Order Code RL31456
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:
Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003
Updated July 15, 2002
David M. Bearden
Environmental Information Analyst
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:
Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003
Summary
The Department of Defense (DOD) administers five environmental programs
in response to various requirements under federal environmental laws. These
programs include environmental cleanup, environmental compliance, pollution
prevention, environmental technology, and natural resource conservation.
Additionally, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing defense
nuclear waste and cleaning up contaminated nuclear weapons sites. For FY2003, the
Administration has requested $10.9 billion for these programs, about $108 million
more than the FY2002 funding level of $10.8 billion. Some of the principal issues
associated with these programs are the adequacy, cost, and pace of cleanup, whether
DOD and DOE adequately comply with environmental laws and regulations, and the
extent to which environmental requirements encroach upon military readiness.
The House and Senate have passed legislation to authorize national defense
programs for FY2003. A conference on the two bills is underway. As passed, H.R.
4546 would authorize $1.28 billion for environmental cleanup at current and former
military installations, whereas S. 2514 would authorize $1.32 billion for these
activities. Funding for DOD’s other environmental activities would primarily be
authorized under the Operation and Maintenance Accounts. For DOE’s management
of defense nuclear waste and cleanup of contaminated nuclear weapons sites, H.R.
4546 would authorize $6.59 billion, while S. 2514 would authorize $6.87 billion.
H.R. 4546 also would exempt military readiness activities from certain requirements
under the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the
Wilderness Act. As passed, S. 2514 does not include such exemptions.
Action also has begun on legislation to appropriate funding in FY2003 for
national defense programs. As passed, H.R. 5010 would provide $1.28 billion for
environmental cleanup at current and former military installations, the same as
requested and as the House authorized in H.R. 4546. As passed, H.R. 5011 would
provide $545 million, the same as requested, for base closure activities, which would
include the cleanup of environmental contamination. As reported, S. 2709 would
provide $645 million for base closure activities, and the $100 million increase above
the House amount would be reserved for accelerating cleanup activities. The House
also has completed subcommittee markup of legislation that would appropriate
funding for DOE’s defense nuclear waste management and cleanup responsibilities
in FY2003, but the bill number or text is not yet available to date.
At least 13 other bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress that address
defense-related environmental activities, such as conversion of the Rocky Flats site
in Colorado to a National Wildlife Refuge, cleanup of unexploded ordnance, critical
habitat protection for endangered and threatened species, military compliance with
environmental requirements, reform of Superfund cleanup requirements, military
response to environmental emergencies in foreign nations, storage and use of
mercury at military installations, regulation of pollution from military aircraft
operations, and suspension of the use of depleted uranium munitions. This report
will be updated as legislative activity and other relevant developments occur.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Environmental Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Oversight of Cleanup Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Cleanup Status and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Appropriations Account Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Overseas Military Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Compliance Requirements under Federal Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Fines and Penalties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Other Environmental Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Military Readiness Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Oversight of Cleanup and Waste Management Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Cleanup Status and Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Appropriations Account Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Yucca Mountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Authorization Legislation for FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
H.R. 4546 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Endangered Species Act Exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Wilderness Act Exemption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
S. 2514 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Appropriations Legislation for FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Other Relevant Legislation in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Making the Rocky Flats Site a National Wildlife Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Removal and Remediation of Unexploded Ordnance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Endangered and Threatened Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Compliance with Federal and State Environmental Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Superfund Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Military Response to Environmental Emergencies in
Foreign Nations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Storage and Use of Mercury at Military Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Regulation of Pollution from Military Aircraft Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Suspension of the Use of Depleted Uranium Munitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

List of Figures
Figure 1. Funding for Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:
FY1990 to FY2002 Enacted and FY2003 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 2. Cleanup Status at Current, Former, and Closing Military Installations
in the United States as of September 30, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 3. Cleanup Status at DOE Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management Sites as of September 30, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 4. Cleanup Status under the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action
Program as of September 30, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Fines and Penalties Assessed and Paid for Environmental Violations
from FY1995 to FY2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Defense Cleanup and Environmental
Programs: Authorization and
Appropriations for FY2003
Introduction
The Department of Defense (DOD) administers five environmental programs
to clean up past contamination at military installations; comply with environmental
laws and regulations to safely dispose of waste and pollutants generated from
ongoing military operations; prevent future contamination; develop more efficient
and less costly environmental cleanup and waste management technologies; and
conserve the natural, historical, and cultural resources of military lands. In addition
to DOD’s programs, the Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for managing
defense nuclear waste, and cleaning up contaminated nuclear weapons sites. While
DOD and DOE are responsible for performing these activities, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the states provide oversight to enforce applicable laws
and regulations, and they have the authority to assess fines and penalties if violations
occur. Some of the principal issues associated with these programs are the adequacy,
cost, and pace of cleanup, whether DOD and DOE adequately comply with
environmental laws and regulations, and the extent to which environmental
requirements encroach upon military readiness.
Congress authorizes both DOD’s and DOE’s defense-related environmental
programs in the annual authorization bill for national defense, but it funds these
programs under three different appropriations bills. Cleanup activities at current
and former military installations, environmental compliance, pollution prevention,
environmental technology, and natural resource conservation primarily receive
funding in the annual appropriations bill for the Department of Defense, but cleanup
at base closure sites is funded in the annual appropriations bill for military
construction. DOE’s management of defense nuclear waste and cleanup of
contaminated nuclear weapons sites is funded in the annual appropriations bill for
energy and water development. For FY2003, the Administration has requested
nearly $10.9 billion for these programs, approximately 3% of the total national
defense request of $396.8 billion, and about $108 million more than the FY2002
funding level of almost $10.8 billion. See Figure 1 for a funding history since
FY1990, as well as the amount requested for each program for FY2003.
This report explains the scope and function of DOD’s and DOE’s defense-
related environmental programs, identifies relevant requirements under federal law,
analyzes various implementation issues, indicates the President’s budget request for
FY2003, examines relevant provisions in authorization and appropriations
legislation for FY2003, and discusses additional legislation introduced in the 107th
Congress that could affect defense-related environmental activities.











































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































































CRS-2
Figure 1. Funding for Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:
FY1990 to FY2002 Enacted and FY2003 Request
Billions of Dollars
12.00
10.51
10.63
10.82
10.75
10.87
9.93
9.97
10.19
10.31
10.26
9.92
10.00
7.36
8.00
5.25
6.00
3.05
4.00
2.00
0.00
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Environmental Technology
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.43
0.41
0.28
0.22
0.21
0.21
0.26
0.29
0.29
0.23
0.21
Pollution Prevention
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.30
0.34
0.29
0.25
0.26
0.26
0.23
0.28
0.21
0.24
0.25
Natural Resource Conservation
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.12
0.10
0.15
0.11
0.09
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.18
0.16
0.15
Base Closure Cleanup
n/a
0.37
0.62
0.49
0.54
0.64
0.85
0.68
0.83
0.76
0.36
0.79
0.59
0.52
Current and Former Site Cleanup
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
1.28
Environmental Compliance
0.79
1.11
1.93
2.12
1.98
2.04
2.23
2.02
1.91
1.89
1.66
1.63
1.66
1.71
Corps of Engineers FUSRAP
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
0.14
0.14
0.15
0.14
0.14
0.14
Department of Energy Cleanup
1.66
2.70
3.68
4.83
5.17
5.09
5.56
5.62
5.52
5.58
5.72
6.27
6.46
6.61
Request
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using data from enacted appropriations legislation, Operation and Maintenance Overviews of
the Department of Defense, and congressional budget justifications of the Department of Energy. N/A = account or program not yet
established. FUSRAP = Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program.

