Order Code RS22149
Updated December 12, 2006
Exemptions from Environmental Law
for the Department of Defense:
Background and Issues for Congress
David M. Bearden
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
Several environmental statutes contain national security exemptions, which the
Department of Defense (DOD) can obtain on a case-by-case basis. Since FY2003, DOD
has sought broader exemptions that it argues are needed to preserve training capabilities
and ensure military readiness. There has been disagreement in Congress over the need
for broader exemptions in the absence of data on the overall impact of environmental
requirements on training and readiness. There also has been disagreement over the
potential impacts of broader exemptions on environmental quality. After considerable
debate, the 107th Congress enacted an exemption from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
and the 108th Congress enacted exemptions from the Marine Mammal Protection Act
and certain parts of the Endangered Species Act. These exemptions were contentious
to some because of concerns about the weakening of protections for animals and plants.
As in recent years, DOD again requested exemptions from the Clean Air Act, the Solid
Waste Disposal Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA), as part of its FY2007 defense authorization proposal.
Concerns within Congress about human health and environmental risks motivated
opposition to these exemptions. In response, the 109th Congress did not include these
exemptions in FY2007 defense authorization legislation (H.R. 5122) or FY2007 defense
appropriations legislation (H.R. 5631 and H.R. 5385).
Introduction
Over time, Congress has included exemptions in several environmental statutes to
ensure that requirements of those statutes would not restrict military training needs to the
extent that national security would be compromised. These exemptions provide authority
for suspending compliance requirements for actions at federal facilities, including military
installations, on a case-by-case basis. Most of these exemptions may be granted for
activities that would be in the “paramount interest of the United States,” whereas others

---

CRS-2
are specifically for national security.1 Most of these exemptions are limited to one year,
but they can be renewed.2 The extent to which broader exemptions from environmental
requirements are needed for military readiness activities has become a prominent issue.
DOD argues that obtaining exemptions on a case-by-case basis is onerous and time-
consuming because of the number of training exercises that it conducts on hundreds of
military installations. DOD also argues that the time limits placed on most exemptions
are not compatible with ongoing or recurring training activities. Instead, DOD has sought
broader exemptions from certain environmental requirements that it argues could restrict
or delay necessary training. As part of its FY2003 defense authorization proposal, DOD
issued a Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative, requesting certain exemptions from
six environmental laws: Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Endangered Species Act, Marine
Mammal Protection Act, Clean Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, and Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
DOD’s request for broader exemptions has been contentious in Congress. Some
Members assert that such exemptions are necessary to provide greater flexibility for
conducting combat training and other readiness activities without restriction or delay.
However, other Members, states, environmental organizations, and communities oppose
broader exemptions, pointing to the lack of data to demonstrate the extent to which
environmental requirements have restricted training exercises and compromised readiness
overall. They argue that expanding exemption authority without justification for its need
would unnecessarily weaken environmental protection.
After considerable debate, the 107th Congress enacted an exemption from the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the 108th Congress enacted exemptions from the Marine
Mammal Protection Act and certain parts of the Endangered Species Act. Although these
exemptions were contentious among those concerned about the weakening of protections
for animals and plants, there has been greater opposition to exemptions that DOD has
requested from the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, and CERCLA. Opponents
to exemptions from these three latter statutes have expressed concern about human health
risks from potential exposure to air pollution and hazardous substances. DOD requested
these exemptions again in its FY2007 defense authorization proposal, continuing to assert
that critical training could be restricted otherwise. As of the adjournment of the 109th
Congress, these exemptions were not included in FY2007 defense authorization
legislation (H.R. 5122) or FY2007 defense appropriations legislation (H.R. 5631 and H.R.
5385). The following sections discuss challenges in assessing the impact of
environmental requirements on military readiness, broader exemptions for military
1 The following environmental laws authorize the President to grant exemptions for federal
facilities, including military installations, on a case-by-case basis. Exemptions for activities in
the “paramount interest of the United States,” including national security, are provided in the
Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7418(b)), Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1323(a)), Noise Control Act (42
U.S.C. 4903), Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6961(a)), and Safe Drinking Water Act (42
U.S.C. 300(j)(6)). A “national security” exemption is provided in CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9620(j)).
The Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536(j)) authorizes a special committee to grant an
exemption if the Secretary of Defense finds it necessary for national security.
2 The Safe Drinking Water Act does not impose time limits on exemptions. Although the
Endangered Species Act allows time limits, the law does not require it.

