Order Code RS22065
Updated January 10, 2006
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Military Base Closures:
Role and Costs of Environmental Cleanup
David M. Bearden
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
In first session of the 109th Congress, a new round of military base closures and
realignments was approved. As the Department of Defense (DOD) proceeds with
implementation, potential issues for congressional oversight include the pace and costs
of closing and realigning the bases and the impacts on surrounding communities. The
disposal of property on these bases has stimulated interest among affected communities
in how the land can be redeveloped to replace lost jobs. Environmental contamination
can present a challenge to economic redevelopment if funding or technological
constraints limit the degree of cleanup needed to make the land safe for its intended use.
Most of the land on bases closed under past rounds has been cleaned up and transferred
for redevelopment. However, some bases have yet to be cleaned up to an extent that
would be adequate for the planned land use. Bases closed under the 2005 round could
face similar redevelopment delays if a community’s preferred land use requires a costly
and time-consuming degree of cleanup. This report provides an overview of cleanup
requirements for the transfer and reuse of base closure properties, discusses the status
of property transfer on bases closed under prior rounds, examines costs to clean up bases
closed under the prior rounds, and discusses cleanup costs and issues for the 2005 round.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Introduction
Following the collapse of the former Soviet Union, Congress authorized four rounds
of military base closings and realignments in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995. Although
closure of installations under all four rounds is complete, environmental cleanup and
economic redevelopment of some of these properties continues. The pace and cost of
cleaning up environmental contamination on closed bases has been an ongoing issue,
because of concern about human health and environmental risks and the public’s desire
to redevelop these properties for civilian uses. The completion of cleanup is often a key
factor in economic redevelopment, because the land cannot be used for its intended
purpose until it is cleaned up to a degree that would be safe for reuse.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
The new round of base closures and realignments has raised concern among
communities as to whether the cleanup of environmental contamination may pose
obstacles to redeveloping surplus military property for civilian use. The Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) Commission submitted its report to President Bush on September
8, 2005. The report lists the military installations that the Commission approved for
closure or realignment and its reasons for altering DOD’s recommendations. The
Commission rejected 13 of DOD’s recommendations, significantly modified the
recommendations for 13 other installations, and approved 22 major closures. The
President notified Congress of his approval of the Commission’s recommendations on
September 15, 2005. In its first session, the 109th Congress did not pass a joint resolution
of disapproval to halt the 2005 round within the statutory 45-day time frame allotted for
legislative review, thereby authorizing DOD to implement the new round, which must be
completed within six years under federal statute. However, this time frame applies only
to the closure or realignment of bases. The cleanup of contaminated surplus property to
make it suitable for civilian reuse could take significantly longer.
Cleanup Requirements for Property Transfer and Reuse
Section 120(h) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly referred to as Superfund) generally requires the
United States (in this case, DOD) to clean up closed bases prior to transfer out of federal
ownership.1 Property on a closed base is typically transferred to a local redevelopment
authority (LRA) responsible for implementing a plan for civilian reuse. To speed
redevelopment, CERCLA authorizes early transfer under certain conditions.2 Early
transfer can be advantageous in terms of redevelopment, if the intended land use would
not present the potential for human exposure to contamination, and therefore not require
cleanup. Conversely, redevelopment still could be delayed despite early transfer, if
cleanup would be necessary to make the intended land use safe.
Whether a property is transferred after cleanup, or transferred early, the degree of
cleanup can vary from site to site, depending on the cleanup standard used and the remedy
selected to attain it. CERCLA does not specify cleanup standards for particular
substances. Rather, it requires that cleanup comply with legally applicable, relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs) to protect human health and the environment, which
include a host of federal and state standards for various hazardous substances.3 Although
CERCLA does not explicitly require the consideration of land use in determining the
degree of cleanup, in practice, land use is a key factor in selecting a cleanup standard and
remedy to attain it. Cleanup standards generally are stricter for land uses that would result
in greater risk of human exposure to contamination. For example, cleanup is typically
more stringent and more costly for land uses such as residential development, which could
pose a higher risk of exposure to sensitive populations including children and the elderly.
Cleanup is typically the least stringent and the least costly for industrial land uses, such
as manufacturing, which could pose less risk of exposure.
1 42 U.S.C. 9620(h)
2 42 U.S.C. 9620(h)(3)(C)
3 42 U.S.C. 9621(d)

