Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: Authorization and Appropriations for FY2001

Order Code RL30554

Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:

Authorization and Appropriations for FY2001

Updated January 17, 2001

David M. Bearden

Environmental Information Analyst

Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

ABSTRACT

The Department of Defense operates six environmental programs: cleanup of past

contamination at military facilities, acceleration of cleanup at military bases designated for

closure, compliance with environmental laws and regulations that apply to ongoing military

operations, pollution prevention, natural resource conservation, and environmental technology.

In addition to these activities, the Department of Energy is responsible for managing defense

nuclear waste and remediating contaminated sites. This report discusses the federal laws that

established these programs, describes their scope and purpose, provides a history of

appropriations, indicates the President’s budget request for FY2001, examines authorization

and appropriations legislation for FY2001, and discusses other relevant legislation considered

in the 106th Congress.

Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs:

Authorization and Appropriations for FY2001

Summary

While Congress authorizes most federal programs for multiple years, it annually

authorizes programs for national defense as well as appropriating funding for them

each fiscal year. Of the activities traditionally authorized and funded, the Department

of Defense (DOD) administers six environmental programs: cleanup at current and

former military facilities, cleanup at base closure sites, environmental compliance,

pollution prevention, environmental technology, and natural resource conservation.

The Department of Energy (DOE) manages defense nuclear waste and cleans up

contaminated nuclear weapons sites. For FY2001, the Administration requested a

total of $10.44 billion for all of the above programs, $740 million more than the

FY2000 funding level of $9.70 billion.

The second session of the 106th Congress enacted the National Defense

Authorization Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-398, H.R. 4205), which authorized $1.31

billion for cleanup at current and former military facilities and an additional $6.15

billion for DOE’s management of defense nuclear waste and cleanup of contaminated

nuclear weapons sites. It also included several provisions that addressed various

environmental matters, including the authorization of payments for numerous

environmental fines and penalties. As in past years, the law did not specify the total

amount of funding that was authorized for environmental compliance, pollution

prevention, environmental technology, natural resource conservation, and cleanup at

base closure sites, which receive their funding from larger accounts for operation and

maintenance and base realignment and closure respectively.

The second session of the 106th Congress also enacted the three bills that

appropriated funding for DOD and DOE’s defense cleanup and environmental

programs in FY2001. First, the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for

FY2001 (P.L. 106-259, H.R. 4576) provided $1.31 billion for cleanup at current and

former military facilities, roughly $10 million more than the FY2000 funding level of

$1.30 billion. Second, the Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY2001

(P.L. 106-246, H.R. 4425) provided $865.3 million for cleanup at base closure sites,

$542.7 million more than the FY2000 funding level of $322.6 million. The increase

will primarily be used to pay for outstanding projects approved in FY2000 but not

begun until FY2001. Third, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act

for FY2001 (P.L. 106-377, H.R. 5483) provided a total of $6.12 billion for DOE’s

management of defense nuclear waste and cleanup of contaminated nuclear weapons

sites, about $400 million more than the FY2000 funding level of $5.72 billion.

Other relevant legislation considered, but not enacted, in the 106th Congress

could have affected environmental cleanup at military facilities. H.R. 1300 and H.R.

2580, as reported, and H.R. 2956 and S. 1537, as introduced, would have amended

the remedy selection process at Superfund sites, which also would have applied to all

of DOD’s sites. As introduced, H.R. 617 would have clarified requirements for

federal compliance with all hazardous waste cleanup laws, and S. 258, as introduced,

would have authorized new rounds of base closings in 2001 and 2003.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Environmental Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Military Base Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Environmental Compliance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Other Environmental Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Department of Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Authorizing Legislation for FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Appropriations Legislation for FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Military Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Energy and Water Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Other Relevant Legislation in the 106th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Superfund Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Cleanup Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Military Base Closings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Selected References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

List of Figures

Figure 1. Funding for Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs: FY1990 to

FY2000 Enacted and FY2001 Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 2. FY2001 Administration Request for

Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Figure 3. Cleanup Status at Current and Former Military Facilities

as of September 30, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 4. Cleanup Status at Base Closure Sites as of September 30, 1999 . . . . . 6

Figure 5. Cleanup Status of Department of Energy Sites

as of September 30, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

List of Tables

Table 1. Department of Energy Sites with Cleanup ActivitiesProjected to Continue

Beyond 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Defense Cleanup and Environmental

Programs: Authorization and Appropriations

for FY2001

Introduction

While Congress authorizes most federal programs for multiple years, it annually

authorizes programs for national defense, as well as appropriating funding for them

each fiscal year. In the second session of the 106th Congress, authorizing and

appropriating funding for national defense programs for FY2001 was a significant

consideration in the annual debate over the federal budget. Of the activities

traditionally authorized and funded, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the

Department of Energy (DOE) administer seven environmental programs related to

national defense. DOD’s programs address the following six activities: cleaning up

past contamination at current and former military facilities, accelerating the cleanup

of past contamination at military bases designated for closure, complying with

applicable environmental laws and regulations to safely dispose of waste and

pollutants generated from ongoing military operations, preventing future

contamination, developing more efficient and less costly environmental cleanup

technologies, and conserving the natural, historical, and cultural resources of the

public lands that it administers. DOE is responsible for managing defense nuclear

waste generated from the past production of radioactive materials used to construct

nuclear weapons and for remediating contaminated sites.