---

CRS-3
activities that Congress has enacted, and DOD’s continuing request for additional
exemptions.
Impact of Environmental Requirements on Readiness
There has been ongoing disagreement as to whether existing authorities for case-by-
case exemptions from environmental requirements are sufficient to preserve military
readiness. Assessing the need for broader exemptions is difficult because of the lack of
data on the cumulative impact of environmental requirements on readiness. Although
DOD has cited anecdotal instances of training restrictions or delays at certain installations,
the Department does not have a system in place to comprehensively track these cases and
assess their impact on readiness.
In 2002, the General Accounting Office (GAO, now renamed the Government
Accountability Office) found that DOD’s readiness reports did not indicate the extent to
which environmental requirements restrict combat training activities, and that such reports
indicate a high level of readiness overall.3 However, GAO noted individual instances of
environmental restrictions at some military installations and recommended that DOD’s
reporting system be improved to more accurately identify problems for training that might
be attributed to restrictions imposed by environmental requirements. A 2003 GAO report
found that environmental restrictions are only one of several factors, including urban
growth, that affect DOD’s ability to carry out training activities, but that DOD continues
to be unable to broadly measure the impact of encroachment on readiness.4
To better assess encroachment on military lands, Section 320 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136) required the Secretary of Defense
to report to Congress on how civilian encroachment, including compliance with air
quality and cleanup requirements, affects military operations. DOD released this report
in February 2006.5 Although the report describes situations in which such requirements
could affect military readiness, it concluded that air quality and cleanup requirements
have not affected readiness activities thus far. Members opposing broader exemptions
from environmental laws have expressed their reluctance to enact such exemptions if
DOD cannot confirm that requirements of these laws have indeed affected readiness.
Exemptions Enacted in the 107th and 108th Congresses
As noted above, the 107th Congress enacted an interim exemption for military
readiness activities from the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the 108th Congress enacted
a broad exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act and a narrower one from
certain parts of the Endangered Species Act. Throughout the congressional debate over
these exemptions, there was significant disagreement among Members of Congress
3 General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Lacks a Comprehensive Plan to Manage
Encroachment on Training Ranges, GAO-02-614, June 2002.
4 General Accounting Office, Military Training: DOD Approach to Managing Encroachment on
Training Ranges Still Evolving, GAO-03-621T, April 2003.
5 Department of Defense. Report to Congress on Sustainable Ranges. February 2006. pp. 3-1
through 3-7. See [https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/News/OSD/i366/i366.html].

---

CRS-4
regarding the military need for them in light of the lack of data on the effect of these
statutes on readiness overall, and the potential impact of the exemptions on animal and
plant species. A summary of each exemption is discussed below.6
Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Section 315 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY2003 (P.L. 107-314) directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop
regulations for issuing permits for the “incidental takings” of migratory birds during
military training exercises, and provided an interim exemption from the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act while these regulations are drafted. A U.S. district court had ruled that federal
agencies, including DOD, are required to obtain permits for incidental takings.7 DOD
argued that an exemption was needed to prevent the delay of training activities until
takings permits can be issued. In June 2004, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed
regulations for issuing incidental takings permits to DOD.8 The regulations have been
pending, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Endangered Species Act. Section 318(a) of the National Defense Authorization
Act for FY2004 (P.L. 108-136) granted the Secretary of the Interior the authority to
exempt military lands from designation as critical habitat under the Endangered Species
Act, if the Secretary determines “in writing” that an Integrated Natural Resource
Management Plan for such lands provides a “benefit” to the species for which critical
habitat is proposed for designation. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had been allowing
these plans to substitute for critical habitat designation in recent years. DOD argued that
clarification of the authority for this practice was needed to avoid future designations that
in its view could restrict the use of military lands for training. Section 318(b) also directs
the Secretary of the Interior to consider impacts on national security when deciding
whether to designate critical habitat. Although these provisions affect the applicability
of critical habitat requirements on military lands, DOD continues to be subject to all other
protections provided under the Endangered Species Act, including consultation
requirements and prohibitions on the “taking”9 of endangered and threatened species.
Marine Mammal Protection Act. Section 319 of P.L. 108-136 provided a broad
exemption from the Marine Mammal Protection Act for “national defense.” Section 319
also amended the definition of “harassment” of marine mammals, as it applies to military
readiness activities, to require greater scientific evidence of harm, and required the
consideration of impacts on military readiness in the issuance of permits for incidental
takings. DOD argued that these amendments were needed to prevent restrictions on the
6 For further discussion of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act exemption, see CRS Report RL31456,
Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2003.
For further discussion of the Endangered Species Act and Marine Mammal Protection Act
exemptions, see CRS Report RL32183, Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:
Authorization and Appropriations for FY2004. Also see CRS Report RL31415, The Endangered
Species Act (ESA), Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and Department of Defense (DOD)
Readiness Activities: Background and Current Law.
7 191 F. Supp. 2d 161 (D. D.C. 2002).
8 69 Federal Register 31074.
9 As defined in the Endangered Species Act, “taking” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct. (16 U.S.C.
1532(19))

