Cleanup of U.S. Military Munitions: Authorities, Status, and Costs
Congressional research reportApr 16, 2008
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
ȱ
ȱȱǯǯȱ¢ȱDZȱ
ǰȱǰȱȱȱ
ȱǯȱȱ
ȱȱȱ¢ȱ
ȱŗŜǰȱŘŖŖŞȱ
ȱȱȱ
ŝȬśŝŖŖȱ
ǯǯȱ
ŘŘŞŜŘȱ
ȱȱȱ
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
ȱ
ȱȱǯǯȱ¢ȱDZȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ
¢ȱ
How to address safety, health, and environmental risks from potential exposure to abandoned or
discarded military munitions has been a long-standing issue. There has been particular concern
among the public about such risks at older decommissioned military properties that have been in
civilian use for many years, and at closed military bases still awaiting redevelopment. Many of
these properties contain former training ranges and munitions disposal sites where the extent of
unexploded ordnance (UXO) and related environmental contamination is not fully understood.
The approval of another round of military base closings in 2005 raised additional concerns about
munitions risks on certain bases, and whether cleanup challenges may limit their civilian reuse.
This report discusses the potential hazards of military munitions and related contamination, the
authorities of the Department of Defense (DOD) to address these hazards, the status and costs of
cleanup efforts, and issues for Congress.
ȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱȱǯǯȱ¢ȱDZȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ
ȱ
Potential Safety, Health, and Environmental Risks......................................................................... 1
Statutory Cleanup Authorities ......................................................................................................... 1
Degree of Cleanup Required ........................................................................................................... 2
Status of Cleanup............................................................................................................................. 2
Costs of Cleanup ............................................................................................................................. 3
Munitions in Underwater Areas....................................................................................................... 4
Issues for Congress.......................................................................................................................... 5
ȱ
Table 1. Munitions Site Response Status as of FY2007.................................................................. 3
Table 2. Munitions Site Response Costs ......................................................................................... 4
ȱ
Author Contact Information ............................................................................................................ 6
ȱȱȱ
ȱȱǯǯȱ¢ȱDZȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ
ȱ
ȱ¢ǰȱ ǰȱȱȱȱ
Explosives can remain “live” in munitions and present a safety risk for many years, even decades,
after their military use has ceased, especially if munitions are buried and thereby protected from
degradation. Munitions used in training exercises do not always detonate upon impact and can
burrow beneath the surface where they can remain buried. Munitions that remain on the surface
also can be difficult to locate and recover, especially on ranges with dense vegetation that may
conceal munitions. The disposal of munitions also can present lingering safety risks if munitions
are not properly neutralized and are left intact. Sites where munitions were meant to be destroyed
in bulk by open burning or open detonation in earthen pits frequently contain some live
munitions. In such cases, certain munitions may not detonate and may be buried by the explosive
force of other munitions.
In addition to the more immediate safety risks from explosives, chemical constituents in
munitions can leach into the environment and present potential health risks if a “pathway” of
exposure is present through the air, soil, groundwater, or surface water. Long-term exposure to
contaminants can increase the risks of certain health effects, depending on the nature of a
particular contaminant and the duration and concentration of exposure. For example, perchlorate
is a common substance used in munitions. There has been increasing attention to the potential
health risks of this substance in conjunction with efforts to regulate exposure through drinking
water. (See CRS Report RS21961, Perchlorate Contamination of Drinking Water: Regulatory
Issues and Legislative Actions, by (name redacted).)
¢ȱȱȱ
For many years, DOD addressed potential risks from munitions on former training ranges and
disposal sites without a consolidated effort in place to track progress and costs. In response to
concerns among states, communities, and environmental organizations about the adequacy of
these efforts, Congress included provisions in Sections 311 and 312 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002 (P.L. 107-107),1 requiring DOD to establish a
comprehensive program to identify, investigate, and clean up munitions on former U.S. military
training ranges in the United States, including U.S. territories. These provisions also require the
cleanup of discarded munitions that were not properly disposed of in the United States, and the
cleanup of contaminants leached from munitions into the environment. DOD established a
Military Munitions Response Program within its Defense Environmental Restoration Program to
fulfill these requirements. Section 312 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2003 (P.L. 107-314)2 later required DOD to appoint a single official to manage these efforts.
