Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
1588-347
Authorizations
"TITLE XLI"':-ORGANIZATIONAL
MATTERS".
(2) NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION PROGRAM.-Section 1634
of the Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1985 (Public
Law 98-525; 98 Stat. 2649), is
(A) transferred to title XLI of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as added
by paragraph (1);
(B) inserted after the title heading for such title, as
so added; and
(C) amended
(i) by striking the section heading and inserting
the following new section heading:
"SEC. 4101. NAVAL NUCLEAR PROPULSION PROGRAM.";
and
(ii) by striking "SEC. 1634.".
(3) MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE FOR FACILITIES AND LABORA
TORIES.-Section 3140 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2833),
is
(A) transferred to title XLI of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4102;
(C) inserted after section 4101, as added by paragraph
(2); and
(D) amended in subsection (d)(2), by striking "120 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act," and inserting
"January 21,1997,".
(4) RESTRICTION ON LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN
ACTMTtES AND FACILITIES.-Section 210 of the Department of
Energy National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear
Energy Authorization Act of 1981 (Public Law 96-540; 94 Stat.
3202), is
(A) transferred to title XLI of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) inserted after section 4102, as added by paragraph
(3); and
(C) amended
(i) by striking the section heading and inserting
the following new section heading:
"SEC. 4103. RESTRICTION ON LICENSING REQUIREMENr FOR CERTAIN
DEFENSE ACTIVITIES AND FACILITIES.";
(ii) by striking "SEC. 210."; and
(iii) by striking "this or any other Act" and
inserting "the Department of Energy National Security
and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy
H. R. 1588-367
Authorization Act of 1981 (Public Law 96--540) or any
other Act".
(e) NUCLEAR WEAPONS STOCKPILE MATTERS.
(1) HEADINGS.-Division D of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as amended
by this section, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new headings:
STOCKPILE MATTERS
H. R. 1588-369
(C) inserted after section 4208, as added by paragraph
(9).
(11) LIMITATION ON UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
TESTs.-Subsection (£) of section 507 of the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act, 1993 (Public Law 102-337;
106 Stat. 1345), is
(A) transferred to title XLII of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) inserted after section 4209, as added by paragraph
(10); and
(C) amended
(i) by inserting before the text the following new
section heading: .
"SEC. 4210. LIMITATION ON UNDERGROUND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
TESTS.";
and
(li) by striking "(£)".
(12) TESTING OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS.-Section 3137 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public
Law 103-160; 107 Stat. 1946), is
(A) transferred to title XLII of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4211;
(C) inserted after section 4210, as added by paragraph
(11); and
(D) amended
(i) in subsection (a), by inserting "of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (Public
Law 103-160)" after "section 3101(a)(2)"; and
(li) in subsection (b), by striking "this Act" and
inserting "the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1994".
(13) MANUFACTURING INFRASTRUCTURE FOR STOCKPILE.
Section 3137 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 620), as
amended by section 3132 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2829),
is
(A) transferred to title XLII of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4212;
(C) inserted after section 4211, as added by paragraph
(12); and
(D) amended in subsection (d) by inserting "of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996
(Public Law 104-106)" after "section 3101(b)".
(14) REPORTS ON CRITICAL DIFFICULTIES AT LABORATORIES
AND PLANTs.-Section 3159 of the National Defense Authoriza
tion Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat.
2842), as amended by section 1305 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85;
111 Stat. 1954) and section 3163 of the National Defense
H. R. 1588-370
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65;
113 Stat. 944), is
(A) transferred to title XLII of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4213; and
(C) inserted after section 4212, as added by paragraph
(13).
(15) SUBTITLE HEADING ON TRITIUM.-Title XLII of the Bob
Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,
as amended by this subsection, is further amended by adding
at the end the following new subtitle heading:
"Subtitle B-Tritium".
(16) TRITIUM PRODUCTION PROGRAM.-Section 3133 of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106; 110 Stat. 618), is
(A) transferred to title XLII of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4231;
(C) inserted after the heading for subtitle B of such
title XLII, as added by paragraph (15); and
(D) amended
(i) by striking "the date of the enactment of this
Act" each place it appears and inserting "February
10, 1996"; and
(ii) in subsection (b), by inserting "of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public
Law 104-106)" after "section 3101".
(17) TRITIUM RECYCLING.-Section 3136 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 (Public Law
104-106; 110 Stat. 620), is
(A) transferred to title XLII of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4232; and
. (C) inserted after section 4231, as added by paragraph
(16).
(18) TRITIUM PRODUCTION.-Subsections (c) and (d) of sec
tion 3133 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201; 110 Stat. 2830) are
(A) transferred to title XLII of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) inserted after section 4232, as added by paragraph
(17); and
(C) amended
(i) by inserting before the text the following new
section heading:
"SEC. 4233. TRITIUM PRODUCTION.";
(ii) by redesignating such subsections as sub
sections (a) and (b), respectively; and
(iii) in subsection (a), as so redesignated, by
inserting "of Energy" after "The Secretary".
H. R. 1588-371
(19) MODERNIZATION AND CONSOLIDATION OF TRITIUM
RECYCLING FACILITIES.-Section 3134 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 (Public Law 104-201;
110 Stat. 2830), is
(A) transferred to title XLII of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4234;
(C) inserted after section 4233, as added by paragraph
(18); and
(D) amended in subsection (b) by inserting "of the
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997
(Public Law 104-201)" after "section 3101".
(20) PROCEDURES FOR MEETING TRITIUM PRODUCTION
REQUIREMENTs.-Section 3134 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2000 (Public Law 106-65;
113 Stat. 927), is
(A) transferred to title XLII of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4235; and
(C) inserted after section 4234, as added by paragraph
(19).
(f) PROLIFERATION MATTERS.
(1) TITLE HEADING.-Division D of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as amended
by this section, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new title heading:
"TITLE XLIII-PROLIFERATION
MATTERS".
"Subtitle C-Privatization".
(14) DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT PRIVATIZATION
PROJECTS.-Section 3132 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85; 111 Stat. 2034),
is
(A) transferred to title XLIV of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as
amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4431;
(C) inserted after the heading for subtitle C of such
title, as added by paragraph (13); and
(D) amended
(i) in subsections (a), (c)(l)(B)(i), and (d), by
inserting "of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1998 (Public Law 105-85)" after "sec
tion 3102(i)"; and
(ii) in subsections (c)(l)(B)(ii) and (0, by striking
"the date of enactment of this Act" and inserting
''November 18,1997".
(15) SUBTITLE HEADING ON HANFORD RESERVATION.-Title
XLIV of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2003, as amended by this subsection, is further
amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle
heading:
Washington".
"Subtitle B-Penalties".
(4) RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS TO PAY PENALTIES UNDER
ENVIRONMENTAL LAws.-Section 3132 of the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987 (Public Law 99-661;
100 Stat. 4063), is
(A) transferred to title XLVII of the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,
as amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4721;
(C) inserted after the heading for subtitle B of such
title, as added by paragraph (3); and
(D) amended in the section heading by adding a period
at the end.
(5) RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS TO PAY PENALTIES UNDER
CLEAN AIR ACT.-Section 211 of the Department of Energy
National Security and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy
H. R. 1588-391
Authorization Act of 1981 (Public Law 96-540; 94 Stat. 3203),
is
(A) transferred to title XLVII of the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,
as amended by this subsection;
(B) inserted after section 4721, as added by paragraph
(4); and
(C) amended
(i) by striking the section heading and inserting
the following new section heading:
"SEC. 4722. RESTRICTION ON USE OF FUNDS TO PAY PENALTIES
UNDER CLEAN AIR ACT.";
(ii) by striking "SEC. 211."; and
(iii) by striking ''this or any other Act" and
inserting "the Department of Energy National Security
and Military Applications of Nuclear Energy
Authorization Act of 1981 (Public Law 96-540) or any
other Act".
(6) SUBTITLE HEADING ON OTHER MATTERS.-Title XLVII
of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003, as amended by this subsection, is further amended
by adding at the end the following new subtitle heading:
. (C) amended
(i) by striking the section heading and inserting
the following new section heading:
"SEC. 4781. SINGLE REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIA·
TIONS FOR COMMON DEFENSE AND SECURITY PRO·
GRAMS.";
and
(ii) by striking "SEC. 208.".
(k) ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS.
(1) HEADINGS.-Division D of the Bob Stump National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as amended
by this section, is further amended by adding at the end the
following new headings:
H. R. 1588-392
"TITLE XLVIII-ADMINISTRATIVE
MATTERS
"Subtitle A-Contracts".
(2) COSTS NOT ALLOWED UNDER CERTAIN CONTRACTS.-Sec
tion 1534 of the Department of Defense Authorization Act,
1986 (Public Law 99-145; 99 Stat. 774), as amended by section
3131 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years
1988 and 1989 (Public Law 100-180; 101 Stat. 1238), is
(A) transferred to title XLVIII of the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,
as added by paragraph (1);
(B) redesignated as section 4801;
(C) inserted after the heading for subtitle A of such
title, as so added; and
(D) amended
(i) in the section heading, by adding a period at
the end; and
(ii) in subsection (b)(l), by striking "the date of
the enactment of this Act," and inserting "November
8,1985,".
(3) PROHIBITION ON BONUSES TO CONTRACTORS OPERATING
DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES.-Section 3151 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991
(Public Law 101-189; 103 Stat. 1682), is
(A) transferred to title XLVIII of the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,
as amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4802;
(C) inserted after section 4801, as added by paragraph
(2); and
(D) amended
(i) in the section heading, by adding a period at
the e~d;
(ii) in subsection (a), by striking "the date of the
. enactment of this Act" and inserting "November 29,
1989";
(iii) in subsection (b), by striking "6 months after
the date of the enactment of this Act," and inserting
"May 29, 1990,"; and
(iv) in subsection (d), by striking "90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act" and inserting
"March 1,1990".
(4) CONTRACTOR LIABILITY FOR INJURY OR LOSS OF PROPERTY
ARISING FROM ATOMIC WEAPONS TESTING PROGRAMS.-Section
3141 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1991 (Public Law 101-510; 104 Stat. 1837), is
(A) transferred to title XLVIII of the Bob Stump
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003,
as amended by this subsection;
(B) redesignated as section 4803;
(C) inserted after section 4802, as added by paragraph
(3); and
(D) amended
H. R. 1588-393
(i) in the section heading, by adding a period at
the end; and
(ii) in subsection (d), by striking ''the date of the
enactment of this Act" each place it appears and
inserting "November 5,1990,".