---

CRS-5
use of the Navy’s low-frequency “active” sonar system. Environmental advocates had
legally challenged the use of the sonar system, arguing that it harmed marine mammals
and thus violated the Marine Mammal Protection Act and other environmental statutes.10
The impact of Navy sonar on marine mammals continues to be an issue.11
Exemptions Sought in the 109th Congress
Similar to past proposals since FY2003, DOD included exemptions from certain
requirements of the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste Disposal Act, and CERCLA in its
FY2007 defense authorization proposal to Congress. DOD and some Members argued
that these exemptions are needed to preserve military training capabilities, and that they
would have a minimal impact on environmental quality. Other Members, states,
communities, and environmental advocates countered that the impacts would reach
beyond DOD’s stated intent and that such exemptions could harm human health and the
environment. As noted earlier, neither FY2007 defense authorization nor appropriations
legislation included these exemptions, as of the adjournment of the 109th Congress.
DOD’s proposal is discussed below, as submitted to Congress in early 2007.
Clean Air Act. DOD proposed to exempt emissions generated by military
readiness activities from requirements to “conform” to State Implementation Plans (SIP)
for achieving federal air quality standards. Under current law, sources of emissions,
including activities of federal agencies, that would increase emissions above limits in a
state’s SIP are prohibited, unless offsetting reductions from other sources are made in the
same area. DOD argued that its proposed exemption would provide greater flexibility for
transferring training operations to areas with poor air quality, without restrictions on these
operations due to the emissions they would generate.
DOD asserted that the activities in question have a small impact on air quality, many
of which involve the reassignment of aircraft from one installation to another. In most
areas, the threshold for imposition of the conformity requirement is a net increase of 100
tons of emissions annually, an amount that some municipal governments estimate would
be equal to more than 72,000 military aircraft takeoffs and landings annually. Whether
such an increase is, in fact, “small” is one issue raised by opponents, including state and
local air pollution control program officials, state environmental commissioners, state
attorneys general, county and municipal governments, and environmental advocates.
DOD also proposed to alter Clean Air Act requirements for nonattainment areas in
which nonconforming military readiness activities are conducted. These areas would be
allowed to demonstrate that they would have met the standards except for emissions from
readiness activities. DOD also proposed to remove the consequences of failure to attain
the standards in such areas — that is, an area could not be forced to impose more stringent
pollution control requirements if its failure to meet air quality standards were the result
of emissions generated by military readiness activities.
10 NRDC v. Evans, 232 F.Supp. 2d. 1003, 1055 (N.D. Cal. 2002).
11 See CRS Report RL33133, Active Military Sonar and Marine Mammals: Events and
References, by Eugene H. Buck and Kori Calvert.

---

CRS-6
Solid Waste Disposal Act and CERCLA. DOD proposed to amend the
definition of “solid waste” in the Solid Waste Disposal Act and “release” (or threatened
release) in CERCLA, to exclude military munitions on an operational range. The
proposed exemption used the current definition of operational range,12 under which DOD
has the discretion to designate practically any lands under its jurisdiction as operational,
regardless of whether the land is being used for training. Opponents asserted that this
exemption would place military munitions on operational ranges beyond the reach of
these two statutes, and could allow munitions and any resulting contamination to remain
on any military lands designated as operational. As the exemption would no longer apply
once a range ceased to be operational, it presumably would not apply to ranges on closed
bases after the land is transferred out of military jurisdiction.13
DOD claimed its proposal would clarify existing regulations that the Environmental
Protection Agency finalized in 1997.14 Under these regulations, “used or fired” munitions
on a range are considered a solid waste only when they are removed from their landing
spot.15 Until DOD removes them and they “become” solid waste, they are not subject to
disposal requirements. Munitions left to accumulate on a range can leach hazardous
constituents into the soil and groundwater over time, possibly requiring cleanup. DOD
stated that it seeks to clarify existing regulations in order to eliminate the possibility of
legal challenges, which might result in an active range being closed to require the removal
of accumulating munitions and cleanup of related contamination. DOD asserted that such
challenges could restrict training.
However, excluding military munitions from “solid waste” and “release” in federal
statute could have broader implications than in existing regulation. Opponents, including
state attorneys general, state waste management officials, municipal water utilities,
environmental advocates, and community groups, argued that DOD’s proposal would
narrow the waiver of federal sovereign immunity in states, resulting in the removal of
state authority to monitor groundwater on operational ranges to determine whether a
substance presents a health hazard, or to file citizen suits under the Solid Waste Disposal
Act or CERCLA to compel cleanup of that substance. They argued that if this were the
case, groundwater contamination could not be investigated until it migrated off-range,
potentially resulting in greater contamination and higher cleanup costs than if the
contamination were identified and responded to earlier. Opponents also asserted that the
potential threat of litigation is not sufficient basis for a broad change to existing law,
noting that cleanup requirements have not resulted in widespread restrictions on the
operation of military training ranges, as DOD fears.

12 10 U.S.C. 101(e)(3). Operational range is “a range that is under the jurisdiction, custody, or
control of the Secretary of Defense and that is used for range activities, or although not currently
being used [emphasis added] for range activities, is still considered by the Secretary to be a range
and has not been put to a new use that is incompatible with range activities.”
13 For a discussion of cleanup requirements on closed bases, see CRS Report RS22065, Military
Base Closures: Role and Costs of Environmental Cleanup.
14 40 C.F.R. Part 266, Subpart M, Military Munitions Rule.
15 40 C.F.R. 266.202(c).

---