Environmental Concerns at US Overseas Military Installations

7/28/2019 Environmental Concerns at US Overseas Military Installations

1/66

DACS Working PaperJuly 1992

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNSAT U.S. OVERSEAS

MILITARY INSTALLATIONSSharon K. Weiner

DEFENSE AND ARMS CONTROL STUDIES PROGRAM

Center for International StudiesMassachusetts Institute of Technology292 Main Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139


2/66


3/66

DACS Working PaperJuly 1992

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNSAT U.S. OVERSEASMILITARY INSTALLATIONSSharon K. Weiner

The Defense and Arms Control Studies program is a graduatelevel, research and training program based at the MIT Centerfor International Studies. It is supported by grants fromthe Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Ford Foundation,the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and theDACS Corporate Consortium.


4/66


5/66

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGYDEFENSE AND ARMS CONTROL STUDIES PROGRAM

Working Paper

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AT U.S. OVERSEAS MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

JULY 1992

Sharon K. WeinerPh.D. CandidateDepartment of Political ScienceMassachusetts Institute of Technology

#92-2


6/66


7/66


8/66


9/66

ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AT U.S. OVERSEAS MILITARY INSTALLATIONS1

As the environment vies with other issues for priority onthe political agenda, increasing attention is being paid to theimpact of the military on its surroundings. Further, as the needfor a large standing military ceases to be a foregone conclusion,society is unlikely to dismiss certain environmental problems asconsequences of a quest for national security.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate the extend ofenvironmental damage at U.S. overseas military installations.2Whereas considerable government, public and academic attentionhas been paid to environmental problems at military installationswithin the United States, 3 those overseas are often neglected.When environmental problems at overseas installations areaddressed, the extent of the problem is often extrapolated from

'I would like to thank the individuals within the Departmentof Defense, U.S. House of Representatives, General AccountingOffice, and Environmental Protection Agency that I interviewed.They were, without exception, extremely helpful. I would alsolike to thank Professor Nazli Choucri for suggesting this topicto me and for providing valuable comments. -2This paper confines itself to a consideration ofconventional forces and excludes nuclear and chemical weapons andenvironmental issues relating to their production, testing anddestruction. For information on these problems, see Clarfield,Gerard and William Wiecek. Nuclear America: Military andCivilian Nuclear Power in the United States. 1940-1980. New

York: Harper and Row, 1984; and Divine, Robert A. Blowing on theWind: The Nuclear Test Ban Debate, 1954-1960. New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1978.3For example, Seigel, Lenny. The U.S. Military's ToxicLegacy. Boston: National Toxic Campaign Fund; Schneider,Keith. "Military Has New Strategic Goal in Cleanup of Vast ToxicWaste." New York Times. August, 5, 1991, p. Al; and, Shulman,Seth. The Threat at Home: Confronting the Toxic Legacy of theU.S. Military. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.


10/66

that within the United States. There has been, however, nocomprehensive analysis of the environmental legacy left by U.S.forces abroad.

I believe that it is misleading to predict the magnitude andscope of the military's overseas environmental problems basedupon those discovered here at home. To validate this statement,I use this paper to investigate three areas. First I look at thescope, nature, and magnitude of DOD's overseas activities. Theseare referenced against domestic problems and a functional matrixis developed that generalizes the types of environmentalconsequences that might result from military activities conductedoverseas. Second, I categorize various types of environmentallaw and compare U.S. laws and regulations with those that applyto U.S. military installations overseas. The resulting ambiguityis addressed in the third section of this paper. Here DOD policyis analyzed to determine why different installations functionunder different environmental laws and how recent DOD initiativeswill address this problem. In addition to formal policy, thissection also discusses organizational, oversight, and fundingstructures which may impact environmental concerns.

Based upon the above constructions I believe that, althoughno comprehensive study has been conducted of DOD overseasenvironmental problems, it is likely that they are ofsignificantly smaller magnitude and scope than those in theUnited States. Regardless of the extent of theseenvironmental problems, however, it is doubtful that they will be

2


11/66

addressed in a comprehensive manner because foreign nationscurrently have few incentives to pursue sensitive environmentalissues with the United States and have little in the way ofstatutory vehicles for pressing these claims. This situation maychange in the future depending upon the status accordedenvironmental issues. Finally, inadequate and slow policyguidance from DOD and various organizational disincentives havecomplicated consideration of the U.S. military's overseasenvironmental problems.DOD'8 ENVIRONMENTAL DILEMMAS AT HOME AND ABROAD

At the beginning of the 1990s DOD employed approximately5,000,000 people in both military and civilian capacities,operated over 3,500 installations in the United States and 1,200overseas, owned 27 million acres of land, and purchased about 200million barrels of fuel oil every year.4 The U.S. military is avast enterprise whose mission requires it to operate industrialfacilities, depots, maintenance and repair facilities, ammunitionproduction plants and testing ranges, weapons basing facilities,and military installations that are really small cities --complete with hospitals, sewage treatment plants, shopping malls,schools, family housing and administrative facilities.

4Data sources: Department of Defense. DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Program: Annual Report to Congress forFiscal Year 1991. February 1992, pp. 5-7; House Armed ServicesCommittee. Overview of DOD Environmental Activities. Hearingsbefore the Environmental Restoration Panel of the Committee onArmed Services, U.S. House of Representatives. 101st Congress,1st Session. HASC No. 101-27, p. 14; and, Shulman, Seth. TheThreat at Home: Confronting the Toxic Legacy of the U.S.Military. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992, p. 23.

3


12/66

These activities also produce by-products and hazardouswastes that are harmful to the environment. Some of theseproblems -- such as air pollution, medical waste, and sewage --are typical of any city. Others -- such as unexploded munitions,toxic cleaning agents, radioactive materials, and other thingsneeded to fuel, clean, repair, and operate tanks, planes, shipsand missiles -- are generally unique to the military. Because ofits size and the scope of its activities, the military generatesenormous amounts of hazardous waste, producing nearly a ton ofpollutants every minute.5

Indeed, DOD is the largest producer of hazardous waste inthe United States and almost every military installation isresponsible for some type of environmental contamination.6Rather than illegal practices, the vast majority of this wasteresults from day-to-day operations and activities. For example,

5Shulman, Seth. "Toxic Travels: Inside the Military'sEnvironmental Nightmare." Nuclear Times. Autumn, 1990, p. 20.

6 Several phrases and words with subtle differences inmeaning will be used repeatedly in this paper. Thus, somedefinitions are in order. This paper will use the GeneralAccounting Office's definition of "hazardous waste" to refer to"any expended material that is ignitable, corrosive, reactive,and/or toxic," plus petroleum, oil, lubricants, andpolychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). For a more detailedexplanation of this definition, see General Accounting Office.Hazardous Waste: Management Problems Continue at OverseasMilitary Bases. August 1991. GAO/NSIAD 91-231, p. 10."Contaminant" will be used to designate a broader category ofmaterials, that include hazardous wastes, which pollute or leavethe environment impure if disposed of improperly. Finally,"installation" will be used to denote any facility of physicaloperation used by the military in the pursuit of its mission.This definition is purposefully broad so as to include everythingfrom large bases and ports to radar relay stations andadministrative facilities.

4


13/66

the solvents used to clean aircraft generally containtrichloroethylene (TCE), a hazardous material that is a volatileorganic compound; that is, it turns readily into a gaseous form.Cleaning one aircraft requires the use of TCE and the U.S. AirForce operates over 2,500 fighter and attack aircraft.7

DOD's environmental problems in the United States are welldocumented. In addition to numerous private articles and books,the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Environmentauthors an annual report to Congress on the Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Program (DERP). DERP is DOD's vehicle foridentifying and cleaning up environmental poblems at U.S.installations . Table 1 summarizes some of the environmentalproblems addressed in the DERP for fiscal year 1991.

During fiscal year 1991, 253 remedial actions wereundertaken to correct specified environmental problems at DOD'sdomestic installations. Table 2 summarizes these measuresaccording to type of activity.

7Not to mention 33 conventional bombers, over 800 airliftaircraft, and over 1300 attack and fighter aircraft used by Navyand Marine Corps active and reserve forces. For total numbers ofthese and other general purpose forces, see Department ofDefense. Annual Report to the President and Congress. Office ofthe Secretary of Defense. Washington, DC.sThe second and third sections of this paper explain theDERP in greater detail.