In accordance with the above authorities, the Military Munitions Response Program addresses the
cleanup of former training ranges and munitions disposal sites on both active and closed military
installations in the United States. The cleanup of operational training ranges is administered
separately as an operation and maintenance activity on an installation-by-installation basis.
Relatively little cleanup is performed on operational ranges as long as they remain operational.
DOD generally clears munitions from its operational ranges to the extent necessary for the safety
1
2
10 U.S.C. 2710 and 10 U.S.C. 2703(b), respectively.
10 U.S.C. 2701(k).
ȱȱȱ
ŗȱ
ȱ
ȱȱǯǯȱ¢ȱDZȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ
of military personnel to gain access to those lands for training. Once munitions are removed from
an operational range, they are subject to federal regulations that govern their disposal.3 More
extensive cleanup of operational ranges can be required if contaminants leached from munitions
migrate off-site and present potential risks to adjacent populations.
The authorities for the Military Munitions Response Program also do not extend to training
ranges at U.S. military installations located in other nations. The Status of Forces Agreement
between the U.S. government and the government of each nation in which U.S. forces are
stationed (i.e., the host nation) generally governs the cleanup of munitions and other hazardous
contamination. Under these agreements, the extent to which the U.S. government is held
responsible for cleanup at U.S. military installations abroad can vary widely from one nation to
another.
ȱȱȱȱ
Although the above laws authorized the investigation and cleanup of former military training
ranges and munitions disposal sites in the United States, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, commonly referred to as Superfund)4
generally governs the degree of cleanup at individual sites, and how cleanup is accomplished.
CERCLA also specifies that requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act5 must be met, which
generally applies to disposal facilities operated with permits issued under that latter statute. These
laws generally require cleanup decisions to be based on potential risks, and allow multiple types
of actions to address those risks, rather than one approach. The Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the states are responsible for overseeing DOD’s efforts to clean up munitions and
related contamination to ensure that applicable requirements of the above statutes are met.
The degree of cleanup required can vary considerably from site to site, depending on the
pathways of exposure that would result from the current or anticipated land use, and the means to
prevent exposure. For example, munitions may be cleared to a certain depth beneath the surface
at some sites, whereas surface clearance only may be performed at others. Regardless of the depth
of clearance, removal of a munition often is accomplished not by transporting it from the site, but
by detonating it in place, referred to as “Blow in Place” (BIP). Because of the sensitivity of
munitions to disturbance, detonation in place often is a safer way to eliminate the explosive risk,
rather than unearthing a munition and transporting it elsewhere for disposal. In some cases,
restrictions on public access are used to manage potential risks, allowing munitions to be left in
place. For example, access restrictions are used at many sites where clearing vegetation to locate
munitions would destroy wildlife habitat or plant species protected by federal or state law.
ȱȱȱ
As indicated in Table 1, DOD had identified 3,537 sites as of the end of FY2007 on former
training ranges and munitions disposal sites in the United States that warranted investigation to
3
40 C.F.R. Part 266, Subpart M, Military Munitions Rule.
42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.
5
42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
4
ȱȱȱ
Řȱ
ȱȱǯǯȱ¢ȱDZȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ
ȱ
determine whether munitions and related contamination were present. Nearly half of these
potentially contaminated lands are located on Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS),
decommissioned before the first consolidated Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round in
1988. Many of the FUDS sites are from the World War II era and earlier. Installations closed
under the BRAC rounds contained the least number of sites. Most of the other sites are located on
active military installations.
In October 2005, DOD promulgated regulations for prioritizing response actions among
munitions sites, based primarily on potential risks.6 Numerous factors determine the degree of
risks at an individual site, such as the type of munitions present, whether munitions are located at
or below the surface, the accessibility of a site, the proximity of munitions to populated areas,
human health and environmental risks from potential exposure to munitions contaminants, and
whether cultural or ecological resources are present. Of the sites identified so far, planned
response actions were complete at 920 sites as of the end of FY2007. DOD deemed that response
actions likely would not be needed at 470 sites because munitions were not known or suspected to
be present, or potential risks were thought to be low enough not to warrant a response. Response
actions were under way or planned at 1,113 sites. DOD had not completed or begun its evaluation
of potential risks at 1,034 sites. Therefore, much remained uncertain about potential risks at those
locations and the actions and funding needed to address those risks.