(5) SUBTITLE HEADING ON RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.
Title XLVIII of the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2003, as amended by this subsection, is
further amended by adding at the end the following new subtitle
heading:
TITLE XXXV-MARITIME
ADMINISTRATION
Reauthorization
Guarantee Program.
"53101. Definitions.
"53106. Payments.
"53110. Regulations.
Nonproliferation Programs
Sec. 3623. Sense of Con~ess on cooperation by United States and NATO with Rus
sia on ballistic missile defenses.
Sec. 3624. Sense of Congress on enhanced collaboration to achieve more reliable
Russian early warning systems.
Subtitle C-Other Matters
Sec. 3631. Promotion of discussions on nuclear and radiological security and safety
between the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Organization
for Economic Cooperation and Development.
SEC. 3601. SHORT TITLE.
This title may be cited as the "Nuclear Security Initiative
Act of 2003".
H. R. 1588-432
NOTE: PL 108-132 itself does not actually reference perchlorate. The language
above appears on page 17 of the Conference Report, under the Items of General
Interest Heading
98. $1,000,000 for the Santa Clara Valley Water District, California for perchlorate
groundwater clean-up;
100. $500,000 for the West Valley Water District, California for the Inland Empire
Perchlorate Force Wellhead Treatment;
of thr
2ln 2let
Making appropriations for military construction, family housing, and base realign
ment and closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending Sep
tember 30, 2004, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated for military construction, family
housing, and base realignment and closure functions administered
by the Department of Defense, for the fiscal year ending September
30, 2004, and for other purposes, namely:
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
For the United States share of the cost of the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization Security Investment Program for the acquisi
tion and construction of military facilities and installations
(including international military headquarters) and for related
expenses for the collective defense of the North Atlantic Treaty
Area as authorized in Military Construction Authorization Acts
and section 2806 of title 10, United States Code, $169,300,000,
to remain available until expended: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated for "North Atlantic Treaty Organization Security
H.R.2559-4
Investment Program" under Public Law 107-249, $8,000,000 are
rescinded.
FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine Corps
for construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension and alteration, as authorized by law,
$184,193,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008: Pro
vided, That of the funds appropriated for "Family Housing Construc
tion, Navy and Marine Corps" under Public Law 107-249,
$40,508,000 are rescinded.
FAMILY HOUSING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, NAVY AND
MARINE CORPS
For expenses of family housing for the Navy and Marine Corps
for operation and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing,
minor cons~ruction, principal and interest charges, and insurance
premiums, as authorized by law, $835,078,000.
FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for construc
tion, including acquisition, replacement, addition, expansion, exten
sion and alteration, as authorized by law, $657,065,000, to remain
available until September 30, 2008: Provided, That of the funds
appropriated for "Family Housing Construction, Air Force" under
Public Law 107-249, $19,347,000 are rescinded.
FAMILY HOUSING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, AIR FORCE
For expenses of family housing for the Air Force for operation
and maintenance, including debt payment, leasing, minor construc
tion, principal and interest charges, and insurance premiums, as
authorized by law, $816,074,000.
H.R.2559-5
FAMILY HOUSING CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE
For expenses of family housing for the activities and agencies
of the Department of Defense (other than the military departments)
for construction, including acquisition, replacement, addition,
expansion, extension and alteration, as authorized by law, $350,000,
to remain available until September 30, 2008.
FAMILY HOUSING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, DEFENSE-WIDE
For expenses of family housing for the activities and agencies
of the Department of Defense (other than the military departments)
for operation and maintenance, leasing, and minor construction,
as authorized by law, $49,440,000.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FAMILY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT FUND
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
For the Department of Defense Family Housing Improvement
Fund, $300,000, to remain available until expended, for family
housing initiatives undertaken pursuant to section 2883 of title
10, United States Code, providing alternative means of acquiring
and improving military family housing and supporting facilities:
Provided, That of funds available in the "Family Housing Improve
ment Fund", $9,692,000 are rescinded. '
BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE ACCOUNT
For deposit into the Department of Defense Base Closure
Account 1990 established by section 2906(a)(1) of the Department
of Defense Authorization Act, 1991 (Public Law 101-510),
$370,427,000, to remain available until expended.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SEC. 101. None of the funds appropriated in Military Construc
tion Appropriations Acts shall be expended for payments under
a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract for construction, where cost esti
mates exceed $25,000, to be performed within the United States,
except Alaska, without the specific approval in writing of the Sec
retary of Defense setting forth the reasons therefor.
SEC. 102. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction shall be available for hire of passenger motor
vehicles.
SEC. 103. Funds appropriated to the Department of Defense
for construction may be used for advances to the Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation, for the construction
of access roads as authorized by section 210 of title 23, United
States Code, when projects authorized therein are certified as
important to the national defense by the Secretary of Defense.
SEC. 104. None of the funds appropriated in this Act may
be used to begin construction of new bases inside the continental
United States for which specific appropriations have not been made.
SEC. 105. No part of the funds provided in Military Construction
Appropriations Acts shall be used for purchase of land or land
easements in excess of 100 percent of the value as determined
by the Army Corps of Engineers or the Naval Facilities Engineering
Command, except: (1) where there is a determination of value
H. R. 2559-6
by a Federal court; (2) purchases negotiated by the Attorney General
or his designee; (3) where the estimated value is less than $25,000;
or (4) as otherwise determined by the Secretary of Defense to
be in the public interest.
SEC. 106. None of the funds appropriated in Military Construc
tion Appropriations Acts shall be used to: (1) acquire land; (2)
provide for site preparation; or (3) install utilities for any family
housing, except housing for which funds have been made available
in annual Military Construction Appropriations Acts.
SEC. 107. None of the funds appropriated in Military Construc
tion Appropriations Acts for minor construction may be used to
transfer or relocate any activity from one base or installation to
another, without prior notification to the Committees on Appropria
tions.
SEC. 108. No part of the funds appropriated in Military
Construction Appropriations Acts may be used for the procurement
of steel for any construction project or activity for which American
steel producers, fabricators, and manufacturers have been denied
the opportunity to compete for such steel procurement.
SEC. 109. None of the funds available to the Department of
Defense for military construction or family housing during the
current fiscal year may be used to pay real property taxes in
any foreign nation.
SEC. 110. None of the funds appropriated in Military Construc
tion Appropriations Acts may be used to initiate a new installation
overseas without prior notification to the Committees on Appropria
tions.
SEC. 111. None of the funds appropriated in Military Construc
tion Appropriations Acts may be obligated for architect and engineer
contracts estimated by the Government to exceed $500,000 for
projects to be accomplished in Japan, in any NATO member country,
or in countries bordering the Arabian Sea, unless such contracts
are awarded to United States firms or United States firms in
joint venture with host nation firms.
SEC. 112. None of the funds appropriated in Military Construc
tion Appropriations Acts for military construction in the United
States territories and possessions in the Pacific and on Kwajalein
Atoll, or in countries bordering the Arabian Sea, may be used
to award any contract estimated by the Government to exceed
$1,000,000 to a foreign contractor: Provided, That this section shall
not be applicable to contract awards for which the lowest responsive
and responsible bid of a United States contractor exceeds the lowest
responsive and responsible bid of a foreign contractor by' greater
than 20 percent: Provided further, That this section shall not apply
to contract awards for military construction on Kwajalein Atoll
for which the lowest responsive and responsible bid is submitted
by a Marshallese contractor.
SEC. 113. The Secretary of Defense is to inform the appropriate
committees of Congress, including the Committees on Appropria
tions, of the plans and scope of any proposed military exercise
involving United States personnel 30 days prior to its occurring,
if amounts expended for construction, either temporary or perma
nent, are anticipated to exceed $100,000.
SEC. 114. Not more than 20 percent of the appropriations
in Military Construction Appropriations Acts which are limited
for obligation during the current fiscal year shall be obligated
during the last 2 months of the fiscal year.
H.R.2559-7
(TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
CONFERENCE REPORT
[To accompany H.R. 2559]
The committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the
two Houses on the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2559)
"making appropriations for military construction, family housing,
and base realignment and closure for the Department of Defense
for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2004, and for other pur
poses," having met, after full and free conference, have agreed to
recommend and do recommend to their respective Houses as fol
lows:
That the House recede from its disagreement to the amend
ment of the Senate, and agree to the same with an amendment, as
follows:
In lieu of the matter stricken and inserted by said amendment,
insert:
That the following sums are appropriated, out of any money in the
Treasury not otherwise appropriated for military construction, fam
ily housing, and base realignment and closure functions adminis
tered by the Department of Defense, for the fiscal year ending Sep
tember 30, 2004, and for other purposes, namely:
MIliTARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment of
temporary or permanent public works, military installations, facili
ties, and real property for the Army as currently authorized by law,
including personnel in the Army Corps of Engineers and other per
sonal services necessary for the purposes of this appropriation, and
for construction and operation of facilities in support of the func
tions of the Commander in Chief, $1,448,239,000, to remain avail
90-228
2
able until September 30, 2008: Provided, That of this amount, not
to exceed $126,833,000 shall be available for study, planning, de
sign, architect and engineer services, and host nation support, as
authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense determines that
additional obligations are necessary for such purposes and notifies
the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of Congress of his
determination and the reasons therefor: Provided further, That of
the funds appropriated for "Military Construction, Army" under
Public Law 107-249, $137,850,000 are rescinded: Provided further,
That of the funds appropriated for "Military Construction, Army"
under Public Law 107-64, $24,000,000 are rescinded: Provided fur
ther, That of the funds appropriated for "Military Construction,
Army" under Public Law 106-246, $17,415,000 are rescinded: Pro
vided further, That of the funds appropriated for "Military Con
struction, Army" under Public Law 106-52, $4,350,000 are re
scinded.
MIliTARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVY
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment of
temporary or permanent public works, naval installations, facilities,
and real property for the Navy as currently authorized by law, in
cluding personnel in the Naval Facilities Engineering Command
and other personal services necessary for the purposes of this appro
priation, $1,238,458,000, to remain available until September 30,
2008: Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $71,001,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, architect and engi
neer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such pur
poses and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated for "Military Construction,
Navy" under Public Law 107-249, $27,213,000 are rescinded: Pro
vided further, That of the funds appropriated for "Military Con
struction, Navy" under Public Law 107-64, $18,409,000 are re
scinded.
MIliTARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE
(INCLUDING RESCISSION)
For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment of
temporary or permanent public works, military installations, facili
ties, and real property for the Air Force as currently authorized by
law, $1,067,751,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That of this amount, not to exceed $95,778,000 shall be
available for study, planning, design, architect and engineer serv
ices, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense deter
mines that additional obligations are necessary for such purposes
and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses of
Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated for "Military Construction,
Air Force" in Public Law 107--249, $23,000,000 are rescinded.
3
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, DEFENSE-WIDE
(INCLUDING RESCISSION AND TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
. For acquisition, construction, installation, and equipment of
temporary or permanent public works, installations, facilities, and
real property for activities and agencies of the Department of De
_ fense (other than the military departments), as currently authorized
by law, $773,471,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008:
Provided, That such amounts of this appropriation as may be deter
mined by the Secretary of Defense may be transferred to such appro
priations of the Department of Defense available for military con
struction or family housing as he may designate, to be merged with
and to be available for the same purposes, and for the same time
period, as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided
further, That of the amount appropriated, not to exceed $65,130,000
shall be available for study, planning, design, architect and engi
neer services, as authorized by law, unless the Secretary of Defense
determines that additional obligations are necessary for such pur
poses and notifies the Committees on Appropriations of both Houses
of Congress of his determination and the reasons therefor: Provided
further, That of the funds appropriated for "Military Construction,
Defense-wide" under Public Law 107-249, $72,309,000 are re
scinded.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and
conversion of facilities for the training and administration of the
Army National Guard, and contributions therefor, as authorized by
chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military Construc
tion Authorization Acts, $311,592,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008.
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR NATIONAL GUARD
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and
conversion of facilities for the training and administration of the
Air National Guard, and contributions therefor, as authorized by
chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military Construc
tion Authorization Acts, $222,908,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2008.
MIliTARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY RESERVE
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and
conversion of facilities for the training and administratio.n of the
Army Reserve as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$88,451,000, to remain available until September 30, 2008.
MIliTARY CONSTRUCTION, NAVAL RESERVE
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and
conversion of facilities for the training and administration of the re
serve components of the Navy and Marine Corps as authorized by
chapter 1803 of title 10, United States Code, and Military Construc
4
tion Authorization Acts, $45,498,000, to remain available until Sep
tember 30, 2008.
MIliTARY CONSTRUCTION, AIR FORCE RESERVE
For construction, acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and
conversion of facilities for the training and administration of the
_ Air Force Reserve as authorized by chapter 1803 of title 10, United
States Code, and Military Construction Authorization Acts,
$62,032,000, to remain available until September 30,2008.
NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
JAMES T. WALSR,
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT,
KAy GRANGER,
VIRGIL GoODE,
DAVID VITTER,
JACK KINGSTON,
13
ANDER CRENSHAW,
BILL YOUNG,
CHET EDWARDS,
SAM FARR,
ALLEN BOYD,
NORMAN DICKS,
DAVID OBEY,
CONRAD BURNS,
LARRY E. CRAIG,
MIKE DEWINE,
SAM BROWNBACK,
TED STEVENS,
DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
DANIEL K. INOUYE,
TIM JOHNSON,
MARy LAN'DRIEU,
ROBERT C. BYRD,
17
like the other service components, the Navy failed to adequately ac
count for the reduction in housing units due to the public/private
venture initiative.
The conferees are extremely concerned about transfers between
the various family housing operation and maintenance sub
accounts. Therefore, in addition to the above GAO study, the con
ferees direct GAO to review the transfer of funds between these ac
-- counts, including amounts over and under the established thresh
old and to report to Congress no later than April 15, 2004.
Housing Privatization: Rescission of Funds and Notification
Requirements of Reductions in Funding.-The conferees agree to
rescind $48,099,000 from Family Housing Construction accounts to
reflect savings from projects where estimated equity contributions
were unnecessary. Section 2853 of Title 10, United States Code, re
quires congressional notification of intent to cancel or reduce the
scope of a previously approved military construction or family hous
ing project by more than 25 percent. The conferees note this re
quirement applies to funds appropriated in the family housing im
provement accounts for the purpose of privatizing military family
housing. The Service Secretaries are, therefore, required to submit
a 21-day prior notification of intent to cancel or reduce the amount
previously appropriated for a specific housing privatization project
by more than 25 percent. The notification shall include the amount
of the reduction and the reasons therefor.
Clarification of Housing Privatization Reporting Require
ments.-In accordance with current law, the Service Secretaries are
required to submit a 30-day prior notification of each contract for
the acquisition or construction of family housing units that the Sec
retary proposes to solicit under the housing privatization authori
ties and for each conveyance or lease proposed under Section 2878
of Title 10, United States Code.
Overseas Master Plans.-The conferees direct the Department
to prepare comprehensive master plans for overseas military infra
structure and to submit the plans with the fiscal year 2006 budget
submission instead of the fiscal year 2005 budget submission as
proposed by the Senate. In addition, the conferees agree a report
on the status of the comprehensive plans and their implementation
is to be submitted with each yearly military construction budget
submission through fiscal year 2009 instead of fiscal year 2008 as
proposed by the Senate. Master plans are valuable planning docu
ments. Therefore, the conferees may extend this requirement to in
stallations in the continental United States.
Perchlornte.-The conferees direct the Department to submit a
report identifying the sources of perchlorate on Base Realignment
and Closure (BRAC) properties and the plans to remediate per
chlorate contamination on these sites no later than April 30, 2004,
instead of March 30, 2004 as proposed by the Senate. '
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION, ARMY
(INCLUDING RESCISSIONS)
The conference agreement appropriates $1,448,239,000 for
Military Construction, Army, instead of $1,533,660,000 as proposed
by the House and $1,255,155,000 as proposed by the Senate. With
18
in this amount, the conference agreement earmarks $126,833,000
for study, planning, design, architect and engineer services, and
host nation support instead of $122,710,000 as proposed by the
House and $134,645,000 as proposed by the Senate. The conference
agreement rescinds $183,615,000 from funds previously provided to
this account as proposed by the House and Senate. The rescissions
include the following amounts:
Public Law/locatlQn Proj.ct tnl. HOIIse S.n.te Conference
PUblic law 106-246 (FY 2001): Barracks Complex . - 17,415,000 -17,415,000 -17,415,000
Korea: Camp Page.
Subtotal .. -17,415,000 -17,415,000 -17,415,000
Public law 106-52 (FY 2000): Physical fitness Training Center -4,350,000
Korea: Camp Bonifas.
Subtotal . -4,350,000
23
CORPS
Public Law 105-237 (FY 1999), Privatize Family Housing ............ - 9,692,000 -9,692,000
Florida, Patrick AFB.
ALABAlIA
ARnv
REOSTONE ARSENAL
VIBRATION OVNAnIC TEST FACILITV ..............•.... 5.500 5.500
AIR FORCE
nAXWELL AFB
INTEGR~TED OPER~TIONAL SUPPORT FACILITV ..•.•...... 12.600
SQUADRON OFFICER COLLEGE DORnITORV (PHASE III) ... 13.400 13.400
DEFENSE-WIDE
REDSTONE ARSENAL
ADnIN/OPS COnPLEX, ftISSILE OEF. AGENCV (PHASE III) 20.000
ARnV NATIONAL GUARD
FORT ftC CLELLAN
FIRE STATION ...........••......................... 1,873 1.873
FORT PAVNE
READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATIDN ....•...•..... 3.648
nOBILE
ARnED FDRCES RESERVE CENTER (PHASE II) . 2.943 2.943
SPRINGVILLE
READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION . 3.365
VINCENT
READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION .......•...... 3.353 3.353
........ -- ........... _ ............ -- ......
REQUEST AGREEHENT
LUKE AFB
LAIlO ACQUISITION "ODIFICATION ..•......•...••......
- AIR NATIONAL GUARD
TUCSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
COHPOSITE SUPPORT COHPLEX .........•...............
TOTAL. ARIZONA ........••........................
ARKANSAS
AIR FORCE
CAliFORNIA
NAVY
C~P PENDLETON HARINE CORPS BASE
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS· SAN HATEO ....•.......
TERTIARY SEWAGE TREAntENT PLANT (PHASE II) ....•...
CHINA LAKE NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
AIRFIELD PAIlEHENTS UPGRADE .
PROPELLANTS ANO EXPLOSIVES LABORATORY (PHASE III).
LEHOORE NAVAL AIR STATION
INTEGRATED HAINTENANCE HANGAR ...........•.........
OPERATIONAL TRAINER FACILITY .............•........
ftIRA~ HARINE CORPS AIR STATION .
AIRCRAFT FIRE AND RESCUE STATION ..........•.......
GROUND COHBAT TRAINING RANGE .
HONTEREY NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL
BACHELOR OFFICER QUARTERS .............•....•......
EDUCATIONAL FACILITY REPLACEHENT (PHASE II) •......
NORTH ISLAND NAVAL AIR STATION
SQUADRON OPERATIONS FACILITy •.....•...............
TAXIWAY/AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER .
SAN NICOLAS ISLAND NAVAl AIR WEAPONS STATION
TRANSIENT OUARTERS .
SAN CLEHENTE NAVAL AIR FACILITY
OPERATIONAL ACCESS - SHORE BOHBARDftENT AREA .....•.
SAN DIEGO NAVAL STATION
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS· HOHEPORT ASHORE .
TWENTYNINE PALHS
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS ............•........ '"
ENLISTED DINING FACIL ITY ...................•......
EXPLOSIVE ORDNANCE DPERATIONS CENTER.....•........
AIR FORCE
BEALE AFB •
GLOBAL HAwK DORHITORY .
GLOBAL HAWK UPGRADE DOCK .