5


14/66

TABLE 1DOMESTIC MILITARY SITES REQUIRING SOMETYPE OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION

Army Navy Air Force DLA 1 TotalTotal Number of Sites 10578 2409 4354 319 17660Number of Active Sites 5524 1688 3520 192 10924Number of Sites RequiringNo Further Action 5054 721 834 127 6736NPL Sites2 36 26 32 4 981DLA is the Defense Logistics Agency, a support agency within DOD.2NP L sites are locations on the National Priorities List. This list contains sites in the United States with theworst environmental problems. Section two of this paper contains a more detailed discussion of theregulations governing NPL sites.Source: Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Restoration Program: Annual Report toCongress for Fiscal Year 1991. February 1992, p. 6, B-2 - B-7.

TABLE 2REMEDIAL ACTIVITIES INITIATED IN FISCAL YEAR 1991

Type of Activity Number of Activities Number of Activitiesat Restoration Sites at NPL Military SitesAlternate Water

Supply/Treatment 12 33Incineration 2 7Site Treatment/

Remediation 85 101Decontamination 3 23Waste Removal 116 121Ground Water

Treatment 35 63Total 253 348Source: Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Restoration Program: Annual Report toCongress for Fiscal Year 1991. February 1992, pp. 8, A-7.

6


15/66

DOD estimates the total cost of cleaning up all currentlyidentified sites in the United States to be $24.5 billion (FY1991 dollars).9 Table 3 charts the growth in funding for DOD'sInstallation Restoration Program.

TABLE 3INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM FUNDING

(in millions of current dollars)Fiscal Year Amount1984 $ 861985 $ 1811986 $ 2481987 $ 3361988 $ 3781989 $ 4691990 $ 5791991 $10041992 $1184

Source: Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Restoration Program: Annual Report toCongress for Fiscal Year 1991. February 1992, p. 27.

DERP data pertains to U.S. installations only, however. Nosimilarly comprehensive source of data exists for U.S. militaryinstallations overseas. As of March 1990, DOD had yet to conductan overall assessment of its overseas environmental problems andcould identify neither the number of sites needing cleanup northe estimated cost of that cleanup. 10

9DERP, p. 27.10House Armed Services Committee. Overseas DODEnvironmental Activities. Hearing before the EnvironmentalRestoration Panel of the Committee on Armed Services. U.S. Houseof Representatives. 101st Congress, 2d Session. HASC No. 101-70, p. 33.

7


16/66

While it is tempting to fill this void by generalizing fromthe scope and magnitude of domestic problems to possible problemsat overseas installations, such an extrapolation is misleading.Three factors unique to DOD's operations overseas serve toreinforce the need for a more discriminating basis to generalizefrom.

First, the majority of DOD's domestic environmental problemscan be attributed to industrial activity. 11 The design,manufacturing, and testing of weapons systems produces suchcontaminants as heavy metals, volatile organic compounds, andpolychlorinated biphenyl (PCBs), among others. At overseasinstallations that engage in analogous industrial-typeactivities, similar environmental problems have been discovered.However, most overseas installations are small administrative andsupport facilities or maintenance facilities. There is only onemajor industrial-type facility in Europe (Mainz Army Depot) andnone of comparable size in the Pacific.

Dr. Mike West of the House Armed Services Committee'sEnvironmental Restoration Panel estimates that, rather thanindustry-generated contaminants, 75% of overseas problems comefrom petroleum, oils, and lubricants (POLs). Most of the restare solvents and contaminants that result from maintenance

11The House Armed Service Committee's EnvironmentalRestoration Panel estimates that 80% of U.S. hazardous waste andserious cleanup problems are caused by industrial activities.See House Armed Services Committee. Report of the Delegation toEurope of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House ofRepresentatives. 102d Congress, 2d Session. Committee Print No.9, p. 4.

8


17/66

activities. 12 These problems require relatively straightforwardcleanup with processes and technologies that are known and havebeen used previously.13

Second, DOD has identified far fewer environmental problemsoverseas and host nations have, so far, been willing to acceptU.S. estimates. In Germany, the host nation with the moststringent environmental regulations, the Ministry ofEnvironmental Affairs has not seriously questioned U.S.assessments and does not foresee major cleanup problems. 14 Thatsaid, more U.S. overseas military installations have been locatedin Germany than any other single country and a more extensivesearch for environmental problems has been undertaken there. Aswill be discussed in Section 2 of this paper, however, it isunlikely that a host nation will seriously question U.S.estimates given the nature of the U.S.-host relationship overmilitary facilities and the structure of agreements governingtheir functioning.

Third, not all environmental problems at installationscurrently being used by the United States can be attributed tothe forces stationed there. 15 In some cases, facilities werepreviously utilized by the host country or another country and it

12West, Mike. Professional Staff Member, EnvironmentalRestoration Panel of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Houseof Representatives. Interview on April 7, 1992. Washington, DC.

13HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 31.14HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 31.15HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 31.

9


18/66

is difficult to prove responsibility for some forms ofcontamination. For example, in Germany an Army depot was accusedof causing POL contamination in the ground. Though the base wasresponsible for some of the pollution, it became obvious thatother actors were as well. First of all, the same facility hadbeen utilized by the Germans during both World Wars. Inaddition, the contaminant in question -- a type of heating fuel -- was no longer available on the German or U.S. market. Finally,the United States has been adding red dye to its heating fuel forover 15 years and no red dye was detected at the contaminationsite. 16

DOD maintains that its overseas environmental problems arecase-specific. In testimony before congress, it has identifiedthe following problems and priorities.

With respect to Europe, the Army is the service with themost problems by virtue of its larger role in Europe in general,and in Germany in particular. Of 153,000 military personnel and400 installations, 90% of this is located in Germany." TheArmy's number one concern, Mainz Army Depot, is also locatedthere. The Mainz base is a heavy track vehicle facility thatmaintains combat vehicles, major assemblies, missile groundsupport items, and tires and rubber products. There issignificant soil and groundwater contamination from chlorinated

16HASC, Committee Print No. 9, pp. 38-39.I7HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 17.

10


19/66

hydrocarbons (CHCs) with $30 million already being spent oncleanup. 18

Outside of Mainz, the Army believes that most of itsproblems in Europe are due to hazardous waste; specifically,CHCs, POLs, and solvents.19 Besides hazardous waste, the Armyhas identified air pollution problems arising fromchlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), asbestos and radon in buildings,fixed facility and mobile source compliance and emissionstandards, and the need to convert coal-fired heating plants. Inaddition, vehicles need to be converted to unleaded gasoline.Water quality problems are being addressed with updated sewersystems and on-going programs to upgrade or install waste oilcollection tanks and separators. Groundwater contaminationappears to be particularly acute at Mannheim and Rhine Mien AirBases in Germany. 0 Noise pollution has resulted from aircraftand artillery firing operations. For none of these problems havethe precise magnitude and scope been documented in testimony,however.

In the Pacific, the Army's largest generator of hazardouswaste is the maintenance facility known as Camp Carroll, Korea.PCBs have been found at numerous sites in Jpan, including CampZama, Sagami General Depot, Kawakami Ammunition Depot and AkizukiAmmunition Depot. The Army has also contaminated Japanese

18HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 33.19HASC No. 101-70, p. 76.20HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 17.

11


20/66

groundwater at these installations with trichloroethylene(TCE).21 The Air Force also has PCB cleanup. problems at severalinstallations in the Pacific including Yokota and Misawa AirForce Bases in Japan and Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa.

The situation for the Air Force in Europe is slightlydifferent from that of the Army. On one hand, size is adetermining factor. The Air Force has 63,000 military personnelin Europe with 75% of that being in Germany and the UnitedKingdom. While the Army has 400 installations, the Air Force hasonly 16 major air bases. Air Force bases in the UK are alsostructurally different. All USAF installations there are RoyalAir Force bases and their environmental concerns are dealt withby the UK Ministry of Defense. 22 Predominant Air Force concernsin Europe include hazardous waste cleanup from jet fuel storagefacilities and other fuel and chemical tanks and aircraft noiselevels.

Even fewer are Navy and Marine Corps military personnel inEurope. While they number 33,000, almost half of these areafloat. Shore facilities tend to be small or administrativeexcept for the industrial operations at Rota, Spain and at Gaeta,La Maddelena, Naples, and Sigonella in Italy. Most of the Navy's

21House Armed Services Committee. Department of DefenseEnvironmental Programs. Hearings before the ReadinessSubcommittee and the Environmental Restoration Panel and the DOEDefense Nuclear Facilities Panel of the Commiittee on ArmedServices, U.S. House of Representatives, 102d Congress, 1stSession. HASC No. 102-18, p. 69-80.22HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 21.

