Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003

CRS Report for Congress
Received through t he CRS W e b
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:
Authorization and Appropriations for F Y2003
Upda ted J uly 24, 2003
DavidM.Bearden
En vironmental Po licy Analys t
Resources, Sc ience, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:
Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003
Summary
T h e D epartment of Defense (DOD) administers five environmental p rograms
in response t o v arious requirements under f e d e ral environmental l aws. These
programs include environmental cleanup, environmental compliance, pollution
prevention, environmental t echnology, and conservation. Additionally, t he
Department of Energy (DOE) i s responsible for m anaging d efense nuclear waste and
cleaning u p contaminated nucl e a r weapons s ites. Congress appropriated a total o f
$11.07 billion for these programs for FY2003, approx imately $100 million l ess t han
the Administration’s request of $11.17 billion, but about $280 million m ore t han t he
FY2002 funding level of $10.79 billion. Some of the ongoing issues associated with
these p rograms are the adequacy, cost, and p ace of cleanup, whether DOD and DOE
adequately comply with environmental l aws and regulations, and the ex t ent t o which
environmental requirement s encroach upon military readiness.
The 107^th Congress completed consideration of l egislation t o authoriz e funding
for n ational d efense programs for FY2003, including defense-related environmental
programs. The National Defense Authoriz ation Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-314, H.R.
4546) authorized $1.32 billion for en v i r o n m ental cleanup at current and former
military installations. It also authorized $565 million for base closure activities, most
of which was intended for environmental cleanup. As in p a s t ye ars, funding was
authoriz ed for DOD’s o ther environment a l a c t ivities as p art o f s everal larger
accounts. The l aw authorized a t otal of $6.76 billion for DOE’s defen s e n u clear
waste m anagem ent and cleanup responsib ilities. The final authorization also
included an interim exemption from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for military
readines s activities, which DOD had requested as part of a R eadines s and Range
Pres ervation Initiative (RRPI) to addres s t he impact s of environmental requirements
on combat training needs. Portions of the RRPI t hat would h ave i ncluded t argeted
ex em ptions from other environmental l aws were not incl uded i n t he final bill.
The 107^th Congress also completed consideration o f t he FY2003 appropriations
b i lls for DOD and M ilitary Construction, which fund DOD’s environme n t a l
programs. The Department of Defense Appropr i a t i ons Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-
248, H.R. 5010) provided $1.31 billion f o r cl eanup at current an d former military
inst al lations, slightly less than authorized. As i n defense authorization l egislation,
funding was p rovided for other environmen tal activities as p art o f s everal larger
accounts. The M ilitary Construction Appropriations Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-249,
H.R. 5011) provided $561 million for base closure activities, most of which was to
be used for cleanup, slightly less than authoriz ed as well.
Debate over FY2003 appropriations for DOE’s management and cleanup of
defense nuclear waste w a s not completed during t he 107^th Congress. Fi nal
ap p ropriations for t hese activities were enact ed early in the 108^th Congress. Th e
Consolidate d A p p ropriations Resolution for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7, H.J .Res. 2)
included an o mnibus appropriations package t hat provided a total of $6.72 billion for
DOE’s defense nuclear waste m anagement a nd cleanup responsibilities, slightly less
t h an aut hori z ed.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Department ofDefense .............................................3
EnvironmentalCleanup .........................................3
Oversight of C leanup Activities ...............................4
CleanupStatus andCosts ....................................4
Appropriations Account Structure .............................5
Overseas Military Installations ...............................6
EnvironmentalCompliance ......................................7
Compliance R equirements under Federal Law ...................7
Funding Trends ...........................................7
FinesforViolations ofEnvironmentalRequirements ..............7
OtherEnvironmentalPrograms ...................................9
Military Readines s Issues .......................................10
Department ofEnergy .............................................11
Oversight of C leanup and W as te Management Activities ..............12
CleanupStatus andCosts .......................................12
Appropriations Account Structure ................................14
Yucca Mountain ..............................................15
Formerly Utilized Sites R em edial Action P rogram ...................16
Authoriz ing Legislation for FY2003 ..................................17
Department ofDefense ........................................17
EnvironmentalCleanup ....................................17
Military Readines s Issues ...................................18
ProcurementPractices .....................................20
NaturalResourceConservation ..............................20
Useand Disposal ofObsoleteNavalVessels ...................21
Department ofEnergy .........................................21
Appropriations for FY2003 .........................................22
Department ofDefense ........................................22
Military Construction ..........................................23
EnergyandWaterDevelopment .................................24
SelectedReferences ...............................................25
ListofFigures
Fi gu re 1. Funding for Defense Cleanup and Environmental P rograms:
FY1990 to FY2003 Enacted .....................................2
Fi gure 2. Cleanup Stat us at Current, Former, and C losing Military Installations
in the United S tates as o f S eptember 30, 2002 .......................5
Fi gu re 3. C l eanup S t at us at DOE Nucl ear W ast e M anagem ent and
Environmental R estoration S ites as o f S eptember 30, 2002 ............13

Remedial Action P rogram as of J une 2003 .........................16
ListofTables
Table 1. Fines and P enalties Assessed and Paid for
Environmental Violations from FY1997 to FY2001 ...................8

Defense C leanup and Environmental
Programs: Authorization and
Appropriations for FY2003
Introduction
The Department of Defense (DOD) administers five environmental p r o gr a m s
that addres s t he cl eanup of past contamination on military installations, compliance
with env i ro nmental l aws t hat apply t o ongoing military operations, pollution
prevention, environmental cleanup and waste m a n a ge ment technologies, and t he
conservation o f military lands. In addition t o DOD’s environmental p rograms, the
Department of Energy (DOE) i s responsible for m anaging d efense nuclear waste, and
cleaning u p contaminated nuclea r w e apons sites. The Environmental P rotection
Agency (EPA) and the s tates p rovide overs ight to enforce applicable laws. S ome of
the o n g o i n g i ssues are t he adequacy, cost, and p ace of cleanup, whether DOD and
D OE adequately comply with environmental l aws, and t he ex tent to whi c h
environmental requirements res trict military readiness.
Congr e s s authoriz es defense-related environmental p rograms i n t he annual
authoriz ation b ill for National Defens e , b u t it funds these p rograms under t hree
appropriations b i l l s. Cleanup activities at currently active and former military
installations, environmenta l compliance, pollution p revention, environmental
technology, and conservation p rimarily receive funding in the annual appropriations
bill for t he Department of Defense, but cl eanup at base closure s ites i s funded i n t he
annual appropriations bill for M ilitary Construction. DOE’s cleanup and
management of defense nuclear waste i s funded i n t he annual appropriations bill for
Energy and W at er Devel opm ent .
Fo r FY2003, Congress appropriated a total o f $11.07 billion for all defense-
related environmental p rograms. This amount is approx imately $100 million l ess
than the Administration’s request of $11.17 billion, but is about $280 million m ore
than the FY2002 funding level o f $10.79 b illion. FY2003 appropriations for DOD’s
environmental p rograms were enacted during t he 107^th Congress. However, debate
over FY2003 appropriations for DOE’s management and cleanup of defense nuclear
waste ex t ended i nto t he 108^th Congress, an d w e r e p r o v i ded as p art o f an o mnibus
appropriation s package under t he Conso lidated Appropriations Resolution for
FY2003 (P.L. 108-7, H.J . Res. 2). Fi gure 1 provides a funding history s ince FY1990.
This report p rovides b ackground information o n d efense-related environmental
programs, analyzes various implementation i ssues, a n d ex amines final versions of
legi slat i o n t o authoriz e and appropriate funding for FY2003 to support d efense-
related environmental p rograms.

CRS-2
Figure 1 . Funding for Defense Cleanup and E nvironmental P rograms:
FY1990 to FY2003 Enacted

^Bⁱ^llions^of^D^o^lla^r^s
^14.⁰⁰
^11.⁰⁷^12.⁰⁰
^10.⁵¹^9.⁹⁷^10.⁶³^10.¹⁹^10.³¹^10.²⁶^10.⁸²^10.⁷⁹
^9.⁹³^9.⁹²
^10.⁰⁰
^7.³⁶
^8.⁰⁰
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31456}^5.²⁵^6.⁰⁰
^g/w
^s^.or^3.⁰⁵^4.⁰⁰
^le^ak
^://wiki^2.⁰⁰
^h^ttp
^0.⁰⁰
¹⁹⁹⁰¹⁹⁹¹¹⁹⁹²¹⁹⁹³¹⁹⁹⁴¹⁹⁹⁵¹⁹⁹⁶¹⁹⁹⁷¹⁹⁹⁸¹⁹⁹⁹²⁰⁰⁰²⁰⁰¹²⁰⁰²²⁰⁰³
^Eⁿ^vⁱ^r^onm^eⁿ^ta^l^T^e^c^hnolog^yⁿ^/a^n/aⁿ^/a^0.⁴³^0.⁴¹^0.²⁸^0.²²^0.²¹^0.²¹^0.²⁶^0.²⁹^0.²⁹^0.²³^0.²³
^P^o^l^l^u^tⁱ^oⁿ^P^r^even^tⁱ^oⁿⁿ^/^aⁿ^/^aⁿ^/^a⁰^.3⁰⁰^.3⁴⁰^.2⁹⁰^.2⁵⁰^.2⁶⁰^.2⁶⁰^.2³⁰^.2⁸⁰^.2¹⁰^.2³⁰^.2²
^N^a^tur^a^l^R^e^s^our^c^e^C^onse^r^v^a^tionⁿ^/a^n/aⁿ^/a^0.¹²^0.¹⁰^0.¹⁵^0.¹¹^0.⁰⁹^0.¹⁴^0.¹³^0.¹⁶^0.¹⁸^0.¹⁶^0.¹⁶
^Bas^e^Cl^o^s^u^r^e^C^l^ean^u^pⁿ^/^a⁰^.3⁷⁰^.6²⁰^.4⁹⁰^.5⁴⁰^.6⁴⁰^.8⁵⁰^.6⁸⁰^.8³⁰^.7⁶⁰^.3⁶⁰^.7⁹⁰^.6¹⁰^.5⁴
^C^u^r^r^e^nt^aⁿ^d^F^or^m^e^r^S^ite^C^l^e^a^nup^0.⁶⁰^1.⁰⁷^1.¹³^1.⁶⁴^1.⁹⁷^1.⁴⁸^1.⁴¹^1.³¹^1.³⁰^1.²⁷^1.³⁰^1.³¹^1.²⁷^1.³¹
^En^vi^roⁿ^m^en^t^a^l^C^o^m^p^lⁱ^aⁿ^c^e⁰^.7⁹¹^.1¹¹^.9³²^.1²¹^.9⁸²^.0⁴²^.2³²^.0²¹^.9¹¹^.8⁹¹^.6⁶¹^.6³¹^.6⁷¹^.7⁵
^Co^rp^s^o^f^Eⁿ^gⁱⁿ^eers^F^USRAPⁿ^/^aⁿ^/^aⁿ^/^aⁿ^/^aⁿ^/^aⁿ^/^aⁿ^/^aⁿ^/^a⁰^.1⁴⁰^.1⁴⁰^.1⁵⁰^.1⁴⁰^.1⁴⁰^.1⁴
^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^nt^of^Eⁿ^e^r^g^y^C^l^e^a^nup^1.⁶⁶^2.⁷⁰^3.⁶⁸^4.⁸³^5.¹⁷^5.⁰⁹^5.⁵⁶^5.⁶²^5.⁵²^5.⁵⁸^5.⁷²^6.²⁷^6.⁴⁸^6.⁷²
^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^d^by^the^C^ong^r^e^ssiona^l^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^S^e^r^v^ic^e^u^sing^da^ta^f^r^o^m^e^na^c^t^e^d^a^ppr^opr^ia^tions,^O^pe^r^a^tion^a^nd^M^a^inte^na^nc^e^O^v^e^r^v^ie^w^s^of^the
^D^e^partment^of^D^e^fense,^and^c^ong^ressional^budg^et^{justifications}^of^the^D^epartment^o^f^E^nerg^y^.^N^/^A⁼^account^or^prog^ram^not^y^e^t^e^stablished.
^F^U^S^R^A^P⁼^F^or^m^e^r^l^y^U^tiliz^e^d^S^ite^s^R^e^m^e^d^ia^l^A^c^tion^P^r^o^g^r^a^m^.