Congress authorizes both DOD’s environmental programs and DOE’s

management of defense nuclear waste and remediation of contaminated sites in one

annual authorization bill for national defense, but it traditionally funds these programs

in three separate appropriations bills. DOD’s programs for environmental cleanup at

current and former military facilities, environmental compliance, pollution prevention,

environmental technology, and conservation receive funding in the appropriations bill

for DOD, but environmental cleanup at base closure sites receives funding in the

appropriations bill for military construction. Congress separately funds DOE’s

management of defense nuclear waste and remediation of contaminated sites in the

appropriations bill for energy and water development.

Funding for defense cleanup and environmental programs administered by DOD

and DOE represents a relatively small portion of the total budget for national defense.

For FY2001, the Administration requested a total of $10.44 billion for these

programs, which is a 7.6 % increase of roughly $740 million above the FY2000

funding level of $9.70 billion and is about 3.4% of the total request of $305.42 billion

for national defense. For a history of appropriations for defense cleanup and

environmental programs since FY1990, refer to Figure 1 on the following page. For

the percentage of total funding requested for each program for FY2001, refer to

Figure 2 on the following page as well.

CRS-2

Figure 1. Funding for Defense Cleanup and Environmental

Programs: FY1990 to FY2000 Enacted and FY2001 Request

Billions of Dollars

12.00

10.52

10.35 10.29 10.18 10.06

9.84

9.44

10.44

9.70

10.00

7.01

8.00

4.97

6.00

3.05

4.00

2.00

0.00

Department of Energy

DOD Technology

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

1.66 2.70 3.68 4.83 5.17 5.09 5.56 5.62 5.52 5.58 5.72 6.15

n/a

n/a

n/a 0.43 0.41 0.28 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.26 0.29 0.19

DOD Pollution Prevention

DOD Conservation

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

n/a

0.30

0.12

0.34

0.10

0.29

0.15

0.25

0.11

0.26

0.09

0.26

0.14

0.23

0.13

0.26

0.12

0.25

0.12

DOD Base Closure

DOD Compliance

n/a

0.79

0.10

1.11

0.22

1.93

0.44

2.12

0.56

1.98

0.51

2.04

0.56

2.23

0.78

2.02

0.86

1.91

0.70

1.89

0.32

1.70

0.87

1.60

DOD Cleanup

0.60

1.06

1.18

1.20

1.96

1.48

1.42

1.31

1.29

1.27

1.30

1.27

Request

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

DOD = Department of Defense. DOE = Department of Energy

N/A = Account or Program Not Yet Established.

Figure 2. FY2001 Administration Request for

Defense Cleanup and Environmental Programs

Total = $10.44 billion

DOD Compliance

$1.60 billion

15.3%

DOD Conservation

$124.0 million

1.2%

DOD Pollution Prevention

2.4%

$247.7 million

DOD Cleanup

$1.27 billion

12.2%

1.8%

DOD Technology

$186.7 million

8.3%

58.9%

DOE Defense Nuclear Waste Management

and Environmental Restoration

$6.15 billion

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

DOD = Department of Defense. DOE = Department of Energy.

DOD Base Closures

$865.3 million

CRS-3

Certain factors could create the need to significantly increase or reduce funding

for DOD and DOE’s defense cleanup and environmental programs in future years.

For example, cleanup costs could rise if more sites were included in the Superfund

program to clean up the nation’s most hazardous sites, and compliance costs could

rise if environmental laws and regulations became more stringent. However, other

factors could cause funding to fall. For example, cleanup could become less costly

if cleanup standards were revised, more economical cleanup technologies became

available, and pollution prevention efforts were to significantly reduce or eliminate

future contamination. In addition to these factors, other national defense priorities

could cause funding to shift away from environmental programs.

The following sections of this report provide a brief overview of the federal laws

that established DOD and DOE’s defense cleanup and environmental programs,

describe their scope and purpose, indicate the President’s budget request for FY2001,

examine authorization and appropriations legislation for FY2001, and discuss other

relevant legislation considered in the 106th Congress.

Department of Defense

The Department of Defense operates six environmental programs.1 In terms of

funding, the three major ones focus on cleaning up past contamination on current and

former military facilities, accelerating cleanup at base closure sites, and complying

with environmental laws and regulations to safely dispose of waste and pollutants

from ongoing military operations. Three other programs have smaller budgets, which

focus on pollution prevention, conservation, and environmental technology. For

FY2001, the Administration requested a total of $4.29 billion for all six programs, an

8% increase of $307 million above the FY2000 funding level of $3.98 billion. Each

program is discussed below.

Environmental Restoration

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 in the United States and established the

National Priorities List (NPL) to track them. CERCLA required DOD and all other

federal agencies to comply with the statute’s requirements for identifying, evaluating,

and cleaning up NPL sites under their jurisdiction.2 The Superfund Amendments and

Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) amended CERCLA and required DOD to

comply with the statute’s requirements in remediating all of its hazardous waste sites,

including those sites that are not on the NPL.3

1

For additional information, refer to the Department of Defense Environmental Network and

Information Exchange (DENIX) web site at [http://www.denix.osd.mil].

2

P.L. 96-510, Section 107(g).

3

P.L. 99-499, Section 211.

CRS-4

DOD’s Defense Environmental Restoration Program centralizes the

department’s efforts in cleaning up hazardous waste sites on current and former

military facilities where past actions led to contamination. Congress traditionally

authorizes funding for DOD’s cleanup program annually in the national defense

authorization bill, but appropriates its funding under the Defense Environmental

Restoration Account in DOD’s appropriations bill.4 Congress established this account

in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY1984.5 Subsequently, the

National Defense Authorization Act for FY1997 divided the account into four

subaccounts: Army, Navy, Air Force, and defense-wide sites.6 Since then, Congress

also has traditionally specified the amount of funding reserved for cleaning up

formerly used defense sites (FUDS). The National Defense Authorization Act for

FY2001 (P.L. 106-398) amends current law to add an environmental restoration

subaccount for FUDS properties to conform with the budgetary practice of reserving

cleanup funding for such sites in the annual authorization and appropriations process.