CRS-3
Department of Defense
DOD administers five environmental programs to comply with requirements
under various federal environmental laws.1 In terms of funding, DOD’s two largest
environmental programs focus on cleaning up past contamination at current, former,
and closing military installations, and on complying with environmental laws and
regulations to safely dispose of waste and pollutants generated by ongoing military
operations. DOD’s three other environmental programs have smaller budgets. They
focus on pollution prevention, environmental technology, and natural resource
conservation. For FY2003, the Administration has requested $4.11 billion for all
five programs, about $44 million less than the FY2002 funding level of $4.15 billion.
DOD reports that this overall decrease is primarily due to no funding being requested
to continue specific projects that received congressionally “earmarked” funding in
FY2002. More detailed information on each program is provided below.
Environmental Cleanup
In 1975, DOD established an Installation Restoration Program to investigate
and clean up sites on military lands where past waste management practices had led
to environmental contamination. A few years later, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
created the Superfund program to clean up hazardous waste sites that pose the
greatest risk to public health and the environment in the United States, and it created
the National Priorities List (NPL) to track them.2 The law also established a formal
framework for the identification, investigation, and cleanup of hazardous substances.
Initially, the extent to which DOD had to comply with these requirements was
unclear. However, the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) specified that DOD and all other federal agencies are subject to CERCLA’s
requirements for identifying, evaluating, and cleaning up NPL sites under their
jurisdiction.3 The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) also requires
DOD and all other federal agencies to perform corrective actions to clean up
1 For additional information on each program, refer to the Defense Environmental Network
and Information Exchange (DENIX) web site at [http://www.denix.osd.mil].
2 42 U.S.C. 9601 et. seq.
3 42 U.S.C. 9620

CRS-4
contamination at sites with active hazardous waste management or solid waste
disposal facilities operating with permits issued under RCRA.4
In addition to specifying the applicability of CERCLA, SARA expanded the
Installation Restoration Program, and renamed it the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program, to centralize DOD’s efforts in cleaning up hazardous waste
sites at domestic military installations where past actions led to contamination.5 As
a complement to this program, DOD established a Military Munitions Response
Program to fulfill requirements under Sections 311 and 312 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) to identify, investigate, and clean up
unexploded ordnance (UXO) and other munitions at nonoperational training ranges
in the United States. This program is in its initial stage, and only a portion of
contaminated sites have been identified thus far. As DOD continues to identify
additional sites and investigate the extent of contamination, more information will
be available on the actions and costs that will be necessary to address the safety and
environmental hazards presented by UXO. The following sections explain the role
of EPA and the states in conducting oversight of DOD’s cleanup activities, indicate
cleanup status and costs, explain appropriations account structure, and discuss
cleanup efforts at overseas military installations.
Oversight of Cleanup Activities. While DOD is responsible for funding
and conducting cleanup actions at its sites, EPA and the states conduct oversight of
these actions to determine whether DOD complies with the law. Generally, EPA
takes the lead in performing oversight of DOD sites being cleaned up under
CERCLA, and EPA delegates federal authority to the states for conducting oversight
of corrective actions taken under RCRA. However, cleanup requirements under
CERCLA and RCRA apply only within the United States. The cleanup of
contamination at overseas military installations is subject to requirements specified
within the Status of Forces Agreement with each host nation. These requirements
are generally not as strict as CERCLA and RCRA, and their stringency varies widely
from country to country. Unlike domestic cleanup actions, EPA does not have the
authority to conduct oversight at military installations abroad. Rather, overseeing
DOD’s actions to ensure that the requirements of a Status of Forces Agreement are
met is the responsibility of each host nation.
Cleanup Status and Costs. Until FY1994, DOD primarily concentrated
its cleanup efforts on identifying and investigating contaminated sites to determine
the level of remediation that would be necessary to protect human health and the
environment. As the majority of sites were identified and subsequent investigations
were completed, DOD began to focus the bulk of its efforts on actual cleanup. In
FY1996, DOD also developed specific cleanup goals to prioritize its sites, based on
threats of exposure. As indicated in Figure 2, DOD had identified a total of 28,538
contaminated sites as of the end of FY2001.6 These sites are located on 5,046
current, former, and closing military installations in all 50 states and several U.S.
4 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
5 10 U.S.C. 2701
6 Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to
Congress for FY2001. April 2002. p. B-6-1, p. C-5-1.

CRS-5
territories. As of that time, DOD had completed cleanup at 19,564 of its
contaminated sites (nearly 69% of total sites) at a cost of $18.6 billion, and reported
that almost $31.0 billion would be necessary to finish cleanup at the remaining 8,974
sites from FY2002 to site completion.
Even though less than 1/3 of contaminated sites are still in need of cleanup, the
above estimates of future cleanup costs are substantially higher than has already been
spent due to the severity of contamination at these remaining sites and the resources
that likely will be necessary to address UXO contamination. DOD expects that
estimates of funding needs will likely increase in future years as additional sites with
UXO contamination are identified and the extent of such contamination is
determined. Funding needs for cleanup also may rise in future years as additional
military bases are selected for closure. The National Defense Authorization Act for
FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) authorized a new round of military base closings in 2005.
The amount of funding that would be necessary to accelerate cleanup at new base
closure sites, and transfer them to other uses, would depend on the type and extent
of contamination present at such installations. Costs to accelerate cleanup could be
high if the bases selected for closure contain some of the more severely contaminated
sites that are on the NPL and are subject to cleanup under CERCLA.
Figure 2. Cleanup Status at Current, Former, and Closing Military
Installations in the United States as of September 30, 2001
Total Number of Sites = 28,538
31.4%
Response in Progress
8,974 Sites
Response Complete
19,564 Sites
68.6%
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using data from the Department of Defense,
Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual Report to Congress for FY2001,
April 2002, p. B-6-1, p. C-5-1.
Appropriations Account Structure. Cleanup costs at domestic military
sites are funded by several centralized accounts structured by category of installation.
Funding for cleanup at current and former military installations is authorized under
five Defense Environmental Restoration Accounts in the annual authorization bill for
national defense , and is appropriated to these accounts in the annual appropriations

CRS-6
bill for the Department of Defense. Three of these accounts reserve funding for the
Army, Navy, and Air Force. One devotes funding to a more general category of
Defense-Wide sites, and another is dedicated to cleaning up Formerly Used Defense
Sites (FUDS).7 Typically, FUDS are sites on properties that DOD owned or leased
in the past and are now devoted to civilian uses. Many of the FUDS sites were used
during the World War II era and are separate from military bases that have been
designated for closure since 1988. Cleanup at base closure sites is authorized under
the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Account in the annual authorization bill
for national defense, and is appropriated under this account in the annual
appropriations bill for military construction.8 The Administration has requested a
total of $1.80 billion for DOD’s cleanup activities in FY2003, approximately $65
million less than the FY2002 funding level of $1.86 billion. Of the requested
amount, nearly $1.28 billion would be allocated to the Defense Environmental
Restoration Accounts for current and former military installations, and about $520
million would be reserved under the BRAC account for cleanup at base closure sites.
Overseas Military Installations. As discussed above, there are several
centralized accounts to fund cleanup activities at domestic military installations.
However, there are no line-item accounts in the President’s annual budget
submission, or in annual defense authorization or appropriations legislation, to
conduct cleanup actions at overseas military installations. Rather, these projects are
funded on an installation-by-installation basis out of the general operational budget
for each foreign base, and DOD does not have the authority to transfer funding from
the cleanup accounts for domestic installations to address contamination abroad.
Further, DOD is not required to report to Congress on the status of cleanup actions
at overseas military installations, as the agency is required to do for domestic
facilities in its annual report on the Defense Environmental Restoration Program.
The only type of information that DOD is required to submit to Congress regarding
overseas cleanup is a statement of the amounts expended, and anticipated to be
expended, as part of its annual report to Congress on the Defense Environmental
Quality Program. The most recent version of this report indicated that DOD spent
a total of $12.6 million in FY2000 on overseas environmental cleanup, more than
double the amount of $5.7 million in FY1999. The report also indicated that $19.6
million was available from appropriations in FY2001, and that in FY2002, $13.1
million would be required for overseas cleanup obligations.9
7 Congress first appropriated funding to the Defense Environmental Restoration Account in
FY1984. Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1997 (P.L. 104-201)
divided the account into four subaccounts: Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-Wide.
Since then, Congress also has specified the amount of funding reserved for cleaning up
FUDS sites, and the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-398)
established a FUDS subaccount to conform with this budgetary practice.
8 Congress authorized four rounds of military base closures in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995,
and established a separate BRAC account for each round. Congress has traditionally placed
a limit on the amount of funding that can be spent on environmental cleanup out of the
annual appropriation for each BRAC account.
9 Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Quality Program Annual Report to
Congress for FY2000. November 2001. p. 6.