Department of Defense
DOD ad ministers five environmen tal p ro grams t o comply with various federal¹
environmental l aws. In terms o f funding, t he two l argest programs focus o n cleaning
up past contamination and on complying with environm e n t al l aws and regu lations
that apply t o ongoing operations. Three ot her p rograms h ave s maller budgets. They
focus o n pollut i o n p revention, environm ental t echnology, and conservation. Fo r
FY2003, Congress appropriated a total o f $4.20 billion for a l l f i v e o f DOD’s
environmental p rograms, about $90 million m ore t han t he Administration’s request
of $4.11 billion, and about $45 million m ore t han t he FY2002 funding level o f n early
$4.16 billion. (Refer to page 17 for a discussion of authorizing l egislation and
appropriations for FY2003.) Background information o n e a ch p rogram and an
anal ysis of major implementation i ssues are discussed bel ow.
Envi r onmental Cl eanup
In 1975, DOD established an Installation R estoration Program to investigate and
cl ean u p s i tes on military lands where past waste management practices had l ed to
environmental contamination. A few years l ater, t he Comprehensive Environmental
R e s p o n se, C ompensation, and Liability Act o f 1980 (CERCLA) created th e
Superfund program t o clean up haz ardous waste s ite s t h a t pose t he greatest risk t o
public health and t he environment i n t h e United S tates, and i t creat ed the National
Priorities List (NPL) to trac k t h em.² The l aw also established a formal framework
for t he identification, investigation, and cleanup of hazardous substances. Initially,
the ex t ent t o which DOD had t o comply with these requi r e m e n t s was unclear.
However, the S uperfund Amendments and R eauthoriz ation Act of 198 6 ( S A R A )
speci fi ed t h at DOD and al l ot her federal age n c i e s a r e s ubj ect t o C E R C LA’s
requirements for identifyi n g , e v a luating, and cleaning u p NPL sites under t heir
jurisdiction.³ The R es ource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) also requires
DOD and al l ot her federal agenci es t o perform c o r r e c t i v e act i ons t o cl ean up
contami n a t i o n at s ites with active h az ardous waste m anagement o r s olid waste
disposal facilities operating with permits issued under RCRA.⁴
In addition t o s peci fying t h e ap p l i c ability of CERCLA, SARA ex panded t he
Installation R es toration P rogram , and renamed i t t he Defense E nvironm e n t a l
Restoration P rogram, t o centraliz e DOD’s efforts i n cleaning u p h az ardous waste
sites at domestic military installations where past actions led t o contamination.⁵ As
a complement t o t his program, DOD es tablished a Military Munitions Response
Program t o fulfill requirements under S ections 311 and 312 of the National Defense
Authoriz ation Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) to identify, investigate, and clean up

¹ For additional i nformation on each program, refer t o t he Defense Environmental Network
and Informa tion Exchange ( DENIX ) web s ite at [http://www.denix.osd.mil].
² 42 U.S.C. 9601 et. s eq.
³ 42 U.S.C. 9620
⁴ 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
⁵ 10 U.S.C. 2701

unex p loded o rdnance (UXO) and o ther mun itions at nonoperational t raining ranges
in the United S tates. This program i s i n its initial s tage, and on l y a portion of
co n t am inat ed sites have been identified t hus far. As DOD continues t o i dentify
additional s ites and inv e s t i gat e t he ex tent of contamination, more information will
be available o n t he actions and costs that w ill be necessary to address t he safety and
environmental h az ards presented b y UXO. The following sections ex plain t he role
of EPA and the s tates i n conducting oversight of DOD’s cleanup activities, indicate
cleanup s t a t u s a n d costs, ex p lain appropriations account structure, and d iscuss
cl eanup efforts at overseas military installations.
Oversight of Cl eanup Ac ti vi ti es. W hile DOD is responsible for funding
and conducting cleanup actions at its sites, EPA and the s tates conduct oversight of
these actions to d e termine whether DOD complies with the l aw. Generally, EPA
takes t he lead in p e r forming oversight of DOD sites b eing cleaned up under
CERCLA, and EPA delegates federal authority to the s tates for conducting oversight
of correct i v e actions taken under RCRA. However, cleanup requirements under
CERCLA and RCRA apply only within the United S tates . T h e c l eanup of
contamination at overseas military installations is subject to requirements s peci fied
wi t h i n t h e S t at u s o f Forces Agreem ent w i t h each host n at i on. These requi rem ent s are
generally not as stri ct as CERCLA and RCRA, and thei r stringency v ari e s w idel y
from country to country. Unlike domestic cleanup actions, EPA does not have the
authority to c onduct oversight at military installations abroad. R at her, overseei ng
DOD’s actions to ensure that the requirements o f a S t atus of Forces Agreement are
met i s t he responsibility of each host n ation.
Cleanup Status and Costs. Until FY1994, DOD primarily concentrated its
cl eanup efforts on i dentifyi ng and i nvestigating contaminat ed sites t o det ermine t he
level of rem ediation t hat would be necessary to protect human health a n d t he
environment. As the m ajority of sites were identified and subsequent investigations
w e r e c o mpleted, DOD began t o focus the bulk o f its efforts o n actual cleanup. In
FY1996, DOD also developed s pecific cleanup goals t o prioritize its sites, based on
t h reat s o f ex posure. As i ndi cat ed i n Fi gure 2 , DOD had i dentified a total o f 29,696
contaminated sites as o f t he end o f FY2002.⁶ As of that time, DOD had complet ed
cleanup at 20,491 of those s ites (69% of total s ites) at a cost o f $20.2 billion, and
reported t hat almost $30.2 billion would b e n eces sary to fi nish cl eanup at the
remaining 9,205 sites (31% of total s ites) from FY2003 to site completion.
Even though l ess t han 1 /3 of contaminated sites are still in need of cleanup, the
above estimates o f future cleanup costs are substantially high er than has already b een
spent due to the s everity of contamination at t hese remaining s ites and the res ources
t h at l i k el y w i l l be necessary t o address UXO cont am i n at i on. DOD ex pect s t hat
estimates o f funding needs will likely i ncrease i n future years as additional s ites with
UXO contamination are identified and the ex t ent of s u ch contamination i s
determined. Funding needs for cleanup als o m a y r i s e i n future years as additional
military bases are select ed for closure. The National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) au t h o rized a n ew round of military base closings in 2005.

⁶ Departme nt of Defense. Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report t o
Congress f or FY 2002. April 2003. p. B-6-1, p. C-5-1.

The amount of fundi ng that would be necessary t o accel erat e cl eanup at new b ase
closure s ites, and t ransfer t hem t o o ther uses, would d epend o n t he type and ex t ent
of cont am i n at i o n p resent at such i n st al l at i ons. C ost s t o accel erat e cl eanup coul d b e
hi gh i f t h e b ases sel ect ed for cl o sure cont ai n s om e o f t he m o re severel y cont am i n at ed
sites t hat are on the NPL and are subject to cleanup under C ERCLA.
Figure 2 . Cleanup Status at Current, Former, and Closing Military
Installations in the Unite d S ta te s a s of S epte mber 30, 2002
To tal Number o f Sit es = 29,696

31.0%

Response in Progr ess
9,205Sites
Response Complete
20,491Sites

69.0%

^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^d^by^the^C^ong^re^ssiona^l^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^S^e^rv^ic^e^u^sing^da^ta^from^t^he^De^pa^rtm^e^nt^of^De^fe^nse^,
^FY²⁰⁰²^De^fe^nse^E^nv^ironmeⁿ^tal^R^e^s^toration^P^rogram^Annual^Re^port^t^o^C^ongre^ss,
^April^2003,^p.^B-6-1,^p.^C-5-1.
Appropria t i o n s Account Structure. Cleanup costs at domestic military
sites are funded b y s everal centraliz ed account s s tructured b y category o f i nstallation.
Funding for cleanup at current and former military installations is authorized under
fi ve Defense Environmental R estoration Accounts i n t he annual authoriz ation bill for
National Defense, and is appropriated t o t hese accounts i n t he annual appropriations
bill for t he Department of Defense. Three o f t hese accounts reserve funding for t he
Army, Navy, and A i r Fo r ce. One d evotes funding to a m ore general category o f
Defense-W i de si t es, and anot her i s d edi cat ed t o cl eani n g u p Form erl y Used Defense⁷
Sites (FUDS). Typically, FUDS are s ites on properties t hat DOD owned o r l eased

⁷ Congress first appropriated f unding to the Defense Envi ronmental Restoration Account in
FY1984. Subsequently, t he National Defense Authorization Act for FY1997 (P.L. 104-201)
divi ded t he account into fou r s u b accounts: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-Wide.
Since t hen, Congress also has s pecified the a mount of funding reserved for cleaning up
F U D S sites, and t he National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-398)
established a FUDS subaccount to conform with this budgetary practice.

