Order Code RS22065
Updated January 3, 2007
Military Base Closures:
Role and Costs of Environmental Cleanup
David M. Bearden
Analyst in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Summary
Near the end of its first session, the 109th Congress approved a new round of
military base closures and realignments. As the Department of Defense (DOD)
implements the new round, potential issues for the 110th Congress include the pace and
costs of closing and realigning the bases and the impacts on surrounding communities.
The disposal of surplus property has stimulated interest among affected communities in
how the land can be redeveloped to replace lost jobs. Environmental contamination can
present a challenge to economic redevelopment if funding or technological constraints
would limit the degree of cleanup needed to make the land safe for its intended use.
Most of the land on bases closed under prior rounds has been cleaned up and transferred
for redevelopment. However, some bases have yet to be cleaned up to an extent
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 explains cleanup requirements for the transfer
and reuse of properties on closed bases, discusses property transfer status and cleanup
costs on bases closed in prior rounds, and examines estimates of costs to clean up bases
to be closed in the 2005 round to make these properties safe for civilian reuse.
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 continue. 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.
A new round of base closures and realignments has made communities concerned
that the cleanup of environmental contamination may pose obstacles to redeveloping more

---

CRS-2
surplus military property for civilian reuse. The Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
Commission submitted its report on the 2005 round to President Bush on September 8,
2005. This report lists the military installations that the Commission approved for closure
or realignment and its reasons for altering DOD’s recommendations.1 The President
notified Congress of his approval of the Commission’s recommendations on September
15, 2005. Near the end of its first session, the 109th Congress approved the 2005 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 the land suitable for civilian reuse could take significantly longer.
Consequently, the cost and pace of long-term efforts to clean up these properties could
be an issue not only in the 110th Congress, but in future Congresses as well.
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.2 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.3 Early
transfer can be advantageous in terms of redevelopment, if the intended land use would
not present the potential for harmful human exposure to contamination, and therefore not
require cleanup. Conversely, redevelopment could be delayed despite early transfer if
cleanup is necessary to make the intended land use safe.
Whether a property is transferred after cleanup or transferred early, the degree of
cleanup varies from site to site, depending on the cleanup standard used and the remedy
selected to attain it. Rather than specify standards for particular substances, CERCLA
requires that cleanup comply with legally applicable, relevant, and appropriate
requirements (ARARs) to protect human health and the environment, including a host of
federal and state standards for various hazardous substances.4 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.
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
1 The BRAC Commission’s report is available online at [http://www.brac.gov/finalreport.html].
2 42 U.S.C. 9620(h).
3 42 U.S.C. 9620(h)(3)(C).
4 42 U.S.C. 9621(d).

---

CRS-3
cleanup standard for a specific site.5 EPA has issued non-binding guidance for
considering the “reasonably anticipated land use” in selecting cleanup remedies.6 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).”7
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.
However, the recipient of the property voluntarily can agree to accept responsibility for
the cleanup, including the costs. In such cases, DOD typically sells the land at a
discounted price to offset the cleanup costs borne by the purchaser. A discounted price
may lower a purchaser’s initial costs to buy the land, but the purchaser does assume some
financial risk if the cleanup costs are greater than expected. The cost of environmental
insurance to assume this financial risk also may offset some of the initial savings gained
from a discounted price.
If DOD takes responsibility for the cleanup, the Department remains obligated after
cleanup is complete in the event that 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
5 EPA is required by statute to take the lead in overseeing cleanup at federal sites on the National
Priorities List (NPL). States usually take the lead in overseeing cleanup at non-NPL sites.
6 EPA. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. Land Use in the CERCLA Remedy
Selection Process. OSWER Directive No. 9355.7-04. May 25, 1995.
7 Ibid., p. 7.

---

CRS-4
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.
Status of Property Transfer on Closed Bases
DOD is in the early stages of implementing the 2005 round and will transfer surplus
property as bases are closed and the land is found to be environmentally suitable for
transfer. Although DOD has transferred most of the land on bases closed in prior rounds
for redevelopment, certain properties have yet to be transferred because cleanup is not
complete, raising questions about the potential for similar delays in the 2005 round. The
most recent comprehensive information on the status of property transfer on bases closed
in prior rounds was released by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) in January
2005.8 At that time, GAO reported that 72% of the acreage on these closed bases had
been transferred for reuse, as of the end of FY2003. Of the acreage awaiting transfer,
18% 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 relative to the degree of contamination and potential for
human exposure. The remaining 10% had not been leased or transferred for reuse
primarily because of cleanup challenges. Early in 2007, GAO expects to release more
recent data on the status of cleanup on these properties and their transfer for reuse.
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. In March
2006, DOD reported that it had incurred nearly $7 billion in cleanup costs through
FY2005 at bases closed under the previous four rounds.9
Although most of the acreage on bases closed under past rounds has been cleaned
up and transferred, estimates of costs to complete cleanup on lands awaiting transfer, and
on those transferred early, remain substantial. In March 2006, DOD estimated that $3.8
billion would be necessary to clean up known contamination from FY2006 to
8 Government Accountability Office, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base
Realignments and Closures, GAO-05-138, January 2005. 48 p.
9 Department of Defense, Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress for
FY2005, March 2006, Appendix J, p. J-10-1. The nearly $7 billion figure reflects the actual costs
of the cleanup process and does not include other costs, such as program management and
support. 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
and others costs such as program management and support.