EDWARDS AFB
BASE OPERATIONS FACILITY ..••......................
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER COHPLEX (PHASE I) .
LOS ANGELES AFB
AReA B HAIN GATE COHPLEX.................•........
VANDENBERG MB
CONSOLIDATED FITNESS CENTER.•.....................
OEFENSE·WIDE
CORONADO NAVAL AHPHIBIOUS BASE
SHALL ARHS RANGE .
ARHY NATIONAL GUARD
BAKERSFIELD
READINESS CENTER ......................•.•••.......
29
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
(~OUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
BUDGET CONFERENCE
REQUEST AGREE"ENT
LOS ALAIllTOS
REPLACE UTILITIES INFRASTRUCTURE (PHASE I) ..•.... , 21.000
NAVAL RJ:SERVE
NORTH ISLANO NAVAL AIR STATION
C-40 AIRCRAFT KAINTENANCE HANGAR . 15.873 15.873
TOTAL. CALIFORNIA..........•..............•.....
360.338 402.888
COLORADO
ARMY
FORT CARSON
VEHICLE KARSHALLING AREA..•.......•.........•..... 2.150
AIR FORCE
BUCKLEY AFB
UPGRADE BASE INFRASTRUCTURE (PHASE III) •••..•.••.. 6.957 6,957
PETERSON AFB
ADD/ALTER MISSION SuPPORT FACiLITY .....•.•........ 10.200
DEFENSE·WIDE
PUEBLO DEPOT ACTIVITY
AMMUNITION DEMILITARIZATION FACILITY (PHASE IV) ... BB.388
U.S. AIR FORCE ACADEIlY
HOSPITAL ADDITION/ALTERATION ...........•.....•.... 21.50D 21.500
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
BUCKLEY AF8
CIVIL ENGINEER COMPLEX . 6.9Do 6,800
AIR FDRCE RESERVE
PETERSON AFB
CONSOLIDATED AERIAL PORT/AIRLIFT CNTRL FLIGHT FAC. 7,700
.......... .. .... -...... ...... -................
OISTRICT OF COLU"BIA
N/l.VY
KARINE BARRACKS. BTH AND I
MOTOR TRANSPORT FACILITY ADDITION .•..•.•.•.•...... 1.550 1.550
AIR FORCE •
BOLLING AFB
AIR FORCE CENTRAL ADJUDICATION FACILITY ....••.. '" 9.30D
DEFENSE·WIDE
WASIIINGTON NAVY YARD
MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC CONVERSiON/RENOVATION . 15.714 15.714
WALTER REEO ARMY MEDICAL CENTER
HOSPITAL ENERGY PLANT ADDITION, .. " ......•..... , .. 9.000 8.000
TOTAL. DISTRICT OF COLU"BIA.... , ....•...........
35.564 26.264
FLORIDA
N/l.VY
BLOUNT ISLANO
LAND ACQUISITION .....••••••...............•.•.. , ..
115.711 115.711
30
"ILITARY CONSTRUCTION
(AIlOUNTS IN TllOUSANDS)
8UOGET CONFERENCE
REQUEST AGREE"ENT
HAWAII
ARIIV
HELEnANO IIILITARV RESERVATION
LAND EASEHENT ...............................•..... 1.400 1.400
POHAKULOA TNG AREA SADDLE RD ACCESS (PHASE III) ... 17 .000
SCHOFIELD BARRACKS
BARRACkS COIIPLEX . CAPRON ROAO (PHASE II) .•....... 49,000 49.000
BARRACkS COIIPLEX • QUAD E....................•... 49.000 49.000
INFOIUtATION SYSTEIIS FACILITY ...•.......•.......... 18,000 1B,OOO
LANO ACQUISITION ....•..................•......•... 19,400 19.400
IIISSION SUPPORT TRAINING FACILITV . 33,000 33,000
QUALIFICATION TRAINING RANGE (1) •......•.••••..... B.700
NAVY
LUALUALEI NAVAL IIAGAZINES
ORONANCE HOLDING AREAS ........................•... 8,320 6.320
PEARL HARBOR
PERIIIETER SECURITY LIGHTING . 7,010 7,010
WATERFRONT IIIPROVEHENTS ..................•........ 32.180 32.180
AIR FORCE
HICkAII AFB
C·17 CONSOLIDATED ~INTENANCE COHPLEX ...•....•.... 7.529 1,529
C·11 CORROSION CONTROLI IIAINTENAHCE fACILITV . 30.400 30.400
C·17 FLIGHT SIIIULATOR FACILITV .........•.......... 5.823 5.623
C·17 KUNTZ GATE AND ROAD . 3,050 3,050
C·17 SQUADRON OPERATIONS FACILITY•.......•....•... 10,874 10,874
C·17 SUPPORT UTILITIES (PHASE I) . 4.098 4.098
ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION SVSTEII ..........•.••...... 6,800
EXPAND STRATEGIC AIRLIFT RAIIP , ..•....•... 10,102 10.102
OEFENSE·WIDE
HICkAII AFB
REPLACE HVDRANT FUEL SVSTE" . 14,100 14,100
. ........ - ..........
~
~_ ...... __ ...
TOTAL. HAWAII . 300,888 333 , 3B6
IDAHO
AIR FORCE
"OUNTAIN HOllE AF8
726TH AIR CONTROL SQUADRON COIIPLEX .......•..•..... 9.800
FITNESS CENTER ADDITION ...........•.........•..... 5,337 5,337
...................... - ........................
ILLINOIS
NAVY
GREAT LAkES NAVAL TRAINING CENTER
BATTLE STATION TRAINING FACILITY (PHASE I) . 13.200 13.200
RECRUIT BARRACKS •................................. 31.800 31.800
RECRUIT BARRACKS .............................•... 34,130 34.130
AIR FORCE
SCOTT AfB
SHILOH GATE .•............................... " ..... 1.900 1,900
ARIIV NATIONAL GUARD
GALESBURG
READINESS CENTER ..........•.......•............... 3,750
. .............. ...... . ........................
TOTAL. ILLINOIS . 80.830 84.580
INDIANA
NAVY
CRANE NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
JOINT ORDNANCE ENGINEERING AND LOGISTICS FACILITY. 11.400
DEFENSE-WIDE
NEWPORT ARIIV A11I1UNITION PLANT
AIIIIUNITION DEIIILITARIZATION FACILITY (PHASE IV) ... 15,207
32
~ILITARY CONSTRUCTION
lAMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
BUDGET CONFERENCE
REOUEST AGREEMENT
TOTAL. LOUISIANA.......................•.•......
90.579 101.659
"AINE
ARHY NATIONAL GUARD
BANGOR INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITY (PHASE II) .........•.•..
14,900
IlARYLANO
ARIlY
FORT MEADE
DINING FACILITY .............•..•..•......•.•.•.... 9.800 9.600
NAVY
INDIAN HEAD NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
WATER SYSTEM IMPROVEftENTS ..............••.••...... 14.850 14.850
PATUXENT RIVER NAVAL AIR WARFARE CENTER
JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER TEST AND SUPPORT FACILITIES .. 24.370 24.370
RELOCATE RANGE THEODOLITE TRACKING STATION . 3.900
DEFENSE-WIDE
FORT MEADE
CRITICAL UTILITY CONTROL (PHASE II-B) . 1.842 1,842
ARIlY RESERVE
FORT "EADE
RESERVE CENTER/O"S/WAREHOUSE (PHASE 1) ...•........ 19,710 19.710
AIR fORCE RESERVE
ANDREWS AFB
ALTER AIRCRAFT IlAINTENANCE SHOPS .......••.•......•
2.900 2,900
HYDRANT fUEL SYSTE" . 7,375 7.375
UPGRADE AIRFIELD PAVE"ENTS . 835 835
--- ..... --._ .... . ......................
- ....
MILITARY CONSTRUCTION
(AMOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
BUDGET CONFERENCE
REQUEST AGREEMENT
SELFRIDGE ANGB
JOINT MEDICAL TRAINING FACILITY... 9.600
TOTAL. MICHIGAN . 5.591 30.569
MINNESOTA
AIR NATIONAL GUARO
DULUTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE FACILITY MODERNIZATION....... 9.000
AIR FORCE RESERVE
MINNEAPOLIS-ST. PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
AEROMEDICAL EVACUATION FACILITy..... 3.650
TOTAL. MINNESOTA.,.............................. 12.650
MISSISS.IPPI
NAVY
MERIDIAN NAVAL AIR STATION
FIRE AND RESCUE STATION , . 4.570 4.570
AIR FORCE
COLUMBUS AFB
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER ......•.................. 5.500
T·6 PARTS WAREHOUSE ......••.......••.............. 2.200
KEESLER AFB
CHILO DEVELOPMENT CENTER ..................••...... 2.900
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
CMP SHELBY
REGIONAL MILITARY EDUCATIONAL CENTER (PHASE 1) .... 7.733 7.733
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
CMP SHELBY
C·17 ASSAULT RUNWAY. . , .. 7,409 7.409
NAVAL RESERVE
PASCAGOULA
LITTORAL SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM FACILITY . 6,100
AIR FORCE RESERVE
KEESLER AFB
FUEL CELL MAINTENANCE HANGAR . 6,650 6,650
TOTAL. MiSSISSIPPI ....•.......................•. 26,36:1 43.062
MISSOURI
AIR FORCE
WHITEIIAN AFB
EDUCATION CENTER , . 11.600
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
DEXTER
READINESS CENTER , . . .. . . . .. . . . .. . . . .. , 4.947 4.9H
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
ROSECRANS MEMORIAL AIRPORT
AIR TRAFFIC.CONTROL TRAINING COMPLEX ....•....... ,. 8.000
TOTAL. NISSOURI , . 4.9H 24,547
MONTANA
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
BILLINGS
ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOP ADDITION . 1.209 1,209
KALISPELL
ARMED FORces RESERVE CENTER . 9.020
ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOP ADDITION . 706 706
TOTAL. MONTANA ..........................•....... 1,915 10.935
35
HILITARY CONSTRUCTION
(AHOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
BUDGET CONFERENCE
REQUEST AGREEMENT
NEBRASKA
DEFENSE-WIDE
OFFUTT AFB
REPLACE HYDRANT FUEL SySTEM ................•...... 13,400 13,400
ARHY NATIONAL GUARD
CAIIP ASHLAND
CONSTRUCT FRONTAGE LEVEE SEGHENT . 3,000
COLUHBUS
READINESS CENTER ADDITION/ALTERATION . 818 818
NORFOLK
FIRE STATION ................•..................... 1,088 1.088
OAAHA
READINESS CENTER . 5.804 5.804
YORK
READINESS CENTER ALTERATION . 758 758
. . --............ _ .. _.. -.- ....... .