in the pas t and are now devoted to ci vilian uses. Many of the FUDS sites were used
during t he W o rld W ar II era and prior years.
The Department of Defense Appr o p riations Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-248)
provided a total of $1.31 billion for all f i v e Defense Environmental R estoration
Accounts, about $30 million m ore t han t he Ad ministration’s request of $1.28 billion,
and n early $40 million m ore t he FY2002 funding level o f $1.27 billion. The i ncrease
in funding was reserved for improving the p ace of cleanup at FUDS sites, which h as
been criticiz e d for p roceeding m ore s lowly t han cleanup at currently active
installations. (Refer t o p age 2 2 f or further d iscussion of P.L. 107-248.)
Cleanup at base closure s ites i s aut horiz ed separately under t he Base
Realignment a n d C l osure (BR AC) Account in the annual authoriz ation bill for
National Defense. Appropriations for b as e closure activities are provided under t he
BR AC account in the annual appropriations b ill for M ilitary Construction. Congress
authorized four rounds of base closures in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, and
established a separate BRAC account for each round. These s ites are separate from
former military proper t i e s , known as FUDS, which are d iscussed above. The
Military Construction Appropriations Ac t for FY2003 (P.L. 107-249) provided $561
million for the BRAC account, from which DOD allocated $540 million for cleanup
activities at b ase closure sites. Th i s amount is about $69 million l ess t han t he
FY2002 cleanup allocation o f $609 million. (Refer to page 23 for further discussion
ofP.L.107-249.)
Overseas Military Insta lla ti o n s . As discussed above, t here are s everal
centralized accounts t o fund cleanup activities at domestic military installations.
However, there are no line-item accounts i n t he President’s annua l b udget
submission, or in annual d efense authorization l egislation o r appropriat i o n s , t o
conduct cleanup actions at overseas military inst allations. R ather, these p rojects are
funded o n an i nstallation-by-installation b asis out of the general operational budget
for each foreign b ase, and DOD does not have the authority to transfer funding from
the cleanup accounts for domestic installa t i o n s to address contamination abroad.
Fu rther, DOD is not required t o report t o C ongress on the s tatus o f cleanup actions
at overseas military instal l a t i o n s , as t he agency is required t o do for domes tic
facilities i n its annual report o n t he Defense Environmental R estoration P rogram.
The only t yp e o f i nformation t hat DOD is required t o s ubmit to Congress regarding
overseas cleanup is a s tate m e nt of the amounts ex p ended, and anticipated to be
ex pended, as part of its annual report t o C ongress on the Defense En v i r o n m e n tal
Quality Program. The m ost recent v ersi on of this report i ndicated that DOD spent
a t otal of $19.6 million i n FY2001 on overseas e nvironmental cleanup. The report
also indicated that $13.1 million was available from appropriations in FY2002, and
that in FY2003, $18.2 million would b e required for overseas cleanup obligations.⁸

⁸ D e partme nt of Defense. De fense Environmental Quality Program Annual Repor t t o
Congress f or FY 2001. September 2002. p. 29.

Envi r onmental Compl i a nce
DOD and al l ot her federal agenci es are requi red t o com pl y wi t h envi ronm ent al
laws and regulations to the s am e ex t ent as any other entity. Typically, environmental
compliance project s at military installations incl ude routine o p e rat i o ns such as
storing and disposing o f s olid and h az ardous waste, upgrading and m onitoring waste
water t reatment plant s , a n d testing and replacing underground storage t anks. T he
following sections provide information o n environmental compliance requirements
und er f ederal l aw, ex amine funding trends for military compliance activities, and
indicate t he amount of fines and p e n a lties assessed against, and paid by, DOD for
environmental v iolations.
Compliance Requirements u nder Federal Law . The federal
environmental s tatutes t hat m ost commonly apply t o t he military’s routine operations
i n cl ude t h e C l ean Ai r A ct , C l ean W at er A ct , R esource C onservat i o n and R ecovery
Act (RCRA), and S afe Dri nking Water Act . The Federal Facility Co m p l i ance Act
of 1992 am ended RCRA to cl arify i n det ai l t hat DOD and all other federal facilities
are s ubject to penalties, fines, permit fees , reviews of plans or s tudies , and inspection
and m onitoring of facilities i n connection with federal, state, interstate, o r l ocal solid⁹
or haz ardous waste regulatory p rograms. The A ct al so aut hori z ed and d i rect ed EP A
to take enfo r cem en t actions under RCRA agai nst any federal agency t o t he same
ex tent that it would against any o ther entity. Although t he Safe Drinking Water Act
incl udes s imilar l anguage, other federal environmental l aws do not incl ude the s am e
cl arification of compliance requirements.
Funding Trends. DOD did not begi n t o comprehensively track the amount
of funding spent o n environmental comp liance activities until FY1990. However,
there are no centralized accounts for these activities i n annual d efense authorization
legi slation or appropriations bills, as t here are for environmental cleanup activities.
In stead, funding for compliance p rimarily comes from t he accounts for Operation and
Maintenance, M ilitary Construction, and P rocurement. DOD’s budget for
environm en t a l compliance h as ranged from $790 million i n FY1990 to a h igh o f
$2.23 billion i n FY1996. Fo r FY2003, DOD allocated $1.75 billion for compliance
activities from t he available accounts i dentified above, about $80 million m ore t han
the FY2002 funding level of $1.67 billion. In the FY2003 budget request, DOD had
indicated that an increase i n funding for c ompliance would b e allocated primarily to
meet environmental requirements for certain Air Force activities, and t o implement
waste wat er and drinking water t reatment project s at t he Massachusetts Military
Reservation i n Falmouth, Massachusetts. T he safety of drinking water h as been an
ongoing concern among communities surr oundi ng t h e reservat i on, si nce groundwat er
contamination was discovered i n p riva te and m unicipal d rinking water wells.
Fines for Violations of Envi ronmental Requirements. Although DOD
is required t o comply with environmental l aws and regu lations, and has a dedicated
budget for s uch activities, the ex t ent t o which DOD fulfills these responsibilities h as
been a l ongstanding issue. As ex plained a bove, federal environmental l aws require
federal facilities t o comply with al l federal , s tate, i nterstat e, and l ocal environmental

⁹ 42 U.S.C. 6961

requirements , a n d s uch l aws authoriz e EPA, t he states, and local governments t o
assess fines against DOD for violations. However, a fi ne is not al ways paid in the
sam e year t h at i t i s assessed, and i n s om e cases, DOD does not m ake a cash p aym ent
to satisfy a fine. In stead, DOD may agree to perform a S upplemental Environmental
P roj ect (S EP ) i n l i eu o f a cash p aym ent . Under s uch an agreem ent , D O D n o t onl y
correct s its actions to comply with the environmental requirement at hand, but also
performs an additional project that enhances environmen t a l quality. R egulat ory
agenci es frequent l y prefer t h e p erform a n c e o f S E P s t o cash p aym ent s due t o t h e
envi ronm ent al b enefi t s reaped from s uch p roj ect s.
The National Defense Authoriz ation Act for FY2000 required DOD to include
information o n environmental fines in its annual report t o C ongress on the Defense
Environmental Quality Program.¹⁰ This information m ust i nclude the amount of
fines assessed and paid during t he fi s cal year for which the report i s s ubmitted, as
wel l as t h e p ast four fi scal years. As i ndi cat ed i n Table 1, E P A, t he st at es, and l o cal
governments assessed $11.8 million i n fines against DOD for env ironmental¹¹
violations from FY1997 to FY2001. During thi s s a m e p eriod, DOD paid $11.6
million i n cash payments and SEPs as compensation for its violations.¹²
Table 1. F ines and Penalties Assessed and Paid f or
Environmental Violations from FY1997 to FY2001
F i scal Year F i nes and P e nalties Assessed Cash P aid and Cost of SEP s
FY1997 $2,627,828 $5,231,955
FY1998 $2,915,198 $157,920
FY1999 $982,224 $3,298,810
FY2000 $3,656,136 $156,100
FY2001 $1,638,688 $2,761,279
Total $11,820,074 $11,606,064
Prepared by the Congressional Research Servi ce with data from t he Departme nt of Defense.
De fense Environmental Quality Program Annual Report t o Congress f or FY 2001 .
September 2002. Appendix J . p. 19 a nd p. 23.
However, the t otal amount indicated a bove for assessed fines does not include
a p enalty of $16 million t hat EPA raised against t he U.S. Army in FY2000 for
violations of the C lean Air Act at Fo rt W a inwright in Alas ka. The appropriateness
of the a m o unt of the fine i s currently in dispute, and i t i s t he single largest p enalty
that EPA has ever assessed against DOD for an environmental violation. EPA used
the criteria o f “economic benefit o f noncompliance” and “ s i z e - o f-business” to
determine t he amount of the fine, which are ordinarily applied t o private businesses.
The Army argued t hat “because federal facilities receive their funds from

¹⁰ P.L. 106-65, Section 322.
¹¹ Departme nt of Defense. De fense Environmental Quality Program Annual Repor t t o
Congress f or FY 2001 . September 2002. Appendix J . p. 19.
¹² Ibid., Appendix J . p. 23.