Total funding for environmental restoration has varied from an initial level of $150

million in FY1984 to a high of $1.96 billion in FY1994. The Department of Defense

Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-259, H.R. 4576) provided $1.31 billion,

roughly $40 million more than the Administration’s request of $1.27 billion, and about

$10 million more than the FY2000 funding level of $1.30 billion.

Figure 3. Cleanup Status at Current and Former Military Facilities

as of September 30, 1999

Total Number of Sites = 23,060

Response in Progress

8,373 Sites

36.3%

63.7%

Response Complete

14,687 Sites

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the

Department of Defense.

4

For a discussion of funding for other national defense programs, refer to CRS Report

RL30505, Appropriations for FY2001: Defense, coordinated by Stephen Daggett.

5

P.L. 98-212, 97 Stat. 1427.

6

P.L. 104-201, Section 322.

CRS-5

By the end of FY1999, DOD had identified a total of 23,060 sites on current and

former military facilities that require cleanup under CERCLA.7 DOD reported that

response was complete at 14,687 sites. However, many sites require long-term

monitoring to ensure that remedial actions adequately addressed contamination.

Cleanup was reportedly in progress at 8,373 sites. (Refer to Figure 3 on the previous

page.) While cleanup was complete at about 64% of total sites, future cleanup costs

at the remaining sites are expected to be significantly more than the amount already

spent for remediation. As of the end of FY1999, DOD had spent $11.83 billion for

cleanup and estimated that another $18.05 billion would be necessary to complete

cleanup at sites where remedial actions are underway. 8

Military Base Closure

Congress has approved four rounds of military base closures since 1988, and the

National Defense Authorization Act for FY1990 established a program to speed the

cleanup of contamination on base closure sites prior to transferring them from military

control to civilian uses.9 While the cleanup of former military facilities is funded

under the Defense Environmental Restoration Account discussed above, the cleanup

of bases designated for closure since 1988 is funded separately under the Base

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account in DOD’s budget. Congress has

traditionally reserved a portion of each BRAC account for environmental cleanup in

the appropriations bill for military construction.10 Funding has varied from $100

million in FY1991 to a high of nearly $860 million in FY1998.

In past years, the President’s budget has sought, and Congress has generally

enacted, an amount of funding that is sufficient to pay the entire cost of each cleanup

project at a base closure site that is approved in the budget year. However, as a cost

saving measure, DOD proposed and Congress approved only a portion of total

program funding for FY2000 that was necessary to finance projects which were to be

completed by the end of the fiscal year. Consequently, the Administration requested

a substantial increase in funding for FY2001 to pay for the outstanding amount of the

FY2000 program level as well as the new program level for FY2001. Under the

President’s budget, funding for cleanup at base closure sites would substantially

increase by $542.7 million, or 168%, from $322.6 million in FY2000 to $865.3

million in FY2001. However, of the total requested amount of $865.3 million, about

$365 million, or 42%, would be used to finance projects approved in FY2000 but not

begun until FY2001. After this amount is paid for outstanding FY2000 projects,

$500.3 million would remain to finance new cleanup projects to be approved in

FY2001. Congress approved the Administration’s requested increase in passing the

Military Construction Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-246, H.R. 4425),

which provided a total of $865.3 million for base closure cleanups.

7

Department of Defense. FY1999 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual

Report to Congress. March 2000. p. B-6-1, B-8-1.

8

Ibid.

9

P.L. 101-189, Section 353.

10

For a discussion of other programs funded under this legislation, refer to CRS Report

RL30510, Appropriations for FY2001: Military Construction, by Mary Tyszkiewicz.

CRS-6

By the end of FY1999, DOD had identified a total of 4,885 sites on BRAC

facilities that require cleanup under CERCLA. 11 DOD reported that response was

complete at 2,620 sites. As with DOD’s current and former military facilities, many

of the BRAC sites where response is complete require long-term monitoring to ensure

that remedial actions adequately addressed contamination. Remediation reportedly

was in progress at the remaining 2,265 sites identified for cleanup under the BRAC

program. (Refer to Figure 4 below.) As of the end of FY1999, DOD had spent a

total of $4.18 billion for cleanup costs at military bases designated for closure. The

department estimates that an additional $3.85 billion would be necessary to complete

cleanup at sites where remedial actions were still underway. 12

Figure 4. Cleanup Status at Base Closure Sites as of September 30,

1999

Total Number of Sites = 4,885

Response in Progress

2,265 Sites

46.4%

53.6%

Response Complete

2,620 Sites

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the

Department of Defense.

Environmental Compliance

Under federal environmental laws, DOD and all other federal agencies must

comply with the same requirements that apply to state and local governments and the

private sector. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean

Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act specify that

requirements under those laws apply to defense and all other federal facilities. The

Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992 amended RCRA to clarify in detail that DOD

and all other federal agencies are subject to penalties, fines, permit fees, reviews of

11

Department of Defense. FY1999 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Annual

Report to Congress. March 2000. p. B-10-1.

12

Ibid.

