FUDS program, they do not have the information necessary  to ensure that applicable cleanup standards have been met and that the  cleanup actions will protect human health and the environment. Further,  officials in 9 of the states we contacted said that when they are not  involved in project and property closeouts—the points at which the Corps  concludes that all its cleanup work has been completed—state regulatory  agencies have no assurance that Corps actions have met state cleanup  requirements. On the other hand, eight of these officials told us  that they agree with recent NDAI decisions that were made during the last  3 years. Specifically, 10 U.S.C. Overall, EPA believes that a better-coordinated effort among all parties, as  discussed in its policy, would improve the effectiveness of cleanup at  FUDS and increase public confidence in the actions taken at these sites. Without an agreement on roles and responsibilities, DOD and EPA have  been unable to establish an effective working relationship on FUDS or  have had to undertake extra efforts to come to an agreement on how a  cleanup should be conducted. Because the site was a formerly used defense site, DOD has responsibility  for cleaning up the site under the Defense Environmental Restoration  Program. Finally, at the federal level, EPA and the Corps disagree about EPA’s role  in the cleanup of more than 9,000 FUDS that are not on the National  Priorities List. As a starting point, we recommend that the Secretary of the Department of  Defense direct the Secretary of the Department of Army to    assess the impact of the Corps’ recent efforts to improve coordination  through actions such as directives and the Management Action Plan  pilot program and incorporate the successful components as  requirements into its FUDS Program Manual, and    assess practices individual Corps districts have used to coordinate with  regulators and develop a list of best practices for dissemination  throughout the Corps that districts might use to improve their  coordination. Overall, the steps being taken or planned by DOD to improve coordination  with regulators could, when completed, constitute a significant  improvement over current processes and should go a long way toward  addressing the problems identified in this report that were the subject of  our recommendations. Appendix I: Additional Details on Our Scope and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to (1) identify federal requirements for  DOD and the Corps to coordinate with state and federal regulators during  the FUDS cleanup program, (2) determine the extent to which the Corps  has coordinated with state regulators since the start of the FUDS program  and assess the recent steps it has taken to better coordinate, and (3)  identify any concerns regulators may have about coordination with the  Corps.
Why GAO Did This Study

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is in charge of addressing cleanup at the more than 9,000 U.S. properties that were formerly owned or controlled by the Department of Defense (DOD) and have been identified as potentially eligible for environmental cleanup. The Corps has determined that more than 4,000 of these properties have no hazards that require further Corps study or cleanup action. However, in recent years, hazards have surfaced at some of these properties, leading state and federal regulators to question whether the Corps has properly assessed and cleaned up these properties. In this context, Congress asked us to (1) analyze federal coordination requirements that apply to the cleanup of these properties, (2) assess recent DOD and Corps efforts to improve coordination, and (3) identify any issues regulators may have about coordination with the Corps.

What GAO Found

Federal law requires DOD and the Corps of Engineers to consult with state regulatory agencies and EPA during the process of cleaning up formerly used defense sites (FUDS). However, the law only provides specifics for the cleanup phase for hazardous substances. DOD's Management Guidance and the FUDS Program Manual do not provide clear direction or specific steps for involving regulators in the FUDS program. In addition, both the law and the guidance are silent on the subject of consultation or coordination with regulators during the preliminary assessment phase, when the Corps makes decisions on whether a former defense site is eligible for DOD cleanup and whether further investigation and/or cleanup are needed. DOD and Corps officials told GAO that they would revise their guidance to include specific, but as yet undetermined, instructions for coordination with regulators during such decisions. DOD and the Corps have recently taken several steps to improve coordination. For example, they are working with the regulatory community to develop specific steps that Corps districts can take, such as providing states with updated lists of current and future FUDS program activities in their states and initiating a new pilot program in nine states that has the Corps working side by side with regulators in the cleanup of former defense sites. In addition, several Corps districts have independently taken steps to improve coordination with state regulators. DOD and the Corps will need to assess the effectiveness of these various initiatives to determine which are successful and should be included in program guidance to all districts. Despite the improvements in coordination, regulators still raised two major issues about Corps coordination on the FUDS program. First, some states believe that they lack the information necessary to properly oversee cleanup work at former defense sites and to judge the validity of Corps decisions. For example, 15 of the 27 states GAO contacted believe they need to be involved in knowing what the Corps is doing during the preliminary assessment phase. Also, 9 of the 27 states believe they need to be involved in project closeouts, so that they can ensure that the Corps has met state cleanup standards. Second, EPA believes it should have a larger role in the cleanup of former defense sites. Although states are the primary regulator at the majority of former defense sites and EPA is the primary regulator for only the 21 former defense sites that are on the list of the nation's worst hazardous sites, EPA believes that its role even on the unlisted sites should be greater. The agency believes that this would improve the effectiveness of the cleanups and increase public confidence overall. The Corps disagrees, and the two agencies have been unable to establish an effective working relationship on the cleanup for former defense sites. Commenting on a draft of this report, DOD stated that it generally agreed with the recommendations and was taking or planned to take steps that should, when completed, substantially correct the problems GAO cited.