12


21/66

environmental problems are associated with forces afloat.Shipboard operations and industrial support activities producehazardous wastes, solid waste, sewage and medical waste that mustbe contained onboard while the ship is at sea, safely transferredto other support vessels or to port facilities, and then disposedof either in the host country or retrograded to the UnitedStates.2

In the Pacific, Naval and Marine operations tend to be muchlarger and more industrial. The Navy has identified significanthazardous waste problems at Yokosuka Naval Base, Sasebo NavalBase, and Atsugi Naval Air Station in Japan with Yokosukabelieved to be the most serious problem.24 The Navy also admitsto dumping untreated water and sewage at Subic Bay Naval Base inthe Philippines, though no analysis of the scope of the problemhas been undertaken. 25

Even though these sites are identified as having significantproblems, public testimony by the services only generallyoutlines these concerns. Comments on neither specific types ofcontamination nor the extent of the problem are available.

Given the lack of comprehensive assessment by DOD and themisleading nature of generalizing from problems at domesticinstallations to those overseas, it is difficult to speculateabout the extent of the U.S. military's overseas environmental

23HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 23.24HASC No. 102-18, p. 106.25HASC No. 102-18, p. 70.

13


22/66

problems. Rather than relying solely on a case-by-case approach,Table 4 offers an alternative based upon functionaldifferentiation between types of activities performed atdifferent installations. While this table cannot account forvariations in environmental accountability, quality and quantityof relevant personnel, or problems for which the United States isnot responsible, it does provide clues to the potentialenvironmental problems that are associated with differentinstallation functions. To repeat, this table does not implythat all problems are present at all facilities; rather, itsuggests that the inputs used and operations conducted do resultin certain byproducts that are harmful to the environment if notdisposed of correctly.

TABLE 4FUNCTIONAL TYPOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

FUNCTION

Housing

AircraftMaintenanceand Operations

TYPES OF INSTALLATIONS

bases, communities,forts

naval air stations,air bases, forts

ASSOCIATED ENVIRONMENTALIMPACTordinary garbage, medicalwaste, sewage, asbestos,radon, problems associatedwith most large citiesaviation fuel (containstetraethylene and lead), TCE(used to de-ice and cleanplanes), POLs, solvents,excessive noise, CHCs,halons, nitrogen oxides,leaking underground storagetanks

14


23/66

FUNCTIONAL TYPOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (continued)Ship shiMaintenance navand Operations

Ground camForcesTrainingFacilities

Munitions ammTesting and ars,Production gro-

Industrial depActivities: ownProduction, ope,Repair, (GO,Overhaul, andRebuild Components

pyards, naval bases,al stations

ps, forts

unition depots,enals, provingunds

ots, governmented/contractorrated facilitiesCOs)

toxic residue from paints,paint strippers, fuel,solvents, waste oils,grease, PCBs, POLs, sewage,solid waste, CHCs, halons,leaking underground storagetankschemicals and oils used tofight fires, routinedumping of petroleumproducts, pesticides,herbicides, solvents,.PCBs,CFCs, CHCs, soil erosion,halons, nitrogen oxidesRDX (hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1, 3, 5-triazine),TNT, nerve gas, unexplodedmunitions, zinc, lead,mercury, chromium, sulfatesand phosphates,dinitrotoluene (DNT) DS2 (acombination ofdiethylenetriamime andethylene glycol momenthyl -used by the Army todecontaminate things exposedto chemical weapons),excessive noise, nitrogenoxides, arsenicheavy metals, waste oils,acids, cyanide, solvents,CHCs, wastes fromelectroplating, POLs, CFCs,PCBs, methyl ethyl ketone,perchloroethylenes andtrichloroethanes, chromicacid

Sources: Broder, John M. "U.S. Military Leaves Toxic Train Overseas." Los Angeles Times. June 18, 1990,p. 1;Department of Defense. Defense Environmental Restoration Program: Annual Report to Congress for Fiscalyear 1991. February 1992; the following reports by the General Accounting Office: GAO/NSIAD 86-24,GAO/NSIAD 87-88br, GAO/NSIAD 88-4; the following reports and prints by the House Armed ServicesCommittee: HASC No. 101-27, HASC Committee Print 9, HASC No. 102-18; Pringle, William J. B.Commander's Guide to Environmental Management. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency, July1991, CETHA-EC-TR-91036; Shulman, Seth. The Threat at Home: Confronting the Toxic Legacy of the U.S.Military. Boston: Beacon Press, 1992.

15


24/66

To summarize, there is a void in both DOD's and the public'sknowledge of the environmental problems for which the U.S.military is responsible at its overseas installations. While themilitary services have identified some concerns, it isinappropriate to assume, based upon the extent of DOD'senvironmental problems at domestic installations, that this ismerely the tip of an iceberg. The majority of domestic problemshave been caused by industrial-type facilities whereas mostoverseas installations perform support and administrativefunctions. It is more appropriate to estimate an installation'slikely environmental legacy by looking at its function and thetypical contaminants that result. Table 4 is a tool for suchcomparison. That said, Table 4 does not address the degree towhich an installation has properly disposed of its contaminants.Therefore, just as it is misleading to assume that the UnitedStates has created vast environmental problems overseas, it isalso misleading to assume that the problems which exist areminor. Significant environmental problems do exist at overseasmilitary installations. These problems will require millions ofdollars to cleanup. However, they are unlikely to rival thescope and magnitude of problems within the continental UnitedStates. 6

26 Given the tremendous variance in contamination that canresult from the negligence of a small group of individuals,differing geographic conditions (such as highly-permeablegroundwater supplies versus more isolated ones), and othervariables, it is also possible that extreme environmentalcontamination exists which has yet to be discovered. This papermerely states that, given the evidence, such problems are

16


25/66

ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND OVERSEAS MILITARY INSTALLATIONS

To a certain degree, environmental problems must be definedin the context of applicable statutes and regulations. Suchrules define the range and nature of liability; they determinewhat environmental standards DOD is held accountable to and,therefore, what constitutes a violation or "environmentalproblem" and the remedial actions that are required. That said,determining what laws an overseas installations is governed by isno small task. Laws vary between host nations, between theUnited States and other countries, and within the United Statesitself. It is the task of this section to identify differencesbetween the environmental laws of countries where the UnitedStates has military installations, between those laws and U.S.laws, and between U.S. laws that apply to DOD and those that donot.

Because environmental rules and regulations differ betweenlocations, are at times contradictory, and are non-existent atsome sites, determining exactly what DOD is accountable to isproblematic. 27 When combined with other variables, thisambiguity creates certain disincentives for a host nation topress the United States on environmental issues. Further, thequestion arises of whether liability for environmental problems

unlikely.27Section 3 will address the question of how DOD hasprioritized, understood, and applied the various environmentallaws presented in this section to its overseas militaryinstallations.

17


26/66

is prescribed by laws alone or by the larget notion of globalcommons and the idea that one should "know better" than topollute. A corollary query is whether liability forenvironmental concerns is static or dynamic; that is, withrespect to DOD, will it be held accountable for today's problemsunder today's interpretation of the rules, or will the definitionof liability change in the future as nations become more aware ofthe costs associated with environmental problems. Beforeundertaking this discussion, however, it is necessary to unraveland categorize various levels of environmental rules andregulations.

Perhaps the easiest place to start is with U.S.environmental laws. Over the last twenty years, U.S.environmental legislation has grown exponentially. For thepurposes of this paper, the key statutes are the NationalEnvironmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA), and the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).The first requires that federal agencies consider theconsequences of their actions on the environment. The secondregulates the use and disposal of hazardous wastes and CERCLAaddresses cleanup and liability. CERCLA creates a NationalPriority List (NPL) onto which the United State's worst hazardous

18


27/66

waste sites are placed and for which Superfund money is used forcleanup.28

Besides their environmental focus, these statues share threecommonalities: they apply to both federal and private entities;the President can exempt a federal agency or waive compliancerequirements in the interest of national security; and, wherethey do apply to the military, they govern activities at U.S.,but not overseas, installations.

Federal agency compliance with environmental law is alsogoverned by a series of Executive Orders (EOs) signed by variouspresidents. EO 12088, "Federal Compliance with Pollution ControlStandards," dated October 1978, mandates that federal agenciescontrol and monitor their environmental pollution in accordancewith federal environmental laws. It also requires agencies tosubmit reports, called A-106 forms, that estimate cleanup costsand environmental expenditures for a five year period. EPAreviews the A-106s and then turns them over to the Office ofManagement and Budget for use in the president's budgetprocess

28DOD sites may be placed on the NPL. However, all of theinstallation is then treated as an NPL site whereas for privateentities, only the specified site itself is treated as an NPLsite.2Most A-106 reports filed by DOD are available to thepublic from EPA. The EPA's Federal Facilities ComplianceStrategy, called the "Yellow Book," outlines submissionrequirements for A-106 forms as well as regulations governingcompliance, investigations, enforcement, and the role of statelaws in environmental regulation. In Army parlance, A-106reports are known as 1383 Reports.