CRS-7

plans or studies, and inspection and monitoring of facilities in connection with federal,

state, interstate, or local solid or hazardous waste regulatory programs.13 The Act

also authorizes and directs the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to take

enforcement actions under RCRA against any federal agency to the same extent that

it would against any other person. Typically, environmental compliance projects

include activities such as disposing of solid waste, upgrading and monitoring waste

water treatment plants to comply with Clean Water Act standards, and testing and

maintaining underground storage tanks.

The National Defense Authorization Act for FY1990 required DOD to annually

track the portion of its budget reserved for environmental compliance.14 However,

there is not a centralized account for these activities within the national defense

authorization bill or DOD’s appropriations bill. Funding for compliance comes from

the Operation and Maintenance Accounts for the branches of military service. DOD’s

budget for environmental compliance has ranged from $790 million in FY1990 to a

high of $2.23 billion in FY1996. For FY2001, the Administration proposed nearly

$1.60 billion for environmental compliance projects, a 6% decrease of about $100

million below the FY2000 funding level of roughly $1.70 billion. DOD attributes the

need for less funding in FY2001 to investments in pollution prevention which have

reduced the amount of contaminants generated by military activities and led to lower

compliance costs. As in past years, DOD will develop its environmental compliance

budget for FY2001 from funds appropriated under the Operation and Maintenance

Accounts in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106259, H.R. 4576).

Other Environmental Programs

In addition to the above activities, DOD administers three programs that focus

on pollution prevention, environmental technology, and 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, manage, and

prevent environmental contamination. The 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 the department’s environmental strategy, their

funding is significantly smaller than the programs for environmental cleanup and

compliance. (Refer to Figure 2 on page 2.) Like compliance, there are no

centralized accounts for pollution prevention, environmental technology, or

conservation within the national defense authorization bill or DOD’s appropriations

bill. Their funding also comes from the Operation and Maintenance Accounts for the

branches of military service.

13

P.L. 102-386, Section 102.

14

P.L. 101-189, Section 357.

CRS-8

Under the President’s FY2001 budget, funding for conservation would increase

while support for pollution prevention and environmental technology would decline.

The Administration requested a 5% increase of $6.3 million for conservation from

$117.7 million in FY2000 to $124.0 million in FY2001. The requested increase

would be used to provide greater support for protecting threatened or endangered

species and completing Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans for all

installations by the Sikes Act deadline of November 2001. Funding for pollution

prevention would decline by $13.7 million, or 5%, from $261.4 million in FY2000 to

$247.7 million in FY2001. The completion of several one-time projects accounts for

most of the requested decrease. The budget for environmental technology would fall

by $101.7 million, or 35%, from $288.4 million in FY2000 to $186.7 million in

FY2001. According to DOD, the requested decrease is justified by the completion

of projects managed by the Air Force and the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency and DOD’s discontinuance of projects which received earmarked funding in

FY2000 under the Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Accounts. As in

past years, DOD will develop its FY2001 budget for environmental technology,

natural resource conservation, and pollution prevention from funds appropriated

under the Operation and Maintenance Accounts in the Department of Defense

Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-259, H.R. 4576).

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 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 hazardous contamination in buildings, soil, and water

on the department’s facilities, to ensure their safety for future uses. Congress

traditionally authorizes funding for these activities in the annual authorization bill for

national defense, and appropriates funding for them in the appropriations bill for

energy and water development.15

In 1989, the Bush Administration developed a separate program within DOE to

consolidate the department’s efforts in cleaning up the environmental problems caused

by defense nuclear waste.16 Subsequently, Congress established the Defense

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account under the Energy and

Water Development Appropriations Act for FY1992 to specify the amount of funding

15

For a discussion of funding for other DOE programs, refer to CRS Report RL30507,

Appropriations for FY2001: Energy and Water Development, coordinated by Marc

Humphries and Carl Behrens.

16

For additional information on this program, refer to the Department of Energy’s web site for

the Office of Environmental Management [http://www.em.doe.gov].

CRS-9

reserved for this program. 17 Later, Congress created a Defense Facilities Closure

Projects Account under the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for

FY1998 to indicate the amount of funding allocated for expediting the cleanup and

closure of certain defense nuclear facilities by 2006.18 The following year, Congress

established a Defense Environmental Management Privatization Account under the

Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY1999 to specify the

amount of funding set aside for privatizing cleanup projects at DOE’s defense

environmental management sites.19

The Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106377, H.R. 5483) provided a total of $6.12 billion for all three of the above accounts,

roughly $400 million more than the FY2000 funding level of $5.72 billion, and about

$30 million less than the Administration’s request of $6.15 billion. Of the total

appropriation of $6.12 billion, $4.97 billion was reserved for the Defense

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account, $1.08 billion was set

aside for the Defense Facilities Closure Projects Account, and $65 million was

allocated to the Defense Environmental Management Privatization Account.

Figure 5. Cleanup Status of Department of Energy Sites

as of September 30, 1999

Total Number of Sites = 113

Response in Progress

44 Sites

38.9%

61.1%

Response Complete

69 Sites

Prepared by the Congressional Research Service with data from the

Department of Energy.

17

P.L. 102-104, 105 Stat. 529. Prior to the establishment of the Defense Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management Account, DOE received funding for managing defense

nuclear waste and remediating contaminated sites under the Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Account in the appropriations bill for energy and water development, but the bill did not

specify the amount of the funds reserved within the account for these activities.

18

P.L. 105-62, 111 Stat. 1332.

19

P.L. 105-245, 112 Stat. 1849.