a p p r o p r i a t i ons and m ust s pend the m oney for the purpose for which i t was
appropri a t ed, a federal facility cannot realize an economic benefit from non-
compliance.”¹³ The Army also argued t hat t he siz e-of-business criteria s hould not be
applied, since military facilities are not net assets in the t raditional s ense and could
not be used as a financial reso u r c e to pay a fine. On April 30, 2002, the p residing
EPA administrative l aw judge rej ect ed the Army’ s a rgu m en ts, and ruled t hat EPA
could apply t he criteria o f economic benefi t o f noncompliance and siz e-of-business
to the Army. The Army requested that the Environmental Appeals Board review this
decision.
Other E nvi r onmental P r ogr ams
In addition t o environmental cleanup and compliance, DOD administers three
other p rograms t hat focus on pollut i on prevention, environmental t echnology, and
conservation. The purpose o f t he pollution p revention p rogram is t o reduce o r
eliminate s olid or hazardous waste from b ei ng generated and prevent environmental
pro b l e m s b efore t hey o ccur. The environmental t echnology p rogram supports
research, d evel opm ent , t est i n g, and d em ons tration of m ore effici ent and less costly
methods to clean up and m anage s o l i d and h az ardous waste. The conservation
program aims to protect the n atural, h ist o ri cal , and cul t u ral resources of t h e 2 5
million acres of public land that DOD administers, i ncluding the p rotection o f
endangered speci es.
DOD began t racking t he budget for t hese programs in FY1993. Although t hese
programs are an i ntegral p art o f DOD’s environ m e n t a l s trategy, their funding is
significantly smaller t han t he programs fo r environmental cleanup and compliance.
Li ke compliance, there are no centra liz ed accounts for pollution p revention,
environmental technology, or cons ervat i o n i n annual d efens e aut h orization l egislation
or appropriations bills. Instead, DOD allocates funding for t hese activities p rimarily
from t he accounts for Operation and Maintenance, Procurement, and R esearch and
Development.
From FY2003 appropriations for t he above accounts, DOD allocated a relatively
small i ncrease i n funding for conservation, but slightly decr eased its budget for
pollution p revention and envi r o n m en tal t echnology. Fo r conservation, DOD
budgeted $160.3 million for FY2003, a $3.8 million i ncreas e above the FY2002
f u n d ing l evel of $156.5 million. The budget for pollution p revention d ecli n ed b y
$6.3 million from $226.1 million i n FY2002 to $219.8 million i n FY2003. Fo r
environmental t echnology p rojects , DOD allocated $226.5 million for FY2003, a
$1.6 million d ecrease from t he FY2002 budget of $228.1 million. While the overall
FY2003 budget for environmental t echnology d eclined slightly, DOD had i ndicated
in its FY2003 budget request that funding within the t echnology p rogram would b e
i n creased for d evel opi ng new w ays t o d et ect and cl ean up UXO and o t h er m uni t i ons.
The d evelopment o f s uch t echnologies will likely b e crucial in efforts t o accurately
identify and assess contaminated sites under t he new M ilitary Munitions Response
Program, discussed earlier.

¹³ Ibid., Appendix K . p. 10.

M ilitary Readiness Issues
A m aj or issue associ at ed with the implementation of DO D ’ s environmental
programs is the ex t ent t o which environmental r equirements res trict military
readines s capabilities. While mos t federal environmental l aws s peci fy thei r
applicability to federal facilities, Congress incl uded ex emptions in several s tatutes
to ensure that military trai ning needs would not be restrict ed to the ex t ent t hat
national s ecurity would b e compromised.¹⁴ These ex emptions provide the P resident
with the authority to suspend compliance requirements for actions at federal facilities
on a case-by-case b asis. S uch ex emptions may b e granted if doing so would b e either
in the “paramount i n terest of the United S tates” or in the “interest of national
security”. Most of thes e ex emptions are limited t o one year, but can be renewed.
The S afe Drinking Water Act does n o t i m p o s e a time limit on ex em ptions from
compliance. Under t he Endangered Speci es Act, a s peci al committee “shal l grant”
an ex em pt i o n i f t he S ecret ary o f D efense fi nds i t necessary for n at i onal s ecuri t y. T hi s
committee m ay place a time limit on an ex em ption, but it is n o t required t o do s o
underthelaw.
The adeq u a cy of ex isting ex emptions to meet national s ecurity needs has
become a controversial i ssue. DOD argu es that ex isting ex emptions are t oo onerous
and time-consuming t o obtai n on a case- b y-cas e basis due to the vast number of
training ex ercises t hat i t cond u c t s on hundreds o f military installations across t he
country. DOD also argu es that the time limitations placed upon most ex emptions are
not compatible with many trai ning activities, due to thei r ongoing or recurring nature.
In stead, DOD favors m odifications to numerous environmental s tatutes t hat would
provide greater flex ibility for conducting combat t rain i n g and other readiness
activities without restriction o r d elay. How ever, s ome s t a t es and environmental
organiz ations have opposed such modifica tions and argue that ex isting ex emptions
are s uffi ci ent t o accom m odat e com b at t rai ni ng needs.
The cumulative effect of environmental requirements on military readiness
capabilities i s difficult to determine due to the l ack of a s ys tem t o comprehensively
t rack i ndi vi dual cases i n whi c h t r a i n i n g h as been rest ri ct ed or com p rom i s ed. T he
General Accounting Office (GAO) has found that DOD’s readiness reports do not
indicate t he ex tent to which environmental requirements res trict combat t raini n g
activities, and t hat s uch reports indicat e a high l evel of readines s overall.¹⁵ However,
GAO noted individual i nstances of envi r o n m e n tal encroachment at numerous
military installations, and in light of this fact, r e c o mmended t hat DOD’s reporting

¹⁴ Specific exemptions from compliance r equirements f or federal f acilities are included i n
the Clean Air Act [42 USC 7418(b)], Clean Wat er Act [ 33 USC 1323(a)], Comprehensive
Envi ronmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Ac t [ 42 USC 9620(j )], Endangered
Species Act [ 16 USC 1536(j )], Noise Control Act [42 USC 4903], Resource Conserva tion
and Recove ry Act [ 42 USC 6961(a)], and Safe Drinking Water Act [ 42 USC 300(j )(6)]. For
a d d i t i o n a l i nforma tion, refer t o CRS Report RS21217, Exemptions for M ilitary Activitie s
in Federal Environmental Laws, by Robert Meltz.
¹⁵ General Accounting Office. Military Training: DOD Needs a Compr e h e n s ive Plan t o
Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges . GAO-02-727T . M ay 2002. p. 2.

syst em be i m p roved t o m ore accurat el y i d ent i fy any short fal l s i n t rai ni ng t h at m i ght
be attributed to restrictions impos ed by environmental requirements.
Oversigh t h earings were held during t he 107^th Congress to ex amine t he impact
of environmental requirements on military readiness, and t his i ssue was debated i n
legi slation as well. The National Defen se Authoriz ation Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-
314) included an i nterim ex empti o n f o r m ilitary readiness activities from t he
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. In addition t o t his ex emption, the House h ad proposed
m odi fi cat i ons t o t h e E ndangered S p eci es Act , and a t arget ed ex em pt i o n fro m t he
W ilderness Act, which were not adopted in conference.
DOD had request ed an ex em pt i o n from t he Mi grat ory Bi rd T reat y A ct as part
of a R eadiness and Range P reservation Initiative (RRPI) submitt ed t o Congress in
April 2002. DOD submitted its RRPI t o C ongress in response t o concerns over t he
percei ved i ncreas e i n t raining res tricti ons imposed by environmental requirements.
Th e i n i tiative p roposed targeted ex emptions for military readiness activities from
certain requirements under five o ther stat utes as well, including the C lean Air Act,
Comprehensive Environmental R espons e, Compensation, and Liability Act,
Endangered S p eci es Act , Mari ne Mam m al P rot ect i o n A ct , and S o l i d W ast e D i s posal
Act. DOD’s request for t argeted ex emptions from t hese five laws were not included
in the final FY2003 d e f e n s e authorization b ill. (Refer to page 17 for further
discussion of P.L. 107-314.)
DOD submitted its RRPI t o C ongr es s a gai n i n the s pring of 2003, and i t has
been subject to debate in FY2004 defense authoriz ation l egislation.¹⁶ Oversigh t o f
the i ssue o f environmental encroachment will likely continue in the future, as DOD
continues t o bal ance military readines s needs with requirements t o com ply with
environmental l aws.
Department of Energy
In the l ate 1980s, t he United S tates cease d i t s p r oduction o f radioactive
materials u sed i n t he construction o f nuclear weapons due to military projections that
the nuclear weapons stockpile was s uffici ent t o p rotect national s ecurity and respond
to future threats. However, environmen tal p roblems associated with producing and
storing t hese radioactive m at erials con tinue to pose a risk t o human health and s afety
today. Since t h e begi nning of the U.S . atomic energy program, DOE and its
predecessors have been responsible for m anaging d efe n se nuclear weapons and
rel at ed w ast e. In l at er years, DOE ex panded its efforts t o i nclude the environmental
restoration o f radioactive s ites, and t hose with other h az ardous c o n t a m ination, to
ensure their s afety for future uses. In 1989, the Bush Administration established an
Envi ronm ent al M anagem ent P rogram wi thin DOE to consolidat e t he agency’s effort s

¹⁶ For i nforma tion on t he debate of the RRPI i n FY2004 defense a uthorization l egislation,
refer t o CRS Report RL31805, Authorization and Appropriations for FY 2004: Defense ,by
Amy Belasco and Stephen Daggett.

i n cl eani n g u p cont am i n at i o n fr o m d efense nucl ear wast e, as wel l as wast e from
ci vilian nuclear energy research.¹⁷
The following sections discuss p rogram oversight, cleanup status and costs,
appropriations, and r e l ated t opics such as the s election o f Yucca Mountain for an
underground nuclear waste repository, and th e cleanup of smaller radioactive waste
sites t hat were t ransferred from DOE to the Army C orps of Engi neers.
Oversight of Cleanup and Waste M anagement Activities
The At o m i c E n e r gy Act o f 1954 is the p rimary authority governing t he
m a n a gement of defense nuclear waste. The l aw requires DOE to safely s t o r e ,
process, tran s p o r t , and d ispose o f radioactive and other h azardous waste resulting
from t he production o f d efense nuclear materials.¹⁸ W aste disposal typically involves
cleanup actions, s uch as t he decontamination of buildings and s truct ures and the
removal o f contaminated soil. DOE is also subject to require m e n t s under v arious
federal environmental l aws i n carrying out its responsibilities under t he Atomic
Energy Act. CERCLA and RCRA are t he two m ai n federal environmental statutes
that apply t o cleanup activities a t d efense nuclear waste sites. CERCLA primarily
appl i es t o cl eanup act i ons at i n act i v e wast e si t es whi ch p resent t he hi gh est ri s k o f
ex posure and are listed on t he NPL. RCRA requires DOE to cl ean up contamination
at sites with active s ol i d an d h azardous waste d isposal facilities for which an
operating permit has been issued under RCRA. EPA and t he stat es are res ponsible
for conducti n g o v ersigh t o f DOE’s actions in order t o d etermine compliance with
environmental l aws and assess fines and penalties i f violations occur. Generally,
EPA t akes the l ead in performing oversight of cleanup actions at DOE sites required
under C ERCLA , a n d EPA delegates federal authority to the s tates for conducting
oversight of actions requi r ed under RCRA. DOE has complet ed compliance
agreem ent s wi t h EP A and t h e s t at es for each of i t s cl eanup and w ast e m anagem ent
sites, which s pecify schedules and time frames for specific response actions.¹⁹
Cl eanup Status and Costs
The p ace and cost o f c l e a n u p a t defense nuclear waste s ites h as been a l ong-
standing issue. GAO has conducted numer ous audit s of DOE’s Environmental
Management Progr a m , which in many cases have assessed cleanup schedules and
cost estimates as being overly optimistic. GAO’s assessment o f DOE’s 1998 strategy
to accelerate cleanup concl u d e d t h at cleanup schedules and estimates o f funding
needs are sometimes i naccurate because they are b ased on project assumptions that
may change, s u ch as the capacity to pack and ship vast quantities of waste for
disposal, cleanup levels that have yet t o b e finaliz ed under regulatory agreements, t he