~
KIRTLAND AFB
ARSENIC TREAT"ENT SYSTE"S ...•.•........•.....••... 6.957 6.957
ELECTRICAL POWER KAIN SWITCHING STATION . 4.150
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
ALBUQUERQUE
READINESS CENTER ADOITION/ALTERATION . 2.533 2,533
- . _ ...... _. _ .. - .. 9"" .......... _ ......
NEW YORK
ARIIY
FORT DRUM
BARRACKS 10200 AREA ..••....••.............•..... 22.500 22.500
BARRACKS COMPLEX • WHEELER SACK AAF (PHASE I) ..... 49.000 49.000
MOUNTAIN RAMP EXPANSiON .......•................... 11,000 11.000
TACTICAL UNftANNED AERIAl VEHICLE FACILITY .....•... 5.200
AR"Y NATIONAL GUARD
ROCHESTER
READINESS CENTER ADDITION/AlTERATION ...••.•....... 4.332 4.332
UTICA
ORGANIZATIONAL MAINTENANCE SHOP .....•..•....•..... 3.281 3.261
AIR NATIONAL GUARO
HANCOCK FIELD
MUNITIONS STORAGE COHPLEX ...............•....... ,. 6.500
AIR FORCE RESERVE
NIAGRA FALLS ARS
TOTAL. NEW yORK ............•...........•.•.•.... 90.093 101.793
NOATH CAROLINA
ARMY
FORT BRAGG
BARRACKS CO"PLEX - BASTOGNE DRIVE (PHASE I) . 47.000 47.000
BARRACKS COMPLEX· BUTNER ROAD (PHASE IV) ...•.•... 38.000 38,000
BARRACKS·D AREA (PHASE IV) . 17 .000 17,000
SOLDIER SUPPORT CENTER (PHASE II) . 11.400
NAVY
C~P LEJEUNE MARINE CORPS BASE
CONSOLIDATED ARMORIES ..................••......... 10.270 10.270
HEADQUARTERS AND ACADEMIC INSTRUCTION FACILITY . &,300 &.300
OPERATIONS ANO TRAINING FACILITIES . 12.880 12.880
NEW RIVER KARINE CORPS AIR STATION
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY .........•......... , •..... 6.240 6.240
AIR FORCE
POPE MB
C-130J 2,BAY HANGAR . 15.829 15,629
C-130J UPGRADE HANGAR 8 . 2.718 2.116
C·130J/30 RAMP UPGRADE . 1,239 1.239
C·130J/30 TECH TRAINING FACILITY . 4.431 4.431
SEYMOUR JOHNSON MB
BOUNDARY FENCE ............•....................... 1,500 1.500
DORflITORIES . 9.530 9,530
FIRE/CRASH RESCUE STATIONS .. 11 .400
DEFENSE-WIDE
CAMP LEJEUNE
NEW IlAINSIDE PRIMARY SCHOOL .......•...........•... 15.259 15.259
FORT BRAGG
BATTAlION AND COMPANY HEADQUARTERS ..........•..... 4.200 4.200
CDHPANY OPERATIONS FACILITY ADDITION . 1.500 1,500
JOINT OPERATIONS COIIPLEX ....................•..... 19.100 19.700
ItAZE AND FACADE . 2.400 2.400
TRAINING CDMPLEX . 8.500 8.500
AR!IY NATIONAL GUARD
ASHEVILLE
READINESS CENTER .........•........................ 6.251 6.251
37
lliLITARY CONSTRUCTION
(AIlOUNTS IN THOUSANOS)
BUOGET CONFERENCE
REQUEST AGREEIIENT
.. _ ••• _- •• -- - - ••••• -- ••• - -- -"~"1".- - - ••••
LENOIR
READ I NESS CENTER.... . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . 6,184 6,184
"ORRISVIUE
FIRE STATION ..••...........•..............•.•..•.. 1.306 1,306
SALISBURY
FIRE STATION .....................•................ 928 928
.. .......... . " ........ . .................
ARIlY
FORT SILL
CONSOLIDATED IIAINTENANCE COMPLEX (PHASE II) .•....• 13,000 13,000
"DDIFIEO RECORD FIRE RANGE ............•.....•.....
3,500 3.500
URBAN ASSAULT COURSE . 2,000
AIR FORCE
ALTUS AFB
C-17 1l0DIFY SIIlULATOR BAyS .. 1, 144 1,144
TINkER AFB
BUILDING 3001 REVITALIZATION (PHASE I) .•...•.•... 19,060 19,060
VANCE AFB
CONSOLIDATED, LOGISTICS COIlPLEX .......••.......•...
15.000
........................ .. ......................
PENNSYLVANIA
DEFENSE-WIDE
HARRISBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
C130J EQUIP"ENT "AINTENANCE FACILITY . 3.000 3.000
NEW CU"BERLAND DEFENSE DISTRIBUTION DEPOT
REPLACE GENERAL PURPOSe WAREHOUSES, . 27.000 27.000
AR"Y NATIONAL GUARD
FORT INDIANTOWN GAP
"ULTI-PURPOSE TRAINING RANGE _ . 15.338
.... ...... -.
~- . .....................
RHODE ISLAND
NAVY
NEWPORT NAVAL STATION
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS REPLACEftENT . 18.140 16.140
GATE I SECURITY IMPROVE"ENTS . 2.550
UNDERWATER WEAPON SYSTE"S LABORATORY . 10.890 10.890
AIR NATIONAl GUARD
QUONSET STATE AIRPORT
REPLACE CO"POSITE AIRCRAFT "AINTENANCE CO"PLEX . 18.500 18.500
.... ........ - .......... ......................
TOTAl. RHODE ISLAND . 45.530 48.080
SOUTH CAROLINA
NAVY
CHARLESTON NAVAL WEAPONS STATION,
AT/FP SOUTH ANNEX GATE 4 :': . 2.350
AIR FORCE
CHARLESTON AFB
OOR"ITORY ................................•........ 8.863 8.863
SHAW AFB
DEPLOYMENT PROCESSING CENTER . 8.500
... - ...... _----- .... -- .. ............
"
TOTAL. SOUTH CAROLINA . 8.863 19.713
SOUTH DAKOTA
AIR FORCE
ELLSWORTH AFB
8-18 WEAPONS SYSTEM TRAINING FACILITY . 9.300
TENNESSEE
AIR NATIONAl GUARD
"E"PHIS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
CoS "AINTENANCE SHOPS CONVERSION . 5.000
NASHVILLE INTERNATIONAl AIRPORT
COMPOSITE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE COftPLEX (PHASE II), 11.000
"CGHEE·TYSON AIRPORT
FIRE STATION/SECURITY FORCES FACILITY . 6.000
AR"Y RESERVE
NASHVILLE ,
RESERVE CENTER/O"S/UNHEATED STORAGE . 8.955 8,955
................. ........ .... -- .. __ .........
TEXAS
ARI1Y
FORT BLISS
TACTICAl EQUIP"ENT SHOP . 5.400
FORT HOOD
BARRACKS COMPLEX - 67TH ST ~ BATTALION AVE . 47 .000 47,000
URBAN ASSAULT COURSE . 2.800 2.800
NAVY
CORPUS CHRISTI NAVAl AIR STATION
CONTROL TOWER ..........•.......................... 5.400
39
HILITARY CONSTRUCTION
(A"OUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
BUDGET CONFERENCE
REQUEST AGREE"ENT
AIR FORCE
HILL AFB
AEF DEPLOYMENT CENTER ..........•.................. 5,900
MUNITIONS MAINTENANCE FACILITY . 1.000 1.000
REPLACE MUNITIONS STORAGE IGLOOS . 13.000 13,000
SMALL DIAMETER BOMB STORAGE IGLOOS . 1.811 1.611
. . . . . . . . - " " . . . . oo ..
......................
VER"ONT
ARMY NATIONAL GUARD
SOUTH BURLINGTON
ARMV AVIATION SUPPORT FACILITY . 23.827 23.827
VIRGINIA
ARMV
FORT BELVOIR
NGIC LAND ACQUISITION ................•............ 7,000
FORT LEE
FIRE AND EMERGENCV SERVICES CENTER (PHASE II) •.... 3.850
FORT lIVER
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE FACILITY...............•...... 9,000 9.000
JUlVY
ARLINGTON • HENDERSON HALL
PHYSICAL FITNESS CENTER ADDITION . 1,970 1,970
DAHLGREN NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CENTER
OPERATIONS CENTER ADDITION .....................••. 20.520 20,520
WEAPONS DYNAMIC ROTIE CENTER . 3,500
LITTLE CREEK NAVAL ~PHIBIOUS BASE
GATE 1 IHPROVEMENTS ..........................••.•. 3,610 3,810
40
KILITARY CONSTRUCTION
(AKOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
BUDGET CONFERENCE
REDUEST AGREE"ENT
NORFOl..K
AIRCRAFT "AINTENANCE HANGAR . 36,460 36.460
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS . HOKEPORT ASHORE
<PHASE II) ..................•................... 46,730 46,730
CRANE/WEIGHT HANDLING EQUIP"ENT SHOP . 17.770 17.770
PIER 11 REPLACE"ENT <PHASE I) . 27,610 27.610
OCEANA NAVAL AIR STATION
CHILD DEVELOP"ENT CENTER . 10.000
QUANTICO MARINE CORPS BASE
NETWORK OPERATIONS CENTER . 14.420
WEAPONS TRAINING BATTALION LOAD AND TEST FACILITY. 3.700 3.700
AIR FORCE
LANGLEY AFB
F·22 CLEAR WATER RINSE PAD . 2.363 2.383
F·22 SQUADRON OPEAATIONS/AHU/HANGAR . 20.013 20.013
F·22 VERTICAL WING TANK STORAGE . 2.573 2.573
DEFENSE·WIDE
ARLINGTON
PENTAGON ATHLETIC CENTER RESTORATION PROJECT . 38.086 38.086
DAn NECK FLEET CO"BAT TRAINING CENTER
MISSION SUPPORT FACILITY . 5.600 5.600
SHALL AR"S RANGE . 9.681 9.681
FORT BELVOIR
DEFENSE THREAT REDUCTION CENTER (PHASE II) . 25.700 25,700
LANGLEY AFB
REPLACE HYDRANT FUEL SySTEM ................•...... 13,000 13.000
AIR NATIONAl GUARD
CAnP PENDLETON
TROOP TRAINING QUARTERS (REO HORSE) . 2.500
NAVAL RESERVE
QUANTICO
RESERVE CENTER . 9.497 9.497
- _ ................... .. ........ -............