CRS-7
Environmental Compliance
DOD and all other federal agencies are required to comply with environmental
laws and regulations to the same extent as any other entity. Typically, environmental
compliance projects at military installations include routine operations such as
storing and disposing of solid and hazardous waste, upgrading and monitoring waste
water treatment plants, and testing and replacing underground storage tanks. The
following sections provide information on environmental compliance requirements
under federal law, examine funding trends for military compliance activities, and
indicate the amount of fines and penalties assessed against, and paid by, DOD for
environmental violations.
Compliance Requirements under Federal Law. The federal
environmental statutes that most commonly apply to the military’s routine operations
include the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA), and Safe Drinking Water Act. The Federal Facility Compliance Act
of 1992 amended RCRA to clarify in detail that DOD and all other federal facilities
are subject to penalties, fines, permit fees, reviews of plans or studies, and inspection
and monitoring of facilities in connection with federal, state, interstate, or local solid
or hazardous waste regulatory programs.10 The Act also authorized and directed
EPA to take enforcement actions under RCRA against any federal agency to the
same extent that it would against any other entity. While the Safe Drinking Water
Act includes similar language, other federal environmental laws do not include the
same clarification of compliance requirements. In the first session of the 107th
Congress, legislation (H.R. 2154) was introduced to extend this clarification
language to other environmental laws, discussed on page 25.
Funding Trends. DOD did not begin to comprehensively track the amount
of funding spent on environmental compliance activities until FY1990. However,
there are no centralized accounts for these activities in annual defense authorization
and appropriations legislation, as there are for environmental cleanup activities.
Instead, funding for compliance primarily comes from the accounts for Operation
and Maintenance, Military Construction, and Procurement. DOD’s budget for
environmental compliance has ranged from $790 million in FY1990 to a high of
$2.23 billion in FY1996. The Administration has requested $1.71 billion for
FY2003, about $47 million more than the FY2002 funding level of $1.66 billion.
According to DOD, an increase is being requested to meet environmental
requirements for certain Air Force activities and to implement waste water and
drinking water treatment projects at the Massachusetts Military Reservation in
Falmouth, Massachusetts. The safety of drinking water has been an ongoing concern
among communities surrounding the reservation, since groundwater contamination
was discovered in private and municipal drinking water wells. While the
Administration is proposing an overall increase in funding for environmental
compliance activities, such funding for the Navy and defense-wide facilities would
decline due to the completion of one-time projects.
10 42 U.S.C. 6961

CRS-8
Fines and Penalties. While DOD is required to comply with environmental
laws and regulations, and has a dedicated budget to fund such activities, the extent
to which DOD fulfills these responsibilities has been a longstanding issue. As
explained above, federal environmental laws require federal facilities to comply with
all federal, state, interstate, and local environmental requirements and authorize
EPA, the states, and local governments to assess fines and penalties against DOD for
environmental violations. However, a fine or penalty is not always paid in the same
year that it is assessed, and in some cases, DOD does not make a cash payment to
satisfy a fine or penalty. Instead, DOD sometimes agrees to perform a Supplemental
Environmental Project (SEP) in lieu of a cash payment. Under such an agreement,
DOD not only corrects its actions to comply with the environmental requirement at
hand, but also performs an additional project that enhances environmental quality.
Regulatory agencies frequently prefer the performance of SEPs to cash payments due
to the environmental benefits reaped from such projects. DOD is required to include
information on the amount of environmental fines and penalties assessed and paid
for the past 5 fiscal years in its annual report to Congress on the Defense
Environmental Quality Program. As indicated in Table 1, EPA, the states, and local
governments assessed $9.7 million in fines and penalties against DOD for
environmental violations from FY1995 to FY2000.11 During this same period, DOD
paid $15.9 million in cash payments and SEPs as compensation for its violations.12
Table 1. Fines and Penalties Assessed and Paid for
Environmental Violations from FY1995 to FY2000
Fiscal Year
Fines and Penalties Assessed
Cash Paid and Cost of SEPs
FY1995
$835,042
$3,809,525
FY1996
$856,708
$3,212,050
FY1997
$2,498,139
$5,231,955
FY1998
$2,921,653
$157,920
FY1999
*$923,889
$3,298,810
FY2000
$1,692,845
$156,100
Total
$9,728,276
$15,866,360
*This amount does not include a fine of $16 million assessed against DOD for violations
under the Clean Air Act at Ft. Wainwright, Alaska, which was legally challenged due to the
criteria used to determine the amount.
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the Department of Defense.
Defense Environmental Quality Program Annual Report to Congress for FY2000.
November 2001. Appendix J. p. 16 and p. 20.
11 Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Quality Program Annual Report to
Congress for FY2000. November 2001. Appendix J. p. 16.
12 Ibid., Appendix J. p. 20.

CRS-9
Other Environmental Programs
In addition to environmental cleanup and compliance, DOD administers three
other programs that focus on pollution prevention, environmental technology, and
natural resource conservation. The purpose of the pollution prevention program is
to reduce or eliminate solid or hazardous waste from being generated and prevent
environmental problems before they occur. The environmental technology program
supports research, development, testing, and demonstration of more efficient and less
costly methods to clean up and manage solid and hazardous waste. The natural
resource conservation program aims to protect the natural, historical, and cultural
resources of the 25 million acres of public land that DOD administers, including the
protection of endangered species. DOD began tracking the budget for these
programs in FY1993. While these programs are an integral part of DOD’s
environmental strategy, their funding is significantly smaller than the programs for
environmental cleanup and compliance. Like compliance, there are no centralized
accounts for pollution prevention, environmental technology, or natural resource
conservation in annual defense authorization or appropriations legislation. Instead,
funding for these activities comes primarily from the accounts for Operation and
Maintenance, Procurement, and Research and Development.
For FY2003, the Administration has proposed an increase in funding for
pollution prevention, and decreases for environmental technology and natural
resource conservation. First, the budget for pollution prevention would increase by
$6.2 million, from $241.3 million in FY2002 to $247.5 million in FY2003.
According to DOD, the proposed increase is primarily due to funding needs for Air
Force and defense-wide projects. Second, funding for environmental technology
would decline by $20.5 million, from $225.6 million in FY2002 to $205.1 million
in FY2003. DOD reports that the proposed decrease is mostly due to the lack of
funding being requested to continue specific projects that received congressionally
“earmarked” funding in FY2002 under the Research, Development, Test, and
Evaluation Accounts. While the overall budget for environmental technology would
decline under the Administration’s proposal, there would be a $7.8 million increase
for the Environmental Technology Certification program to accelerate the
development of new ways to detect and clean up UXO and other munitions. The
development of such technologies will likely be crucial in efforts to accurately
identify and assess contaminated sites under the new Military Munitions Response
Program, discussed earlier. Third, funding for natural resource conservation would
decline by $11.7 million, from $163.7 million in FY2002 to $152.0 million in
FY2003. According to DOD, the proposed decrease is primarily due to reduced
costs for Air Force projects and the lack of funding being requested for projects that
received congressionally “earmarked” funding in FY2002.
Military Readiness Issues
A major issue associated with the implementation of DOD’s environmental
programs is the extent to which environmental requirements restrict military
readiness capabilities. While most federal environmental laws specify their
applicability to federal facilities, Congress included exemptions in several statutes
to ensure that military training needs would not be restricted to the extent that

CRS-10
national security would be compromised. 13 These exemptions provide the President
with the authority to suspend compliance requirements for actions at federal facilities
on a case-by-case basis. Such exemptions may be granted if doing so would be
either in the “paramount interest of the United States” or in the “interest of national
security”. Most of these exemptions are limited to one year, but can be renewed.
The Safe Drinking Water Act does not impose a time limit on exemptions from
compliance. Under the Endangered Species Act, a special committee “shall grant”
an exemption if the Secretary of Defense finds it necessary for national security.
This committee may place a time limit on an exemption, but it is not required to do
so under the law.
The adequacy of existing exemptions to meet national security needs has
become a controversial issue. DOD argues that existing exemptions are too onerous
and time-consuming to obtain on a case-by-case basis due to the vast number of
training exercises that it conducts on hundreds of military installations across the
country. DOD also argues that the time limitations placed upon most exemptions are
not compatible with many training activities, due to their ongoing or recurring
nature. Instead, DOD favors broader exemptions that would allow it to conduct
training exercises and other readiness activities without restriction or delay.
However, environmental organizations have opposed broader exemptions for
military readiness activities and claim that existing exemptions are sufficient to
accommodate combat training needs.
The cumulative effect of environmental requirements on military readiness
capabilities is difficult to determine due to the lack of a system to comprehensively
track individual cases in which training has been restricted or compromised. In a
recent evaluation, the General Accounting Office (GAO) found that DOD’s readiness
reports do not indicate the extent to which environmental requirements restrict
combat training activities, and that such reports indicate a high level of readiness
overall.14 However, GAO noted individual instances of environmental encroachment
at numerous military installations, and in light of this fact, recommended that DOD’s
reporting system be improved to more accurately identify any shortfalls in training
that might be attributed to restrictions imposed by environmental requirements.
The House and Senate Armed Services Committees, the House Government
Reform Committee, and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, have
held oversight hearings during the 107th Congress to examine the issue of
environmental encroachment, and debate will likely continue as DOD attempts to
balance its readiness needs with requirements to comply with environmental laws.
The House included broader environmental exemptions from certain requirements
under the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the
Wilderness Act in passing the National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003
13 Specific exemptions from compliance requirements for federal facilities are included in
the Clean Air Act [42 USC 7418(b)], Clean Water Act [33 USC 1323(a)], Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act [42 USC 9620(j)], Endangered
Species Act [16 USC 1536(j)], Resource Conservation and Recovery Act [42 USC 6961(a)],
and Safe Drinking Water Act [42 USC 300(j)(6)].
14 General Accounting Office. Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan to
Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges. GAO-02-727T. May 2002. p. 2.