19


28/66

A subsequent EO, EO 12580, applies CERCLA to federalfacilities by delegating the authority for enforcement, cleanup,and suggesting remedies to the president. For private entities,EPA serves this function. 0 The effect of this change is tomake EPA enforcement with respect to federal agencies contingentupon approval of the Justice Department. Under the Bush andReagan Administrations, the Justice Department has actedaccording to a unitary theory of the executive; basically, if EPAfiles a suit against another executive agency (such as DOD), itis violating Article III of the Constitution because theexecutive is, in effect, suing itself. Further, according to theinterpretation of the Justice Department, this also violatesArticle II in that it interferes with the president's ability tomanage the executive branch. 31

The Justice Department has also refused to enforce stateenvironmental laws against federal agencies under the theory ofsovereign immunity. That is, the federal government is presumedto be immune from liability suits sponsored by a state. In arecent Supreme Court decision, the Court further strengthened

30Dalzell, Sally. Office of Federal Facilities Enforcement,Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. TelephoneInterview on April 9, 1992.31 Dalzell interview. Private citizens, however, can sue afederal agency for environmental damage.

20


29/66

sovereign immunity by making it applicable unless Congressspecifically and unambiguously waives it.32

The application of several federal environmental statuesvaries between federal and private entities. For example, RCRArequires a more vigorous inspection schedule for federalagencies. Whereas private entities are inspected every twoyears, federal ones are inspected annually. With respect toCERCLA, federal facilities qualify for Superfund money only foralternative water supplies.33

Although most federal environmental statutes can be waivedin the interest of national security,3 their application to DODis usually the same as to other federal agencies. One exception,however, is CERCLA. DOD has its own parallel program thatperforms much the same function as CERCLA. Established in 1984,the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) coordinatesDOD's evaluative and cleanup efforts at DOD installations. DERPprovides centralized funding and management for cleanup effortsand is administrated by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense

32The specific case in point was a ruling that Congress hadnot clearly stated its intention to make federal agencies liablefor fines under the Clean Water Act and RCRA. See Greenhouse,Linda. "Shield From Pollution Fines is Upheld." New York Times.April 22, 1992, p. A16.

33Seigel, Lenny. The U.S. Military's Toxic Leqacy. Boston:National Toxic Campaign Fund, p. 3.3 For example, DOD was allowed a waiver for filingenvironmental impact statements during the Persian Gulf War.

21


30/66

(Environment).35 The Superfund Amendments and ReauthorizationAct of 1986, reauthorized this program and required that it beimplemented in consultation with EPA.

DERP addresses environmental problems t three levels.First, the Installation Restoration Program (IRP) identifies,assesses and remediates hazardous waste sites at DODinstallations and formerly used defense sites (FUDS). It focuseson cleanup rather than prevention of future problems and is DOD'sversion of Superfund. All IRP cleanup activities are fundedthrough the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA).Second, DERP administers programs to manage current hazardouswaste operations. It supports minimization and recycling effortsas well as research and development to further decrease waste.Finally, DERP also manages building demolition and debrisremoval.36

DERP, and especially IRP, govern DOD's handling of domesticenvironmental problems. They provide mechanisms for prioritizinghazardous waste sites, standardizing environmental matters amongthe services, and assigning responsibility.

U.S. domestic military installations are governed by acomplex and vast legal framework. The same is true for U.S.

35DERP funding is a budgetary line item in the annualdefense appropriations bill.36House Armed Services Committee. Overview of DODEnvironmental Activities. Hearings before the EnvironmentalRestoration Panel of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Houseof Representatives. 101st Congress, 1st Session. HASC No. 101-27, pp. 5-17.

22


31/66

overseas military installations with one exception: none of thelaws listed above, nor DOD's DERP, DERA, or IRP apply overseas.Instead, these installations are subject to four types of law:an executive order, agreements between the U.S. and the hostnation over the use of installations, host nation environmentlaws37 and international and bilateral treaties. Each of thesewill be explained in turn.

First, although U.S. environmental laws do not apply in factto overseas installations, they do apply in spirit. EO 12114,"Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions," asimplemented by DOD Directive 6050.7 requires DOD to be aware ofthe environmental consequences of its actions. This EO requiresenvironment planning documents and reviews when overseasinstallations are to be closed or realigned, encouragescooperation between DOD and host nations, and contains provisionsthat involve the U.S. Department of State in negotiations betweenfederal agencies and host nations over environmental concerns.

The second type of law includes basing or access agreementsthat cover the use of facilities and Status of Forces Agreements(SOFAs) that govern the actions of personnel. Generally, thesedocuments will be negotiated on a country-wide and nation-specific basis. For example, the German SOFA will apply to all

37As shall be subsequently explained, installations are notnecessarily governed by host nation environmental laws. Theextent to which there are applicable is determined by U.S.-hostagreements over the use of installations and internal DOD policy.38HASC No. 101-70, pp. 5-9.

23


32/66

U.S. military personnel in Germany but is unlikely to be the sameas a SOFA the United States has negotiated with any othercountry.

SOFAs contain two types of provisions which impact liabilityfor environmental problems. The first type addressesenvironmental concerns specifically and may make reference to theenvironmental condition in which an installation is to be left.It also may outline the process used by the host nation torecover damage. 9 The second type is referred to as a residualvalue agreement. The United States often makes capitalimprovements in the installations it leases'or operates. This isespecially true for installations that have seen a long U.S.presence. Residual value agreements outline how much of theseimprovements the United States must be reimbursed for by the hostnation. Generally, DOD believes that these two clauses can benegotiated together with any environmental cleanup costs beingmore than covered by the residual value owed the UnitedStates. 0

39West, Mike. Professional Staff Member, EnvironmentalRestoration Panel of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Houseof Representatives. Interview on April 7, 1992. Washington, DC.40For example, DOD estimates the residual value of itsclosing installations in Germany to be approximately $600million. It estimates environmental cleanup to cost $200million. See HASC Committee Print No. 9, p. 43.

24


33/66

Most SOFAs contain neither environmental nor residual valueclauses. 41 In essence, DOD can return a base to the host nationand leave it as is -- regardless of the environmental problems.Without SOFA environmental provisions, a host country has nostatutory mechanism for holding DOD and the United Statesaccountable for host environmental laws. The SOFA applying toGermany, however, has both residual value provisions and clausesabout damage caused to a facility. In addition, the SOFA makesthe German government responsible for 25% of the cost for anycleanup and mandates that any contract for cleanup over one halfmillion dollars must be given to a German firm.42

Host nation environmental laws may also be importantdepending upon the SOFA and, as will be seen in section 3, theinterpretation given of DOD and service policy guidance withrespect to whether installations should follow U.S. or hostnation environmental laws. However, many nations do not haveenvironmental laws. Further, for those that do, finding anenglish translation is problematic. 43 DOD testimony beforeCongress and interviews with various officials have revealed the

41Parts of some SOFAs are classified. After numerous phonescalls and attempts, I was unable to locate someone within DOD whocould provide a definitive answer for how one goes about gettingcopies of a given SOFA and which ones are classified. Myassessment that most SOFAs contain neither environmental norresidual value clauses is based upon interviews with personnel atDOD, GAO, and HASC who made such statements.42Interview with Mike West.43Making a comprehensive survey of host nation environmentallaw was beyond the scope of the resources devoted to this paper.

25


34/66

following information about host nation environmental laws,SOFAs, and expected outcomes as the United States returns basesto their hosts:

Germany -- Germany has the strictest set of environmentallaws of any nation where the United States has militaryforces. The enforcement process is decentralized at thedistrict and county levels." Much emphasis is placed ondrinking water and ground water protection due to the heavyreliance of German cities on shallow aquifers for municipaldrinking water.Japan -- Japanese environmental regulations focus on air andwater pollution and less on hazardous waste management anddisposal.45 Japan is in the process of drafting ahazardous waste management law which appears to be basedupon RCRA. The SOFA covering Japan has no environmentalclause and, in the past, the Japanese Environmental Agencyhas been unwilling to take action against U.S. installationsand violations have been dealt with by an EnvironmentalSubcommittee between the U.S. and Japan. Japan tends to payfor environmental projects and is predisposed to favoradvanced, state-of-the-art equipment."Netherlands -- The United States has one installation whichis jointly operated with the Dutch and environmentalproblems are not expected to be an issue.Philippines -- The Philippines has few environmental laws.Further, U.S. forces left on less-than friendly terms andthe installations they occupied have been considerablydamaged by recent volcanic eruptions.