Table 1. Munitions Site Response Status as of FY2007
Type of
Installation
Active
BRAC
FUDS
All Installations
Response
Complete
No Response
Necessary
Evaluation
Pending
Response
Planned or
Under Way
Total Sites
337
180
403
136
11
323
700
125
209
377
21
715
1,550
337
1,650
920
470
1,034
1,113
3,537
Prepared by CRS using information from the Department of Defense, Defense Environmental Programs
Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report to Congress, March 2008, Appendix O, p. O-2-1.
Source:
ȱȱȱ
Funding for the Military Munitions Response Program comes out of multiple defense
appropriations accounts. Which account funds a particular site depends on whether the
installation is active or closed, and which military branch has jurisdiction over the site. There are
five Defense Environmental Restoration Accounts. Three of these accounts are reserved mainly
for active installations of the Army, Navy, and Air Force. A fourth account is reserved for
defense-wide sites administered primarily by the Defense Logistics Agency. A fifth account is
dedicated to FUDS sites, administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. Two BRAC accounts
currently fund cleanup at bases closed under each BRAC round. All of these accounts also fund
the cleanup of other hazards at non-munitions sites. DOD is responsible for prioritizing and
6
32 C.F.R. Part 179.
ȱȱȱ
řȱ
ȱȱǯǯȱ¢ȱDZȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ
ȱ
allocating monies appropriated to each account to meet competing cleanup needs among
contaminated sites.
As indicated in Table 2, the amount DOD spent from the above accounts as of the end of FY2007
for the cleanup of munitions was 6% of the total costs that DOD estimated would be needed to
complete cleanup at all sites it had identified at that time. The table shows amounts spent on the
cleanup of munitions back to FY1997. Prior to that time, the costs to clean up munition sites were
not broken out from the costs to clean up other hazards at non-munitions sites. The lack of a
breakout of costs for each type of site prior to FY1997 makes it difficult to determine the total
funds DOD has expended on munitions cleanup historically.
DOD spent a total of $1.24 billion from FY1997 through FY2007 on the cleanup of munitions
and related contamination at former training ranges and munitions disposal sites it had identified.
DOD estimated that another $19.23 billion would be needed from FY2008 into the future to
complete outstanding cleanup actions planned at that time. Cleanup at FUDS sites accounts for
68% of the estimated future costs. Cleanup at active installations accounts for 27% of the
estimated future costs. Although BRAC sites account for only 5% of the estimated future costs,
communities seeking redevelopment of these properties have emphasized the importance of
funding needs at these sites to make them safe for civilian reuse. (See CRS Report RS22065,
Military Base Closures: Cleanup of Contaminated Properties for Civilian Reuse, by (name red
acted).)
Table 2. Munitions Site Response Costs
Type of Installation
Active
BRAC
FUDS
Costs Incurred
FY1997—FY2007
Estimated Costs
FY2008 to Completion
Total Costs
$209,429,000
$326,930,000
$708,549,000
$5,255,062,000
$947,306,000
$13,022,981,000
$5,464,491,000
$1,274,236,000
$13,731,530,000
All Installations
$1,244,908,000
$19,225,349,000
$20,470,257,000
Source: Prepared by CRS using information from the Department of Defense, Defense Environmental Programs
Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report to Congress, March 2008, Appendix O, p. O-2-1.
Note: Dollar amounts reflect cumulative costs of the cleanup process at individual munitions sites administered
under the Military Munitions Response Program. Although these amounts represent the bulk of the costs, they
do not reflect the costs of certain activities at the program level, such as management and support costs, and
activities that may apply to multiple installations. Including these additional activities, the Department of Defense
Fiscal Year 2007 Agency Financial Report estimated total future costs of $20.9 billion for the Military Munitions
Response Program from FY2008 through site completion. This report did not indicate the total past costs of all
related program activities for comparison.