CRS-10

DOE reports that there are a total of 113 sites where the past production of

atomic materials used to construct nuclear weapons led to severe contamination in

need of environmental remediation. By the end of FY1999, DOE had completed all

response actions at a total of 69 sites.20 (Refer to Figure 5 on page 9.) DOE

estimates that cleanup will be complete at an additional 23 sites by 2006. As indicated

in Table 1 below, the remaining 21 sites will require long-term cleanup projects

extending well beyond this time, and DOE estimates that the last of its sites will not

be cleaned up until 2050. However, long-term “stewardship” activities will still be

necessary at many sites after cleanup is complete to manage stored radioactive waste,

maintain other contained hazardous materials, and monitor the ongoing treatment of

contaminated ground water. DOE is already performing long-term stewardship

activities at 30 of the 69 sites where response actions are complete.21 Including postcleanup expenses for all sites, DOE estimates that future remediation costs could

range from $151 billion to $195 billion from FY2000 to FY2070.22

Table 1. Department of Energy Sites with Cleanup Activities

Projected to Continue Beyond 2006

State

Site

Projected

Completion

California

Energy Technology Engineering Center

2007

California

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Main Site

2007

Colorado

Rio Blanco Site

2007

California

General Electric Vallecitos Nuclear Center

2008

California

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300

2008

Nevada

Project Shoal Area

2008

Nevada

Central Nevada Test Area

2009

Nevada

Tonopah Test Range Area

2009

New Mexico

Gnome-Coach Site

2010

New Mexico

Gasbuggy Site

2011

Kentucky

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant

2012

Ohio

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant

2013

Nevada

Nevada Test Site

2014

New York

Separations Process Research Unit

2014

Tennessee

Oak Ridge Reservation

2014

New Mexico

Los Alamos National Laboratory

2015

20

DOE. Office of Environmental Management. Status Report on Paths to Closure. March

2000. p. 2.

21

Ibid., p. 19.

22

Ibid., p. 9.

CRS-11

State

Site

Projected

Completion

New York

West Valley Demonstration Project

2015

South Carolina

Savannah River Site

2038

New Mexico

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

2039

Washington

Hanford Site

2046

Idaho

Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory

2050

Source: Department of Energy. Office of Environmental Management. Status Report on

Paths to Closure. March 2000. p. 23-27.

Authorizing Legislation for FY2001

On May 12, 2000, the House Armed Services Committee filed its report on the

National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 (H.R. 4205, H.Rept. 106-616), and

the House passed the bill on May 18, 2000. The Senate Armed Services Committee

reported its version of the authorization bill (S. 2549, S.Rept. 106-292) on May 12,

2000. The Senate inserted the text of S. 2549 into H.R. 4205 as a substituting

amendment and passed its version of H.R. 4205 on July 13, 2000. A House-Senate

conference committee resolved the differences between the two bills and filed its

report (H.Rept. 106-945) on October 6, 2000. The House passed the conference

agreement on October 11, 2000, and the Senate passed it on October 12, 2000. The

President signed H.R. 4205 into law (P.L. 106-398) on October 30, 2000. As in past

years, the law did not specify the total amount of funding that was authorized for

environmental compliance, pollution prevention, environmental technology, natural

resource conservation, and environmental cleanup at base closure sites, which receive

their funding from larger accounts for operation and maintenance and base

realignment and closure respectively.

P.L. 106-398 authorized approximately $1.31 billion for environmental cleanup

at current and former military facilities and an additional $25 million for the

Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental Restoration Trust

Fund. In addition to authorizing funding for DOD, the law authorized a total of $6.15

billion for FY2001 to fund DOE’s management of defense nuclear waste and cleanup

of contaminated nuclear weapons sites. Of this amount, approximately $5.97 billion

was authorized as new funding, and the remaining $174.4 million was authorized from

unused prior year balances.

Of the total authorized amount of $6.15 billion for DOE, about $1.08 billion was

authorized for defense facilities closure projects, and $90.1 million was authorized for

two privatization contracts: a spent nuclear fuel dry storage project and an advanced

mixed waste treatment project. However, the authorization for privatization projects

was entirely derived from unused prior year balances, and no new funding was

authorized. The House had proposed to authorize $284 million for privatization

projects, and the Senate had approved an authorized level of $390 million. Both

CRS-12

amounts included support for the Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System for highlevel waste. However, DOE cancelled the privatization contract for this project due

to the failure of the contractor to provide a viable cost estimate. Consequently, the

conference committee on H.R. 4205 chose to authorize it under the Defense

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account with traditional funds.

In addition to authorizing funding for the above activities, P.L. 106-398

included several environmental provisions that:

! amended current law to establish a separate environmental restoration account

for Formerly Used Defense Sites to conform with the current budgetary

practice of specifically reserving cleanup funding for such sites in the

authorization and appropriations process;

! designated the environmental restoration accounts as the sole source of

funding for long-term operation and maintenance expenses at all DOD cleanup

sites;

! authorized up to 5% of annual environmental restoration funding through

September 30, 2003, for permanently relocating facilities on current or former

defense sites if cleanup is required due to a release of hazardous substances,

pollutants, or contaminants;

! streamlined DOD’s reporting requirement under the Strategic Environmental

Research and Development Program to include the activities of the Scientific

Advisory Board;

! authorized up to $2 million in settlement for a $16 million notice of violation

issued by EPA on March 5, 1999 for Clean Air Act violations at Fort

Wainwright, Alaska;

! authorized $993,000 for a supplemental environmental project to satisfy fines

imposed by EPA for RCRA violations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center,

Washington, D.C.;

! authorized $377,250 for a supplemental environmental project to satisfy fines

imposed by EPA for RCRA violations at Fort Campbell, Kentucky;