---

CRS-3
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), or the state in which an installation
is located, is responsible for determining whether the selected remedy would attain the
cleanup standard for a specific site.4 EPA has issued non-binding guidance for
considering the “reasonably anticipated land use” in selecting cleanup remedies.5 DOD
and the community, usually through the LRA, are responsible for determining how the
land will be reused, in negotiating the terms of the property transfer. However, the
community’s ability to attain its preferred use is constrained, as the Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Act does not require DOD to dispose of property on a closed base for
a particular land use, nor within a certain time frame. Impediments to conveying the land
for redevelopment may surface if DOD is resistant to transferring it for a purpose that the
community desires, because of cost considerations or technological limitations affecting
cleanup of the contamination. EPA’s guidance acknowledges that some land uses may
not be practical due to such challenges, and indicates that the cleanup objective may need
to be revised, which may result in “different, more reasonable land use(s).”6
In addition to land use, numerous other factors can determine the degree and cost of
cleanup, raising further issues. For example, cleanup does not necessarily require the
removal of contamination, if a safe method of containing it is available to prevent
exposure. Although containment is typically less costly than removal, some of the
savings of containment can be offset by the costs of maintaining the containment method
over the long term to ensure that it remains effective in preventing exposure. Tensions
may arise between DOD and the community, if there is disagreement over the method
selected to prevent exposure. Communities frequently prefer removal rather than
containment, because of concerns about lingering risks and continuing costs if the method
of containment were to fail over time. However, DOD may prefer containment to save
costs, due to limited funding for the cleanup of many closed bases across the country.
Once DOD and the community agree on a land use, and a cleanup remedy is selected
to make that land use safe, DOD generally administers and pays for the cleanup,
regardless of whether cleanup is completed prior to transfer, or subsequently under an
early transfer. In the case of an early transfer, the property recipient may choose to
administer the cleanup as a means to speed the reuse of the land, but DOD typically still
pays the costs. DOD remains obligated after cleanup is complete, if more contamination
is found later that requires remediation. However, DOD is obligated for further cleanup
only to the extent that the degree of contamination found later would exceed applicable
standards for the land use originally agreed upon for the transfer. If a community decides
to use the land for another purpose that would require further cleanup, DOD would not
be responsible for paying for it. In such cases, the additional costs of cleanup to make the
land safe for a different purpose would be the responsibility of the property recipient.
4 Both EPA and states play a role in the oversight of cleanup on federal facilities, including
military installations. EPA typically is the lead agency at sites listed on the National Priorities
List (NPL) of the nation’s most hazardous waste sites, and states usually take the lead on those
that are not listed on the NPL.
5 EPA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy
Selection Process. OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04. May 25, 1995.
6 Ibid., p. 7.

