£
5
3D
O
O
w.
V PROrt°"'
o
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Cleaning up and revitalizing land
EPA Oversight Provided
Reasonable Controls to Deter
and Minimize Trespassing at
the Fort Ord Superfund Site
Report No. 20-E-0169
May 14, 2020

-------
Report Contributors:
Tina Lovingood
Patrick Milligan
Bakari Baker
Abbreviations
EPA	U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FORA	Fort Ord Reuse Authority
MRS	Munitions Response Site
OIG	Office of Inspector General
Cover Photo: Locked gate of entry to Fort Ord with signage indicating danger in the area and
no trespassing allowed. (OIG photo)
Are you aware of fraud, waste, or abuse in an	EPA Office of Inspector General
EPA program?	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW (2410T)
Washington, D.C. 20460
EPA Inspector General Hotline	(202) 566-2391
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW (2431T)	www.epa.gov/oiq
Washington. D.C. 20460
(888) 546-8740
(202) 566-2599 (fax)
OIG Hotline@epa.gov	Subscribe to our Email Updates
Follow us on Twitter @EPAoiq
Learn more about our OIG Hotline.	Send us your Project Suggestions

-------
tfED ST/,,.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	20-E-0169
|	^	Hffirp nf ln«nprtnr f^pripral	May 2020
•	U • O ¦ ^ 11V11 vl IIIIUII Id I I I U ICUll
\ Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
Why We Did This Project
We conducted this evaluation
to determine whether the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's Superfund
institutional controls achieved
their stated goal of preventing
human exposure at Superfund
sites. This report focuses on
our evaluation of Fort Ord, a
28,000-acre Superfund site in
California that was a former
Army base. Future reports will
describe our evaluations of
institutional controls at other
Superfund sites.
We selected Fort Ord because
of the human health risk of
potential exposure to
unexploded munitions. Also,
the 2017 Five-Year Review of
Fort Ord stated that trespassing
was an ongoing issue at the
site.
We reviewed a sample of the
institutional controls in place at
Fort Ord—fencing and
signage—to deter trespassing
and protect human health from
explosive constituents and
other contaminants.
EPA Oversight Provided Reasonable Controls to Deter
and Minimize Trespassing at the Fort Ord Superfund
Site
What We Found
During our site visit, we found that the EPA, the
U.S. Army, and other organizations use fencing
and signage as institutional controls at Fort Ord to
deter and minimize illegal trespassing and to be
protective of human health. The Army and the EPA
have not deemed Fort Ord protective of human
health and the environment due to the projected
amount of munitions cleanup and the estimated
time it could take to complete that cleanup.
The steps taken by the Army
with EPA oversight,
combined with planned
follow-up actions moving
forward, represent a
reasonable effort to deter
and minimize trespassing.
After Fort Ord was closed in 1994, use of off-road transit in the property was
restricted to authorized personnel unless otherwise posted. Despite the site's
restricted access, trespassing continues. The Presidio of Monterey Police have
documented trespassing incidents since 1997.
During our site visit, we verified that the fencing and gates were clearly marked with
signs indicating the danger in the area and that entry was not allowed. In addition,
although trespassing is a recurring problem at the site, we verified that the integrity
of the fencing and gates was not compromised and that secured areas were not
breached. For the institutional controls we sampled at the time of our site visit, the
steps taken by the Army with EPA oversight, combined with planned follow-up
actions moving forward, represent a reasonable effort to deter and minimize
trespassing and prevent people from being exposed to unexploded munitions and
chemical soil contamination.
We make no recommendations in this report.
This report addresses the
following:
• Cleaning up and
revitalizing land.
Address inquiries to our public
affairs office at (202) 566-2391 or
OIG WEBPOSTINGS@epa.gov.
List of OIG reports.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
May 14, 2020
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: EPA Oversight Provided Reasonable Controls to Deter and Minimize Trespassing at the
Fort Ord Superfund Site
Report No. 20-E-0169
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The project number for this evaluation was OA&E-FY19-0090.
This report contains findings that the OIG has identified. Final determinations on matters in this report
will be made by EPA managers in accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
Because this report contains no recommendations, you are not required to respond to this report. However,
if you submit a response, it will be posted on the OIG's public website, along with our memorandum
commenting on your response. Your response should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that complies
with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. The
final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public; if your response
contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with corresponding
justification.
FROM: Sean W. O'Donnell
TO:
Peter Wright, Assistant Administrator
Office of Land and Emergency Management
We will post this report to our website at www.epa.gov/oig.

