Military Base Closures: Cleanup of Contaminated Properties for Civilian Reuse

Military Base Closures: Cleanup of
Contaminated Properties for Civilian Reuse
David M. Bearden
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
In 2005, the 109^th Congress approved a new Base Realignment and Closure
(BRAC) round. As the Department of Defense (DOD) implements the new round,
issues for Congress include the pace and costs of closing and realigning the selected
installations and the impacts on surrounding communities. The disposal of surplus
property has stimulated interest among affected communities in how the land can be
redeveloped to replace jobs lost as a result of the planned closures. Environmental
contamination can limit the potential for economic redevelopment if the availability of
funding or technological capabilities constrains the degree of cleanup needed to make
the land suitable for its intended use. Although most of the properties on installations
closed under the four earlier rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 have been cleaned
up and made available for redevelopment, the most extensively contaminated properties
remain in various stages of cleanup to make them suitable for their desired use. Cleanup
began many years ago at 2005 round installations when they were still operational. As
a result, cleanup generally should be at a more advanced stage upon closure, compared
to installations closed under earlier rounds when cleanup efforts were less mature. Still,
installations closed under the 2005 round could face delays in redevelopment if a
community’s desired land use would require a lengthy and costly cleanup.
Introduction
Following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Congress authorized the closure
of certain military installations under four BRAC rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995.
These installations have been closed for many years, and the majority of the properties
have been made available for civilian purposes. However, cleanup efforts continue at
some of the most contaminated properties, delaying their reuse. Public desire for their
redevelopment has motivated ongoing concern about the pace and costs of cleaning up
these remaining properties. The completion of cleanup is often a key factor in economic
redevelopment, because a property cannot be used for its intended purpose until it is
cleaned up to a degree that would be suitable for that use. In 2005, the 109^th Congress

approved a new BRAC round.¹ Although the Department of Defense (DOD) is required
to close and realign selected installations by 2011, there is no statutory deadline for the
cleanup of contaminated property. The timing of cleanup will depend on response actions
negotiated with federal and state regulators, capabilities of cleanup technologies, and the
amount of funding appropriated by Congress to support cleanup efforts.
This report explains the federal statutory requirements that govern the transfer and
reuse of contaminated properties on closed military installations, discusses the status of
cleanup to prepare these properties for reuse, examines estimates of costs to address
remaining cleanup challenges, and identifies issues for Congress.
Cleanup Requirements for Property Transfer and Reuse
As amended in 1986, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly referred to as Superfund) generally requires the
United States to clean up contaminated federal property prior to transfer out of federal
ownership.² This requirement applies to all contaminated property declared surplus to the
needs of the federal government, including property on closed military installations. The
agency with administrative jurisdiction over a property usually administers and pays for
the cleanup to satisfy the responsibility of the United States. DOD typically assumes this
responsibility for closed military installations.
After a property is transferred out of federal ownership, the United States remains
liable for any original contamination found not to have been sufficiently remediated.
However, the document transferring ownership typically guarantees cleanup only to a
level suitable for a specific use, and in some cases may include a deed restriction
prohibiting certain uses that would be considered unsafe relative to the level of cleanup
performed. Considering this condition, the United States is usually held responsible for
further cleanup to the extent that more work is found to be needed to make the originally
agreed-upon use safe. If a new owner later decides to use the property for another purpose
that would require further cleanup, the new owner ordinarily is held responsible for
additional cleanup costs to make the property suitable for that purpose.
Property declared surplus to the needs of the federal government is typically
transferred to a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) responsible for implementing a
plan for civilian reuse. While the administering agency generally must complete the
cleanup prior to transfer out of federal ownership, CERCLA authorizes early transfer
under certain conditions, including assurances that the cleanup will be carried out.³ Early
transfer can speed the redevelopment process, if it may be feasible for cleanup to occur
in conjunction with redevelopment planning and construction, or if a short-term use
would be suitable for the existing level of contamination while cleanup proceeds to
prepare the property for its eventual use.

¹ See the BRAC Commission Report to the President for a list of military installations selected
for closure under the 2005 round at: [http://www.brac.gov/finalreport.html].
² 42 U.S.C. 9620(h).
³ 42 U.S.C. 9620(h)(3)(C).