---

CRS-4
Status of Property Transfer on Closed Bases7
In January 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that, as of
the end of FY2003, 364,000 acres (72%) of the 504,000 acres of land on bases closed
during the past four rounds had been transferred for reuse. About 95% of the transferred
acreage had been transferred after cleanup was completed. Although early transfer has
the potential to speed redevelopment, it has been used relatively infrequently for several
reasons, such as the reluctance of a community to accept property before cleanup is
finished and the lack of consensus within a community on reuse. DOD also may be
hesitant to agree to early transfer if it would be required to expend more cleanup funds
earlier than would be necessary otherwise, to make the land safe for reuse more quickly.
Of the 28% of land that had not been transferred, 18% (91,000 acres) had been leased
for reuse prior to the completion of cleanup. However, pending cleanup had delayed the
permanent transfer of these properties, with reuse limited to purposes that would be safe
considering the degree of contamination still present on these lands and the potential risk
of human exposure. The remaining 10% (49,000 acres) had not been leased or transferred
for reuse primarily because of environmental cleanup challenges. GAO found that some
cleanup was necessary before transfer could occur on 98% of Air Force, 82% of Army,
and 65% of Navy lands still awaiting transfer at that time.
Cleanup Costs of Past Base Closure Rounds
DOD estimates that the closure of bases under the previous four rounds has resulted
in an annual savings of $7 billion in operational expenses. The costs of environmental
cleanup have run into billions of dollars, discussed below, and have offset some of these
savings gained from a reduced military infrastructure. However, a portion of the cleanup
costs would have been incurred regardless, as DOD is required to clean up its operational
installations at least to a degree that would be safe for military uses, somewhat reducing
this offset. The incremental cost and time to clean up a closed base depends primarily on
how extensive the cleanup must be to make the land safe for uses that would be less
restrictive than military purposes, and pose a higher risk of human exposure. DOD
reports that it had incurred approximately $7 billion in cleanup costs through FY2004 at
bases closed under the previous four rounds.8 This amount reflects the actual costs of the
cleanup process.9 About 44% of the $7 billion was spent on cleanup in California, where
DOD has identified more contaminated sites on closed bases than any other state.
Although the majority of the acreage on bases closed under the previous four rounds
has been cleaned up and transferred, estimates of future costs to complete cleanup on
7 Government Accountability Office, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base
Realignments and Closures, GAO-05-138, January 2005. See pp. 10-19.
8 Department of Defense, Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress for
FY2004, April 2005, Appendix K and Appendix L, various pages.
9 In January 2005, GAO reported $8.3 billion in cleanup expenses at closed bases through the end
of FY2003. This included funding obligated for cleanup, which would be paid at a later date
upon completion of specific actions, in addition to actual costs incurred through this period.
GAO’s reported amount also included other costs, such as program management and support.

---

CRS-5
lands awaiting transfer, and on those transferred early, remain substantial. DOD estimates
that over $3 billion would be necessary to complete cleanup of known contamination on
these lands,10 with 59% of these costs attributed to cleanup in California. However, future
costs could be higher than estimated, if new, or more stringent, regulations are issued that
require a greater degree of cleanup than anticipated. Future costs also could be more than
expected if unknown environmental threats, such as unexploded ordnance or additional
hazardous substances, are discovered. On the other hand, costs at some sites may prove
lower if more cost-effective cleanup technologies become available.
Cleanup Costs and Issues for the 2005 Round
The amount of money and time required to clean up additional bases to be closed in
the 2005 round will depend on the type and extent of contamination present on those
properties, and the actions that will be necessary to make the land safe for reuse. Cleanup
can take many years, as the continuing remediation of certain bases closed between 1988
and 1995 demonstrates. As in prior rounds, availability of funding and capabilities of
remediation technologies could limit the degree of cleanup of installations closed in the
2005 round, making certain land uses infeasible and posing challenges to economic
redevelopment. As indicated in the table below, DOD’s most recent estimates, submitted
to Congress in April 2005, indicate that approximately $500 million will be needed to
complete cleanup at the 22 “major” installations approved for closure in the 2005 round.
Significant cleanup also may be necessary at minor installations that are closed and on
installations that are realigned if the change in mission will result in the disposal of
contaminated land that is no longer needed for military purposes.
The accuracy of DOD’s cleanup cost estimates has been the topic of much debate.
DOD asserts that its estimates are reasonably sound and that they reflect current
knowledge of the extent of contamination and the actions that likely will be needed to
address it. However, these estimates are based on a degree of cleanup that would be safe
for the current military use of the land. If a property were to be used for less restrictive
purposes that would result in a higher risk of human exposure to contamination, a greater
degree of cleanup likely would be required to make the land safe for that use. In such
circumstances, more funding and additional time may be needed to complete cleanup than
DOD has planned. Some Members of Congress and the BRAC Commission expressed
concern that DOD did not consider the greater degree of cleanup that may be necessary
to redevelop these properties when calculating its estimates. Some state environmental
agencies also argued that DOD’s estimates do not fully reflect cleanup needs at certain
sites. Due to these reasons, communities have expressed concern that significantly more
funding may be required than DOD has estimated to clean up these properties to make
them safe for civilian reuse. The BRAC Commission also commented that possibly
higher cleanup costs may offset a portion of the savings in military operational costs that
DOD hopes to realize from the 2005 round.
The cost estimates in the table below are from DOD’s Defense Environmental
Programs Annual Report to Congress for FY2004, submitted to Congress in April 2005.
There are substantial discrepancies for certain installations between the estimates in
10 Department of Defense, Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress for
FY2004, April 2005, Appendix K and Appendix L, various pages.