ȱȱ ȱȱ
The above site status and costs focus on the cleanup of former training ranges and munitions
disposal sites on land. Munitions also are known or suspected to be present in underwater areas
adjacent to some training ranges. In some cases, obsolete or damaged munitions were dumped
offshore. Submerged munitions generally have received less attention than munitions on land
because of the perceived lower risks of human exposure. Locating and removing munitions
underwater also presents greater challenges, making it a more difficult and costlier undertaking
ȱȱȱ
Śȱ
ȱȱǯǯȱ¢ȱDZȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ
ȱ
than cleanup on land. Challenges arising from the cleanup of munitions can be multiplied several
times when munitions are found underwater. In some cases, removing munitions from underwater
areas could present greater risks than leaving the munitions in place and warning individuals to
avoid them.
Although the cleanup of munitions in underwater areas has received less attention, there has been
rising concern about potential risks, especially in coastal areas where DOD disposed of surplus or
damaged munitions. The U.S. Armed Forces disposed of many of these weapons during the
World War II era. In response to requirements in Section 314 of the John Warner National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (P.L. 109-364), DOD has released more recent
information on the past disposal of chemical weapons off U.S. shores.7 Congress also has funded
a pilot program to identify chemical weapons at known disposal sites off the coast of Hawaii.
While concern about potential risks has heightened, locating the weapons at these and other sites
would be challenging. The exact coordinates of offshore disposal sites are uncertain, and ocean
currents could have moved the weapons over time. If found, removing the weapons could present
other obstacles.
ȱȱȱ
Members of Congress, states, communities, and environmental organizations have expressed
concern about the adequacy and pace of the cleanup of munitions and related contamination at the
current inventory of sites, and have questioned whether munitions may be present at other sites
not yet identified. The capability of current technologies to locate and neutralize munitions
efficiently and effectively also has been an issue. The cleanup of FUDS sites has caused the
greatest concern among the public. Many of these properties ceased to be used for military
purposes decades ago and have been put to a variety of civilian uses, including residential use in
some cases. Potential risks on these lands have motivated desires for greater funding to speed the
pace of cleanup. The challenge of cleaning up munitions on closed bases awaiting reuse has
motivated interest in greater funding to speed the pace of economic redevelopment to replace lost
jobs. There has been less concern among the public about munitions sites on active installations,
primarily because these sites pose little, if any, immediate safety risks to the general civilian
population. However, some communities adjacent to active installations have expressed concern
about health risks from potential exposure to munitions contaminants that may migrate off-site
through groundwater.
Some also have questioned whether DOD’s estimates of future costs reflect actual funding needs.
Uncertainties about the degree of cleanup that will be required at many sites make it challenging
to accurately estimate the outstanding costs to complete cleanup. DOD estimates cleanup costs
based on its current knowledge of individual site conditions, and its assumptions about the
response actions that will be required to close out these sites. DOD revises its cost estimates as
more is learned about the type and extent of contamination present at each location, and the
actions that federal and state regulators will require to address potential risks. In effect, these
estimates are “moving targets” that change as more information becomes available to project the
costs of future actions.
7
Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2007 Annual Report to Congress. March 2008.
Appendix S, Sea Disposal of Military Munitions, pp. S-1—S-15.
ȱȱȱ
śȱ
ȱ
ȱȱǯǯȱ¢ȱDZȱǰȱǰȱȱȱ
Considering that many sites are not evaluated and that additional sites could be identified in the
future, DOD’s most recent assumptions of the resources that may be necessary to address cleanup
challenges could differ from what may be required. Actual costs could be higher than estimated,
if more munitions and contamination are discovered than expected, and more extensive cleanup is
needed than anticipated. New or more stringent cleanup standards also could cause costs to rise.
Whether more attention is given to munitions in underwater areas is another factor that could
contribute to the possible need for greater resources to meet cleanup needs. On the other hand, the
development of more cost-effective technologies to locate and neutralize munitions, and clean up
related contamination, could help to control costs. The effect of inflation over time also could
cause actual costs to differ from current estimates.
In carrying out its statutory authorities, DOD continues to work with federal and state regulators
to determine the degree of cleanup that is warranted to protect human safety, health, and the
environment. As this process unfolds, more information will become available to assess the
resources needed to address potential risks, both in terms of appropriations by Congress and the
capabilities of munitions cleanup technologies.
ȱȱ ȱ
(name redacted)
Specialist in Environmental Policy
-redacted-@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
ȱȱȱ
Ŝȱ
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.