"HASC No. 101-70, p. 37.45The United States encountered a specific problem in Japan

with respect to PCB disposal. DOD had purchased some equipmentfrom Japan that contained PCBs. Trying to disposal of thatequipment proved difficult. The Toxic Substances Control Actprohibits the importation of PCBs for disposal that are not ofU.S. origin, Japan would not allow for in-country disposal, andKorea (the only other potential recipient in the area) refused.DOD applied for, and was eventually granted, a waiver from EPAand, after being stored for a long period in Japan, the PCBs willnow be retrograded to the United States for disposal. See HASCNo. 101-70, p. 10.

46HASC No. 102-18, p. 73.26


35/66

UK -- The UK is using U.S. Air Force environmental rules asthe basis for their own. The basing agreement here does notaddress environmental cleanup.Formal environmental enforcement programs with respect toU.S. installations exist in Australia, Belgium, Canada,Greece, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Panama, Germany, Spain,Turkey, and the U.K. Enforcement tends to be accomplishedvia discussion and negotiation, not formal inspection.47The fourth type of laws which may impact overseas

installations are bilateral, multilateral, and internationalagreements. These laws tend to be vague and lack strictenforcement mechanisms. One exception is a proposal before theU.S. Congress to prohibit the export of U.S: hazardous waste(including that produced at DOD overseas installations) unlessthe United States has a bilateral agreement with the potentialimporter with respect to hazardous waste disposal. Currently,the United States has such an agreement with Mexico. 8Additionally, NATO may in the future assume a greater role inEuropean environmental concerns. NATO has a SOFA that addressesclaims for damage in general but NATO's precise role inenvironmental issues is unclear.49 International law becomes

47HASC No. 101-70, pp. 35-37.48HASC No. 101-70, p. 4.49NATO's role is generally mentioned in terms of a series ofpilot studies it has sponsored to address various environmental

concerns. The NATO Committee on the Challenges of Modern Society(CCMS) is the vehicle for such pursuits. During a March 1992,trip to Europe to study environmental restoration issues, membersof the House Armed Services Committee expressed frustration atbeing unable to discover any precise answers on the role of NATOin these concerns. The chair of the delegation, CongressmanRichard Ray, outlines several suggested roles for NATO in HASC,Committee Print No. 9.27


36/66

especially important in the case of Naval forces afloat. Oftenoperating in international waters, these are the only statuesthat formally apply.

Despite a plethora of laws and regulations governingenvironmental matters, it is difficult to make a definitivestatement about precise liability at overseas militaryinstallations. Though DOD is a federal agency of the UnitedStates government, U.S. laws do not apply overseas. However,even though DOD operates on foreign soil, its installations arenot necessarily subject to host nation rules. That said, manynations have few or no significant environmental laws andinternational rules tend to be vague and general. When disputeshave arisen in the past, they have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis through negotiations between the'United States and thehost country or, in some German cases, with local governmentauthorities. Thus, the precedents for resolving questions ofliability tend to be case-specific.

In addition to confusion over the applicability of varioustypes of law, host nations may be faced with one of severaldisincentives for pressing the United States on environmentalliability concerns. These disincentives arise from the need toconsider the impact of such actions on domestic politics andrelations with third party nations.

Domestically, a host nation may suffer from contradictionsbetween the existence of environmental laws'and theirenforcement. It may be politically embarrassing or destabilizing

28


37/66

for a government to press the United States on compliance issuesthat are ignored by the government itself or other entitieswithin the host nation. In countries without strictenvironmental laws, it may prove embarrassing to highlightdeficient U.S. practices which are, in fact, better that those ofthe host nation.

Pressing the United States on its environmental legacy alsois impacted by host nation relations with third parties. This isespecially true in the case of Germany, where numerous nationsmay have contributed to environmental damage. The United Statesis likely to be less responsive to increased claims in situationswhere other nations may be responsible for contamination as well.Germany has shown little willingness to hold France or the U.K.accountable for their actions in Germany. Even more serious isthe question of whom to hold accountable for the environmentalproblems of the former East Germany. The Soviet Union and otherWarsaw Pact forces contributed to environmental damage in EastGermany, and most of Eastern Europe, that is of a far greatermagnitude than that for which the United States is responsible.Clearly, the Germans cannot make claims against the former SovietUnion and expect reimbursement. Even Russia is unlikely to havethe funds to devote to any significant cleanup operations.50Perhaps an even greater problem is the danger that any attempt to

50 Thanks to Mike West of the House Armed Services Committeefor bringing this dilemma to my attention. For a discussion ofsome of the environmental problems of eastern Europe, and ofCzechoslovakia in particular, see HASC, Committee Print No. 9.29


38/66

determine liability will degenerate into an inter-German conflictthat reflects pre-unified Germany tensions.5 1

This discussion of disincentives to question DOD'sdefinition of what it is liable for at a location should be notinterpreted as an incentive for DOD to minimalize itsenvironmental responsibilities. Even with respect toinstallations that are being returned to the host nation, theUnited States has an incentive to satisfy host nation concernsbecause the United States may have other in-country bases thatare continuing operations or it may seek, at some future date, toreestablish military installations there.

Speculating whether or not host nations will object to DOD'sclassification and handling of environmental concerns depends inlarge part on how these issues will be treated in the future.Europe is increasingly seeing a U.S. presence as less essentialfor security and, at the same time, environmental concerns areassuming a larger role on the political agenda. In 1992, theEuropean Community will enact common environmental standards.Some nations have a long way to go before they satisfy theproposed requirements. This may create an incentive for them topress the United States on compliance issues and to cleanup up

51That said, German local government authorities also havean incentive to make environmental problems at an installationlook more serious. As mentioned above, enforcement of Germanenvironmental law tends to be done at the local or state level.These officials are also perhaps the most interested in buyinglands that were formerly used by the U.S. military. It is likelythat the price of such lands will reflect the assessment of theenvironmental problems there. Thanks to Mike West for suggestingthis point.

30


39/66

past problems, with such problems defined as widely aspossible. 52 In addition, many Pacific nations where the UnitedStates has installations have only begun in the last few years toenact significant environmental legislation. Operations atoverseas installations will no doubt be impacted by these trends.

U.S. liability for problems at its overseas installations,even the ones that are closing, may be definable only in dynamicterms. As the quality of the environment comes to be seen asmore of a global issue, host nations may be increasingly able tohold the United States accountable for past actions, regardlessof applicable statues. Further, as technology and detectiontechniques improve, especially in developing countries, formerhost nations may seek liability claims not when the United Statesleaves its installations, but when environmental problems arediscovered. The ultimate success of such liability actions willdepend in large part on the development of regimes, both formaland informal, that define nation-specific environmental problemsas more global concerns. As environmental contamination comes tobe seen as something that nations should "know better" than todo, it is likely to become increasingly probable for host nationsto hold the United States accountable for past, current, andfuture problems.DOD GUIDANCE FOR OVERSEAS INSTALLATIONS

As outlined in Section 2, DOD policy guidance with respect

52Thanks to Mike West for suggesting the subject of thepolitical implications of common environmental standards.31


40/66

to environmental concerns at domestic military installations iscentralized, readily available, and standardized among theservices. There are guidelines for prioritizing sites and aspecial fund (DERA) exists to cover cleanup operations.Generally, these things are lacking with respect to overseasinstallations. Although DOD-wide draft guidance is currentlybeing completed, this lack of overall instruction to the serviceshas complicated analysis of the overseas environmental situation.Two main problems have resulted: it has been unclear whether theservices should follow U.S. or host nation environmental laws,and there has been no standardized oversight or attempt toaddress environmental concerns in a comprehensive manner.Indeed, the case can be made that the structure governing policyformation for overseas installations has itself been adisincentive to identifying and remediating environmentalproblems.