! authorized $20,701 for a supplemental environmental project to satisfy fines

imposed by the State of Georgia for RCRA violations at Fort Gordon,

Georgia;

! authorized $78,500 for a supplemental environmental project to satisfy fines

imposed by the State of Colorado for RCRA violations at Pueblo Chemical

Depot, Colorado;

! authorized $20,000 for a supplemental environmental project to satisfy fines

imposed by the State of Utah for RCRA violations at Desert Chemical Depot,

Utah;

CRS-13

! authorized $7,975 for a cash penalty imposed by the State of Texas for permit

violations under RCRA at Fort Sam Houston, Texas;

! authorized $108,800 for a cash penalty imposed by the State of West Virginia

for RCRA violations at Allegheny Ballistics Laboratory, West Virginia;

! authorized $5,000 for a cash penalty imposed by EPA for Clean Air Act

violations at Naval Air Station, Corpus Christi, Texas;

! authorized $1,650 for a cash penalty imposed by EPA for Clean Air Act

violations at the Marine Corps Combat Development Command, Quantico,

Virginia;

! authorized $98,210 to reimburse EPA for costs incurred in overseeing the

emergency removal of explosives at the former Nansemond Ordnance Depot

in Suffolk, Virginia;

! specified that the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 does not require

a programmatic, nationwide environmental impact statement for low level

flight training as a precondition to the use of any airspace by the military for

such purposes;

! authorized DOD to continue a ship disposal project in FY2001 to scrap

decommissioned Naval vessels and require DOD to submit a report to

Congress on the project by December 31, 2000;

! required that the management and oversight of the Defense Environmental

Security Corporate Information Management Program be consistent with the

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, section 331(a) of the National Defense

Authorization Act for FY1999, DOD directives, and other relevant statutes,

directives, regulations, and management controls that apply to investments in

information technology and related services, and required DOD to submit a

report to Congress within 60 days of enactment on the mission, personnel,

organization, oversight, and activities of the program;

! required the Army to submit a report to Congress by February 1, 2001, on the

future application for both phases of Plasma Energy Pyrolysis System

Technology that would possibly reduce costs of treating and disposing of

hazardous substances and toxic waste; and

! expressed the sense of Congress that every effort should be made to apply all

known public and private sector innovative technologies to restore a former

defense manufacturing site in Santa Clarita, California to productive use.

Appropriations Legislation for FY2001

The second session of the 106th Congress completed consideration of all three

bills that appropriated funding for DOD and DOE’s defense cleanup and

CRS-14

environmental programs in FY2001, and the President signed each bill into law. First,

the Department of Defense Appropriations Act for FY2001 (P.L. 106-259, H.R.

4576) provided funding for cleanup activities at current and former military facilities,

environmental compliance, pollution prevention, environmental technology, and

natural resource conservation. Second, the Military Construction Appropriations Act

for FY2001 (P.L. 106-246, H.R. 4425) provided funding for cleanup activities at base

closure sites. Third, the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for

FY2001 (P.L. 106-377, H.R. 5483) provided funding for DOE’s management of

defense nuclear waste and cleanup of contaminated nuclear weapons sites. Each law

is discussed below.

Department of Defense

The Senate Appropriations Committee reported the Department of Defense

Appropriations Act for FY2001 (S. 2593, S.Rept. 106-298) on May 18, 2000, and

the House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the bill (H.R. 4576,

H.Rept. 106-644) on June 1, 2000. The House passed H.R. 4576 on June 7, 2000.

The Senate inserted the text of S. 2593 into H.R. 4576 as a substituting amendment

and passed its version of H.R. 4576 on June 13, 2000. A House-Senate conference

committee resolved the differences between the two versions of the bill and filed its

report (H.Rept. 106-754) on July 17, 2000. The House passed the conference

agreement on July 19, 2000, and the Senate passed it on July 27, 2000. The President

signed H.R. 4576 into law (P.L. 106-259) on August 9, 2000.

P.L. 106-259 provided approximately $1.31 billion for cleanup at current and

former military facilities, about $10 million more than the FY2000 funding level of

$1.30 billion and approximately $40 million more than the Administration’s request

of $1.27 billion. The increase above the requested amount was devoted to increasing

the pace of cleanup activities at contaminated sites located on former military

facilities. As in past years, the law did not indicate the total amount of funding that

was appropriated for environmental compliance, pollution prevention, environmental

technology, and natural resource conservation, as there are no line item accounts for

these programs like there are for environmental cleanup activities. Rather, DOD will

develop its FY2001 budget for these programs from funds appropriated under the

Operation and Maintenance Accounts specified in the law.

In addition to providing funding for the above activities, P.L. 106-259 allocated

$60 million for the Kaho’olawe Island Conveyance, Remediation, and Environmental

Restoration Trust Fund, $25 million more than the FY2000 funding level of $35

million, and $35 million more than the Administration’s request of $25 million. The

law also included $10 million to assist Native Americans in mitigating the

environmental impacts of military activities on tribal lands, $2 million more than the

FY2000 funding level of $8 million. Additionally, the law contained two of the

Senate’s environmental provisions that:

! allocated $10 million from the Navy’s Operation and Maintenance Account to

accelerate the disposal and scrapping of decommissioned vessels, with the

requirement for the Navy and the Department of Transportation to develop

criteria for selecting ships for disposal or scrapping based on their potential for

CRS-15

causing pollution, creating environmental hazards, and their cost of storage;

and

! limited “indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity” contracts of $130 million or

higher to 35% of total funding obligated for environmental cleanup projects in

FY2001.