CRS-11
(H.R. 4546), discussed on page 17. DOD had requested the exemptions related to
the protection of endangered species and migratory birds as part of a Readiness and
Range Preservation Initiative submitted to Congress in April 2002.15
Department of Energy
In the late 1980s, the United States ceased its production of radioactive
materials used in the construction of nuclear weapons due to military projections that
the nuclear weapons stockpile was sufficient to protect national security and respond
to future threats. However, environmental problems associated with producing and
storing these radioactive materials continue to pose a risk to human health and safety
today. Since the beginning of the U.S. atomic energy program, DOE and its
predecessors have been responsible for managing defense nuclear weapons and
related waste. In later years, DOE expanded its efforts to include the environmental
restoration of radioactive sites and those with other hazardous contamination in
buildings, soil, and water to ensure their safety for future uses. In 1989, the Bush
Administration established an Environmental Management Program within DOE to
consolidate the agency’s efforts in cleaning up contamination from defense nuclear
waste, as well as waste from civilian nuclear energy research.16 The following
sections discuss program oversight, cleanup status and costs, appropriations account
structure, and related topics such as the selection of Yucca Mountain for an
underground nuclear waste repository and the cleanup of smaller radioactive waste
sites that were transferred from DOE to the Army Corps of Engineers.
Oversight of Cleanup and Waste Management Activities
The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is the primary authority governing the
management of defense nuclear waste. The law requires DOE to safely store,
process, transport, and dispose of radioactive and other hazardous waste resulting
from the production of defense nuclear materials.17 Waste disposal typically
involves cleanup actions, such as the decontamination of buildings and structures and
the removal of contaminated soil. DOE is also subject to requirements under various
federal environmental laws in carrying out its responsibilities under the Atomic
Energy Act. CERCLA and RCRA are the two main federal environmental statutes
that apply to cleanup activities at defense nuclear waste sites. CERCLA primarily
applies to cleanup actions at inactive waste sites which present the highest risk of
exposure and are listed on the NPL. RCRA requires DOE to clean up contamination
at sites with active solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities for which an
operating permit has been issued under RCRA. EPA and the states are responsible
for conducting oversight of DOE’s actions in order to determine compliance with
15 In response to concerns over the perceived increase in training restrictions imposed by
environmental requirements, DOD submitted a Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
to Congress which proposed broader exemptions for military readiness activities from certain
requirements under the Clean Air Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine Mammal Protection Act,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Solid Waste Disposal Act.
16 For additional information, refer to DOE’s web site at [http://www.em.doe.gov].
17 42 U.S.C. 2121

CRS-12
environmental laws and assess fines and penalties if violations occur. Generally,
EPA takes the lead in performing oversight of cleanup actions at DOE sites required
under CERCLA, and EPA delegates federal authority to the states for conducting
oversight of actions required under RCRA. To date, DOE has completed over 100
compliance agreements with EPA and the states, which specify cleanup and waste
management requirements at individual sites.18
Cleanup Status and Costs
The pace and cost of cleanup at defense nuclear waste sites has been a long-
standing issue. GAO has conducted numerous audits of DOE’s Environmental
Management Program, which in many cases have assessed cleanup schedules and
cost estimates as being overly optimistic. GAO’s assessment of DOE’s 1998
strategy to accelerate cleanup concluded that cleanup schedules and estimates of
funding needs are sometimes inaccurate because they are based on project
assumptions that may change, such as the capacity to pack and ship vast quantities
of waste for disposal, cleanup levels that have yet to be finalized under regulatory
agreements, the types of waste management and cleanup technologies that will be
used, and the exclusion of additional costly activities related to cleanup.19
Figure 3. Cleanup Status at DOE Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management Sites as of September 30, 2001
Total Number of Sites = 114
35.1%
Response in Progress
40 Sites
Response Complete
74 Sites
64.9%
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using data from the Department of Energy,
A Review of the Environmental Management Program,
February 2002, p. ES-1.
18 For information on each compliance agreement, refer to DOE’s web site at
[http://www.em.doe.gov/compliance.html].
19 General Accounting Office. Nuclear Waste: DOE’s Accelerated Cleanup Strategy Has
Benefits But Faces Uncertainties. RCED-99-129. April 1999. 21 p.

CRS-13
As indicated in Figure 3 above, DOE reports that there are 114 large geographic
sites where the past production of atomic materials used to construct nuclear
weapons led to severe contamination.20 These sites encompass a total land area of
over 2 million acres, which is equal to the states of Rhode Island and Delaware
combined. As of the end of FY2001, DOE reports that it had completed all response
actions at 74 sites, at a cost of over $60 billion, and that response actions were
underway at the remaining 40 sites.21 However, the sites that have been cleaned up
are relatively small and are among the least hazardous, and the sites where cleanup
was underway contain some of the most severely contaminated areas. DOE currently
estimates that cleanup at the remaining 40 sites may take 70 years to complete, and
that total cleanup costs may range from $220 billion to $300 billion if program
reforms are not initiated, substantially higher than the estimate of $147 billion made
in 1998.22
Appropriations Account Structure
Congress traditionally authorizes funding for DOE’s defense environmental
restoration and waste management activities in the annual authorization bill for
national defense, and appropriates funding for it in the annual appropriations bill for
energy and water development. Funds are authorized and appropriated for the
program under three centralized accounts. First, the Defense Environmental
Restoration and Waste Management Account funds cleanup and waste management
activities at nuclear weapons sites where all response actions are projected to
continue beyond 2006. Second, the Defense Facilities Closure Projects Account
supports cleanup and waste management activities at sites where all response actions
are scheduled to be complete by the end of 2006. Third, the Defense Environmental
Management Privatization Account reserves funding for cleanup projects that have
been completed under “privatization” contracts.23
20 Department of Energy. A Review of the Environmental Management Program. February
2002. p. ES-1.
21 Ibid. One of the remaining sites, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, is a waste
disposal facility rather than a cleanup site that requires response actions. Based on recent
projections, it will remain active and receive waste shipments through 2039.
22 Ibid.
23 Under privatization contracts, a private entity is responsible for financing the entire cost
of a cleanup project, and is not paid by DOE until the project is completed and performed
according to contractually specified requirements. This type of contract differs from the
traditional approach of paying a contractor a fixed amount upfront and offering additional
cash incentives to encourage the completion of a project within a certain time frame.
Privatization contracts have the potential to provide the contractor with a greater incentive
to control costs, work more efficiently, and finish a project successfully, since payment is
not rendered until performance is complete and the cleanup objective has been achieved.

CRS-14
For FY2003, the Administration has requested a total of $6.61 billion for the
above accounts, nearly $152 million more than the FY2002 funding level of $6.46
billion.24 Of the requested amount of $6.61 billion, approximately $4.56 billion
would be reserved for the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste
Management Account, $1.09 billion would be set aside for the Defense Facilities
Closure Projects Account, and $158 million would be allocated to the Defense
Environmental Management Privatization Account. The remaining requested
amount of $800 million would be reserved for a new cleanup reform account that
would fund efforts to improve program efficiency and reduce cleanup costs.
Yucca Mountain
A prominent issue related to DOE’s Environmental Management Program is the
perceived need for a long-term centralized repository for high-level defense nuclear
waste. While the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico serves as a centralized
repository for low-level and transuranic (plutonium-contaminated) defense nuclear
waste, high-level waste is currently stored at individual sites. Many interests have
argued that centrally storing high-level waste in a location that lacks a potential
pathway for immediate exposure would be safer and more secure from potential
terrorist threats. In response to such concerns, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1982, as amended in 1987, required DOE to study the suitability of Yucca Mountain
in Nevada for constructing an underground geological repository for high-level
defense nuclear waste, as well as civilian radioactive waste generated by nuclear
power plants. The federal government and the nuclear power industry contribute
funding to support the study and development of such a repository.
The State of Nevada has strongly opposed the selection of Yucca Mountain for
an underground repository due to numerous safety concerns, such as the possibility
of seismological disturbances and underground flooding, and the potential for
groundwater contamination over time. DOE contends that scientific evidence
indicates that the conditions at Yucca Mountain would likely be suitable for long-
term underground waste storage and that efforts to study the site should continue.
Environmental organizations have opposed the development of a centralized
repository due to concerns over the safety of transporting high-level radioactive
waste across many states to one location and the potential for terrorist threats, along
with environmental concerns about the site that are similar to those of the State of
Nevada.
Taking these concerns into consideration, President Bush recommended Yucca
Mountain for site selection on February 8, 2002. However, Nevada Governor Kenny
Guinn submitted a notice of disapproval to Congress on April 8, 2002, as permitted
under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The House passed a resolution (H.J.Res. 87)
on May 8, 2002, to overturn the “state veto”, and the Senate passed H.J.Res. 87 on
July 9, 2002. Upon the President’s signature, the resolution will clear the way for
24 As passed by the House, H.R. 4775 would provide a supplemental appropriation of nearly
$84 million for FY2002 to enhance safeguards and security at several nuclear waste cleanup
sites as protection against potential terrorist threats. As passed by the Senate, H.R. 4775
would provide $40 million for these activities. The Administration did not request a
supplemental appropriation for enhancing security at defense nuclear waste sites.