In a report discussing his recent trip to Europe to studyenvironmental matters, Congressman Richard Ray of the House ArmedServices Committee's Environmental Restoration Panel concludes"... the main obstacle to environmental compliance at overseasmilitary bases continues to be the lack of clear and consistentDOD policy guidance."53 He goes on to explain that DOD policyhas been to comply with U.S. or host nation laws, whichever ismore strict. However, DOD did not provide a mechanism forresolving conflicts between these laws or for defining applicable

53HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 2.32


41/66

environmental standards. The result, in Mr. Ray's words, wasthat "... while earlier DOD guidance sounded reasonable, it wasalmost impossible to apply in practice.">

Overseas policy guidance is found in DOD Directive 5100.50,"Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality." Issued in1973, it requires installations to observe host nationregulations, international agreements, SOFAs and to "conform tothe extent practicable" to more detailed U.S. guidance.55 Theimplementation of this guidance rests with the major commands andthe commanders of each installation. However, they are given fewinstructions for how to reconcile host nation law with U.S. law,what parts of U.S. law to apply, and how to deal with any uniquepolitical circumstances that might arise. 56

Compounding this problem is a lack of knowledge about hostnation laws. In many cases, english translations of host lawsare not available. Overall, the military's environmental effortalso suffers due to high turnover and problems recruiting andtraining qualified personnel.57 This creates problems with

54HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 2.55General Accounting Office. Hazardous Waste: ManagementProblems Continue at Overseas Military Bases. August 1991,GAO/NSIAD 91-231, p. 13.5For example, in countries that do not enforce their own

environmental laws, it might be politically disadvantageous ofthe government in power if U.S. installations were obviouslybetter custodians.57This lack of qualified personnel is partially due to non-competitive salaries, often difficult working conditions,confusing policy directives, and personnel reductions in general.As military forces are reduced in size, installations have

33


42/66

continuity; just as one official comes to understand a situation,they move to a new assignment. Further, installations areusually left to their own means to master both U.S. and hostnation regulations and these frequently change.58

To this guidance, the services each add their own. For theNavy and Marine Corps, this says to abide by host nation laws andthat U.S. laws do not apply overseas. If host nation laws arenot as strict, then installations should apply U.S. laws asneeded to protect the environment.59 ~ The Air Force61 andthe Army6 both require compliance with host laws but saynothing about compliance with U.S. regulations.6 DOD hasneither the staff nor the resources to determine if service

eliminated or downgraded environmental positions in favor ofkeeping others. See HASC No. 102-18, p. 68-70.58HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 9.

59General Accounting Office. Hazardous Waste: ManagementProblems at DOD's Overseas Installations. September 1986,GAO/NSIAD 86-24-C (unclassified version), p. 12.6Navy and Marine Corps guidance is found in OPNAVINST5090.1, "Hazardous Materials Environmental Management Ashore."This states that ships afloat must abide by the same rules thatapply to Naval shore activities in the United States.61AFR 19-1, "Pollution Abatement and Environmental Quality,"contains the Air Force's environmental regulations.6The main Army environmental regulations are found in AR200-1, "Environmental Protection and Enhancement," and AR 200-2,"Environmental Effects of Army Actions."6GAO/NSIAD 86-24, p. 12.

34


43/66

environmental regulations conflict with each other or withoverall directives.64

In late 1989, DOD began a review of its overseasenvironmental policy. It issued DOD Directive 6050.16, "DODPolicy for Establishing and Implementing Environmental Standardsat Overseas Installations," in September 1991. This policystatement provides for centralized DOD leadership in developing abaseline guidance document for overseas environmental affairs,supplies guidance for merging U.S. and host nation laws, andprovides for the designation of an executive agent whoseresponsibility it is to know host nation environmental law.Though the baseline guidance is still in draft form, thisdirective provides mechanisms for correcting many of the problemsthat plagued DOD's overseas environmental policy.65

The Overseas Environmental Baseline Guidance Document isbeing developed as a joint effort between the Army, Navy, AirForce, Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and the Office of theChairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff with the Air Force beingthe lead agency. This team extrapolated from U.S. federalenvironmental laws and developed regulations in 18 differentareas.66 This guidance will apply when "... host-nation

6 GAO/NSIAD 91-231, p. 13.65During most of the interviews conducted within DOD,officials expressed frustration at delays in receiving a finalversion of the baseline guidance.66Environmental Quality Directorate. Office of the CivilEngineer. Headquarters, United States Air Force. Interview onApril 10, 1992.

35


44/66

environmental standards do not exist, are not applicable, orprovide less protection to human health and the naturalenvironment than the baseline guidance."67 Still in the draftstages, the final version is expected in the summer of 1992.

Directive 6050.16 also designates that an Executive Agentfor each host nation be appointed.8 This official is taskedwith identifying host nation environmental standards at both thenational and local level and merging these with base rights,SOFAs and other provisions.69 Then, the applicability of agiven host nation standard is to be determined with the endresult being a list of which law for a given medium applies toDOD installations. 70 The Executive Agent is also responsible

67Department of Defense Directive 6050.16. DOD Policy forEstablishing and Implementing Environmental Standards at OverseasInstallations. September 20, 1991.6The Executive Agent is to be appointed by the AssistantSecretary of Defense (Production and Logistics), in consultation

with the service secretaries and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefsof Staff. Generally, the Executive Agent will be a member of theservice that has the most major installations in a country. Forexample, the Army is the Executive Agent for German, the Navy forItaly.69Other provisions include "... other relevant internationalagreements and principles of customary international law." Thisprovides a loophole in which the executive agent can take intoconsideration political problems and sensitivities of the hostnation. Interview at the Environmental Quality Directorate ofthe United States Air Force.70Delay in the development of the baseline guidance is a bitpuzzling in the sense that the need to coordinate and makeallowances for varying environmental law is not unique tooverseas installations. Domestically, each state has its ownenvironment regulations which must be obeyed in addition tofederal laws. Granted, these laws are all in english and thecourt system is responsible for ensuring that they are notcontradictory, but each service has had to understand and apply

36


45/66

for updating the list of "governing standards" and forcoordinating them with the appropriate unified and specifiedcommands and the U.S. diplomatic mission for the country inquestion. When completed, each list of governing standards willbe shared with other installations in the host nation, regardlessof service affiliation. 1

Despite the improvements that are likely to result fromoverall policy guidance, DOD still lacks an oversight mechanismto ensure compliance. A 1991 study by the General AccountingOffice (GAO) echoed the conclusion of a similar GAO study from1986 when it complained that oversight was so limited, DOD hadlittle idea of whether bases were properly managing hazardouswastes. Both studies found that personnel were inadequatelytrained in the handling of hazardous waste, environmental officeswere frequently understaffed, and ensuring compliance was often acollateral duty or a part time position.7

them. Thus, a process could have been developed domestically totake into account variations among state laws that could then beapplied overseas. It appears, however, that the idea ofappointing executive agents and sharing information among theservices is unique to overseas matters.71During an interview, an official with the Office of theChief of Naval Operations, Environmental Protection, Safety, andOccupational Health Division, mentioned that DOD has adoptedthese service initiatives rather than develQp a policy of itsown. The idea of appointing executive agents was largely inresponse to the need to save dollars and pool resources.Generally, the services will pick the countries for which theywill be responsible.72GAO/NSIAD 91-231, pp. 14-20 and GAO/NSIAD 86-24, pp. 12-15.

37


46/66

Currently, oversight of DOD's environmental compliance isgenerally left to several agencies within DOD. In addition to anoccasional congressional oversight hearingn, the responsibilityfalls to the major commands, the service inspector generals, andthe service audit agencies. Unlike domestic installations whichare submitted to inspection by EPA and state regulatory agencies,overseas installations are not routinely subject to oversightfrom an external agency.

Oversight efforts are likely to benefit from a recentinitiative by the services. Though still lacking externaloversight, the services have decided to standardize their self-evaluation procedures by adopting the Air Force's EnvironmentalCompliance Assessment Management Program (ECAMP) and the Army'sEnvironmental Compliance Assessment System (ECAS). ECAMPconsists of a worldwide manual that outlines compliancerequirements and is supplemented by host nation chaptersaddressing host-specific variables.74 As with the selection ofExecutive Agents under DOD Directive 6050.16, each service hasaccepted responsibility for providing certain host nation ECAMP

7 Before 1985, environmental problems affecting nationalsecurity were handled by the Energy and Commerce Committee andthe Public Works Committee. Today this jurisdiction mainly fallsto the Armed Services Committees. See HASC No. 101-27, p. 2.74ECAMP also provides for the utilization of 1383 Reports onexpected environmental expenditures to request line item funds inDOD's budgeting process.

38


47/66

chapters.7 ECAS is a process for identifying problems anddesigning plans to correct them.

Given the above changes, many of the past problemsassociated with overseas environmental policy are likely to bealleviated, if not remedied. However, these initiatives have notaltered the organization structure governing the development ofDOD's environmental policy nor the source of funding forundertaking cleanup operations overseas. Both of these concernsare likely to continue to impact the ability of DOD to adequatelyaddress overseas environmental concerns.

Authority for DOD environmental policy, both domestic andoverseas, is centralized in the Assistant Secretary of Defense(Production and Logistics) (ASD(P&L)). One of eleven assistantsecretaries, the ASD(P&L) reports to the Under Secretary ofDefense (Acquisition) who, in turn, is responsible to theSecretary of Defense. The ASD(P&L) has a variety ofresponsibilities for various production and logistics issues andis assisted by four deputy assistant secretaries. It is at thislevel, in the Deputy Assistant Secretary of-Defense (Environment)(DASD(E)), that environmental policy is usually developed.

