Cleanup issues faced at closing bases are similar to those at active bases. Through March 1996, DOD had allocated $3.4 billion, obligated $2.8 billion, and expended $1.6 billion on BRAC environmental cleanup. Further, with the use of available DOD financial data, we estimate that the total cost is likely to exceed $11 billion, as shown in table 4. Among these factors are (1) the large number of contaminated sites and associated extent of contamination, (2) the requirements of federal and state environmental laws and regulations, (3) the lack of cost-effective cleanup technology, and (4) property reuse plans. Identifying Full Extent of Contamination at BRAC Sites Is Difficult and Costly

The sheer magnitude of the BRAC program, coupled with the severe soil and water contamination that has developed over decades of base operations, is a key cause for the high cost of cleanup. Environmental Laws and Regulations Contribute to High Costs

The requirements of federal and state environmental laws and regulations have a significant impact on the cost of environmental cleanup. Opportunities for Reducing Cleanup Costs and Their Impact on Programmatic Goals

Potential options exist for reducing the cost of cleanup. The options we analyzed are (1) deferring or extending certain cleanup actions, (2) modifying existing laws and regulations, (3) adopting more cost-effective cleanup technologies, and (4) sharing costs with transferees. It would delay transfer of property to users and be contrary to the spirit of the President’s base closure community reinvestment program, announced in July 1993, for the economic recovery of those communities affected by the closure process. It must be recognized that, on a case-by-case basis, deferring or extending cleanups may increase costs. For example, easing cleanup standards and associated requirements may increase environmental risk and create unacceptable danger to human health and the environment, thereby increasing public resistance and dissatisfaction. This revision would reduce cost and allow more expedited transfer of uncontaminated property. Developing and Using More Cost-Effective Technology

New and more cost-effective technology may offer cost reduction potential for cleaning up groundwater, unexploded ordnance, and other contaminants. First, because many BRAC bases are being cleaned up under accelerated schedules, many new technologies now under development may not be available for widespread use for years after the technology is needed. Second, newer technology may not be more cost-effective than existing technology. Existing legislation to encourage sharing costs has not been effective, in part, because of unknown future liabilities and difficulty establishing the value of the property.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the costs of the Department of Defense's (DOD) environmental cleanup efforts under the base realignment and closure (BRAC) process, focusing on the: (1) reasons that cleanups are so costly; and (2) potential for reducing costs and the impact on program goals.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) as of March 1996, DOD had allocated about $3.4 billion for the BRAC environmental cleanup program; (2) as more bases are closed and more cleanup actions are underway, program costs are likely to increase significantly; (3) although DOD has not computed a total cost estimate for the program, available DOD financial data indicate that program costs are likely to exceed $11 billion; (4) the key reasons for the high cost of closing base cleanups include the large number of contaminated sites and difficulties associated with types of contamination, requirements of federal and state laws and regulations, lack of cost-effective cleanup technology for certain contaminants, and intended property reuse; (5) DOD has identified over 5,300 potentially contaminated sites at its BRAC bases; (6) the laws and regulations DOD must abide by in expediting property transfer for reuse have proven to be time- consuming, complex, and costly; (7) technology limitations in cleaning property of certain contaminants (such as unexploded ordnance) have proved costly; (8) options for reducing cleanup costs at closing bases include deferring or extending certain cleanup actions, modifying existing laws and regulations, adopting more cost-effective cleanup technologies, and sharing costs with the ultimate user of the property; (9) all of these options may adversely impact programmatic goals, thereby presenting decisionmakers with difficult choices in developing a cost-effective environmental cleanup program; (10) deferring or extending cleanup actions may delay property transfer and reuse, hurt the economic revitalization of communities affected by the closure process, and harm the environment and health as well; (11) modifying law and regulations may increase environmental risk, thereby increasing public resistance and dissatisfaction; (12) adopting more cost- effective technologies may delay the program because new technologies currently under development may not be available for years and the new technologies may not be more cost- effective than existing technologies; and (13) sharing costs with the ultimate user could present problems because of unknown future liabilities and difficulty establishing the value of the property.