CRS-15
DOE to proceed with its plans to prepare and submit a license application to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the construction of a nuclear waste repository
at Yucca Mountain. DOE plans to submit a license application in 2004, and expects
to begin receiving waste shipments in 2010. Despite congressional approval,
opponents of the development of Yucca Mountain may attempt to halt or delay the
project through other avenues, including the appropriations process, oversight of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s review of the license application for the site, and
litigation over numerous aspects of the site characterization and development
process.25
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
In addition to the federal facilities that are being cleaned up under DOE’s
Environmental Management Program, there are other smaller sites contaminated
with low-level radiation from the processing and storage of uranium and thorium
ores during the early years of the U.S. nuclear weapons program from the 1940s to
the 1960s. The majority of these sites were owned and operated by private
contractors, and cleanup at these sites is performed under the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP). The Atomic Energy Commission, DOE’s
predecessor agency, established the program in 1974 under authorities provided in
the Atomic Energy Act, and actual cleanup began in 1979. In response to concerns
over the pace and cost of cleanup, Congress included provisions in the Energy and
Water Development Appropriations Act for FY1998 (P.L. 105-62) to transfer the
FUSRAP program to the Army Corps of Engineers. This transfer was considered
potentially advantageous since the Corps had extensive experience in cleaning up
hazardous waste at former defense sites that were in operation during this same time
period.
25 For further information on this issue, refer to CRS Issue Brief IB92059, Civilian Nuclear
Waste Disposal, by Mark Holt.

CRS-16
Figure 4. Cleanup Status under the Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program as of September 30, 2001
Total Number of Sites = 48
41.7%
Response in Progress
20 Sites
Response Complete
28 Sites
58.3%
Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using data from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. History of the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program: Fact Sheet.
October 2001. p. 2.
The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY1999 (P.L. 105-
245), requires the Corps to follow CERCLA’s requirements in cleaning up sites
under the program. DOE collaborates with the Corps to determine the eligibility of
new sites, since it must perform the historical research to ascertain whether such sites
were part of the early nuclear weapons program. Once all response actions at a site
are complete, the Corps is responsible for monitoring and maintaining cleanup
remedies for two years. After that time, the site is transferred back to DOE for
continuing any necessary monitoring and maintenance. As indicated in Figure 4
above, the Corps reported that 28 sites had been cleaned up under the program as of
the end of FY2001, and cleanup was planned or ongoing at 20 sites in 8 states.26
Before FY1998, cleanup at these sites was funded out of DOE’s Defense
Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account, and the prior Atomic
Energy Defense Activities Account. Since the creation of the FUSRAP account and
transfer of the program to the Corps in FY1998, Congress has provided
approximately $140 million in annual funding, and the Administration has requested
$141 million for FY2003.
26 These states include Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. For further information, refer to the Army Corps of
Engineers web site at [http://www.hq.usace.army.mil/cecw/fusrap/index.htm].

CRS-17
Authorization Legislation for FY2003
The second session of the 107th Congress is considering legislation to authorize
national defense programs for FY2003, including DOD’s and DOE’s defense-related
environmental programs. The House Armed Services Committee reported the “Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003" (H.R. 4546, H.Rept. 107-
436) on May 3, 2002, and the House passed H.R. 4546, as amended, on May 10,
2002. The Senate Armed Services Committee reported its version of the bill (S.
2514, S.Rept. 107-151) on May 15, 2002. The Senate passed S. 2514, as amended,
on June 27, 2002, and incorporated this measure in H.R. 4546 as an amendment. A
conference is underway. Differences in funding levels for environmental cleanup
and whether to adopt the House’s proposal to exempt military readiness activities
from certain environmental requirements are among the major environmental issues
to be resolved in conference. Each authorization bill is discussed below.
H.R. 4546
As passed, H.R. 4546 would authorize the requested amount of $1.28 billion for
environmental cleanup at current and former military installations. The bill also
would authorize the requested amount of $25 million for the Kaho’olawe Island
Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Trust Fund. DOD ceased
its use of Kaho’olawe Island as a training range in 1995 and returned the land to the
State of Hawaii. The trust fund provides support for environmental cleanup and the
removal of UXO and other munitions. Related to the cleanup of UXO in general, the
bill also would require DOD to designate a single point of contact for policy and
budgeting issues involved in characterizing, remediating, and managing UXO and
other munitions at all defense sites.
For DOE’s management of defense nuclear waste and cleanup of contaminated
nuclear weapons sites, H.R. 4546 would authorize a total of $6.59 billion, about $14
million less than the request of nearly $6.61 billion. The House authorization of
$6.59 billion includes the Administration’s request of $800 million for defense
environmental management cleanup reform efforts. The bill would direct DOE to
establish a program to distribute these funds to sites that have completed plans for
accelerating the reduction of environmental risk and lowering cleanup costs. Thus
far, three sites have completed such plans.27 The bill also would require DOE to
submit a report to Congress, along with its budget justification materials for FY2004,
that examines the progress of efforts to streamline certain environmental
management activities and improve program efficiency.
H.R. 4546 also includes provisions which would exempt combat training
activities from certain environmental requirements that DOD reports have restricted
27 DOE, EPA, and respective states have completed agreements to accelerate cleanup at three
nuclear waste cleanup sites, including Hanford in the state of Washington, Oak Ridge in the
state of Tennessee, and the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in the
state of Idaho. Funding for these plans is dependent on congressional approval of the
Administration’s request of $800 million for an account dedicated to defense environmental
management cleanup reform efforts. For additional information, refer to DOE’s
Environmental Management web site at [http://www.em.doe.gov].

CRS-18
military readiness capabilities. As discussed on page 10, DOD requested exemptions
from the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and several other
federal environmental laws as part of its Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative.
However, the House only included exemptions from the Endangered Species Act and
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in passing H.R. 4546, as well as a targeted exemption
from the Wilderness Act for military readiness activities at the Utah Test and
Training Range. Each environmental exemption provision in H.R. 4546 is examined
below.28
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Exemption. Section 311 of H.R. 4546 would
amend the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 to make it lawful for DOD to “take”
migratory birds during a “military readiness activity”. Readiness activities are
defined as all training activities and military operations related to combat and the
testing of equipment for combat use. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act was established
to control the mass slaughter of migratory birds for commercial purposes and to
promote the sustainable management of such birds.29 The law authorizes the
Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds, but current
regulations may only authorize permits for the intentional taking of migratory birds
for specific purposes, such as hunting within designated seasons as well as numerous
other activities. A recent federal court ruling indicated that the Navy had violated
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act by incidentally taking migratory birds without a
permit during training exercises near Guam. House report language indicates that
the exemption provision is intended to address the lack of permit authorization for
incidental takings, so that essential training exercises may proceed. However, it
appears that bill language would not authorize the issuance of permits, but more
broadly would state that the part of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act that articulates
unlawful behavior does not apply to a military readiness activity.
Endangered Species Act Exemption. Section 312 of H.R. 4546 would
amend the Endangered Species Act to prohibit the designation of new critical habitat
areas on military installations for which an Integrated Natural Resource Management
Plan (INRMP) has been approved under the Sikes Act, if the plan “addresses special
management considerations or protection”.30 DOD reports that it has completed
INRMPs for 349 installations, and that 30 more plans are under development. These
plans would not necessarily provide the same level of protection for endangered or
threatened species as critical habitat designations, and enforcement of management
plans could be an issue. However, the bill would not exempt DOD from other
requirements under the Endangered Species Act, and any actions that would result
28 For additional information, refer to CRS Report RL31415, The Endangered Species Act,
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and Department of Defense Readiness Activities: Current Law
and Legislative Proposals, by Pamela Baldwin.
29 16 U.S.C. 703 et. seq.
30 As amended in 1997, the Sikes Act (16 U.S.C. 670a) requires DOD to develop an INRMP
for each military installation in the United States, unless the Secretary of Defense determines
that the absence of significant natural resources on a particular installation makes the
preparation of such a plan inappropriate. The law requires DOD to cooperate with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and state fish and wildlife agencies in the preparation of these
plans to reach a mutual agreement on the conservation, protection, and management of fish
and wildlife resources.

