Because of Differing EPA and DOD Performance Metrics and DOD’s Failure to Obtain EPA Approvals, Status of DOD Cleanup Is Unclear

Because EPA and DOD use different terminology and metrics to report  investigative and remedial work at defense installations, determining the  status of cleanup at Fort Meade, McGuire AFB, and Tyndall AFB is  challenging. EPA’s data suggest that DOD’s progress at these installations  was limited primarily to the early study or investigative phase, whereas  DOD’s data suggest that some work in the later remedial action or cleanup  phase has taken place at these installations. DOD, on the other hand, reports that cleanup is further along at all three  of these installations. The fact that DOD measures progress in smaller increments  can lead to differing interpretations of cleanup. Status of Cleanup at These Installations Is Unclear Because DOD Did Not Obtain EPA Concurrence with Some Cleanup Actions and May Need to Do Additional Work

EPA and DOD also report very different cleanup progress at defense  installations because some of DOD’s reported claims of completed  cleanup phases were never approved by EPA, and therefore EPA does not  recognize them. A Variety of Obstacles Have Delayed Cleanup Progress

Several obstacles have delayed cleanup at the three selected DOD  installations in our review. Lack of IAGs Has Made Managing Installation Cleanup and Addressing Routine Matters Challenging, thus Delaying EPA-approved Cleanup Progress

The lack of IAGs has contributed to delays in cleanup progress at the three  installations in our review. However, PBCs can create pressure on contractors to operate within  price caps and meet deadlines, which may conflict with regulatory review  times and encourage DOD to take shortcuts. Other problems that EPA cited with using PBCs for environmental cleanup  work include    contractor’s inability to carry out cleanup-related work required by EPA or  other stakeholders that was not contained in the original PBC contract,  such as installing monitoring wells, without contract amendment;    unrealistic time frames for cleanup work that have not been agreed to by  EPA or other stakeholders and that create an incentive for rushed work,  resulting in possible rework later on;    poor quality of documents submitted to EPA, including lack of legal  review and routine failure of the installation to perform quality reviews of  contractors’ work, which EPA officials said were due to pressure to meet  the fixed price aspect of these contracts, and which result in significant  redrafting by EPA’s legal staff; and    PBC contractors—rather than DOD officials—acting as project managers  to the point of decision making, rather than supporting DOD, when critical  cleanup decisions require interaction between EPA and DOD officials. The Air Force’s Failure to Sign an IAG and Pattern of Noncompliance with Federal Laws and Regulations Concerning Environmental Cleanup Have Delayed Cleanup Progress at Tyndall

After 13 years on the NPL, Tyndall AFB stands out as the only one of the  three installations that received EPA administrative cleanup orders for  sitewide cleanup and has not signed an IAG even though IAGs are required  under CERCLA. Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making six recommendations, as follows:  To provide greater assurance that cleanup progress is being measured  accurately and consistently, and to build off of the existing DOD and EPA  working group’s initial efforts, we recommend that the Secretary of  Defense and Administrator of EPA develop a plan with schedules and  milestones to identify and implement a uniform method for reporting  cleanup progress at the installations and allow for transparency to  Congress and the public. Specifically, when a  federal agency refuses to enter an IAG at an NPL site or to comply with an  administrative cleanup order issued pursuant to RCRA’s imminent hazard  provision, EPA cannot take steps to enforce the law, such as initiating a  court action to assess fines, as it would do in the case of a private party. We therefore believe it is critically important that  Congress consider additional EPA enforcement authority to ensure that  cleanup is being pursued properly at federal facility NPL sites. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to determine (1) the status of Department of Defense  (DOD) cleanup of hazardous substances at selected DOD installations  subject to administrative orders and (2) obstacles, if any, to progress in  cleanup at these selected sites and the causes of such obstacles. To select installations for more detailed study from the 11 installations  that were out of compliance with the Comprehensive Environmental  Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLA) in  February 2009 because they did not have interagency agreements (IAG),  we reviewed the 4 that were issued additional Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) cleanup orders under the Resource Conservation and  Recovery Act (RCRA) or under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). GAO Comments

1. For more than a decade  DOD has failed to enter into IAGs required by CERCLA section 120 to  clean up DOD National Priorities List (NPL) sites.
Why GAO Did This Study

Before the passage of federal environmental legislation in the 1970s and 1980s, Department of Defense (DOD) activities contaminated millions of acres of soil and water on and near DOD sites. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has certain oversight authorities for cleaning up contaminants on federal property, and has placed 1,620 of the most contaminated sites--including 141 DOD installations--on its National Priorities List (NPL). As of February 2009, after 10 or more years on the NPL, 11 DOD installations had not signed the required interagency agreements (IAG) to guide cleanup with EPA. GAO was asked to examine (1) the status of DOD cleanup of hazardous substances at selected installations that lacked IAGs, and (2) obstacles, if any, to cleanup at these installations. GAO selected and visited three installations, reviewed relevant statutes and agency documents, and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found

EPA and DOD use different terms and metrics to report cleanup progress; therefore, the status of cleanup at Fort Meade Army Base, McGuire Air Force Base (AFB), and Tyndall AFB is unclear. EPA reports that cleanup at all three installations is in the early investigative phases, while DOD's data suggest that cleanup is further along and, in some cases, in mature stages. EPA and DOD have differing interpretations of cleanup progress because they describe and assess cleanup differently. In particular, while both agencies divide installations into smaller cleanup projects, DOD divides them into units generally smaller than EPA's; therefore, DOD measures its progress in smaller increments. Further, because DOD did not obtain EPA's approval for key cleanup decisions, EPA does not recognize them. Unless key cleanup decisions are justified, documented, and available to the public for review and comment, they are not sufficient under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), and once an IAG is in place, some DOD cleanup work may have to be redone. When an agency refuses to enter into an IAG and cleanup progress lags, because of statutory and other limitations, EPA cannot take steps--such as issuing and enforcing orders--to compel CERCLA cleanup as it would for a private party. A variety of obstacles have delayed cleanup progress at these installations. First, DOD's persistent failure to enter IAGs, despite reaching agreement with EPA on the basic terms, has made managing site cleanup and addressing routine matters challenging at these installations. For example, in the absence of IAGs, DOD may fund work at other sites ahead of these NPL sites. Second, DOD failed to disclose some contamination to EPA and the public in a timely fashion, including lead shot on a playground, delaying cleanup and putting human health at risk. Third, the extensive use of performance-based contracts at these installations has created pressure to operate within price caps and fixed deadlines. In some cases, these pressures may have contributed to installations not exploring the full range of cleanup remedies, or relying on nonconstruction remedies, such as allowing contaminated groundwater to attenuate over time rather than being cleaned up. In particular, Tyndall AFB's long-standing lack of full compliance with environmental cleanup requirements, such as notification of hazardous releases and EPA's 2007 administrative order, has been an obstacle to verifiable cleanup of that installation.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is recommending, among other things, that EPA and DOD identify options that would provide a uniform method for reporting cleanup progress at the installations and allow for transparency to Congress and the public. EPA and DOD agreed with the recommendations directed at them. GAO is also suggesting that Congress may want to consider giving EPA certain tools to enforce CERCLA at federal facilities without IAGs. DOD disagreed with this suggestion. GAO believes EPA needs additional authority to ensure timely and proper cleanup at such sites.