-------
EPA Oversight Provided Reasonable Controls
to Deter and Minimize Trespassing
at the Fort Ord Superfund Site
20-E-0169
Table of C
Purpose		1
Background		1
Responsible Offices		4
Scope and Methodology		5
Results of Evaluation		6
Conclusions		7
Agency Response and OIG Assessment		7
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report	 8
B Distribution	 9

-------
Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation was to determine whether the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Superfund institutional controls achieved their stated goal of
preventing human exposure at Superfund sites. This report focuses on our
evaluation of Fort Ord, a 28,000-acre Superfund site in California that was a
former Army base. Future reports will describe our evaluations of institutional
controls at other Superfund sites.
Background
Fort Ord served primarily as a training and staging facility for infantry troops
from 1917 until its deactivation in 1994. Activities conducted throughout the
base, including industrial activities and military munitions training, have resulted
in chemicals impacting its soil and groundwater. Risks to the public's safety from
explosives exist because unexploded munitions have been found in former
munitions training areas.
Cleaning up Superfund sites is a complex, multiphase process. First, there is a site
assessment to determine whether the site poses a threat to people and the
environment, as well as whether hazards need to be addressed immediately. Next
is the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study, which involves evaluating the
nature and the extent of contamination at a site, assessing any threats to human
health and the environment, and identifying and evaluating potential cleanup
alternatives. The resulting Record of Decision explains the cleanup alternatives
considered and the EPA's selected remedy. Detailed cleanup plans are developed
and implemented during the remedial design and remedial action stages. Every
five years, the EPA reviews whether the selected remedy as described in the
Record of Decision remains protective of human health and the environment. The
site is considered "construction complete" after physical cleanup activities are
completed.
Cleanup actions were performed on parts of Fort Ord while other parts are, or will
be, undergoing cleanup. There are over 350 institutional controls at Fort Ord,
according to several Records of Decision. These institutional controls are
administrative or legal controls that minimize the potential for human exposure to
contamination by limiting land or resource use, and they can be used during all
stages of the cleanup process. They are a subset of Land Use Controls, which are
physical, legal, or administrative mechanisms that restrict the use of, or limit
access to, real property to manage risks to human health and the environment.
Physical mechanisms to contain or reduce contamination include physical barriers
like fences and signs that can limit access to real property.
We focused on the institutional controls related to access management, including
fencing and signage, that are described in the site's multiple Records of Decision.
20-E-0169
1

-------
Access management also includes regular security patrols of the fenced areas of
the site.
Cleanup is still ongoing on the portion of the site called the "Impact Area
Munitions Response Area, Track 3 Munitions Response Site." The Impact Area is
fenced, warning signs are posted, and access is controlled by the Army. Figure 1
is a map of the site. As part of our review of the fence surrounding the entire site,
we also observed portions of the Track 3 Impact Area Munitions Response Area
boundary fence, depicted in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Map of Fort Ord highlighting the Track 3 impact Area
Munitions Response Area
Monterey
Bay
FORMER FORT
ORD BOUNDARY
<$v:TRACK3 JS;
MPACTAREA
Impact Area MRA and Fort Ord Location Map
Record of Decision
Track 3 Munitions Response Site
Former Fort Ord, California
4068064322 D2.4
attcttC oa.lt
2*2003
VtOCMTC
22003
Source: The EPA.
20-E-0169
2

-------
Until the Track 3 Munitions Response Area remedy is fully implemented,
ongoing remedial activities and access controls are designed to protect exposure
pathways that could cause unacceptable risks. Specific controls include security
patrols; munitions recognition and safety training for authorized personnel;
fencing, gate, and signage upkeep; and annual security monitoring and reporting.
The EPA oversees the Army's maintenance of fences and signs. The Records of
Deci sion require that fences and signage be installed as part of site access
management measures based on reuse and risks. The existing fencing (a four-
strand barbed wire fence with concertina wire in some portions) surrounding the
Impact Area and signage is maintained, with vegetation mowed along the fence
line.
TRESMSSM.
TRESPASS,W6
Source: EPA Office of Inspector Genera .
Note: The image shows the "U.S. PROPERTY NO TRESPASSING" sign (enlarged) on the fence
line of the Fort Ord property. Barbed wire is also placed at ground level.
According to the Army's 2016 Fort Ord MRS Security Program report,
trespassing has always been an issue at the site. In the 2017 report of the same
name, the Army categorizes trespassing incidents as major or minor. The Army
defines a major trespassing incident as when an unauthorized person is discovered
accessing a restricted MRS or other restricted area, disregarding appropriate
postings, or when there is evidence of trespassing that is significant enough to
warrant a police report, such as cases of equipment damage or theft. A minor
trespassing incident is when there is evidence that a person or persons went
20-E-0169
3