However, the law did not include three of the Senate’s other environmental

provisions which would have:

! prohibited the use of funds for the preventative application of “dangerous

pesticides” in areas owned or managed by the Department of Defense that may

be used by children;

! provided $5 million for the Environmental Security Technical Certification

Program for technologies that would be used to detect unexploded ordinance

from live-fire activities; and

! provided $5 million for the Strategic Environmental Research and

Development Program to support technologies that would be used to detect

and transport pollutants resulting from live-fire activities.

Military Construction

The Senate Appropriations Committee filed its report on the Military

Construction Appropriations Act for FY2001 (S. 2521, S.Rept. 106-290) on May 11,

2000, and the House Appropriations Committee filed its report on its version of the

bill (H.R. 4425, H.Rept. 106-614) on May 11, 2000, as well. The House passed H.R.

4425 on May 16, 2000, and the Senate inserted the text of S. 2521 into H.R. 4425 as

a substituting amendment and passed its version of the bill on May 18, 2000. A

House-Senate conference committee filed its report on the bill (H.Rept. 106-710) on

June 29, 2000, and the House passed the measure later that day. The Senate passed

the conference agreement on June 30, 2000. The President signed H.R. 4425 into law

(P.L. 106-246) on July 13, 2000.

P.L. 106-246 appropriated $865.3 million for cleanup at base closure sites, the

same as the Administration requested, but $542.7 million more than the FY2000

funding level of $322.6 million. As discussed on page 5, the Administration requested

a substantial increase in funding to pay for outstanding projects that were approved

in FY2000 but not scheduled to begin until FY2001. Of the total appropriation of

$865.3 million for cleanup projects at base closure sites, $365 million will be used to

finance outstanding projects from FY2000, and the remaining $500.3 million will be

used to finance new projects to be approved in FY2001. The law also transferred

$9.6 million in unexpended FY2000 funds from the Defense-Wide Operation and

Maintenance Account to a special account reserved to fund cleanup activities required

under CERCLA at the Macalloy site in Charleston, South Carolina. Additionally, the

conference committee on H.R. 4425 included report language which directs the Army

to develop and operate a thermochemical conversion pilot plant at Fort Ord in

California for remediating hazardous materials. This process changes asbestos and

other hazardous substances into a non-hazardous mineral. According to the

CRS-16

committee’s report, DOE has demonstrated the effectiveness of the technology, and

EPA has approved it for use as an environmental remediation technique.

Energy and Water Development

On June 23, 2000, the House Appropriations Committee reported the Energy

and Water Development Appropriations Act for FY2001 (H.R. 4733, H.Rept. 106693), and the House passed the bill on June 28, 2000. The Senate Appropriations

Committee reported its version of H.R. 4733 (S.Rept. 106-395) on August 30, 2000,

and the Senate passed the bill on September 7, 2000. A House-Senate conference

committee resolved the differences between the two bills and filed its report (H.Rept.

106-907) on September 27, 2000. The House passed the conference agreement on

H.R. 4733 on September 28, 2000, and the Senate passed it on October 2, 2000. The

President vetoed the bill on October 7, 2000, due to objections over provisions

regarding the Missouri River, the California Bay-Delta Initiative, and earmarked

funding for projects not requested by the Administration. The House passed the bill

again on October 11, 2000, with a 2/3 majority required to overturn the President’s

veto, but the Senate did not vote to do so. A revised conference agreement (H.R.

5483), which did not contain the provisions that the President found objectionable,

was inserted into the conference agreement on the Veterans Affairs, Housing and

Urban Development, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2001

(H.R. 4635, H.Rept. 106-988). The House and Senate passed the conference

agreement on October 19, 2000. The President signed the bill into law (P.L. 106377) on October 27, 2000.

P.L. 106-377 provided a total of $6.12 billion for the three major accounts that

support DOE’s management of defense nuclear waste and cleanup of contaminated

nuclear weapons sites, about $400 million more than the FY2000 funding level of

$5.72 billion, and approximately $30 million less than the Administration’s request of

$6.15 billion. Of the total amount of $6.12 billion that was signed into law, $4.97

billion was allocated to the Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste

Management Account, about $500 million more than the FY2000 funding level of

$4.47 billion, and roughly $420 million more than the Administration’s request of

$4.55 billion. Most of the increase, $377 million, was due to a transfer of funding for

the Hanford Tank Waste Remediation System project from the Defense

Environmental Management Privatization Account to the Defense Environmental

Restoration and Waste Management Account. As discussed earlier on page 12, DOE

canceled the privatization contract for this project due to the failure of the contractor

to provide a viable cost estimate. The project will now be funded under the Defense

Environmental Restoration and Waste Management Account as a cost plus incentive

fee contract.

To continue projects still being performed under privatization contracts, P.L.

106-377 allocated $65 million to the Defense Environmental Management

Privatization Account. The law also rescinded $97 million in funds that were

previously appropriated under the privatization account for the Hanford Tank Waste

Remediation System project. Approximately $1.08 billion was set aside for the

Defense Facilities Closure Projects Account, the same as the Administration

requested, but about $20 million more than the FY2000 funding level of $1.06 billion.

CRS-17

Funding was increased to ensure that the goal of completing cleanup at certain

defense nuclear facilities by 2006 remains on schedule.

Other Relevant Legislation in the 106th Congress

During the 106th Congress, several bills were considered which could have

affected environmental cleanup at military facilities. While this legislation was not

enacted prior to adjournment, similar bills may possibly be introduced in the 107th

Congress. Among the legislation considered, but not enacted, in the 106th Congress,

four Superfund reform bills would have altered the process for selecting cleanup

remedies at National Priorities List (NPL) sites, and any changes would have applied

to all defense sites not on the NPL as well. Another bill would have clarified

requirements for federal compliance with all hazardous waste cleanup laws.