CRS-19
in the extinction or taking of endangered or threatened species would still be
prohibited. The bill also would require the consideration of the impacts of
designating new critical habitat areas on national security, when considering such
designations in any location nationwide. Presently, economic impact is the only
category of impact that must be considered. Under current law, the Endangered
Species Act provides for an exempting procedure for reasons of national security (16
U.S.C. 1536j), but this authority has not been used to date.
Wilderness Act Exemption. Title XIV of H.R. 4546 would specify that the
Wilderness Act, or other land management laws generally applicable to federally
designated wilderness areas or wilderness study areas, shall not restrict or preclude
military overflights, designation of flight paths and training routes, emergency access
and response activities, and control or restriction of public access in the Utah Test
and Training Range. While the Wilderness Act does not specifically prohibit
overflights or other readiness activities, it does define wilderness as lands upon
which the imprint of man’s work is “substantially unnoticeable” and which has
“outstanding opportunities for solitude”. In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management
recommended approximately 200,000 acres of land within the Utah Test and
Training Range for federal designation as a wilderness study area.31 Subsequently,
there has been increasing public opposition to military overflights and related
training exercises within this portion of the range due to the intrusion of noise and
other disturbances. DOD has expressed concerns that its readiness capabilities have
been restricted by threatened litigation over the lawfulness of conducting military
training exercises on or near wilderness study areas, when such activities interfere
with the solitude nature of the wilderness experience. House report language
indicates that the Wilderness Act provisions in H.R. 4546 are intended to protect
DOD from such challenges and preserve the capacity to conduct training exercises
within the range.
Title XIV also includes provisions that would designate certain federal lands in
Box Elder County, Utah, as the Pilot Range Wilderness Area, and in Tooele County,
Utah, as the Cedar Mountain Wilderness Area. These lands are part of the Bureau
of Land Management’s wilderness inventory, and as such, are described as having
significant wilderness characteristics due to their remoteness and lack of
development. Thus far, neither area has been designated as federally protected
wilderness under the Wilderness Act. These lands are located near the Utah Test and
Training Range, and DOD has expressed concerns over the need for continued access
to the airspace over these areas to conduct overflights and related training activities.
As passed, H.R. 4546 would extend the exemption from the Wilderness Act for
military readiness activities to these areas as well. The House Committee on
Resources reported legislation (H.R. 2488, H.Rept. 107-269) on November 5, 2001,
31 In various laws, Congress has directed federal land management agencies to study the
wilderness potential of certain types of areas and of specific locations. Areas under review,
referred to as wilderness study areas, are generally to be managed to preserve their
wilderness characteristics, and are protected under the Wilderness Act, until Congress
decides whether to include them in the National Wilderness Preservation System. The
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 directed the Bureau of Land Management
to review the wilderness potential of its roadless areas, and most of its recommendations are
still pending. For further information, refer to CRS Report RS21052, Wilderness Study
Areas and Release Language for BLM Lands, by Ross W. Gorte.

CRS-20
which proposed to designate the Pilot Range lands as federally protected wilderness,
and included exemptions for military readiness activities that are similar to those in
H.R. 4546. Stand alone legislation regarding the Cedar Mountain area has not been
introduced to date.
S. 2514
As passed, S. 2514 would authorize a total of $1.32 billion for environmental
cleanup at current and former military installations, $40 million more than the House
proposed and the Administration requested. The increase would be devoted to
accelerating the pace of cleanup at FUDS sites. The bill also would authorize $25
million for the Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental
Restoration Trust Fund, the same as the House. The original authorization for the
cleanup of UXO on Kaho’olawe Island was for 10 years, and such authorization
expires in FY2003. S. 2514 would extend this authority until 100% of the land area
is inspected and assessed, 75% of the surface area is generally cleared, and 25% of
the surface area is adequately cleared to be suitable for specific land uses, including
human habitation. This provision would override the original cleanup agreement,
which requires that 100% of the surface area, instead of 75%, would be generally
cleared. Report language states that the original goal was based on insufficient data
and that recent information indicates a need for modifying it to reflect the extent to
which cleanup can realistically be accomplished.
S. 2514 also would authorize a total of $6.87 billion for DOE’s management of
defense nuclear waste and cleanup of contaminated nuclear weapons sites, $275
million more than the House amount of $6.59 billion and $261 million more than the
Administration’s request of $6.61 billion. Of the Senate amount, $1 billion would
be authorized for environmental management cleanup reform efforts, $200 million
more than the House authorization and the Administration’s request of $800 million.
However, report language indicates the concern of the Senate Armed Services
Committee that the Administration has not provided any details on how the goals of
accelerated cleanup and reduced costs would be achieved, or how the funds would
be spent. In response to these concerns, S. 2514 would require DOE to establish
criteria for selecting the sites that would most benefit from this funding. If DOE
does not establish such criteria, the $1 billion in reform funds would be distributed
among all sites according to the same proportion as allocated in FY2002. DOE has
selected six sites to receive funding for cleanup reforms: Hanford in the State of
Washington, Oak Ridge in Tennessee, the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory, the Nevada Test Site, and the Los Alamos National
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. These sites
presumably would be required to undergo the selection process again if the Senate
provisions are enacted.
In addition to authorizing funding, S. 2514 includes several other environmental
provisions that would:
! authorize the Secretary of Defense to enter into cooperative
agreements, lasting up to two years, with federal, state, and local
agencies, and Indian Tribes, for providing services to carry out
environmental cleanup activities;

CRS-21
! clarify the authority of the Secretary of Defense to carry out
construction projects necessary for environmental response actions,
and to fund such projects out of the Defense Environmental
Restoration Accounts;
! require the Secretary of Defense to establish a program for the
acquisition of procurement items that are “environmentally
preferable” or constructed out of “recovered materials”;
! clarify the permanent procurement authority of the Secretary of
Defense to enter multi-year contracts for environmental remediation
services; and
! authorize the Secretary of Defense to conduct a cooperative program
with countries in the Arctic and Pacific regions, focusing primarily
on technology projects and activities related to addressing
radiological threats and contamination.
S. 2514 does not include the provisions of H.R. 4546 that would exempt DOD
from certain environmental requirements under the Endangered Species Act, the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, or the Wilderness Act, nor does it include exemptions
from other environmental laws that DOD had requested as part of its Readiness and
Range Preservation Initiative, discussed earlier on page 10. The Senate Armed
Services Committee referred DOD’s initiative to the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee, which has jurisdiction over the environmental laws that would
be amended. On July 9, 2003, the full committee held a hearing on DOD’s proposed
initiative, which was included in the Administration’s FY2003 defense authorization
bill (S. 2225). Representatives of the Air Force, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps
testified that DOD has not requested broad exemptions from all environmental laws,
but argued that clarifications of the applicability of certain requirements to routine
training operations are necessary to ensure that readiness capabilities are not
prohibited or restricted.
Chairman James Jeffords questioned the need for such clarifications since many
environmental laws already contain environmental exemptions for the purposes of
national security. Chairman Jeffords also noted the lack of information to
demonstrate the need for further environmental exemptions, and due to this reason,
stated his opposition to the adoption of the House’s environmental exemptions in the
conference on H.R. 4546. Senator Joseph Lieberman, who is on the conference
committee on H.R. 4546, also expressed his opposition to the House’s environmental
exemptions during the July 9th hearing.
While S. 2514 does not include the environmental exemptions proposed by the
Administration, the bill does address two conservation-related elements that DOD
had requested under its Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative. First, a total
of $20 million would be authorized for a Range Enhancement Initiative Fund to
permit the Secretary of Defense to enter agreements with private entities to acquire
interests in lands adjacent to military installations. Such lands would be used to
create a buffer zone between military training areas and surrounding civilian

CRS-22
populations. Senate report language indicates that these zones also may help to
reduce the burden on DOD to provide essential habitat for endangered and threatened
species that have been forced onto military lands due to surrounding urban
development and population growth. Second, S. 2514 would authorize the Secretary
of Defense to convey surplus military property to state or local governments, or
private entities, for promoting the conservation of open space and natural resources.
Appropriations Legislation for FY2003
In addition to the authorization legislation discussed above, the House and
Senate also have begun consideration of legislation to appropriate funding for
national defense programs in FY2003. The House has passed the Department of
Defense Appropriations Act for FY2003, which would fund environmental cleanup
at current and former military installations, as well as numerous other environmental
activities. The House also has passed the Military Construction Appropriations Act
for FY2003, which would fund the cleanup of contamination at base closure sites,
and the Senate Appropriations Committee has reported its version of the bill as well.
Each of these bills is discussed below. Additionally, the House has completed
subcommittee markup of legislation to appropriate funding for energy and water
development in FY2003, which would include support for DOE’s defense nuclear
waste management and cleanup responsibilities, but the bill number or text is not yet
available to date.
Department of Defense
The House Appropriations Committee reported the Department of Defense
Appropriations Act for FY2003 (H.R. 5010, H.Rept. 107-532) on June 25, 2002, and
the House passed H.R. 5010, as amended, on June 27, 2002. The bill would provide
$1.28 billion for environmental cleanup at current and former military installations,
the same as the House authorized in H.R. 4546 and the Administration requested.
The bill also would provide $25 million to clean up unexploded ordnance on
Kaho’olawe Island in Hawaii, and $10 million to mitigate the environmental impacts
of military activities on Indian lands. As in authorization legislation, there are no
line-item accounts for DOD’s other environmental activities, and their funding would
primarily come from the accounts for Operation and Maintenance, Procurement, and
Research and Development.
H.R. 5010 also would establish a commission to assess the “adverse impacts”
of encroachment factors, including requirements of environmental laws, on military
training. As discussed earlier on page 9, the extent to which environmental
requirements affect military readiness capabilities has become a prominent issue.
Other language in H.R. 5010 would limit the use of “indefinite delivery/indefinite
quantity” contracts to no more than 35% of the total funding obligated for
environmental cleanup projects in FY2003. A similar provision regarding such
contracts was included in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2002
(P.L. 107-117). In addition to bill language in H.R. 5010, the House Appropriations
Committee included report language which recommends $2.5 million to continue a
bioreactor environmental technology research and development initiative to treat
military and industrial waste water and protect water supplies that could be attacked