Early transfer also may offer the potential to speed the redevelopment process in
situations in which the recipient voluntarily agrees to administer and pay for the cleanup.
In such cases, the property is usually sold at a discounted price to offset the cleanup costs
borne by the purchaser. A discounted price may lower a purchaser’s initial costs to buy
the property, but the purchaser does assume some financial risk if the cleanup costs are
greater than expected. The cost of environmental insurance to limit this financial risk
may offset some of the initial savings gained from a discounted price.
If a property on a closed installation still could be of use to the federal government,
DOD may transfer it to another federal agency rather than make it available to non-federal
entities. If a contaminated property remains in federal ownership, CERCLA does not
specify which agency has responsibility for the cleanup. The determination of which
agency performs the cleanup is subject to negotiation among the agencies involved, and
as such is an Executive Branch decision. Although the agency that caused the
contamination most often administers and pays for the cleanup, disagreements over this
responsibility sometimes arise in negotiating the transfer of jurisdiction. Congress has
sometimes addressed such disagreements in legislation, specifying agency responsibilities.
Regardless of who administers the cleanup of a closed military installation, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and state regulatory agencies oversee cleanup
decisions to ensure that applicable requirements are met. CERCLA specifically requires
EPA to take the lead in overseeing cleanup of federal facilities on the National Priorities
List (NPL).⁴ States usually oversee cleanup of federal facilities not on the NPL.
The Role of Land Use in Cleanup Decisions
CERCLA generally requires cleanup actions to achieve levels of exposure to
contamination that would be protective of human health and the environment. Land use
is critical in determining the potential exposure risks and the cleanup actions needed to
address those risks. Cleanup generally is more extensive and more costly for land uses
that would result in greater exposure risks. Cleanup typically is the most stringent and the
most costly for residential use because of the greater likelihood of exposure among
sensitive populations, including children and the elderly. Cleanup is usually the least
costly and the least stringent for industrial use, as the exposure risks are not as great.
As amended, the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act requires DOD to give
“substantial deference” to an LRA’s redevelopment plan in determining the use of surplus
property on closed military installations.⁵ Still, the locally preferred use can be
constrained, if costs or technical challenges would make it infeasible to clean up a
property to a certain degree. EPA guidance acknowledges that some uses may not be
practical because of such challenges, and indicates that cleanup goals may need to be
revised, which could result in “different, more reasonable land use(s).”⁶

⁴ 42 U.S.C. 9620(e)(2).
⁵ 10 U.S.C. 2687 note.
⁶ EPA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy
Selection Process. OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04. May 25, 1995.

Program Administration and Funding
DOD administers a Defense Environmental Restoration Program to carry out cleanup
actions under CERCLA on military installations in the United States.⁷ Multiple defense
appropriations accounts fund this program. Two Defense Base Closure accounts fund the
cleanup of installations closed under the BRAC rounds. The “1990” account consolidates
funding for the cleanup of installations closed prior to the 2005 round. This account is
now entirely devoted to cleanup, as these installations were closed many years ago. The
“2005” account funds the cleanup of installations being closed under the 2005 round.
Most of this account currently funds the actions necessary to close and realign the
missions of the installations. As these actions are completed, a greater portion of the 2005
account will be devoted to cleanup to prepare surplus properties for reuse. The cleanup
of realigned installations that remain in active use will be funded out of the Defense
Environmental Restoration Accounts that support cleanup of active installations. See the
“Estimated Costs” section of this report for the amount of funding spent on the cleanup
of closed installations over time out of the Base Closure accounts.
Status of Cleanup
To manage cleanup efforts, DOD divides each installation into discrete sites (i.e.,
parcels of land), based on the nature and boundary of contamination. One installation may
contain numerous sites with differing types of contamination. As of the end of FY2007,
DOD had identified a total of 5,356 sites on hundreds of installations closed under all five⁸
BRAC rounds where contamination was known or suspected to be present. These sites
include those on installations that are in the process of closing under the 2005 round. The
vast majority of sites on BRAC installations were contaminated with hazardous
substances (i.e., chemical contaminants), but some sites contained abandoned or discarded⁹
munitions on former training ranges and munitions disposal facilities. Congress enacted
specific authorities for the cleanup of munitions sites in the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107). See CRS Report RS22862, Cleanup of
U.S. Military Munitions: Authorities, Status, and Costs, by David M. Bearden.
DOD reported that planned response actions were complete at 70% of the 5,356 sites
it had identified through FY2007. No response was required or expected at 14% of the
sites because investigations revealed that the potential for exposure to contamination was
within an acceptable range, based on applicable standards. Response actions were pending
at 10% of the site inventory, with varying stages of progress among individual sites
ranging from the assessment phase to the construction of cleanup remedies. Evaluations
were pending at 6% of the sites, leaving much uncertainty as to the extent of
contamination at those locations and the cleanup actions that will be required. Sites
requiring no further response actions generally have been made available for their
intended use. Some sites where response actions were not complete also have been made