Additional legislation would have authorized further rounds of military base closings

and possibly created the need to accelerate environmental cleanup at such facilities

prior to transferring them to other uses. Each of these bills is discussed below.

Superfund Reform

Among the legislation considered in the 106th Congress to reform the Superfund

program, four bills would have altered the process for selecting cleanup remedies at

NPL sites. However, any changes to this process would also have applied to all

military facilities not on the NPL since DOD is required to comply with CERCLA in

cleaning up all of its hazardous sites. First, Representative Boehlert introduced the

Recycle America’s Land Act of 1999 (H.R. 1300) on March 25, 1999, and the House

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure filed its report on H.R. 1300

(H.Rept. 106-353) on September 30, 1999.23 Second, Representative Greenwood

introduced the Land Recycling Act of 1999 (H.R. 2580) on July 21, 1999, and the

House Committee on Commerce filed its report on the bill (H.Rept. 106-775) on July

20, 2000. Third, the late Senator John H. Chafee introduced the Superfund

Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1999 (S. 1537) on August 5, 1999. Fourth,

Representative Pallone introduced the Children’s Protection and Community Cleanup

Act of 1999 (H.R. 2956) on September 27, 1999.

H.R. 1300, H.R. 2580, and S. 1537 included provisions that would have

amended the remedy selection process at Superfund sites and incorporated some of

EPA’s Superfund administrative reforms intended to increase flexibility in cleaning up

sites and thereby lower cleanup costs. However, H.R. 2956 and certain provisions

in H.R. 1300 could have lead to higher cleanup costs at federal facilities. As

introduced, H.R. 2956 would have required remedial actions to reduce contamination

to background levels to the maximum extent that is technically feasible if cleanup

standards are not clearly protective of children’s health, or the bill would have

required institutional controls at sites where contaminants were not reduced to levels

that allowed unrestricted use. Attempting to reduce contamination to background

levels and adopting a broader use of institutional controls would likely have increased

23

For a summary of the bill, refer to CRS Report RS20321, Superfund Reauthorization: A

Summary of H.R. 1300, as Reported, by Mark Reisch and Mary Tiemann.

CRS-18

remediation expenses significantly. As reported, H.R. 1300 would have granted states

acting under interagency agreements the legal authority to make final determinations

on which cleanup remedies are used at certain sites on defense and other federal

facilities. Cleanup costs at such sites could have risen if states insisted on measures

that were more expensive to implement than those preferred by federal agencies.24

Compliance with Federal, State, and Local Cleanup Laws

To clarify requirements for federal compliance with all federal, state, and local

hazardous waste cleanup laws, Representative DeGette introduced the Federal

Facility Superfund Compliance Act of 1999 (H.R. 617) on February 8, 1999. As

introduced, H.R. 617 specified that DOD and all other federal agencies would have

been subject to penalties, fines, administrative orders, enforcement sanctions,

procedural requirements, inspection and monitoring of facilities, and reviews of plans,

studies, and other documents imposed under any federal, state, or local law that

addressed hazardous waste response and cleanup. The bill also would have waived

any U.S. immunity with respect to state and local cleanup requirements as long as

they were not more stringent than those required under federal law. As introduced,

H.R. 2956 included similar provisions that would have clarified the extent to which

DOD and other federal agencies are subject to all federal, state, and local hazardous

waste cleanup laws.

Military Base Closings

Authorizing additional rounds of military base closings could lead to an increase

in the amount of future funding necessary to accelerate environmental restoration

activities. While Congress has rejected proposals to close additional facilities beyond

those designated in 1995, Senator McCain introduced a bill (S. 258) in the first

session of the 106th Congress on January 20, 1999, which would have authorized new

rounds of base closings in 2001 and 2003. The amount of funding that would have

been necessary to accelerate environmental restoration activities at additional bases

designated for closure would have depended on the type and extent of contamination

present at such facilities. Costs to accelerate cleanup could have been high if the

bases selected for closure contained severely contaminated sites that were on the

National Priorities List under the Superfund program. During floor debate over the

National Defense Authorization Act for FY2001 (H.R. 4205), the Senate rejected an

amendment introduced by Senator McCain which would have authorized additional

rounds of base closures and realignments in 2003 and 2005.

24

For further discussion of this legislation, refer to CRS Issue Brief IB10011, Superfund

Reauthorization Issues in the 106th Congress, by Mark Reisch.

CRS-19

Selected References

Department of Defense. FY1999 Defense Environmental Quality Program Annual

Report to Congress. July 2000.

Department of Defense. FY1999 Defense Environmental Restoration Program

Annual Report to Congress. March 2000.

Department of Energy. Office of Environmental Management. Status Report on

Paths to Closure. DOE/EM-0526. March 2000.

Department of Energy. Office of Environmental Management.

Cleanup: Paths to Closure. DOE/EM-0362. June 1998.

Accelerating

General Accounting Office. Environmental Cleanup: Defense Funding Allocation

Process and Reported Funding Impacts. GAO/NSIAD 99-34. November 1998.

General Accounting Office. Environmental Cleanup: DOD’s Implementation of the

Relative Risk Site Evaluation Process. GAO/NSIAD 99-25. October 1998.

General Accounting Office. Environmental Compliance: Reporting on DOD

Military Construction and Repair Projects Can Be Improved. GAO/NSIAD 9833. December 1997.