CRS-23
by biological and chemical terrorism, and $1.65 million to conduct research on the
health effects of low level exposure to hazardous chemicals.
Military Construction
The House Appropriations Committee reported the Military Construction
Appropriations Act for FY2003 (H.R. 5011, H.Rept. 107-533) on June 25, 2002, and
the House passed H.R. 5011, as amended, on June 27, 2002. As passed by the
House, H.R. 5011 would provide $545 million for base realignment and closure
activities in the United States, which would include the cleanup of environmental
contamination in order to prepare realigned or closed properties for transfer to other
uses. As in FY2002, the bill does not place a limitation on how much of this funding
could be spent on environmental cleanup. Congress had traditionally placed a
limitation on environmental cleanup funding under the BRAC account in FY2001
and prior years. The departure from this practice is intended to provide DOD with
greater flexibility in allocating funding for cleanup needs. The Administration
estimates that it will need $520 million to support cleanup activities at base closure
sites in FY2003.
In addition to providing funding, the House Appropriations Committee included
report language which urges the Army to continue its efforts to develop,
demonstrate, and validate technologies to address the remediation of lead-based
paint, asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls at the former Fort Ord in California.
Such technologies may prove to have broad utility in remediating similar
contaminants at other base closure sites. The committee also expressed concerns
over the state of technologies to detect and remove UXO at closing installations.
The committee directed DOD to continue funding the development of UXO
detection and removal technologies to ensure the productive use of former military
sites in the future, provide annual inventories of BRAC sites that are contaminated
with UXO, and report annually on the costs to clean up such contamination. As
discussed earlier on page 3, DOD has established a Military Munitions Response
Program to prepare an inventory of all current and active military installations with
UXO contamination on non-operational training ranges, and to prepare estimates of
the costs to clean up such sites. This information is included in DOD’s annual
report to Congress on the Defense Environmental Restoration Program.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the Military
Construction Appropriations Act for FY2003 (S. 2709) on June 27, 2002, and filed
its report on the bill (S.Rept. 107-202) on July 3, 2003, during the July 4th recess. As
reported, S. 2709 would provide $645 million for base closure activities, $100
million more than the amount of $545 million that the House passed and the
Administration requested . Like the House, the Senate did not include a limitation
on how much of this funding could be spent on environmental cleanup, which would
provide DOD with the flexibility to use any portion of the appropriated amount to
comply with cleanup requirements.
However, report language indicates that the $100 million increase would be
reserved exclusively for a new Base Realignment and Closure Environmental
Cleanup Acceleration Initiative to address the backlog of critical environmental
remediation requirements at bases that have been closed or realigned. The Navy

CRS-24
would receive $55 million of the $100 million increase, and the Air Force would
receive $25 million. The remaining $20 million would be allocated to the Army.
The committee indicated that this funding would be intended to help address a total
of $237 million in unfunded BRAC cleanup requirements that the Army, Navy, and
Air Force have identified. In response to these unmet funding needs, the committee
included bill language which would direct DOD to accurately reflect the anticipated
costs of environmental restoration, waste management, and compliance activities in
future budget requests for the BRAC account.
In addition to providing funding for environmental cleanup at BRAC sites, the
report on S. 2709 would direct DOD to exclude unforseen environmental costs to
remove hazardous materials, such as asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint, from
limitations on cost increases for military construction and family housing projects.
Certain limitations on cost increases apply to projects for which Congress has
specifically reduced funding in the past. The exclusion of unforseen environmental
costs from the budget for such projects is intended to ensure that cost limitations do
not prevent DOD from complying with environmental requirements to remove
hazardous materials due to a lack of available funding.

CRS-25
Other Relevant Legislation in the 107th Congress
At least 13 other bills have been introduced in the 107th Congress that are
related to defense environmental activities. These bills would address matters such
as conversion of the Rocky Flats site in Colorado into a National Wildlife Refuge,
cleanup of UXO and other military munitions, critical habitat protection for
endangered and threatened species, military compliance with environmental laws,
reform of Superfund cleanup requirements, military response to environmental
emergencies in foreign nations, storage and use of mercury at military installations,
regulation of pollution from military aircraft operations, and suspension of the use
of depleted uranium munitions. The two bills which address the Rocky Flats site and
UXO cleanup were modified and incorporated into the National Defense
Authorization for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107). No further action has been taken on the
other bills to date. Each bill is discussed below.
Making the Rocky Flats Site a National Wildlife Refuge
Representative Mark Udall introduced the Rocky Flats National Wildlife
Refuge Act of 2001 (H.R. 812) on March 1, 2001, and Senator Allard introduced
companion legislation (S. 425) on the same day in the Senate. This legislation was
modified and included as Subtitle F of Title XXXI in the National Defense
Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107). As introduced, H.R. 812 and S. 425
proposed to transfer the management of the Rocky Flats nuclear waste cleanup site
in Colorado from DOE to the Department of the Interior for the purpose of
establishing a national wildlife refuge. Cleanup at the site is scheduled to be
complete by 2006, and there has been an ongoing interest in converting the site into
a national wildlife refuge because of the habitat that it provides for many threatened
and endangered species and the perceived need for the preservation of open space
for surrounding communities in the Denver metropolitan area.
DOE would retain jurisdiction, authority, and control over portions of the site
that are necessary for conducting long-term treatment and control of contamination.
Upon transfer of the site to the Department of the Interior, local communities would
be permitted to comment on decisions regarding habitat management and public
access to the land. Additionally, both bills would authorize DOE to establish a
Rocky Flats museum to commemorate the contribution of the site and its work force
to the “winning of the Cold War” and the impact that this contribution has had on
surrounding communities and the State of Colorado. While P.L. 107-107
incorporated the major provisions of both bills, it included additional language which
prevents the transfer from occurring until EPA certifies that DOE has completed all
cleanup and closure activities (excluding the operation and maintenance of response
actions) and that all cleanup remedies are in place and adequately functioning.
Removal and Remediation of Unexploded Ordnance
Representative Earl Blumenauer introduced the Ordnance and Explosives Risk
Management Act (H.R. 2605) on July 24, 2001. The bill would require DOD to
appoint a program manager who would serve as the single point of contact for policy
and budgetary issues involved in characterizing, remediating, and managing UXO
and other munitions on former military training ranges. DOD would be required to

CRS-26
develop, maintain, and annually update an inventory of sites that are known or
suspected to contain UXO and other munitions that pose a threat to human health and
safety. DOD would also be required to prioritize the sites for response activities,
based on the overall conditions of each range, and develop security plans to restrict
public access and inform the public about the risks of handling unexploded
munitions. Additionally, the bill would establish a new “Abandoned Military
Munitions Account” to authorize funding for the removal and cleanup of identified
sites, and it would require DOD to establish an independent review panel to report
to Congress on the progress of the program and recommend improvements. The
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2002 (P.L. 107-107) included similar
provisions related to creating an inventory of military sites that are known or
suspected to contain UXO and a response priority list for removal and remediation.
As discussed earlier, DOD created the Military Munitions Response Program to
carry out these requirements.
In addition to H.R. 2605, Representative Anibal Acevedo-Vila introduced the
Underwater Unexploded Ordnance Removal Act of 2001 (H.R. 3212) on November
1, 2001. The bill would direct DOD to include underwater portions of live firing
areas in its efforts to identify and remove UXO and address related environmental
contamination. The bill also would require DOD to specify the amount of funding
that would be necessary to address the underwater removal and remediation of UXO
in its annual budget submission to Congress. DOD issued an “unfavorable executive
comment” on H.R. 3212 on March 19, 2002.
Endangered and Threatened Species
Senator Gordon Smith introduced the Endangered Species Recovery Act of
2001 (S. 911) on May 17, 2001. It would require the Secretary of the Interior to
grant priority consideration to plans for the conservation and recovery of endangered
and threatened species which, among other factors, would reduce conflict with
military training and operations. The bill also would require the Secretary of the
Interior to consider the impacts on military training and operations when designating
“critical habitat” for the protection of endangered and threatened species. This latter
provision is similar to language that the House included in passing its version of the
National Defense Authorization Act for FY2003 (H.R. 4546).
Compliance with Federal and State Environmental Laws
Representative Bob Filner introduced the Military Environmental
Responsibility Act (H.R. 2154) on June 13, 2001. The bill would clarify that DOD
and other defense-related agencies (including DOE, the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, the Office of Naval Reactors, and any other federal agency designated
by the President) are subject to substantive and procedural requirements under
federal and state environmental laws to the same extent as other entities. The bill
also would waive any immunity of the United States with respect to requirements
under federal and state environmental laws, and it would require the federal agencies
responsible for administering such laws to take enforcement actions against DOD
and other defense-related agencies to the same extent as other entities. Similar
provisions for clarifying federal compliance requirements and waiving immunity are
already included in the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and the Safe