Each of the services also has its own organizationalstructure and method for developing and implementingenvironmental policy. At this level, policy authority rests withan assistant or deputy assistant service secretary who reports to

"Chapters have been completed for the UK and Germany withJapan and Korea currently in process. See HASC No. 102-18, p.103.39


48/66

the overall service secretary. The Secretaries of the Army,Navy, and Air Force are subordinate to the Secretary of Defense.Appendix A contains specific organizational charts forenvironmental concerns in each of the services.

Environmental policy for each of the services is implementedthrough civilian, military, and engineering components. Althoughthe lines on the organizational charts appear straightforward, inreality, the lines of authority are often more complex andchanging. The interface between the civilian and military sidesof the services tends to be a gray area; coordination isgenerally the norm but issues of ultimate authority andresponsibility are often negotiated on an ad hoc basis.Fragmentation and decentralization fuel these problems.76 TheNavy has recently undertaken some structural reforms which mayease this problem and the Army is currently considering reformoptions. As environmental concerns increase in important and

76This conclusion is based upon an analysis of the serviceorganizational charts, my impressions of service personalitiesand esprit, and interviews with individuals who haveenvironmental policy responsibilities in each of the services.With respect to the latter, comments about organizationalstructure were not uniform with respect to the severity of theproblem. However, all interviewees did agree that at times thelines of responsibility were blurred or confusing.

7Organizationally, initial impressions about the prestigeaccorded a policy (not combat or combat support) function by theservices, and the military as a whole, can be gained by lookingat physical location. The pecking order starts with Pentagonwindow offices, moves through various general locations withinthat building, then to offices outside the Pentagon but in theWashington, DC area, and finally to field locations across thecountry. Each of the service's environmental policy offices islocated outside of the Pentagon but in the greater area ofnorthern Virginia. Interestingly, though perhaps due to other

40


49/66

budgetary allotments, these problems may prove more cumbersome.A second concern that may impact DOD's ability to address

environmental problems is the source of funding for overseascleanup operations. The domestic Installation RestorationProgram (IRP) gets its funding for cleanup from the DefenseEnvironmental Restoration Account (DERA); a source thatspecifically earmarks money for such activities. DERA does notapply to overseas installations, however.m Instead, thiscleanup must be funded from the services readiness and militaryconstruction accounts. The services also use this money forinstallation construction projects, quality of life programs, andtraining and combat preparation concerns. Therefore, fundsdevoted to the environment are in direct competition with thefunds needed to perform activities central to the main mission ofthe military.

factors, the House Armed Services Committee staff member whodeals most often with environmental issues has an office in aformer closet in a different building than the main committeeoffices.78The special account devoted to funding for closingmilitary bases does not apply to overseas installations either.In addition to funding, DERA also provides a means oftracking and estimating cleanup costs. For overseasinstallations, cleanup costs are not separately identifiedbecause they come from multiple-use accounts. Thus, none of theservices can precisely identify the cost of the cleanup it hasundertaken overseas. Further, environmental compliance costs for

overseas activities suffer from the same inability to beseparately identified in the budget. See HASC No. 101-70, pp.32-35.7Host countries may also provide cleanup funding. Underthe NATO SOFA claims process, the host country is responsible for25% of the cost with the United States paying the rest. In thePacific, Japan has tended to finance most cleanup operations and

41


50/66

In testimony before Congress, DOD officials have stated thata separate DERA for overseas cleanup is not necessary. Indeed,numerous incentives, such as protecting personnel, generalconcern for the environment, avoiding potential future problemswith host nations, and contributing to the prestige of themilitary, all encourage the services to fund their environmentalproblems. However, these same incentives are not as applicableto installations that are closing or being significantly reduced.

In a sense, the current funding structure for cleanup asksinstallations commanders to make a tradeoff between U.S.-alliedrelations and the quality of life and readiness concerns of thepersonnel under their command. While they are directlyresponsible for the latter, their decisions may have adisproportionate effect on the former. If a host nation becomesdissatisfied with the environmental legacy of the U.S. military,this may impact other U.S.-host relations or relations overfuture use of host military installations. Such concerns arepolitical and, as such, should not be made by professionalmilitary officers who, in the course of executing theirresponsibilities, make such choices by default.

In addition to delayed policy guidance, problems associatedwith blurred lines of policy responsibility, and disincentivesassociated with the funding structure for cleanup activities,the trend in Korea is to do the same. In the case of Korea, itis expected that as part of assuming a greater role for their owndefense, the Koreans will also be expected to carry more of theburden for financing environmental concerns. See HASC No. 101-27.

42


51/66

overseas environmental concerns are also impacted by theactivities of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). DLA isgenerally responsible for the storage and distribution ofmaterial used for military activities and, thus, for any spills,leaking underground storage tanks, and other environmentalproblems that result from its mission.

DLA is also responsible for the disposal of hazardous wastegenerated by the military. Through its network of DefenseReutilization and Marketing Services (DRMSs), DLA contracts forthe disposal of hazardous waste or retrogrades it to the UnitedStates or another country. The Defense Reutilization and MarketOffice (DRMO) for a given geographic area is responsible forinspecting and properly labeling hazardous waste before disposaland for ensuring that contractors for disposal have the necessaryqualifications. DRMS also coordinates the reutilization andmarketing of Foreign Excess Personal Property -- includingmaterials with potential to adversely affect the environment suchas excess solvents, waste oil, and unused paint. Both DLA andDRMS perform these functions at domestic and overseasinstallations.

Despite its potential impact on environmental concerns, DODhas paid little attention to the way DRMS conducts its businessboth in the United States and abroad. A 1991 GAO report foundthat DRMS guidance at overseas installations was inconsistent andsometimes contradictory to DOD policy. Further, DRMS has nostandardized way to measuring how it disposed of overseas

43


52/66

materials.W Domestically, DRMS has come under fire formislabeling hazardous materials, not being selective about thecontractors it uses for waste disposal, and.providing poorestimates about the quality of waste being sold.81 No similaranalysis has been conducted of DRMS procedures overseas. 2THE FUTURE AGENDA: BASE CLOSURES, PRECEDENTS AND LEEWAY

If the functional typology offered in section 1 provesreliable, DOD's environmental problems overseas are likely to besmaller in scope than those they have encountered domestically.Overseas installations do not engage in the industrial-typeactivities that have been the major source of U.S. contamination.Regardless of the accuracy of this prediction, DOD's lack ofinitial policy guidance has meant that environmental complianceand compliance standards may vary greatly between installations,services, and host nations. DOD's organizational ambiguity andthe lack of dedicated funds for environmental cleanup have servedto further complicate the situation.

The varying applicability of environmental statutes, lack ofenvironmental provisions in the SOFAs, and politically-based

8GAO/NSIAD 91-231, p. 15.81See House Armed Services Committee. DLA's Management of

Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Wastes. Hearing before theEnvironmental Restoration Panel of the Committee on ArmedServices, U.S. Hose of Representatives. 101st Congress, 2dSession. HASC No. 101-64.

8A GAO study found that in Europe, the DRMO is able to selllittle hazardous waste to contractors because of host nation lawsprohibiting the sale of such potential contaminants. In thePacific, however, most hazardous waste can be readily sold. SeeGAO/NSIAD 86-24, p. 28.

44


53/66

disincentives for pressing the United States on compliance andcleanup issues may mean that the United States will be allowed toset the agenda in terms of environmental issues at overseasbases. This ability, however, may prove transient depending uponthe precedent the U.S. sets in addressing environmental problems.

DOD is currently reviewing a draft policy document -- theEnvironmental Restoration Program Overseas (ERPO) -- tostandardize cleanup processes at overseas installations.8Developed by the Air Force in cooperation with the other servicesthe purpose of ERPO is to outline procedures to comprehensivelyidentify and evaluate environmentally problematic sites that havealready been discovered at overseas installations8, negotiatewith the host nation to assign responsibility for the pollution,and enact remedies.85 This policy, however, is not intended toapply to installations that are being returned to the hostnation.