¹⁷ For a ddi t i onal i nf or ma t i on, r e f e r t o DOE’ s Web si t e at [ h t t p : / / www.em.doe.gov] .
¹⁸ 42 U.S.C. 2121
¹⁹ For i nformation on each compliance agr eement, refer t o DOE’ s W e b site at
[ h t t p : / / www.em.doe.gov/ c ompl i a nce.ht ml ] .

types o f waste management and cleanup technologies t h a t w i l l b e u sed, and t he
ex clusion o f additional costly activities related to cleanup.²⁰
Figure 3 . Cleanup Status at DO E Nuclear Waste Management a nd
Environmenta l Restoration S ites as of September 30, 2002
Tot a l Num ber o f Si t es = 114

34.2%

Response i n Progr ess
39Sites
Response Compl et e
75Sites

65.8%

^Prep^ared^b^y^th^e^C^oⁿ^g^ressioⁿ^a^l^R^esearch^Serv^ice^u^sin^g^d^a^ta^f^r^o^m^th^e^D^ep^artm^en^t^o^f^Eⁿ^e^rg^y^.
^O^ffi^c^e^of^M^a^na^g^e^m^e^nt^,^B^udg^e^t^,^a^nd^E^v^a^l^ua^tⁱ^on.^F^Y²⁰⁰⁴^Congre^ssi^onal^B^udge^t^R^e^que^st^.
^F^e^br^ua^r^y^2003.^V^o^l^u^m^e^5.^p.^36.
As i ndi cat ed i n Fi gure 3 , above, DOE repor ts that there are 114 large
geographic s ites where the p ast p roductio n o f atomic materials u sed t o construct²¹
nuclear weapons led t o s evere contamination. These s ites encompass a t otal land
area of over 2 million acres, which is equal to the States of Rhode Is land and
Delaware combined. As o f t he end o f FY2002, DOE reports that it had completed
all response actions at 75 sites, at a cost o f over $60 billion, and t hat response actions²²
were underway at the remaining 39 sites. DOE ex pect s t o com pl et e cl eanup at t w o
additional s ites b y t he end o f FY2003. W h ile response actions are complete at about

66% of total s ites, these s ites are relativel y s mall and are among the l east h az ardous.

The s ites where cleanup is underway contain s ome o f t he most severely contaminated
areas . DOE es timates t hat cleanup at t h e rem ai ning 39 sites m ay take 70 years t o
co mplete, and that total cleanup costs m ay range from $220 billion t o $300 billi o n
if program reforms are not initiated, substantially h i gh er t h an the estimate of $147

²⁰ General Accounting Office. Nuclear Waste: DOE’s Accelerated Cleanup Strategy Has
Benefits But Faces Uncertainties. RCED-99-129. April 1999. 21 p.
²¹ Departme nt of Energy. Office of Ma nage me nt, Budget, a nd Eva l u a tion. FY 2004
Congressional Budget Request . February 2003. V olume 5, p. 36.
²² Ibid. One o f t h e r e maining sites, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, is a
waste disposal facility rather than a cleanup site that requires r esponse actions.

billion m ade i n 1998.²³ DOE contends that these costs could b e reduced by $50
billion t o $100 billion t hrough t he use o f risk-based approaches to accelerate cleanup
schedules. However, DOE’s past implement ation o f risk-based approaches has b een
criticized as ineffective, and questions have been raised as to how thes e goals would
be accomplished without weakening environmental s tandards.
Appr opr i a ti ons Account Str uctur e
Congress authoriz es funding for DOE’s defense environmental restoration and
was t e m anagement activities i n t he annual authorization bill for National Defense,
and appropriates funding for t hem i n t he annual appropriations bill for Energy and
W ater Development. Congress has t raditionally pro v i d e d t his funding under t hree
centraliz ed accounts. Fi rst, the D e f e n se Environmental R estoration and W aste
M a nagement Account funds cleanup and waste management activities at nu c l ear
weapons sites where al l res pons e actions are project ed to continue beyond 2006.
Second, the Defense Facilities C losure Projects Account supports cleanup and waste
management activities a t s i t es where al l response actions are s cheduled to be
complete by th e end of 2006. Third, the Defense Environmental M anagement
P ri v at i z at i o n A ccount res erv es funding for cleanup proj ect s t hat h ave b een com p l e t e d
under “privatiz ation” contracts.²⁴
The C onsolidated Appropriations Reso lution for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7) provided
a t otal of $6.72 billion for all t hree o f t h e above accounts (including the 0.65%
across-the-board rescission), approx imat e l y $240 million m ore t han t he FY2002
funding level of $6.48 billion. The Administration h ad requested $6.91 billion for
FY2003 to support DOE’s defense environmen tal restoration and waste management
activities.
Of the $6.72 billion t hat C ongress appropriated for FY2003, about $5.43 billion
was reserved for t h e Defense Envi ronm ent al R est o rat i o n and W ast e M anage m e n t
Account, $1.13 billion was s e t a s i d e for t he Defense Facilities C losure Projects
Account, and $157 million was allocated to the Defense Environmental M anagement
Privatiz ation Account. C ongress did not approve DOE’s request t o e s tablish an
Environmental M anagement C leanup Reform Account that would fo c us on risk
reduction t o improve program efficiency and reduce costs.
W h ile there h ave b een ongoing conce r n s in Congress regarding t he pace and
cost of cleanup, some Members ex p ressed concern about how the funding for t he

²³ Depart me nt of Energy. A Review of the Environmental M anagement Program. February

2002.p.ES-1.

²⁴ Under privatization contracts, a private entity is responsible for f inancing the entire cost
of a c l eanup proj ect , a nd i s not pai d by DOE unt i l t he proj ect i s compl e t e d a nd performed
according t o contractually specified requirements. T his type of c o ntract differs from t he
traditional approach of payi ng a contractor a f ixed amount upfront and offering additional
cash i ncentives to encourage t he comp l e t i o n o f a proj ect within a certain time frame.
Pr ivatization cont racts have t he pot ential t o provi de the contractor with a greater incentive
t o cont rol cost s , work more effi ci ent l y, and fi ni sh a proj ect successful l y, s i nce payment i s
not rendered until performance is complete and t he cleanup obj ective has been achieved.

proposed reform account would h ave b een allo cated among various sites. There also
were concerns regardi n g how t h e goal s of accel erat ed cl eanup and r e d u c e d cost s
would be acco mplished without compromising environmental protection. In
response t o t hese concerns, C ongress instead increased the Administration’s request
for t he ex istin g D e f e n s e E n v i r o n m e n t a l R e s t o r a t i o n a n d W a s t e M a n a g ement Account
to honor letters of intent to accelerate cleanup that DOE had p reviously sign ed with
EP A and state regulators, the funding fo r which would b e a l l o c a t e d according t o
ex isting categories o f s ites. (For further d iscussion, refer t o p age 24.)
YuccaMountain
A p rom i n ent i ssue rel at ed t o DOE’s Envi ronm ent al M anagem ent P rogram i s t h e
percei ved n eed for a l ong-t erm cent ral i z ed reposi t o ry for h i gh-l evel d efense nucl ear
waste. While the W aste Isolation P ilot P lant in New Mex ico serves as a centralized
repository for l ow-level and t ransuranic (p l u t oni um -cont am i n at ed) d efense nucl ear
wast e, hi gh -l evel wast e i s current l y st ored at individual s ites. Many inte r e s t s h ave
argued that centrally storing high-level waste in a l ocation t hat l acks a potential
pathway for immediate exposure w ould be safer and more secure from potential
terrorist threats. In response t o s uch concerns, t he Nuclear W aste P olicy Act of 1982,
as am en d e d i n 1987, required DOE to study the s uitability of Yucca Mountain i n
Nevada for constructing an underground geol ogical repository for h igh-level d efense
nuclear waste, as well as civilian radioactive was te generated by nuclear power
plants. T he federal government and t he nuclear power industry contribute funding
to support t he study and d evelopment o f s uch a repository.
The S tate of Nevada has s trongly opposed the s election o f Yucca Mountain for
an underground repository due to numerous safety concerns, s uch as t he possibility
of seismologi cal disturbanc e s a n d underground flooding, and the potential for
groundwater contamination over t i m e. DOE contends that scientific evidence
indicates that the conditions at Yucca Mountain would likely be suitable for long-
term underground waste s torage and t hat effo rts t o s tudy the s ite shou l d continue.
Environmental o rganiz ations have opposed the d evelopment o f a centraliz ed
repository due to concerns over t he safety of transporting high-level radioactive was te
across m any s tates t o one location and the potential for terrorist threat s, al ong with
environmental concerns about the s ite that are s imilar t o t hose o f t he State o f Nevada.
Taking these concerns into considerat i on, P resi d ent Bush recom m ended Yucca
Mountain for site selection o n February 8 , 2002. However, Nevada Governor Kenny
Guinn s ubmitted a notice o f d isapproval t o C ongress on April 8 , 2002, as permitted
u n der the Nuclear Waste P olicy Act . The House passed a resolution (H.J .Res. 87)
on May 8 , 2002, to overturn t he “state veto”, and t he Senate passed H.J .Res. 8 7 o n
J uly 9, 2002. The P resident signed H.J .Res. 87 into law (P.L. 107-200) on J uly 23,
2002, clearing t he way for DOE to proceed with its plans t o p repare and s ubmit a
license application t o t he Nucl ear Regulatory Commission for t he construction of a
nuclear waste repository at Yucca M ountain. D O E p l a n s t o s ubmit a license
application i n 2004, and ex p ects t o b egin receiving waste s hipments in 2010. Despite
congressional approval, opponents o f t he development o f Yucca Mountain m ay
at t em p t t o h al t o r d el ay t h e p r o j ect t h rough o t h er avenues, i n cl udi ng t h e
appropriations process, oversight of the Nuclear Regulatory C ommission’s review

of the license application for the site, and litigation over numerous aspect s of t he site
charact eri z at i o n and devel opm ent p rocess.²⁵
For merly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Progr am
In addition t o t he federal facilities t hat are being cleaned up under D O E ’s
Envi ronm ent al M anagement Program, there are other smaller s i t es cont am i n at ed wi t h
low-level radiation from t he processing and s torage of uranium and thorium o res
during t he early years o f t he U.S . n u c lear weapons program from t he 1940s to the

1960s. The majority of these s ites were o wned and operated b y p rivate contractors,

and cleanup at these s ites i s p erformed under t he Fo rmerly Utilized Sites R emedial
Action P rogram (FUSRAP). The Atomic Energy Commission, DOE’s predecessor
agen cy, established t he program i n 1974 under authorities p rovided i n t he Atomic
Energy Act, and actual cleanup began i n 1979. In response t o concerns over t he pace
and cost o f cleanup, Congress included p ro visions in the Energy and W ater
Development Appropriations Act for FY1998 (P.L. 105-62) to transfer the FUSRAP
program t o t he Army Corps of Engineers. This transfer was considered potentially
advantageous s i n c e t he Corps h ad ex tensive ex p erience i n cleaning u p h az ardous
waste at former defense sites t hat were i n operation during t his s am e time period.