⁷ 10 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.
⁸ Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report
to Congress. March 2007. Appendix K, pp. K-8 — K-12.
⁹ Ibid. DOD identified 5,019 sites contaminated with hazardous substances, and 337 sites on
former training ranges and munitions disposal facilities where munitions were present.

available using early transfer authority, or by leasing the property with ownership retained
by the federal government. However, remaining contamination and ongoing cleanup
could limit the use of these properties. Table 1 presents the status of cleanup through
FY2007 at sites on closed military installations by individual BRAC round.
Table 1. Site Cleanup Status by BRAC Round through FY2007
No ResponseResponse
B RAC Re sponse Re qui r e d / Evaluation P l anned/ Tot a l
RoundCompleteExpectedPendingUnder WaySites
1988 1,058 69 92 51 1,270
1991 1,157 101 37 40 1,335
1993 466 417 13 96 992
1995 1,009 126 174 279 1,588
200562243550171
All Rounds^a3,7527373515165,356
^Source:^D^e^part^m^eⁿ^t^of^D^e^f^eⁿ^s^e,^D^e^f^e^ns^{e Env}ⁱ^ronm^ent^a^l^Pr^ogr^am^s^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar^{2007 Annual}^Repor^t^t^o
^C^ongr^es^s^{, March}^{2007, A}^ppen^dⁱ^x^K^,^{pp. K}^-^{8 —}^K^-^12.
^a^.^T^h^e^s^u^m^o^f^B^R^A^C^clean^u^p^{sites th}^{at DOD rep}^o^r^ted^dⁱ^f^f^e^red^f^r^o^m^th^{e su}^m^o^f^{sites it rep}^o^r^te^d^b^y
ⁱⁿ^di^vⁱ^du^al^rouⁿ^d^{, res}^u^l^tⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^{5,415 t}^o^t^a^l^sⁱ^t^e^sⁱⁿ^s^t^ead^of^5,356.^T^hⁱ^s^di^f^f^e^ren^ce^{appeared t}^o^res^u^l^t^f^r^om^t^h^e
ⁱⁿ^clu^s^ioⁿ^o^f⁵⁹^sites^th^{at DOD d}ⁱ^dⁿ^o^{t attrib}^u^t^{e to}ⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^{al B}^R^A^C^ro^uⁿ^d^{s. Of}^th^{ese 5}⁹^{sites, 2}⁴^dⁱ^dⁿ^o^t
^requⁱ^r^{e res}^pon^s^e^actⁱ^oⁿ^s^{, 32 w}^e^{re n}^o^t^y^e^t^ev^al^u^a^t^e^{d, an}^{d 3 h}^a^{d res}^pon^s^e^actⁱ^oⁿ^s^pl^anⁿ^e^{d or u}ⁿ^d^{er w}^a^y^.
Considering that the cleanup of 2005 round installations began many years ago when
these installations were still operational, cleanup generally should be at a more advanced
stage upon closure than experienced under earlier rounds when cleanup efforts were less
mature. As of the end of FY2007, planned response actions were complete, or not
required, at half of the sites on 2005 round installations, leaving much of the property
inventory suitable for reuse. However, sites where response actions were complete would
have been cleaned up to a level compatible with military use at that time. If other uses are
desired after closure, additional cleanup may be needed.
Estimated Costs
Through FY2007, DOD had spent nearly $7.3 billion out of the Base Closure
accounts over time to clean up contaminated sites on installations closed under all five
BRAC rounds to prepare these properties for reuse. In March 2007, DOD estimated that
another $3.9 billion would be needed to complete all planned cleanup actions. DOD
estimated the future cleanup costs based on its most recent knowledge of conditions at the
sites presented in Table 1. DOD periodically revises its estimates as more is learned
about the type and level of contamination at each site, and the actions that federal and
state regulators will seek to address potential risks. In effect, these estimates are “moving
targets” that change as more information becomes available to project the costs of future
actions. Uncertainties about the degree of cleanup that ultimately will be required at some
sites make it challenging to accurately estimate the total costs to complete cleanup. Table
2 presents the past and estimated future costs to clean up contaminated sites at closed
military installations by individual BRAC round.