The procedure for installations in Europe that the UnitedStates is leaving is as follows.6 First, all known problems

8Domestically, RCRA is intended to provide similarguidance. However, DOD has expressed an unwillingness to applyRCRA or Superfund-type assessment to overseas installationsbecause these processes are expensive and time consuming. Theyalso provide more comprehensive data. See HASC Committee PrintNo. 9, p. 30.8This policy does not provide for systematic searches toidentify all problems.8 HASC No. 102-18, p. 103.86This procedure only applies to U.S. installations.Currently NATO does not have a procedure for negotiating theclosure of NATO bases in Europe. DOD has expressed its desire

45


54/66

will be investigated and documented. The resulting data will beused to assist negotiators in determining tradeoffs betweenresidual value and environmental cleanup.87 Next, environmentalconcerns that pose imminent danger or significant problems willbe cleaned up. Beyond these, installations will be left in"serviceable condition" with documentation of environmentalproblems that are not corrected.88 Concurrent with theseactivities, a team will be designated to negotiate the terms ofthe base return with the host nation. How and with whom thesenegotiations will occur is still very ambiguous. It is likelythat the United States Army Europe (USAREUR) will deal with theGerman Ministry of Finance for German. installations given thatthe Army has the largest number of installations both in Germanyand that the United States is leaving.89 There is no evidence

not to direct the process. See HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p.45.87HASC, Committee Print No. 9, pp, 42-43.8For a discussion of the Air Force's suggestions forprioritization of environmental problems at closing installationssee Vest, Gary D. Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force(Environment, Safety and Occupational Health). Memorandum forDeputy Assistant Secretary (Environment), Office of the AssistantSecretary of Defense (Production and Logistics). Subject:Environmental Restoration Policies for Overseas Installations.

May 15, 1991.The comparable Army instructions can be found in "Policy onEnvironmental Considerations and Actions Applicable toInstallations Being Returned to Host Nation." This directiveidentifies "must fund" actions but also instructs commanders notto spend time looking for new problems or to undertake remedialactions simply to increase residual value.89HASC, Committee Print No. 9, p. 45.

46


55/66


56/66


57/66

APPENDIX ADOD ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

Assistant Secretary of the Army,(Installations, Logistics &Environment)

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,(Environment, Safety &Occupational Health)

Chief of EngineersArmy Environmental Office(ENVR.E)

US Army Toxic and HazardousMaterials Agency

I

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

Assistant Secretary of the Navy(Installations &Environment)~~~~r *~II

US ArmyCorps of Engineers

Chief of Naval Operations(Environmental Protection, Safety &Occupational Health Division)Commandant of the Marine Corps(Facilities &Services Division)

III

Echelon 11ommandsI

Navy FacilitiesEngineering Command(NAVFACENGCOM)II I -

I Navy A;tFi - - NavyA ~ t Dginisions (EFilds) ' ' "Activities

A-1

- . s-'- -'id~?,"..ylC;" d~~d. e . . i .- Z.;j '>w hs 1-- -~~~~~~~t~~~-.:i~~~~~~~~.

I--I

IIIII


58/66

DOD ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYDEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force(Environment. Safety and Occupational Health)-

Air Force Civil Engineer(AF/CE)Air Force Center . - - -for EnvironmentalExcellence

iRegional Environmental Office

(Third Party Sites)

Environmental Quality Directorate(AF/CEV)I

I Major CommandsInstallation Commanders

On-Site Coordinator/Remedial Program Manager

Source: Department of Defense. Defense EnvironmentalRestoration Program: Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year1991. February 1992.

A-2

.

%.


59/66

APPENDIX B

INSTALLATION CLOSURES AND REALIGNMENTS(by nation and service)

COUNTRY ARMY NAVY AIR FORCEAustralia -- 3 --Belgium -- 1Bermuda -- 2 --Canada -- 1 --Germany 321 - 28Greece 2 3 17Italy 1 1 15Japan -- 2 --Korea 12 - 3Netherlands 3 - --Philippines -- 1 5Spain -- 3 16Turkey -- - 12UK 3 2 35

Source: Department of Defense. Office of the AssistantSecretary of Defense (Public Affairs). Press Release, January30, 1992. "US to End Operations at More Overseas Bases."

B-l


60/66

SOURCESAction Plan for Environmental Restoration Overseas. Draft Memo.Department of the Army. October, 1991.Allingham, Mary Ekis and Denise Deland Fiber. Commander's Guide

to Public Involvement in the Army's Installation RestorationProgram. U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency.November 1990.Army Regulation 200-1. Environmental Protection and Enhancement.Headquarters, Department of the Army. Washington, DC.April 23, 1990.Army Regulation 200-2. Environmental Effects on Army Actions.Headquarters, Department of the Army. Washington, DC.December 23, 1988.Broder, John M. "U.S. Military Leaves Toxic Trail Overseas."

Los Angeles Times. June 18, 1990, p. 1.Department of Defense. Defense Environmental RestorationProgram: Annual Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1991.February 1992.Department of Defense. Office of the Assistant Secretary ofDefense (Public Affairs). Press Release, January 30, 1992."US to End Operations at More Overseas Bases."Department of Defense. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretaryof Defense (Environment). Installation Restoration ProgramCost Estimate. September 1991.Department of Defense Directive 6050.16. "DOD Policy for

Establishing and Implementing Environmental Standards atOverseas Installations." September 20, 1991.Department of the Navy. Environmental Program: Meeting theChallenge.DOD Instruction of Environmental Restoration Overseas [Draft].July 1991.General Accounting Office. Hazardous Waste: Abandoned Disposal

Sites May be Affecting Guam's Water Supply. GAO/NSIAD 87-88BR.General Accounting Office. Hazardous Waste: Management Problemsat DOD's Overseas Installations. September 1986, GAO/NSIAD86-24C (unclassified version).General Accounting Office. Hazardous Waste: Management ProblemsContinue at Overseas Military Bases. August 1991, GAO/NSIAD91-231.


61/66

General Accounting Office. Hazardous Waste: Tinker Air ForceBase's Improvement Efforts. GAO/NSIAD 88-4.Greenhouse, Linda. Shield from Pollution Fines is Upheld. NewYork Times. April 22, 1991, p. A16.Grossman, Dan and Seth Shulman. "Over There: The U.S.Military's Toxic Reach." Rolling Stone. November 28, 1991,p. 39.Harkavy, Robert E. Bases Abroad: The Global Foreign MilitaryPresence. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.House Armed Services Committee. Department of DefenseEnvironmental Programs. Hearings before the ReadinessSubcommittee and the Environmental Restoration Panel and theDOE Defense Nuclear Facilities Panel of the Committee onArmed Services, U.S. House of Representatives, 102dCongress, 1st Session. HASC No. 102-18.House Armed Services Committee. DLA's Management of HazardousMaterials and Hazardous Wastes. Hearing before theEnvironmental Restoration Panel of the Committee on ArmedServices, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC.101st Congress, 2d Session. HASC No. 101-64.House Armed Services Committee. National Defense AuthorizationAct for Fiscal Year 1991. Report of the Committee on ArmedServices. U.S. House of Representatives, on H.R. 4739.101st Congress, 2d Session. House of Representatives Report101-665.House Armed Services Committee. Overseas DOD EnvironmentalActivities. Hearing before the Environmental RestorationPanel of the Committee on Armed Services. U.S. House ofRepresentatives. 101st Congress, 2d Session. HASC No. 101-70.House Armed Services Committee. Overview of DOD EnvironmentalActivities. Hearings before the Environmental RestorationPanel of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House ofRepresentatives. 101 Congress, 1st Session. HASC No. 101-27.House Armed Services Committee. Report of the Delegation toEurope of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. House ofRepresentatives. 102d Congress, 2d Session. CommitteePrint No. 9.House Armed Services Committee. Review of the Clean Air Act.Hearing before the Environmental Restoration Panel of theCommittee on Armed Services. U.S. House of Representatives.101st Congress, 2d Session. HASC No. 101-66.


62/66

Interview. Dalzell, Sally. Office of Federal FacilitiesEnforcement, Environmental Protection Agency. Washington,DC. Telephone Interview on April 9, 1992.Interview. European and NATO Construction Programs. Office ofthe Secretary of Defense (Production and Logistics).

Washington, DC. Telephone Conversation on April 9, 1992.Interview. Environmental Quality Directorate. Office of theCivil Engineer. Headquarters, United States Air Force.Washington, DC. Interview on April 10, 1992.Interview. Office of the Chief of Naval Operations,Environmental Protection, Safety, and Occupational HealthDivision. OP-45. Washington, DC. Interview on April 10,1992.Interview. Office of the Civil Engineer, Department of the Army.Washington, DC. Interview on April 7, 1992.Interview. Sprouse, Jake. U.S. General Accounting Office,National Security and International Affairs Division.Washington, DC. Telephone Interview on April 9, 1992.Interview. West, Mike. Professional Staff Member, EnvironmentalRestoration Panel of the Committee on Armed Services, U.S.House of Representatives. Washington, DC. Interview onApril 7, 1992.Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Production andLogistics). Memorandum Dated May 23, 1991. Subject:Defense Priority Model (DPM) Guidance for the FY92 Program.Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Production andLogistics). Memorandum Dated November 15, 1991. Subject:Management Guidance for Execution of

Environmental Concerns at US Overseas Military Installations

Documents

Transcript of Environmental Concerns at US Overseas Military Installations