Figure 4 . Cleanup Status under the Formerly Utilized Sites
Re medial Ac ti on Program as of June 2003
To tal N umber o f S it es = 4 9
Response in Progr ess
24Sites

49.0%

Response Complete

25Sites51.0%

^P^r^e^p^a^r^e^d^by^the^C^ong^re^ssiona^l^R^e^s^e^a^r^c^h^S^e^rv^ic^e^u^sing^da^ta^from^t^he^U.^S^.^Arm^y^Corps^o^f
^En^gⁱⁿ^eers^.^Forme^r^ly^Utilize^d^Site^s^R^e^m^e^d^ial^A^c^tion^P^rogram^Update^.^June^2003.^p.^2.
²⁵ For f urt her i nformat i on on t hi s i ssue, refer t o CRS Issue Bri ef IB92059, Ci vilian Nuclear
Waste Disposal , byMarkHolt.

The Energy and W ater Development Appropriations Act for FY1999 (P.L. 105-
245), re q u i r e s t he Corps t o follow C ERCLA’s requirements i n cleaning u p s ites
under t he program. DOE collaborates with the C orps to determine t he eligibility of
new s ites, since i t m ust perform the historical research to as certain whet her s uch s ites
were part of the early nuclear weapons program. Once all response actions at a s ite
are complete, the C orps is responsible for m onitoring and m aintaining cle a n u p
remedies for 2 years. After t hat time, t he site is tran s ferred back to DOE for
cont i nui ng any n ecessary m oni t o ri ng and m ai nt enance.
As i ndi cat ed i n Fi gure 4 above, t he Corps reports that a t otal of 49 sites h av e
been identified with contamination requiri ng response actions. C leanup is complete
at 25 of these s ites, and i s underway or planned at t he remaining 2 4 s ites.²⁶ Before
FY1998, cleanup at these s ites was funded out of avai l a b l e f u n d s under DOE’s
Defense Environmental R estoration and W aste M anagement Account, and the p rior
Atomic Energy Defense Activities Account. S ince t h e creation o f a dedicated
account for FUSRAP and transfer of the p rogram to the C orps in FY1998, Congress
has p rovided approx imately $140 million i n annu al f unding. The Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution for FY2003 (P .L. 108-7) provided $144 million for the
FUSRAP program, about $3 million m ore t han t he Administration’s request of $141
million, and about $4 million m ore t han t he FY2002 funding level of $140 million.
Authorizing Legislation for FY2003
The s econd session of the 107^th Congress completed consideration of l egislation
to authoriz e funding for n ational d efense programs in FY2003. This legi slation, the
Bo b S tump National Defense Authorization Act for FY200 3 ( P.L. 107-314, H.R.
4546) inc l uded authoriz ation of funding for environmental p rograms administered
by DOD and for t h e m anagem ent and cl eanup of defense nuclear waste administered
by DOE. M ajor environmental p rovisi ons of this law are discussed b elow.
Depar t ment of Defense
P.L. 107-314 authorized speci fi c funding levels for t he cl eanup of
envi ro n m ental contamination at current, former, and closing military installations.
However, there are no line-item accounts f or DOD’s o ther environmental activities,
including compliance, pollution p reven tion, environmental t echnology, and
conservat i o n . Funding for t hese activities was authorized as part of the Operation
and M aintenance, Procurement, and R es earch and Developments Accounts. The l aw
al so incl udes s everal other enviro n m ental provisions, which addres s military
readi n ess i ssues, n at ural resource conservat i on, procurem ent p ract i ces, and t h e u se
and d isposal of obsolete n aval vessels.
Envi ronmental Cleanup. Section 301 of P.L. 107-314 authoriz ed a t otal of
$1.32 billion for environmental cleanup at cu rrent and former military installations.

²⁶ U. S. Ar my Cor p s o f E ngi n e e r s . Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
Update . J une 2003. p. 2. For further information, refer to the Army Corps of Engineers
web s i t e at [ ht t p: / / www.hq.usace.ar my.mil/cecw/fusrap].

This amount is approx imately $40 million more than Administration’s FY2003
request of $1.28 billion and is about $50 million m ore t han t he FY2002 funding level
of $1.27 billion. The i ncrease i n authorization was devoted to the cleanup of FUDS
si t es. The p ace of cl eanup at t h ese s i t es h as been an ongoi ng concern, si nce cl eanup
activities h a v e h istorically proceeded more slowly than at currently active
installations. R egarding the u se of defense funds for cleanup, Section 313 requires
t h e S e c ret ary o f Defense t o fund environmental cleanup projects only wi t h
environmental restoration funds, and not as military construction p rojects.
Section 2404 authorized $565 million for base closure activities, which i ncludes
the cleanup of envir o n m ental contamination at s uch s ites. This amount is $20
million m ore t han t he Administration’s FY2003 request of $545 million, and i s $68
million l ess t han t he enacted FY2002 appropriation o f $633 million. The conference
report i ndicated that the i ncrease i n author iz ation above the request is only t o be used
for environmental cleanup, rather than general activities related to closure. Fo r t he
sake of cl ari t y, t here al so appears t o b e confl i ct i n g l angu age i n t he conference report
regar ding t he amount authorized for b ase closure activities. Although report
language indicates an amount of $561 milli on, the l aw specified $565 million, which
would b e t he actual authoriz ation s ince it i s st i pul at ed i n st at ut ory l angu age.
In addition t o comprehensive funding fo r cleanup at military facilities, Section
3 0 1 authorized the requested amount of $25 million for the Kaho’olawe Islan d
Conveyance, Remedi ation, and Environm ental R estoration T rust Fund. DOD ceased
its use o f Kaho’olawe Island as a training range i n 1995, and s ubsequently returned
the l and t o t he State o f Hawaii. The t rust fund provides s upport for environmental
cleanup and t he removal o f UXO and o ther munitions.
Related t o t he cleanup of UXO in general, S ect i o n 312 requi res t he S ecret ary
of Defense t o establish a program m anger who will serve as t h e s i n g l e point of
contact for policy and budgeting i ssues involve d i n characteriz ing, remediating, and
managi ng UXO and o ther munitions at defense s ites. The conferees als o i n c l u d e d
report l a n gu a ge which directs DOD to submit a consolidated budget proposal for
each of the n ex t four fiscal years o n t he amount of funding that would b e n ecessary
to address t he environmental impact s o f UXO. As d i s c u s s e d e arlier, DOD has
established a Military Munitions Respons e P rogram to address t he cleanup of UXO.
DOD is in the p rocess o f i dentifyi ng contaminated sites and estimating t he amount
of funding that will be necessary for environmental restoration.
Military Readiness Issues. The ex t ent t o which environm e n t al
requirements res trict or del ay military readines s activities was a s ignificant i ssue i n
the d ebate over H.R. 4546. As discussed earlier, DOD requested ex emptions from,
or modifications to, s everal environmental statutes as part of a Readiness and Range
Preservation Initiative s ubmitted to Congress in April 2002. DOD argu ed that certain
ex em ptions and m odifications are needed to provide great er compliance flex i bility,
in or d e r t o p revent environmental requirements from imposing res trictions on
military readiness cap abilities. Some Members of C ongress, certain states, and
numerous environmental o rganiz ations opposed the i nitiative and argued that ex isting
ex em ption authorities are adequate to protect trai ning needs.

In p a ssing H.R. 4546, the House approved an ex emption from t he Migratory
Bi rd Treat y A ct and m odi fi cat i ons t o t h e E ndangere d S p eci es Act , whi ch w ere
requested as part of DOD’s p roposed initia tive. The House also approved a targeted
ex em ption from t he Wilderness Act for military overflights on t he Utah Test and
Training Range . T h e Senate did not propose any environmental ex emptions in
passing its version of t he bill. The conference committee o n H.R. 4546 did not adopt
the p rovisions regarding t he Endangered Species Act o r t he W ilderness Act, but did
approve a m o d i f i ed version o f t he ex emptio n from t he Mi grat ory Bi rd T reat y A ct ,
which i s contained i n S ection 315 of P.L. 107-314.²⁷
Conflicts between military trai ning needs and the protection of migratory birds
arose as a resul t of a federal court rul i n g, whi ch i ndi cat ed t h at t h e N avy h ad vi ol at ed
the M igratory Bi rd Treaty Act by incident ally taking migratory birds without a permit
during t raining ex ercises in Guam . The Migrat ory Bird Treat y Act was estab lished
to cont ro l t h e mass slaughter of migratory birds for commercial purposes and t o
promote t he sustainable m anagement o f s uch b irds.²⁸ The l aw aut hori z es t h e
S ecretary o f t he In terior to regu l a t e t h e t aking o f migratory birds, but current
regulations may only authorize permits for i ntentional t akings for s peci fic purposes ,
such as hunting within designat ed seas ons as well as numerous other activities.
To address t he lack of permit authority for i ncidental t akings an d p revent
possible restrictions on training in the future, Section 315 of P.L. 107-314 requires
t h e S ecret ary o f t he In t eri or t o “prescri be” regul at i ons, wi t h i n one year of enact m ent ,
that would ex empt military readiness activities from t he protections under t he
Mi grat ory Bi rd T reat y A ct . T he conference report d i d not ex pl ai n w het h er
“prescribe” m eans p ropose o r fin a liz e, however, i t appears t hat “prescribe” means
final promulgation of t he regulations, when t he section i s read as a whole. The l aw
defines readines s activities as all trai ning and operations of the Armed Forces that are
related t o combat, as well as the adequate and realistic testing of military equipment,
vehicles, weapons, and sensors for proper operation and suitability for combat u se.
While the new regulations are bei n g developed, the l aw grants an interim
ex em ption from t he Migrat ory Bird Treat y Act i n o r der t o allow any potentially
affect ed t rai ni ng operat i ons t o proceed. D uri n g t he i n t eri m p eri od, t h e S ecret ary o f
Defense i s required t o consult with the S ecret ary of t he Interior to monitor, minimize,
and mitigat e any adverse impact s on migratory birds, whenever practicable. Interim
ex em ption authority will ex pire when the new regulations become effective and al l
litigation challenging t hem h as been reso lved. To restrict t he amount of time during
which l egal challenges could be rai sed, the l aw limits judici al review by a federal
court t o 120 days from t he date that the regulations are published.
Although P .L. 107-314 does not incl u d e m o d i fications to the Endangered
Species Act, the conference report o n H.R. 4546 ex pressed concern t hat d esignating
additional critical habitat areas on trai ning ranges c o u l d adversel y affect military