WASHINGTON
AR"Y
FORT LEWIS
BARRACKS COHPLEX . 17TH & B STREET (PHASE III) . 48.000 48.000
DEPLOYNENT STAGING FACILITY . 2.650 2.850
SHOOT HOUSE . 1.250 1.250
NAVY
BANGOR NAVAl SUBIIARINE BASE
SERVICE PIER UPGRADE AND BUILDING ADDITION . 33,82D 33.820
WATERFRONT SECURITY FORCE FACILITy . 6.530 6.530
INDIAN ISLAND NAVAL IlAGAZINES
ORDNANCE TRANSFER FACILITy . 2.240 2.240
PUGET SOUND NAVAL SHIPYARD
SHIP REPAIR PIER 3 I"PROVEMENTS . 6,020
WHIDBEY ISLAND NAVAl AIR STATION
STRUCTURAL AJRCRAFTIFIRE STATION ADDITION . 4.650
AIR FORCE
HeCHORD AF&
UPGRADE "ISSION SUPPORT CENTER <PHASE II) . 19.000 19.000
DEFENSE·WIDE
HCCHORD AFI
BULK FUEL STORAGE TANKS . 8,100 6.100
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
CAnP HURRAY
RED HORSE AND NEDICAL TRAINING CONPLEX . 7.500
WEST VIRGINIA
AR"Y NATIONAL GUARD
ELEANOR
ROAD SECURITY FORCE PROTECTION "ODIFICATION.... ... 4,000
AIR NATIONAL GUARD
"ARTlHS8URG
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TOWER............ 5.800
C-5 PARKING APRON. JET FUEL STORAGE. HYDRANT SYS.. 15.000
TOTAL. WEST VIRGINIA............................ 24.800
WISCONSIN
AR"Y RESERVE
FORT nCCOY
BATILE SI"ULATION CENTER . 4,340
BAHRAIN
NAVY
BAHRAIN NAVAL SUPPORT ACTIVITY
OPERATIONS CONTROL CENTER . 18,030 18.030
GERHANY
AR"Y
GRAFENWOEHR
BRIGADE CO"PLEX BARRACKS & "AINTENANCE/SUPPORT .. 30.000 30.000
BRIGADE COnPLEX TROOP SUPPORT FACILITIES . 46.000 46.000
HEIDELBERG
BARRACKS - HEIDELBERG HOSPITAL . 17 .000
HOHENFELS
PHYSICAL FITNESS TRAINING CENTER . 13.200
VI LSECK
BARRACKS COnPLEX (PHASE Il . 12.100 12.100
AIR FORCE
~STEIN AB
CIVIL ENGINEERING nIDFIELD CO"PLEX . 6.250
CONSOLIDATE 1ST CO"SAT CO""UNICATIONS SQUADRON
(PHASE 11) •.•.•.•...•........................... 19.713 19.713
FITNESS CENTER ANNEX . 15.903 15.903
SPANGDAHLEn AB
FIRE STATION ANNEX & TRAINING FACILITY . 3.885 3.865
PASSENGER TER11IMAL . 1.546 1.546
DEFENSE·WIDE
GRAFENWOEHR
DISPENSARY/OENTAL CLINIC ADDITION/ALTERATION . 12.585
ELE"ENTARY AND nIDDLE SCHOOL . 36.247
HEIDELBERG
ELEnENTARY SCHOOL .........................•....... 3,088
STUTTGART
FORWARD STATION CO"PLEX ....................•..... , 11.400
VILSECK
ELEnENTARY S~HOOL RENOVATION/ADDITION . 1.773
TOTAL. GERMNY .............•.................... 230.868 129.127
GUA"
NAVY
GUA"
VICTOR WHARF FENDER SYSTEn . 1.700
DEFENSE·WIDE
ANDERSEN AFB
nEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC REPLACE"ENT ...........•..... 24.900 24.900
TOTAL. GUAn . 24.900 26.600
42
"ILITARY CONSTRUCTION
(ANOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
BUDGET
CONFERENCE
REQUEST
AGREENENT
ITALY
AR"Y
AVIANO AB
JOINT OEPLO~ENT FACILITY (PHASE I) .
JOINT OEPLOYNENT FACILITY (PHASE II) ...•..........
L1VORNO
VEHICLE IIAINTENANCE FACILITY .•....................
NAVY
LA KADALENA NAVAL SUPPORT FACILITY
CONSOLIDATE SANTO STEFANO FACILITIES .
SIGONELLA NAVAl AIR STATION
BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT FACILITIES (PHASE I) .
BASE OPERATIONS SUPPORT FACILITIES (PHASE II) .
AIR FORCE
AVIANO AB
REMOVE AIRFIELD OBSTRUCTION· SOUTH RMP .•...... "
MUNITIONS ADNINISTRATION FACILITY , .
ZULU ARNlDEAR" PAD .
DEFENSE·WIDE
SIGONELLA NAVAL AIR STATION
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL ADOITIONSlRENOVATIONS ..
VICENZA
ELEMENTARY AND HIGH SCHOOL ADDITIONSlRENOVATIONS ..
TOTAL. ITALy .
KOREA
AR"Y
CMP HUMPHREYS
BARRACKS CONPLEX .
BARRACKS COMPLEX ........................•.....•...
BARRACKS COHPLEX .
BARRACKS COMPLEX .
BARRACKS CONPLEX .
AIR FORCE
KUNSAH 1'8
UPGRADE HAROENED AIRCRAFT SHELTERS .
OSAN 1'8
OORHITORY ...............•.........................
TOTAL. KOREA .................•..................
IQIAJALEIN
AR"Y
kWAJALEI N ATOLL
VEHICLE PAINT & PREP FACILITy . 9.400 9.400
PORTUGAL
AIR FORCE
LAJES FIELD
ADOlALTER FUNESS CENTER . 4,086 4.086
TURKEY
AIR FORCE
INCIRLIK AB
CONSOLIOATEO COMMUNICATIONS FACILITY . 3.262
UNITED KINGDON
NAVY
SAINT MAWGAN JOINT nARITINE FACILITY
BACHELOR ENLISTED QUARTERS ...............•...•.... 7.070
AIR FORCE
RAF MILDENHALL
CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER ANNEX . 3.&4& 3.6C&
POST OFFICE , ..............•.............. 3.592 3.592
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE COMPLEX . 3,320 3.320
43
"ILITARY CONSTRUCTION
(A"OUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
BUDGET
CONFERENCE
REQUEST
AGREE"ENT
RAF LAKENHEATH
ADO/ALT CRASH FIRE STATION . 2,667 2,867
CO""UNICATIONS FACiLITY , . 8.436 8.436
DOR"ITORY ....................•.................... 13.606 13,606
FAIIILY SUPPORT CENTER . 5,676 5.878
"OBILITY CARGO PROCESSING CENTER ...........•...... 11,900 11.900
TOTAL. UNITEO KINGDO" ...........•........•......
60.115 53.045
WAKE ISLAND
AIR FORCE
WAICE ISLAND
REPAIR AIRFIELD PAVE"ENT (PHASE III) ........•..... 14.000 14.000
UPGRADE ISLAND-WIDE INFRASTRUCTURE {PHASE I) . 10,000 10.000
TOTAL. WAKE ISLAND . 24.000 24.000
NATO
NATO SECURITY INVEST"ENT PROGRA" . 169.300 169.300
RESCISSION (P.L. 107·2-49) . -6.000
WORLDWIDE CLASSIFIED
AR"Y
CLASSIFIED LOCATION
CLASSIFIED PROJECT ....•.................•••.•..... 178.700
AIR FORCE
CLASSIFIED LOCATION
CLASSIFIED PROJECT .. : . 3,250 3.250
PREDATOR B·SQUADRON OPS/A"U i HANGAR . 25.731 25.731
TOTAl, WORLDWIDE CLASSiFIED •........•.•.........