CRS-27
Drinking Water Act. H.R. 2154 would extend their applicability to all other federal
environmental laws and state statutes as well. These provisions are similar, but
broader in scope, to legislation introduced in the 106th Congress.
As introduced, H.R. 2154 also would specify the applicability of the National
Environmental Policy Act to the development and procurement of weapons systems
that require congressional authorization. Additionally, the bill would permit the use
of cleanup funding under the Defense Environmental Restoration Accounts to pay
fines and penalties for violations of non-cleanup environmental laws, and it would
allow the use of funding under these accounts for waste treatment, storage, or
disposal activities under the Army Corps of Engineers’ Formerly Utilized Sites
Remedial Action Program, discussed on page 15.
Superfund Reform
Representative Sherwood Boehlert introduced the Recycle America’s Land Act
of 2001 (H.R. 324) on January 31, 2001. The bill includes numerous reforms to the
Superfund program that could affect DOD’s cleanup activities. First, it would revise
the remedy selection process which might help to reduce cleanup expenses at some
sites. However, other provisions related to the state role at DOD’s cleanup sites
could cause costs to rise. The bill would grant states the legal authority to make final
determinations on which cleanup remedies are used at hazardous waste sites on DOD
and other federal facilities that are being cleaned up under CERCLA through
interagency agreements. Cleanup costs at such sites could be higher if states insist
on measures that are more expensive to implement than those preferred by federal
agencies. States would be permitted to make the final determination on remedy
selection in cases where a consensus could not be reached with a federal agency
through dispute resolution. The bill would grant states the legal authority to bring
civil action in a United States district court to compel a federal agency to implement
a state’s preferred remedy, and penalties of up to $25,000 per day could be assessed
against DOD or other federal agencies for not complying. These provisions are
similar to legislation that was introduced during the 106th Congress.
Military Response to Environmental Emergencies in
Foreign Nations

Representative Mark Udall introduced the International Environmental Defense
Act of 2001 (H.R. 1976) on May 23, 2001. The bill would expand the Secretary of
Defense’s current authority to transport humanitarian relief supplies to foreign
nations to include the authority to transport supplies intended for responding to, or
mitigating the effects of, a condition or event, such as an oil spill, that threatens to
seriously harm the environment in foreign nations. This authority would be
applicable in what the bill refers to as “appropriate circumstances” under which an
international response to an environmental emergency would be in the national
interest of the United States.

CRS-28
Storage and Use of Mercury at Military Installations
Representative Thomas Allen introduced the Mercury Storage and Safe
Disposal Act of 2001 (H.R. 2266) on June 21, 2001. The bill would authorize DOD
to temporarily accept and store mercury from private sector sources until a safe
disposal method or storage facility is developed for private sector use. Certain
military installations already have the infrastructure available to store mercury since
this substance is part of the National Defense Stockpile. The bill is primarily aimed
at providing safe storage for large private sector sources which have an inventory of
mercury weighing in excess of 35,000 pounds. EPA would be authorized to acquire
mercury from these sources for transfer to a designated military installation. The bill
also would direct EPA to establish a Task Force on Safe Mercury Disposal to
identify the best methods to ensure that mercury is not released into the environment,
assess the technologies and measures that would be required to safely dispose of and
store mercury over the long-term, and identify the research, development, and
demonstration of technologies that would be necessary to accomplish this objective.
The task force would be required to submit a report to Congress on its progress
within one year of its first meeting, and to transmit a final plan for safe mercury
disposal by 2003. Once safe disposal and storage facilities were available, the
private sector inventory of mercury would be transferred back from DOD to the new
facilities.
Two other bills would seek to reduce emissions of mercury from various
sources, including activities conducted by DOD, to reduce the threat of human
exposure. Representative Thomas Allen introduced the Omnibus Mercury Emissions
Reduction Act of 2001 (H.R. 2729) on August 2, 2001. The bill would require DOD
to submit a report to Congress by December 31, 2002, on the use of mercury and
mercury compounds in activities conducted by DOD. This report would include
information on measures that DOD is taking to reduce the use and emissions of
mercury and mercury compounds in military operations, to stabilize or recycle
discarded mercury or mercury-containing products, and to stabilize and retire the
national defense stockpile of mercury. Senator Patrick Leahy introduced similar
legislation (S. 1875) on December 20, 2001. Like the House bill, S. 1875 would
require DOD to submit a report to Congress on the use of mercury and mercury
compounds for national defense purposes. However, the Senate bill includes
provisions that would prohibit the sale of mercury from the National Defense
Stockpile, domestically or internationally, for commercial or industrial use. This
prohibition would be intended to limit the supply of mercury, and thereby prevent
its use and any possible contamination in the future resulting from such use.
Regulation of Pollution from Military Aircraft Operations
Representative Steve Rothman introduced the Right to Know About Airport
Pollution Act of 2002 (H.R. 3886) on March 6, 2002. The bill would require EPA
to study the feasibility of comprehensively regulating air, noise, water, and solid
waste pollution at commercial and military airports based on aggregate pollutant
levels, measured as if the various sources were a single source. EPA would be
required to establish a working group, including DOD, to conduct the study. As one
of many areas of consideration, the study would address issues involved in
identifying and regulating air and noise pollution that are unique to military air bases

CRS-29
and stations. EPA would be required to complete the study within 3 years of
enactment and to submit a report to Congress on its findings and recommendations.
The bill also would require EPA to promulgate regulations that require commercial
and military airports to report releases of toxic chemicals involved in the operation
and maintenance of aircraft and supporting vehicles.
Suspension of the Use of Depleted Uranium Munitions
Representative Cynthia McKinney introduced the Depleted Uranium Munitions
Suspension and Study Act of 2001 (H.R. 3155) on October 17, 2001. The bill would
require DOD to suspend all uses of depleted uranium munitions due to potential
threats to human health. The findings of the bill indicate that depleted uranium
munitions have been used at numerous military installations, proving grounds, and
testing facilities in the United States, and also were used during the Persian Gulf War
and during the conflicts in the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. DOD has
acknowledged that stocks of depleted uranium munitions have been contaminated
with plutonium and other radioactive elements, which are extremely toxic and
carcinogenic, and many have speculated that exposure to such munitions may have
affected the health of military personnel and civilian populations. The suspension
that would be required under the bill would remain in effect until the Secretary of
Health and Human Services certifies that the use of current stockpiles of depleted
uranium in future conflicts would not pose a likely long-term or residual threat to the
health of United States or NATO military personnel, and would not jeopardize the
health of civilian populations within the areas of such use.
In addition to requiring a suspension of the use of depleted uranium munitions,
H.R. 3155 would require DOD to provide EPA with a list of all sites in the United
States where depleted uranium munitions have been used or produced, as well as a
site-specific map for each site. EPA would be required to study the possible
contamination of soil, air, water, and vegetation at each site, and report its findings
to DOD and Congress. The report would include information on the extent of such
contamination, make site-specific recommendations for the mitigation and cleanup
of each contaminated site, and make general recommendations on the cleanup of
sites where depleted uranium munitions have been used on foreign lands. Based on
EPA’s report, DOD would be required to develop a plan for mitigating and cleaning
up each site and to establish a prioritized list of cleanup actions to be taken. DOD
also would be required to report to Congress on the status of cleanup progress. The
bill would require cleanup actions to be carried out according to the National
Environmental Policy Act.
Selected References
Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Quality Program Annual Report to
Congress for FY2000. November 2001.
Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual
Report to Congress for FY2001. April 2002.

CRS-30
Department of Defense. Operation and Maintenance Overview for FY2003.
February 2002.
Department of Energy. A Review of the Environmental Management Program.
February 2002.
General Accounting Office. Military Training: DOD Needs a Comprehensive Plan
to Manage Encroachment on Training Ranges. GAO-02-727T. May 2002.
General Accounting Office. Environmental Contamination: Cleanup Actions at
Formerly Used Defense Sites. GAO-01-557. July 2001.
General Accounting Office. Environmental Liabilities: DOD Training Range
Cleanup Cost Estimates Are Likely Understated. GAO-01-479. April 2001.