²⁷ For a l e ga l a nal ysi s, refer t o CRS Report RL31415, Th e E ndangered Species Act,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Department of Defense Readiness Activities: Current Law
and Legislative Proposals , by Pamela Baldwin.
²⁸ 16 U.S.C. 703 et . s eq.

readines s capabilities. The House origi nally would have amended t he Endangered
Speci es Act t o prohibit t he designation of new critical habitat areas on military
i n st al l at i ons for whi ch an In t egrat ed Nat u ral R esource Managem ent P l an (INR MP )
has b een approved under t he Sikes Act, i f t he plan “addresses s pecial management
considerations or protection”.²⁹ The conferees ex pressed t heir support for the l evel
of cooperation b etween DOD and t he Department of the Interior t o p repare effective
IN R M P s t o prot ect t h reat ened and endangered speci es, and i ndi cat ed t h ei r concerns
about questions as to whether INRMPs p rovi de sufficient p rotection t o eliminate t he
need for furt h er cri t i cal h a b i t at d esi gnat i ons. T he conferees encouraged t h e
Department of the Interior and DOD to cooperate in the m anagement o f n atural and
cultural res ources on military lands, and direct ed the S ecret ary o f Defense to
recommend legi slative p roposals t o accomplish t hese go als.
Procurement P ractices. Various laws, regulations, and ex ecutive o r d e rs
requi re federal agenci es t o p rocure recycl ed or en v i r o nm ent al l y preferabl e i t em s
whenever i t i s p r a c t i cal t o do so. S ect i o n 314 requi res t he S ecret ary o f Defense t o
es t a blish a tracking s ys tem t o i dentify t he ex tent to which t he Defense Logi s t i c s
Agency procures i t em s t h at are envi ronm ent al l y preferabl e or are m ade w i t h
recovered m aterials. This p rovision also requi res t he S ecret ary o f Defense t o assess
the n eed for t raining and educating military personnel t o ensure t hat t hey are aware
of any requi rem ent s, preferences, o r go al s f o r t he procurement o f environmentally
preferabl e i t em s , o r t hose m ade w i t h recovered m at eri al s . R el at ed t o procurem ent ,
Section 827 authorizes multi-year authority for procuring services related t o t he
cl eanup of environmental contamination on military installations. S ince, many types
of cl eanup remedies are l ong-term actions, m ulti-year aut h o r i t y is often m ore
practical than annual authoriz ations.
Natural Resource Conserva tion. P.L. 107-314 includes t wo natural
resource conservation p rovi s i ons that a ddress t he i m p act s o f l and d evel opm ent o n
military installations. In m any areas, wild life populations have increased on military
lands as surrounding open s p a ces and h ab itat h ave d iminished due to property
development. DOD argu es that environmen tal requirements t o p rotect endangered
and t hreat ened speci es have ri sen as a consequence, and t hat s uch requi rem ent s h ave
placed limitations on the u se of certain lands. To p revent further l and d evelopment
and h elp ease t he burden o f h abitat p reservation o n military l a n d s , S ection 2811
authoriz es the S ecretary o f Defense to enter cooperative agreements with states and
privat e entities t o acq u i re o r o btain interest in nearby properties t o preserve open
space and p rot ect cri t i cal habi t at . S u ch propert i e s w o u l d s e r v e as a buffer t o h el p
eliminat e or relieve restrictions on trai ning, t es t i n g, or other operations, t hat might
otherwise be imposed if the availability of open space and wildl i f e h ab i t a t were
limited t o militar y l a n d s d ue t o s urrounding property development. To meet this
same objective, Section 2812 authoriz es th e S ecretary o f Defense to convey s urplus

²⁹ As amended i n 1997, t h e Si kes Act ( 16 U.S.C. 670a) r equi res DOD t o deve l o p a n INRMP
for each military installation i n t he United States, unless t he Secretary of D e f e n se
determines that the absence of significant natural resources on a p articular installation
ma ke s t he preparat i on of s uch a pl an i nappr o p r i a t e . T he l a w r equi res DOD t o cooperat e
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce and stat e fish and wildlife agencies i n t he
preparation of t hese plans t o r each a mutual agr eement on t he conserva tion, protection, and
ma nage me nt of fi sh and wi l dl i f e r esources.

property t o s tate or local governments, or non-profit conservation o rganiz ations, t o
preserve open s pace or natural resources in perpetuity.
Us e a nd Disposal of Obsolete Na va l V essels. Section 3504 authoriz es
fi nanci al assi st ance t o st at es for p repari ng obsolete vessels fro m t he National Defense
Reserve Fleet for u se as artificial reef s. The l aw does not specify how much funding
is authorized, and the amount of assistance would d epend o n t he availability of
appropriations. Eligible activities i nclude removing hazardou s m at erials from a
vessel, t o w i n g it to the t arget l ocation, and s inking it. The amount of assistance
awarded t o a st at e woul d d epend o n num erous fact ors, such as t h e cost -effect i v eness
of “reefi n g” a v essel com pared t o o t h er disposal options. No l ater than September
30, 2003, the M aritime Administration and EP A are required t o j ointly develop
envi ronm ent al b est m anagem ent p ract i ces t o serve as a n a t i onal gui del i n e for
preparing vessels as artificial reefs. In addition t o t he use of artificial reefs as a
disposal option, Section 3504 directs t he Maritime Administration t o carry out a p ilot
program t o ex plore alternatives for ex porti n g o b s o l ete naval vessels abroad to be
dismantled and recycl ed. The Maritime Administration already has the authority to
ex port v essels for t hese purposes, and the pilot program is intended t o i dentify m ore
effect i v e and safer p ract i ces for d i s posal abroad.
Depar t ment of Ener gy
Section 3101 authorized a t otal of $6.76 billion f o r D OE’s m anagement o f
defense nuclear waste and cleanup of cont a m i n ated nuclear weapons sites. The
authorization i s about $150 million l ess t han t he Administration’s amended request
of $6.91 billion, and i s ap p r o x i m a t ely $280 million m ore t han t he FY2002
appropriation of $6.48 billion. Of the authorization of $6.76 billi on, approx imately
$4.51 billion was reserved for t he Defense E nvir o n m en t a l R estoration and Waste
Management Account, n early $1.11 billion was al l o cated to the Defense Facilities
Closure P rojects Account, and about $158 million was aside fo r t h e Defense
Environmental M anagement P rivatiz ation Account.
The remaining authorizat i on of $982 million was devoted to a n ew Defense
Environmental M anagement C lea nup Reform Account. This amount is
approx imately $100 million l ess t han t he Administration’s amended request of $1.1
billion. However, Congress chose not appropriate any funding for t his account in the
Energy and W ater Development Approp r i a t i o ns Act for FY2003, as discussed o n
page 24. As noted earlier, the Administra tion h ad requested funding for t his account
to support a new i nitiative t hat would accelerat e cleanup schedules and reduce costs.
Although t here have been long-standing c oncerns over t he pace and cost o f cleanup
at defense nuclear waste s ites, some Members of C ongress criticized DOE for not
provi di ng adequat e i n form at i o n o n how t h e goal s of accel erat ed cl eanup and l owered
costs would be achieved under t h i s i nitiative. There also were concerns regarding
how these goals could b e attained without weakening cl e a n u p standards o r o ther
environmental p rotections.
W hile Congress chose not to appropriate any funding for t he newly authoriz ed
account primarily due to the above concerns, appropriations were increased for t he
ex isting Defense Environmental R estoration and W aste M anagement Account to
support efforts at s ites where DOE had alread y s igned l etters of intent with EPA and