-------
beyond an appropriately posted boundary, but no one is caught and there is no
damage or theft.
The report's analysis of major and minor trespassing incident reports from 2007
to 2017 indicates that the most common trespasser is an area resident, visitor, or
student who forced or maneuvered his or her way into a restricted MRS fence line
or gate.
As a result of the 2017 report, the Army committed to completing several follow-
up actions including:
•	Continuing to issue citations against trespassers who enter the restricted
MRS.
•	Adjusting patrols, fences, signs, and gates around restricted the MRS as
appropriate and as associated property transfers occur.
•	Continuing to improve communication and cooperation between the Army
and law enforcement agencies.
The number of recorded incidents of trespassing has decreased in the last few
years. According to the Army's 2017 Fort Ord MRS Security Program Report,
four major and 11 minor trespassing incidents occurred in 2017. There were ten
trespassing incidents in 2018. Nine of the incidents were minor, and one incident
was categorized as major.
Responsible Offices
The Office of Land and Emergency Management is responsible for the EPA's
Superfund cleanup program, including oversight of the EPA Regional Superfund
programs. The Army is responsible for overseeing the cleanup activities and
ensuring the protectiveness of the institutional controls at Fort Ord, and the EPA,
specifically Region 9, is the lead regulatory Agency. According to the Fort Ord
Reuse Authority Land Use Controls Implementation Plan/Operations and
Maintenance Plan, the roles and responsibilities of the other federal, state, and
local government agencies, and other entities involved in the cleanup efforts and
reuse of the cleaned-up portions of the site, are:
• California Department of Toxic Substances Control: Conducts regulatory
concurrence with the EPA and enforces land use restrictions for all of Fort
Ord.
• Fort Ord Reuse Authority:1 Responsible for completing the response
actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
1 FORA is a local agency that oversees the planning, financing, and implementing reuse of the Fort Ord property. The
agency comprises representatives from cities, the county, special districts, public educational institutions, the military,
and state and federal legislators. FORA assumed some of the Army's cleanup obligations funded under an Army
Environmental Cooperative Agreement Grant in Monterey County, California.
20-E-0169

-------
Compensation, and Liability Act that are deemed necessary to protect
human health and the environment for future uses of the site, except for
the responsibilities retained by the Army. FORA is responsible for
implementing and enforcing the institutional controls remedies, including
ensuring that jurisdictions and property owners follow requirements;
compiling the annual institutional control monitoring reports; and
submitting them to the Army, the EPA, and the State of California.
•	Monterey County, California: Enforces the digging and excavation
ordinance and restrictions prohibiting inconsistent uses and access
management measures, maintain deed restrictions, and monitor
institutional controls annually and report them to FORA.
•	Other entities such as the California State University Monterey Bay;
University of California Santa Cruz; Monterey Peninsula College; and the
cities of Monterey, Seaside, Marina, and Del Ray Oaks: Implement long-
term management measures, comply with Land Use Controls and deed
restrictions, and conduct annual monitoring and reporting and five-year
review reporting.
•	Property owners: Comply with institutional controls, deed restrictions, and
land use restrictions.
Region 9 officials regularly visit the site to conduct oversight, including at least
seven times in 2019. The EPA also participates in the monthly Base Realignment
and Closure Cleanup Team meetings, where topics include site security and
trespassing incidents. The EPA regularly receives site security updates regarding
trespassing incidents and reviews the site security annual reports. The EPA also
participates in the Annual Site Security Meetings along with other regulatory
agencies, stakeholders, and other entities.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our evaluation from October 2019 to March 2020 in accordance
with the Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation published in January
2012 by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. Those
standards require that we plan and perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions,
and recommendations based on our review objective. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations based on our review.
We reviewed information from the Superfund Enterprise Management System to
help us determine which sites would answer our objective. We selected Fort Ord
as one of the sites for our broad-based review because of the human health risk of
potential exposure to unexploded munitions. The 2017 Five-Year Review of Fort
20-E-0169
5