207.881 28.981
WORLDWIDE UNSPECIFIED
AR"Y
UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS
HOST NATION SUPPORT _ . 22.000 22.000
PLANNING AND DESiGN .....•••................•...... 100.710 104.833
UNSPECIFIEO "INOR CONSTRUCTION . 20.000 32,808
RESCISSION (P.L. 107-2-49) . -66.050 -137,850
RESCISSION (P.L. 107-64) . -24.000
RESCISSION (P.L. 106-2-46) . -17.415
RESCISSION (P.L. 106-52) . -4.350
REDUCTION {PRIOR YEAR SAVINGS} .............•...... -10.000
NAVY
UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS
PLANNING AND DESIGN . 85.812 71 .001
UNSPECIFIED "INOR CONSTRUCTION . 12.334 14.585
OUTLYING lANDING FIELD FACILITIES {PHASE I} . 27.610 27.810
RESCISSION {P.L. 107-249) . -14.679 -27.213
RESCISSION (J'.L. 107.64} . .18.409
AIR FORCE
UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS
PLANNING AND DESIGN . 79,118 95,778
UNSPECIFIED "INOR CONSTRUCTION .............•...... 12.000 16.180
RESCISSION (P.L. 107.2-49) . -23.000
DEFENSE·WIDE
UNSPECIFIED WORLDWIDE LOCATIONS
CONTINGENCY CONSTRUCTION . 8.980 8.960
ENERGY CONSERVATION INVEST"ENT PROGRA" . 89.500 50.000
RESCISSION {P.L. 107-249) . -997 ·72,309
44
ftILITARY CONSTRUCTION
(AftOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
8UDGET CONFERENCE
REQUEST AGREEMENT
REQUEST AGREE"ENT
TOTAL. FAMILY HOUSING. NAVY AND HARtNE CORPS .... 1,036,971 978.763
FAMILV HOUSI"G. AIR FORCE
ARIZONA
DAVIS·"ONTHAN AFB (93 UNITS) . 19.357 19.357
CALIFORNIA
TRAVIS AFB (56 UNITS) . 12,723 12.723
DELAWARE
OOVER AFB (112 UNITS) .. 19,601 19,801
FLORIDA
EGLIN AFB (27& UNITS) .. 32.166 32.168
IDAHO
"OUNTAIN HDIIE AFB (l66 UNITS) . 37,126 37.126
"ARYLAND
ANDREWS AFB (SO UNITS) . 20.233 20.233
46
"ILITARV CONSTRUCTION
(MOUNTS IN THOUSANDS)
BUDGET CONFERENCE
REQUEST AGREE"ENT
KISSOURI
WHITEIlAN AFB (100 UNITS) . 18,221 18,221
_. HONTAHA
IlALNSTROH AFB (94 UNITS) ...••••••••• , ••• , ..••.. , .•.. 19.3B8 19,388
NORTH CAROLINA
SEVHOUR JOHNSON AFB (138 UNITS) .. 18.338 18.336
NORTH DAKOTA
GRAND FORKS AFB (144 UNITS) . 29,550 29.550
"INOT AFB (200 UNITSI ..••.•• " ••••.......•.••••••.•• 41,117 41,117
SOUTH DAKOTA
ELLSWORTH AFB (75 UNITS) •••..•.••••• " .•. , ••...••.•. 16.240 16,240
TEXAS
DVESS AFB (116 UNITS) .. 19,973 19.973
RANDOLPH AFB {96 UNITS) ...••.••••••••. , .•...••• ,., •• 13,754 13.754
KOREA
OSAN lIB (111 UNITS) .. 44.765 44,765
PORTUGAL
LAJES FIELD (42 UNITS) ....•• , ..••.. , ••.•.••.•••....• 13.428 13.428
UNITED KINGDON
RAF LAKENHEATH (B9 UNITS) ..•••••.•..•.....••.•.••••. 23,640 23.640
I"PROVE"ENT FUND
JAMES T. WALSH,
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT,
KAy GRANGER,
VIRGIL GOODE,
DAVID VITTER,
JACK KINGSTON,
ANDER CRENSHAW,
BILL YOUNG,
CHET EDWARDS,
SAM FARR,
ALLEN BOYD,
NORMAN DICKS,
DAVID OBEY,
CONRAD BURNS,
LARRY E. CRAIG,
MIKE DEWINE,
SAM BROWNBACK,
TED STEVENS,
DIANNE FEINSTEIN,
DANIEL K. INOUYE,
TIM JOHNSON,
MARy LANDRIEU,
ROBERT C. BYRD,
o
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
May 20,2003
(Senate)
The Administration appreciates the Senate Anned SeIVices Committee's continued support of our
national defense. The Committee-reported bill includes, for example, endorsement of the President's
requested military pay raise and other benefits critical to maintaining the high quality and morale of
America's anned forces, continuance with needed fleXIbility ofthe Cooperative Threat Reduction
program, and support for critical research and development fur low-yield nuclear weapons. It is
essential to undertake the research needed to evaluate a range ofD.S. options that may prove essential
in deterring or neutralizing future threats. The Administration welcomes section 322, which addresses
readiness issues associated with the Endangered Species Act, but urges support for the remaining
provisions in the Readiness and Range PresetVation Initiative, which are intended to ensure that the ,men
and women of our Anned Forces receive the training they need to succeed when put in harms way_
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress to address the priorities set forth in the
"Defense Transfonnation for the 21 st CentuIy Acf' in the final defense authorization bill that is presented
to the President.
The Administration would oppose any amendments to change the base realignment and closures
(BRAC) authority passed by the Congress two years ago and if any such amendment should be
included in the final legislation, the Secretary of Defense, joining with other senior advisors, would
recommend that the President veto the bill.
The Administration has a number of other concerns with the bill, including those described below. The
Administration looks forward to working with the Congress on these and other issues as the bill moves
through the legislative process.
• Missile Defense. The Administration appreciates the bill's full funding ofmissile defense
programs and sections 221-223, which eliminate statutory restrictions to the program element
structure and authorize the use ofResearch, Development, Testing, and Evaluation (RDT&E)
funding to support development and fielding of initial ballistic missile defense capabilities. The
Administration believes, however, that giving responsibility for RDT&E for the Patriot
Advanced Capability - 3 (PAC-3) and Medium Extended Air Defense System (MEADS)
programs to the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) would detract from MDA's primary
responsibility ofballistic missile defense and would impede progress in PAC-3 and MEADS,
particularly for their roles in air defense. That latter responsibility should go to the Department
oftheAnny.
• Train and Equip. The bill does not include section 441, Support of Foreign Nations
Committed to Combating Global Terrorism, of the Administration's proposed Defense
Transfonnation Act This authority would allow the Department of Defense (DoD) flexibility
to provide time-sensitive military support to key cooperating nations that are assisting in the
global war on terrorism It would allow DOD to provide training and equipment expeditiously
and~fficiently in response to unanticipated, no-notice requirements that the global war on
terrorism may generate.
• Continuity of Operations. The Administration urges the inclusion of the requested authority to
facilitate the relocation of DoD's command and control leadership. This authority would
enable the Secretary of Defense to: (1) designate other facilities as part of the Pentagon
Reservation, and (2) manage and maintain relocation facilities, particularly the primary
alternate relocation facility, as turn-key alternatives ready as fully operational alternatives
without warning.
• F-22. The Administration opposes the bill's production cut of two F-22 aircraft. Restrictions
on production quantities would undennine the program's buy-to-budget strategy, through
which the Air Force will acquire as many aircraft as it can within the program's cap on total
fimding.
• Space Launch Capability. The Administration strongly objects to language in Section 913
that would require two space launch vehicles or families of space launch vehicles fur all
national security payloads. The requirement to make every national security payload dual
compatIble with two families of launch vehicles would be problematic and could seriously
delay or curtail many critical national security payloads at high taxpayer costs. The Secretary
ofDefense and Director of Central Intelligence should have the ability, consistent with
National Space Policy, to waive the dual compatibility requirement on selected national
security payloads, based on unique or extenuating requirements.
• Limitations, Restriction, fleXIbility Issues. The bill includes provisions that would add more
complexity and impose limitations on lliD's management structure, including sections 231
234 and section 211, which would prohibit the transfer ofseveral programs outside the Office
of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). Transfer ofthese programs would improve management
efficiency and allow OSD to focus on providing oversight and strategic guidance to the entire
Department.
• Perchlorate Study. While Administration supports the intent of section 331 (b), which requires
a review of the effects ofperchlorate on the endocrine system, we are concerned that this
section would unnecessarily duplicate an ongoing National Academy of Sciences study
(initiated in March 2003) being undertaken pursuant to the request of the Federal Interagency
Working Group on Perchlorate.
• Special Pay and Benefits. The Administration is concerned that a number of unsought special
pay and benefit authorities, including sections 604, 606, 615, 616, and 643, divert resources
unnecessarily. These mandatory authorities would undennine each Service's determination of
whether such additional benefits are warranted and appropriate. Specifically, section 616
(Assignment Incentive Pay for Service in Korea), Assignment Incentive Pay authority enacted
in last year's Defense Authorization bill, already authorizes Service Secretaries discretion to
award such pay as necessary, thus obviating the need for any additional authority.
• Bevy Amendment. The Administration is concerned that section 831, dealing with
exceptions to the Beny Amendment, should be modified to ensure that textile products are
appropriately covered consistent with the Administration's request.
• Public-private competitions. The Administration strongly supports clear statutory authority for
the Department's use ofbest value source selections in public-private competitions, but
opposes caveats in ~ection 812 that would sunset the authority, preclude its application to
needs other than information technology, or sanction timeframes for conducting competitions
that conflict with tlDse established in OMB Circular A-76.
******
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
The Administrntion applauds the Senate Committee for reporting a bill that is fiscally
responsible. The President supports a discretionary spending total of $784.7 billion, along with advance
appropriations of$23.2 billion for FY 2005 -- consistent with his Budget and the FY 2004
Congressional Budget Resolution. Only within such a fiscal environment can we encourage increased
economic growth and a return to a balanced budget.
The bill provides $9.1 billion for military construction and family housing, $79 million above the
President's request. While the bill contains a number ofunrequested projects, it provides resources
critical to improving service members' quality oflife. The Administrntion has several specific concerns
with the Senate bill and will wolk with the Congress on these and other issues as the bill moves through
the legislative process.
Overseas Basing:
• The Administrnfun is concemed that the Senate bill does not support the Administrntion's
amended budget request for military construction projects in Gennany and Korea. The
amended request reflects an assessment made by the Department of Defense on changes to the
U.S. overseas basing strategy. Projects funde4 are at locations that will remain key to our
overseas basing posture. The Administration strongly urges the Senate to support the German
and Korean projects.
• The Administrntion opposes Section 128, which would establish a commission to review the
Department of Defense's overseas presence, and believes the commission is unnecessary given
that the Department has accelerated its ongoing review ofthe global position of forces and
supporting infrastructure and plans to infonn the Congress of its recommendation;. In addition,
the Commission would be composed of members appointed by the Congressional leadership
and would, therefore, be part of the Legislative Branch. Any Commission request for
confidential infonnation from Federal departments or agencies must be considered in light of the
President's constitutional responsibility to protect confidential information.
Perchlorate Study:
• The Administration supports the Senate Committee's intent regarding identifying the sources of
perchlorate contamination at base realignment and closure sites. However, the feasibility of
completing the assessment within the timeframe specified is questionable and ftmding to cover
these costs is not included in the bill.