state regulators t o work t oward t he acceler ation o f cleanup. In distributing cleanup
accelera t i o n funds among the s ites, S ection 3145 of P . L. 107-314 requires t he
S ecret ary o f E nergy t o s ubm i t a P erform ance Managem ent P l an t o C ongress for each
affected site prior t o t he allocation o f funds. Once allocated to a s ite, funds could not
be obligat ed or ex pended until 30 days after t he Secret ary of Energy s ubmits to
C o n g ress a d escription o f t he activities t o b e carried out under t he Perfor m an ce
Management Plan. To provide opportunities for additional oversight, S ection 3179
requ ires the S ecretary o f E nergy t o s ubmit a report t o C ongress on the p rogress o f
activities t o accelerate t he reduction o f environmental risks at defense nuclear waste
sites t hat h av e h elped t o i ncrease t he p ace of cleanup and reduce costs. T he law
directs t he Secretary t o s ubmit this report along with DOE’s budget justification for
FY2004.
Appropriations for FY2003
In addition t o authorizing funding for FY2003, the second session of the107^th
Congress completed consideration o f the two appropriations bills that fund DOD’s
e n v i r o n m ent al p rogram s. The Depar tment of Defense Appropriations Act for
FY2003 (P.L. 107-248, H.R. 5010) provided funding for environmental cleanup at
current and former military in s t al l ations, as wel l as numerous other environmental
activities. The M ilitary Construction Appropriations Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-249,
H.R. 5011) provided fun ding for t he cleanup of environmental contamination at^th
military base cl osure s ites. The 107 Congress did not complete action o n FY2003
appropriations for DOE’s management and cleanup of defense nuclear waste. Fi nal^th
appropriations for t hese activities were enact ed early in the 108 Congress under t he
Consolidated Appropriations Resolutio n for FY2003 (P . L. 108-7, H.J . Res. 2).
Defense-rel at ed envi ronm ent al p rovi si ons i n each l aw are ex am i n ed bel o w.
Depar t ment of Defense
The Depart m ent of Defens e Appropriations Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-248, H.R .
5010) provided s pecific funding levels for environmental cleanup activities, but as
in defense authoriz ation l egislation, ther e are no comprehensive line-item accounts
for DOD’s o ther environmental activ ities, including compliance, pollution
prevention, conservation, and environmen tal t echnology. As discussed earlier, DOD
determ ined its FY2003 budget for t hese programs mostly from funds appropriated
to the accounts for Operation and M a i n tenance, Procurement, and R esearch and
Development.
P.L. 107-248 provided a total of $1.31 billion for the cleanup of environmental
contamination at current and former military installations, about $6 million l ess t han
the enacted authorization of $1.32 billi on, approx imately $30 million m ore t han t he
Administrat i on’s request of $1.28 billion, and nearly $40 million m ore t han t he
FY2002 funding level of $1.27 billion. The i ncrease was to be devoted to increasing
t h e p ace of cleanup at FUDS sites, which h as been criticiz ed for p roceedin g m o r e
sl owl y t h an cl eanup at current l y act i v e i ns tallations. The law provided an additional
$75 million t o clean up unex ploded ordnance on Kaho’olawe Island i n Hawaii, $50
million m ore t han t he enact ed authorization and the Administration’s request of $25

million. The l aw provided another $10 million t o mitigat e t he environmental impact s
of military activities on Indian lands, t he same as the Administration requested.
On a cleanup-related m atter, the l aw limits the use of “i ndefinite
delivery/indefinite quantity” contract s t o n o m o r e t han 35% of the t otal funding
obligated for environmental cleanup projects i n FY2003. The l aw also includes
another environmental p rovision that prohibits the use of FY2003 funds to upgrade
the 939^th C o m b at S earch and R escue W i n g o f t he Ai r F orce R eserve, unt i l t h e
S ecret ary o f t he Ai r Force cert i fi es t o C ongress t h at cert ai n co n d i t i ons are m et .
Among these conditions are t he requirement that any n ew ai rcraft assi gn ed t o t h e uni t
must comply with local environmental and noise standards.
The l aw does not include two environmental p rovisio n s t h a t were considered
during t he debate over H.R. 5010. Fi rst, the l aw d o e s n o t i n clude the S enate
provision that would have provided up t o $2.5 million t o dispose of s ediments at
inland sites from dredging operations at Earle Nav al S t ation i n New J ersey.
S edi m ent s from d redgi n g operat i ons are t yp i cal l y di sposed of i n t h e o cean, due t o t h e
com p arat i v el y h i gh cos t s o f i n l and di sposal . Int erest i n i nl and d i s posal has b een
ri si ng due t o conc e r n s over t he pot ent i al l y adverse effect s o f o cean di sposal on
coast a l water quality. S econd, the l aw does not include the House p rovision that
would have established a commission to assess the “adverse impact s” of
encroachment fact ors, incl uding environmental requirements, on military trai ning.
M ilitary Construction
The M ilitary Constructio n Appropriations Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-249, H.R.
5011) allocated $561 million t o t he BR AC account for b ase realignment and closure
activities i n t he United S tates, $4 million l es s t han t he enacted authorization o f $565
million, and about $72 million l ess t han t he FY2002 enacted appropriation o f $633
million . T h e Administration had requested $545 million. Funding under t his
account includes s upport for the cleanup of environmental contamination i n o rder to
prepa r e t h e s e properties for transfer to other u ses. Of the enacted appropriation o f
$561 million, $20 million was reserved for a new Environmental C leanup
Acceleration Initiative t o address t he backlog of environmental rem ediation
requirements t hat h ave not been met. The funding for t h e initiative was to be
allocated accordingl y: $11 million t o t he Navy, $ 6 million t o t he Air Force, and $ 3
million t o t he Army.
As in FY2002, the l aw does not place a limitation o n how much funding can be
spent o n environmental cleanup. Prior t o FY2002, Congress had t raditionally placed
a limitation on environmental cleanup fundi ng under t he BR AC account. T he
departure from t his practice i s i ntended t o provide DOD with great er flex ibility in
allocating funding for cleanup needs. Fo r FY2003, DOD allocated $540 million for
environmental cleanup from t he available appropriati o n o f $ 561 million for the
BR AC account, which is about $69 million l ess t han t he amount of $609 million
allocated from t he FY2002 BR AC appropriation of $633 million. Related t o cleanup
funding, t he law direct s DOD to accu rat e l y refl ect the anticipat ed costs of
environmental restorat i o n, waste m anagem ent, and compliance activities i n future
budget requests for base closure activities. This provision was i ncluded t o address

the i ssue o f funding needs for environmental activities t hat DOD had not adequately
identified i n p revious budget submissions.
In addition t o s pecifying funding for b ase closure activities, the l aw includes a
provision which p rovides greater flex i b i l ity for t he paym ent o f environmental
cleanup costs associated with the upkeep of certain types o f military housing. The
law limits the cost of m ai ntai ning and repai ring general and flag officer quarters t o
$35,000 per unit annually, unless C ongress is notified 3 0 d ays i n advance t hat costs
will ex ceed this am ount. However, i f t he additional costs are solel y for
environmental cleanup activities t hat could not be reas onably anticipat ed at the time
of the budget submission, the l aw authoriz es DOD to notify C ongress of the
additional costs “after-the-fact ”. Providin g an ex ception from early notification
requirements for unforseen environmental costs could h elp t o ensure t hat cost
l imitations do not prevent DOD from t aking timely action t o comp l y w i t h
requirements t o remove haz ardous materi als o r reduce t he threat of ex posure.
Energy and Water Deve lopment
The C onsolidated Appropriations Reso lution for FY2003 (P.L. 108-7, H.J .Res.
2) provided a total of $6.72 billion for all t hree accounts t hat s upport DOE’s defense
nuclear waste m anagement and cleanup activities (including the 0.65% across-the-
board rescission). The FY2003 appropriation i s approx imately $4 million l ess t han
the enacted author i z at i o n of $6.76 billion, $190 million l ess t han t he
Administration’s request of $6.91 billio n , b u t $ 240 million m ore t han t he FY2002
funding level o f $6.48 billion. Of the amount of $6.72 billion enacted for FY2003,
approx imately $5.43 billion was allocated to th e Defense Environmental R estoration
and W as t e Management Account, $1.13 billion was set aside for t he Defense
Facilities C losure Projects Account, and the remaining $157 million was reserved for
the Defense Environmental M anagement P rivatiz ation Account.
As discussed earlier, Congress did not appropriate any funding for DOE’s
proposed Environmental M anagement C leanup Reform Account, which was
authoriz ed in the National Defense Authoriz ation Act for FY2003. In stead, Con gress
increased funding f o r t he ex isting Defense Environmental R estoration and W aste
Management Account by $926 million above the Administration’s request of $4.54
billion, in order t o honor the l etters of intent to accelerate cleanup that D O E had
al ready s i gned wi t h EP A and st at e regul at ors. The i n c r e a s e w a s t o be al l o cat ed
according t o t he ex isting s tructure of site categories within the account.
Many concerns were rai s ed about t h e A dm i n i s t rat i on’s cl eanup reform i nitiative
during t he FY2003 appropriations debate. DOE would h ave budgeted the m ajority
of the funding for t he proposed account by decreasing s upport for cleanup at sites t hat
are funded under t he Defense E nvi r o n m e n tal R estoration and W aste M anagement
Account. Under t his approach, funding woul d h ave b een restored at these s ites only
i f c o m p l i ance agreem ent s wi t h EP A and t h e s t at es w ere renegot i at ed t o accel erat e
cl eanup schedules and project milestones.
DOE contends that many of the require ments under its e x i s ting compliance
agreem ents are t oo costly, i neffective, and unnecessarily time-consuming, and t hat
i t s agreem ent s need t o be re-ex am i n ed t o ex pl ore w ays t o i ncrease t he pace of

cl eanup and reduce cost s . Q uest i ons were rai s ed as t o w h et her E P A and t he st at es
might agree t o weaker cl eanup standards, rather t h an face the possibility of losing
funding that site managers need to fu l f i l l e x isting agreements. W hile DOE sign ed
l et t ers of i n t ent wi t h EP A and st at e regul at ors t o accel erat e cl eanup at i t s m aj o r s i t es,
P erform ance Managem ent P l ans h ad not been developed for all s ites t o establish how
c l eanup woul d b e accel erat ed whi l e ensuri ng t h at envi ronm ent al p rot ect i o n i s n o t
compromised.
Similar t o pr o visions in the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003,
Section 315 of P.L. 108-7 i nd i c a t e s that none of the funding for environmental
management activities m ay be obligat ed at individual sites t hat would be i n ex cess
of the amount obligated in FY2002 or request ed for FY2003, whichever i s greater,
unless a Perfo rm an ce Management Plan has been completed for that site that is
consi s t ent wi t h t h e i nt ent o f DOE’s envi ronm ent al m anagem ent and cl eanup reform
initiative.
In addition t o funding for DOE, P .L. 108-7 also appropriated $144 million for
the FUSRAP p rogram, administered b y t he Army Corps o f Engineers. This amount
is $3 million m ore t han t he Administration’s request of $141 m illion, and i s $ 4
million m ore t han t he FY2002 funding level o f $140 million. As discussed earlier,
the FUSRAP program addresses l ow-level radioactive contamination at s ites t hat
were primarily owned b y p rivate contractors who processed and stored uranium and
thorium o res during t he early years of t he U.S. nuclear weapons program.
Selected References
Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Quality Program Annual Report t o
Congress f or FY 2001 . S eptember 2002.
Department of Defense. Defense E nvironmental Restoration Program Annual
Report t o C ongress f or FY 2002. April 2003.
Department of Defense. Operation and Maintenance Overview for FY 2004 .April

2003.

Department of Energy. A Review of the Environmental Manag e m e n t Program .
February2002.
General A ccoun t i n g O ffice. Wa ste C leanup: Status and Implications of DOE’s
Compliance Agreements. GAO-02-567. May 2002.
General Accounting Office. Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan
to Manage Encroachment o n T raining Ranges. GAO-02-727T. M ay 2002