-------
Ord stated that trespassing was an ongoing issue, and this evaluation focused on
institutional controls related to trespassing. We also selected the site to help
ensure adequate audit coverage of federal facilities.
To address our evaluation objective, we reviewed documents and interviewed
Region 9 Superfund management and headquarters staff, as well as officials from
the Department of the Army and FORA. We reviewed key documents, including
Five-Year Reviews, Records of Decision, annual site security reports, institutional
control-related information, and security and trespassing guidance. We reviewed
various criteria, including those found in the EPA's Comprehensive Five-Year
Review Guidance, dated June 2001. In November 2019, members of the Army
and FORA gave us an overview of the site, including maps highlighting parts of
the site that were cleaned up and designated for reuse, and a part of the site that
contained fencing and signage protecting the public from exposure to munitions
and explosives of concern. The overview was followed by a safety presentation
regarding unexploded munitions and explosives that remained on the site.
Members of the Army and FORA gave us a tour of Fort Ord.
Results of Evaluation
For the institutional controls that we sampled at the Fort Ord site and observed
during our site visit, the EPA and the other organizations are taking reasonable
steps to deter and minimize exposure to contaminants and explosives to protect
human health and the environment. The Army and the EPA have not deemed the
site as protective of human health and the environment due to the projected
amount of munitions cleanup and the estimated time it could take to conduct that
cleanup.
During our site visit, members of the Army and FORA drove us around the eight-
mile long fence enclosing the 6,560-acre portion of the site where munitions and
explosives of concern are present. We inspected the fence and reviewed all
signage and gates around the fenced-in area. We observed that the fencing and
gates were clearly marked with signs indicating the danger in the area and that no
trespassing was allowed. In addition, although trespassing is a recurring problem,
we found that the integrity of the gates and fencing was not compromised, and
secured areas were not breached.
The Army is responsible for providing public safety and preventing injurious
contact with munitions and explosives of concern at Fort Ord. During our site
visit, we observed that the use or transit of Army property is restricted to
authorized personnel unless otherwise posted. A restricted MRS is protected by
barriers such as fencing, barbed wire, and gates, as well as by security patrols
between the explosive hazard and the community.
20-E-0169
6

-------
At the time of our site visit, portions of the Impact Area where the Army removal
actions are in progress or pending initiation remained restricted and were fenced
and posted with danger signs.
According to site documents, including the 2017 Five-Year Review, trespassing
incidents at Fort Ord have been documented by the Presidio of Monterey Police
since 1997. The Army recognizes and notes in its reports that no fence or
combination of fences is 100 percent effective at preventing trespassing into
restricted areas such as the Impact Area. Fencing effectively prevents individuals
from unwittingly or casually entering the Impact Area. However, individuals
determined to access restricted or other areas could still breach the fencing or
other secured areas.
Conclusions
Trespassing is a historical and ongoing issue at Fort Ord, and the EPA and the
Army recognize that no fence or combination of fences is 100 percent effective at
preventing trespassing into restricted areas such as the Impact Area. For the
institutional controls we sampled at the time of our site visit, the steps taken by
the Army with EPA oversight, combined with planned follow-up actions moving
forward, represent a reasonable effort to deter and minimize trespassing and
prevent people from being exposed to unexploded munitions and chemical
contamination in soil. As a result, we have no recommendations for this site.
Agency Response and OIG Assessment
The Office of Land and Emergency Management agreed with the conclusion of the
evaluation and offered technical comments. We revised the report as appropriate
based on those comments. Appendix A contains the Agency's response to the
draft report.
20-E-0169
7

-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
March 27, 2020
OFFICE OF
LAND AND EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report OA&E-FY19-0090 "EPA,
the Army, and Other Agencies are Taking Reasonable Steps to Prevent
Trespassing at the Fort Ord Superfund Site" dated March 12, 2020
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the results of the subject report. The
Office of Land and Emergency Management agrees with the conclusion from the evaluation. At
the Ford Ord site, EPA, the Army, the state, local governments and the community work together
to address contaminated areas. For your consideration, we included a Technical Comments
Attachment that clarifies general and specific statements in the draft report. OLEM coordinated
the comments with the Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance and Region 9.
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Gregory Gervais, Acting
Director, Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office at 202-564-4409 or
Gervais.Gregory@epa.gov.
Attachment
cc: Susan Bodine, OECA
Barry Breen, OLEM
John Busterud, Region 9
Steven Cook, OLEM
Gregory Gervais, OLEM
FROM: Peter C. Wright
Assistant Administrator
PETER
WRIGHT
Digitally signed by PETER
WRIGHT
Date: 2020.03.30
10:57:13-04'00'
TO:
Christina Lovingood, Director
Land Cleanup and Waste Management Directorate
Office of Audit and Evaluation
Office of Inspector General
20-E-0169
8

-------
Appendix B
Distribution
The Administrator
Assistant Deputy Administrator
Associate Deputy Administrator
Chief of Staff
Deputy Chief of Staff/Operations
Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Regional Administrator, Region 9
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Land and Emergency Management
Director, Office of Continuous Improvement, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of the Administrator
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Land and Emergency Management
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 9
20-E-0169
9

-------