---

CRS-6
DOD’s FY2004 report and those indicated by the BRAC Commission in Appendix P of
its report to the President. The Commission based its estimates on FY2003 cost data that
DOD used to assess the environmental impacts of the 2005 round, rather than on more
recent cost data submitted by DOD to Congress in the Department’s FY2004 report.
Major Military Installations to be Closed in the 2005 Round:
Past Cleanup Costs and Estimates of Future Cleanup Costs
Actual Costs
Estimated Costs
Installation
State
Through
from FY2005 to
FY2004
Completion
Kulis Air Guard Station
Alaska
a
a
Onizuka Air Force Stationb
California
$139,000
$0
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
California
$53,664,000
$5,091,000
Atlanta Naval Air Station
Georgia
$1,473,000
$2,596,000
Fort Gillem
Georgia
$21,790,000
$14,800,000
Fort McPherson
Georgia
$7,924,000
$7,301,000
Newport Chemical Depot
Indiana
$19,366,000
$4,874,000
Kansas Army Ammunition Plant
Kansas
$32,165,000
$25,271,000
Selfridge Army Activity
Michigan
$17,000
$13,202,000
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Maine
$60,417,000
$13,638,000
Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant
Mississippi
$0
$8,413,000
Pascagoula Naval Station
Mississippi
a
a
Fort Monmouth
New Jersey
$24,490,000
$3,642,000
Cannon Air Force Baseb
New Mexico
$11,111,000
$0
Umatilla Chemical Depot
Oregon
$53,560,000
$10,390,000
Willow Grove Naval Air Station
Pennsylvania
$6,867,000
$6,235,000
Brooks City Base
Texas
$7,044,000
$3,415,000
Ingleside Naval Station
Texas
a
a
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
Texas
$25,557,000
$1,156,000
Deseret Chemical Depot
Utah
$21,096,000
$180,498,000
Fort Monroe
Virginia
$1,830,000
$201,165,000
General Mitchell Air Reserve Station
Wisconsin
c
c
All Installations
$348,510,000
$501,687,000
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using information from the Department of Defense: Defense
Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress for FY2004, April 2005, Appendix K and Appendix L, various
pages.
Notes: The above amounts indicate costs for actions directly related to cleanup and do not include indirect costs such
as program management and support. They include costs for cleanup of munitions on closed ranges but exclude costs
to clean up operational ranges on installations to be closed in the 2005 round, as DOD’s FY2004 environmental report
does not include such estimates. Estimates of these costs will be included in future year DOD environmental reports.
The BRAC Commission’s report indicates cleanup cost estimates for operational ranges, but they are wide ranges rather
than specific costs.
a. DOD did not indicate sites where cleanup was or is required as of the end of FY2004.
b. DOD indicated that all planned cleanup actions were complete as of the end of FY2004.
c. DOD reported that cleanup was complete at General Mitchell Air Force Base, but did not indicate cleanup at the
Air Reserve Station.

---