Table 2. Site Cleanup Costs by BRAC Round through FY2007
BRACCosts Incurred^aEstimated Costs
RoundThrough FY2007FY2008 to CompletionTotal Costs
1988 $1,442,335,000 $488,607,000 $1,930,942,000
1991 $2,219,968,000 $1,322,851,000 $3,542,819,000
1993 $1,763,241,000 $474,159,000 $2,237,400,000
1995 $1,803,356,000 $1,208,167,000 $3,011,523,000
2005 $34,385,000 $386,244,000 $420,629,000
All Rounds^b$7,263,285,000$3,880,028,000$11,143,313,000
^Source:^DOD,^D^e^f^e^ns^{e Envi}^r^onm^ent^a^l^Pr^ogr^am^s^Fi^s^c^al^Y^e^ar^{2007 Annual}^Repor^t^t^o^C^ongr^es^s^{, March}
^{2007, A}^ppen^dⁱ^x^K^,^{pp. K}^-⁸^—^K^-^12.^A^m^ouⁿ^t^s^ref^l^ect^proj^ect^f^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^al^l^o^cat^{ed t}^oⁱⁿ^di^vⁱ^du^al^sⁱ^t^e^s^an^{d do}
ⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^{e prog}^ram^m^aⁿ^a^g^e^m^eⁿ^t^an^{d ot}^h^e^{r s}^u^pport^cos^t^s^.
^{a. C}^o^s^t^sⁱⁿ^cu^{rred on}^ly^r^e^f^l^{ect f}^uⁿ^d^s^s^p^en^{t on}^clean^u^p^ou^{t of}^th^{e B}^a^s^e^C^l^os^u^r^{e accou}ⁿ^t^s^.^T^h^{e Def}^eⁿ^s^e
^En^vⁱ^roⁿ^m^en^{tal Resto}^r^atioⁿ^acco^uⁿ^t^{s f}^uⁿ^d^ed^clean^u^p^w^h^en^th^{e in}^stallatioⁿ^s^w^e^reⁱⁿ^activ^{e m}^ilitary^u^s^{e. A}
^b^r^eak^o^u^{t o}^f^th^{is f}^uⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^{is n}^o^{t r}^ead^ily^av^ailab^l^e.
^b^.^T^h^{e su}^m^o^f^{all B}^R^A^C^clean^u^p^co^{sts th}^{at DOD rep}^o^r^ted^dⁱ^f^f^e^red^f^r^o^m^th^{e su}^m^o^f^co^{sts it rep}^o^r^t^e^d^b^y
ⁱⁿ^di^vⁱ^du^al^rouⁿ^d^{, res}^u^l^tⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿ^{a h}ⁱ^g^h^e^{r pas}^t^cos^t^of^{$7,307,310,000}^t^h^ro^{ugh FY}^{2007, an}^{d a}^hⁱ^g^h^e^r^es^tⁱ^m^at^ed
^f^u^t^u^{re cos}^t^of^{$3,881,533,000. T}^hⁱ^s^di^f^f^e^ren^{ce appeared}^t^o^res^u^l^t^f^r^om^t^h^eⁱⁿ^cl^u^sⁱ^oⁿ^of^cos^t^s^as^s^o^ci^at^{ed w}ⁱ^t^h
⁵⁹^B^R^A^C^{sites th}^{at w}^e^r^eⁿ^o^{t attr}^ib^u^t^ed^toⁱⁿ^dⁱ^vⁱ^d^u^{al r}^o^uⁿ^d^s.
Some attention has been drawn to the impact that potentially higher cleanup costs
could have on the savings expected from a BRAC round. The closure of a military
installation results in annual “savings” in operational expenses, but cleanup costs to
prepare decommissioned properties for reuse can reduce these savings. However, some
of the cleanup costs would have been incurred regardless, as DOD still is required to clean
up its active installations to a degree that would be suitable for military purposes.
Issues for Congress
The amount of time and resources needed to complete the cleanup of closed military
installations generally depends on the level of contamination on those properties, and the
actions selected to make them suitable for civilian reuse. Cleanup can take many years
in some instances, as the continuing cleanup of certain installations closed between 1988
and 1995 demonstrates. However, the generally more advanced stage of cleanup at 2005
round installations anticipated upon closure may allow contaminated properties to become
available for reuse more quickly. Still, the availability of funding and capabilities of
cleanup technologies could limit the feasibility of cleanup at some installations, making
certain land uses impractical and posing challenges to economic redevelopment.
It is difficult to ascertain whether DOD’s cleanup cost estimates are a reasonable
approximation of the funding that will be needed to prepare closed installations for reuse.
Because the civilian uses of installations to be closed in the 2005 round have yet to be
decided, DOD’s cost estimates are based on a degree of cleanup that would be compatible
with recent military use. If a property were to be used for other purposes that would result
in a higher risk of exposure to contamination, more stringent cleanup likely would be
required to make the property suitable for that use. In these circumstances, more time and
resources could be needed to complete cleanup than DOD has estimated.