---

CRS-5
completion.10 These costs could be higher, 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 currently unknown environmental threats, such as unexploded ordnance
or additional hazardous substances, are discovered later. On the other hand, costs at some
sites may prove lower if more cost-effective cleanup technologies become available.
Cleanup Costs and Related 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 cleanup of certain bases closed between 1988 and
1995 demonstrates. As in prior rounds, availability of funding and capabilities of cleanup
technologies could limit the degree of cleanup on bases closed in the 2005 round, making
certain land uses infeasible and posing challenges to economic redevelopment.
As indicated in the following table, DOD estimated in March 2006 that nearly $500
million would be needed to complete cleanup at the 22 “major” installations to be closed
in the 2005 round. Nearly all of this cost is for the cleanup of military munitions on
training ranges, including the removal of unexploded ordnance. Significant funding for
cleanup also may be necessary at minor installations that are closed, as well as on
realigned installations if the change in mission will result in the disposal of contaminated
land that is no longer needed for military purposes. DOD expects to release more recent
estimates of cleanup costs for these bases in the spring of 2007.
Whether DOD’s estimates are a reasonable approximation of what the actual cleanup
costs might be has been the topic of much debate. Because the civilian uses of bases to
be closed in the 2005 round have yet to be finalized, DOD’s above cost estimate is based
on a degree of cleanup that would be safe relative to the recent military land use. If a
property were to be used for a purpose that is less restrictive than military use, and would
result in a higher risk of 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 time could be needed to complete cleanup than DOD has estimated.
In deliberations over the 2005 round, some Members of Congress and the BRAC
Commission expressed concern that DOD’s estimates could be undervalued because they
do not reflect the possible land uses and the corresponding degree of cleanup that may be
necessary to redevelop these bases. Further, some state environmental agencies assert that
DOD’s estimates are based on less stringent cleanup actions that the Department prefers,
rather than on more extensive and costlier actions that states could require. Accordingly,
communities have questioned whether more funding and time may be needed than DOD
has estimated to clean up these bases to make them safe for reuse. Potentially higher
cleanup costs also could affect purchasers of surplus military property who may accept
financial responsibility for cleanup in exchange for a discounted price for the land.
Higher cleanup costs also could have an impact on insurers of such properties.
10 Department of Defense, Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress for
FY2005, March 2006, Appendix J, p. J-10-1.

---

CRS-6
Major Base Closures in the 2005 BRAC Round: Past and Estimated Future Cleanup Costs, as of March 2006
(in thousands of dollars)
Future Estimates of Cleanup Costs from FY2006
Past Cleanup Costs Incurred through FY2005
Installation
State
through Site Completion
IRP a
MMRP a
Total
IRP a
MMRP a
Total
Kulis Air Guard Station b
Alaska
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Onizuka Air Force Station c
California
$139
$0
$139
$0
$0
$0
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant
California
$54,627
$34
$54,661
$3,482
$1,209
$4,691
Atlanta Naval Air Station
Georgia
$1,473
$0
$1,473
$2,735
$0
$2,735
Fort Gillem
Georgia
$32,053
$0
$32,053
$10,204
$0
$10,204
Fort McPherson
Georgia
$7,865
$235
$8,100
$40
$7,221
$7,261
Newport Chemical Depot
Indiana
$19,538
$37
$19,575
$1,537
$3,286
$4,823
Kansas Army Ammunition Plant
Kansas
$33,545
$81
$33,626
$22,617
$95
$22,712
Selfridge Army Activity
Michigan
$17
$80
$97
$0
$13,202
$13,202
Brunswick Naval Air Station
Maine
$64,147
$52
$64,199
$10,056
$5,592
$15,648
Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant
Mississippi
$0
$0
$0
$0
$8,413
$8,413
Pascagoula Naval Station b
Mississippi
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Fort Monmouth
New Jersey
$25,376
$181
$25,557
$3,474
$1,198
$4,672
Cannon Air Force Base
New Mexico
$11,603
$0
$11,603
$2,138
$0
$2,138
Umatilla Chemical Depot
Oregon
$54,047
$140
$54,187
$7,581
$1,151
$8,732
Willow Grove Naval Air Station
Pennsylvania
$7,777
$0
$7,777
$6,049
$0
$6,049
Brooks City Base
Texas
$7,449
$0
$7,449
$3,351
$0
$3,351
Ingleside Naval Station b
Texas
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant
Texas
$26,214
$0
$26,214
$1,043
$0
$1,043
Deseret Chemical Depot
Utah
$21,937
$275
$22,212
$7,755
$170,125
$177,880
Fort Monroe
Virginia
$1,830
$169
$1,999
$0
$200,758
$200,758
General Mitchell Air Reserve Station b, d
Wisconsin
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total 2005 BRAC Round
$369,637
$1,284
$370,921
$82,062
$412,250
$494,312
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service using information from the Department of Defense: Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress for FY2005, March 2006,
Appendix J, various pages. The amounts in this report indicate costs for actions directly related to cleanup and do not include indirect costs such as program management and support.
a. IRP = Installation Restoration Program, under which the cleanup of non-munitions contamination is addressed. MMRP = Military Munitions Response Program, under which the cleanup of munitions
is addressed, including the removal of unexploded ordnance (UXO).
b. DOD did not indicate any cleanup costs that had been incurred in the past, or estimated for the future, at these sites.
c. DOD indicated that the cleanup it had planned was complete. Further financial liability would depend on the adequacy of the cleanup to continue to protect human health and the environment.
d. DOD reported that the cleanup it had planned was complete at General Mitchell Air Force Base, but did not indicate any cleanup costs at General Mitchell Air Reserve Station specifically.

---