Constitutional Concerns
• Sections 107, 110, and 113 of the bill provide for notice to the Congress ofrelocation of
activities between militaIy installations, initiation ofa new installation abroad, or U.S. military
exercises involving $100,000 in construction costs. Such provisions should recognize that
although the notice can be provided in most situations as a matter ofcomity, situations may
arise, especially in wartime, in which the President must act promptly under his constitutional
grants of executive power and authority as Commander in Chief while protecting sensitive
national security information.
******
/3
Unknown
~
~
Sampling_Nov02.pd
f
-----Original Message-----
From: Kowalczyk Daniel [mailto:
r ~
Some of you may already have seen this, but find attached the recently
released DoD Perchlorate Assessment Policy. Feel free to distribute
more widely.
vir
Dan
Daniel Kowalczyk
~o~ Allen Hamilt~nl
__.-1
1
- -------------
,<,' .'
TECHNOL.OGY
AND L.OGISTICS
000 Components may ascertain and assess for perchlorate if there is a reasonable
basis to suspect both a potential presence of perchlorate and a pathway on their
installations where it could threaten public health.
000 Components can use environmental restoration funding only for sites that
meet Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) eligibility requirements in the
current version of the DERP management guidance. At other sites, this memorandum
establishes DoD policy to allow Components to consider this a Class II requirement
under DoD Instruction 4715.6 "Environmental Compliance".
Please provide the following information for those installations that conduct
sampling and find perchlorate: 1) Installation, 2) Level found and 3) Where the
perchlorate was found.
My point of contac~ is Me. Shah A. Choudhury, (703) 697-7475 for DERP and Ms.
Maureen Sullivan, (703) 604-0519, for all oth~r matters.
/ 7
~ klJ~~ l-v~.
":;J
5/7
John Paul Woodley, Jr. 7'~
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense (Environment)
Message
Page 1 of 1
Unknown
/9
From: Miller, Edmund, Mr, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 08:27
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Sullivan, Maureen, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subiect: FW: DoD Perchlorate Sampling Policy
--
Ed Miller
9.DUSD (I&E) En_vironmental Management
"".
.
L ngmar'~-----
----- Q
. . •' (
To: Miller, Edmund, Mr, OSD-ATL; Schirf, Gregory, Mr, OSD-ATL; Coho, John Mr OSD-ATL; Larkin, Janice, Ms,
OSD-ATL; Engle, Frederick, CTR, OSD-ATL; Halfmoon, Stacey, Ms, OSD-ATL; May, Grady, Mr, OSD-ATL;
Mr. Grone signed the policy yesterday. Note that Kurt already sent it to Lenny Siegel. He also sent it to
Maureen Sullivan
O.QUSD(I&E) ~
l -----0"
nglna 1Message----
.
From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
-----Original Message----
TO~'- ~ J
Cc: "Meehan, patricKMr, OSD-ATL
Lenny,
New policy is out. Pat Meehan asked me to send it to you ASAP. Let us know what you think, offline if
necessary.
C --.i
9/13/2005
ACQUISITION.
TECHNOLOGY
AND LOGISTICS
There are a number of actions that the Department of Defense (DoD) has
undertaken to address perchlorate in drinking water, including monitoring for perchlorate
through the Safe Drinking Water Act's (SDWA) Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR), monitoring surface water discharge under the Clean Water Act (CWA) at
States' requests, and collection of data on occurrence of perchlorate at Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) sites. Given recent public concerns over
possible risks associated with perchlorate, the Department believes it is appropriate to
take additional measures to assess the extent of perchlorate occurrence at active and
closed installations, ranges, and Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS). Towards that
end, DoD Components shall continue to consolidate existing perchlorate occurrence data,
and shall sample any previously unexamined sites where a perchlorate release is
suspected because of DoD activities and where a complete human exposure pathway is
likely to exist. DoD Components shall establish and maintain databases containing the
information listed in the enclosed spreadsheets described in each section below. This
policy supercedes the DoD November 13,2002, memorandum; Perchlorate Assessment
Policy.
1. SDWA
The UCMR (40 CPR Parts 9,141, 142) mandates that all community and non
transient non-community water systems serving more than 10,000 people, as well as
smaller systems selected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), monitor
for specific contaminants, including perchlorate. Some military installations are subject
to the UCMR and, therefore, should be testing for the presence of perchlorate and
repuning the results to EPA nnd state regulators, as appropriate. UCMR sampling and
reporting is a Class 1 compliance-funding requirement. This requirement is not
applicable to FUDS.
Enclosure 1
~--
~;:,' t'~,:~"-," > •
;,y~, . . . . . . . . .
~(ppi.I,
CommIlnttar Aerer.nc
-".,. '
_pu_.. . .
"'~ . ~~.
1st round 01 umpIng ... concb;ted ,".lui O' .-2nd round of
HIftIlHng., waived on. Sep 02 by' OHS. e,ception d ChromIum
EX:sdt..Gun _ EPA UCMR I '_l1li_ VI, No'''- aampMng,loquwod. cons.... " ooly 2 ....... ""
1tt"""""",~lOUIMil'....
ContamIn....,
use"
_bee""", R~.....
" ~{,'
",",x·
~ ',':, :-> -":,''C.<, , -~. '"
···,('.;;'i;~:;·£~~(Ehr.f1.~;:;·~~"-I"·:~::-r·$~'~'.~:tYI~tn::,,'~ I·.:,.~:~;~~l::~.,i
',," ,I /t"'I,","""""':
':4';"-'~.:;~-~· -"'
. . . ,-. ;~ ··.~~~:,'~~I:':it:'rff'l~",·~~·_~",· ~-,'
!'f;...::.~ t; ~,::~;,":r} -:. ~,: ;.!-.; "'J ~ :'\~:':i.t·::;1 ~~'i'?,t~~:1 i!"I.;;~,~·~t,'l"':·~ :;;
J
1;: '" t~Xi:'
•~,)';; i'.-·, ~~l,~{."Z> b':;;~ \.,';-;'.~'~:'~ . :~) .
-: :"'-; ;' ';
.. ',-'
'.~.'
',' '," 10 '. "
~" " •.• '~'" .~ ,:~." ,,-, < ;"";,, I .... ",;>.,
• PIe...
"·.1 State or local rtQ.IiremenlS that have mandated AtrIplin,
Enclosure 2
Sampling Results
"co'.:'
.)~-'t
"_.·p..~""·':'I:·'\··O ..: .:
'"
'Wf·~ ..~,:i\.! ,.;;. "J'F.:' ';11 •
:\
':. .•. ..
".,,: '." .;j;':-:;,~rf:';:"fj:;·:1·:"":?:~';''''':. ; '¥.'r:'::,~·\:}"·~·~ ~;' ~
" {O : • •'··\··-~:;:tf.'. (j'L,i\, :~::f.~:X~~c:.~~.:, ,.i'~~ ~
··\;:i;::i:t~ire .
,,:'~':<~-~ ~
I II I I I I TITImimi
r::--rrTTTITTTmnn
II I I
l
I flll
II I
1
11111 1 II I II mllill
I,I I I
~j J I
U-I--l--t-t+nTl
Each Component shall establish and maintain a database of UCMR sampling
activities. The database shall include installation identification information, all data
points collected, and, at a minimum, the information listed in enclosure 1. DoD
Components shall work with the DoD SDWA Services Steering Committee in compiling
a consolidated DoD report of UCMR sampling results by January 31, 2004.
II. CWA
Several states require some military installations to monitor for perchlorate under
the CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.
Sampling and reporting in compliance with an NPDES permit is a Class 1 compliance
funding requirement. This requirement is not applicable to FUDS.
Each DoD Component shall establish and maintain a database of sampling data
(by discharge point) for those permitted discharges that have a perchlorate reporting
requirement in their NPDES permit, or other state requirement to monitor for perchlorate.
The DoD Components shall list every NPDES discharge point required to monitor for
perchlorate. The database will contain, at a minimum, the information listed in enclosure
2. DoD Components shall work with the DoD CWA Services Steering Committee in
compiling a consolidated DoD report of NPDES sampling results by January 31, 2004.
Each DoD Component shall establish and maintain a database of existing data and
the data collected pursuant to this policy at active and closed installations, non
operational ranges, and FUDS. The database will include, at a minimum, the information
listed in enclosure 3. DoD Components shall work with the DoD Cleanup Conunittee in
compiling a consolidated DoD report of sampling results by January 31,2004.
IV. Funding
DoD Components may only ust: t:nviromuental restoration funding for sampling
activities that meet DERP eligibility requirements described in the current version of the
DERP Management Guidance. Under DoDI 4715.6, "Environmental Compliance,"
perchlorate sampling is an Environmental Quality Status Class I requirement.
V. Ranges
Currently EPA has only one approved method for testing for the presence of
perchlorate. This method (Method 314.0) is only approved for testing drinking water.
Alternative test methods have proven to be more accurate and reliable for other media
(i.e., soil, sediment, groundwater, etc.). Therefore, DoD Components are required to
develop guidance for appropriate testing methodologies for perchlorate in other media. If
alternative sampling protocols are used, the method must be documented in the enclosed
spreadsheets.
In addition, DoD Components shall continue to work together to develop and
demonstrate new technologies for treatment and cleanup of perchlorate. I appreciate your
support for these important efforts.
Phil W. one
Enclosures:
1. UCMR Spreadsheet
2. NPDES Spreadsheet
3. Site Sampling Spreadsheet
Unknown
-----Original Message----
From: Flood, Glenn, CIV, OASD-PA
Glenn
-----Original Message----
From: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL
Kurt has a copy of it, and we can send it to Mr. Danelski. This policy
is now under review and a new policy memorandum may be issued soon.
The perchlorate/RRPI issue was addressed by Ben Cohen in his Senate EPW
with it. I am not aware of any complaint that DoD or the Navy or NASA
Best,
J P Woodley
-----Original Message----
From: Flood, Glenn, CIV, OASD-PA
Thanks-
Glenn
-----Original Message----- ~
To: r-
Cc: \
- '
.' 1
Subject: DOD perclorate policies memo and interview request
To Glenn Flood
Three points:
1) You have yet to respond to my May 22, 2003 e-mail to you concerning a
perchlorate policy memo by Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
John Paul Woodley. Have you had chance to review it? We are still trying
to confirm its authenticity. It was posted on the website of the Center
for Public Environmental Oversight.
2) The Woodley memo, posted in July of 2002, states: "At this time, it
is premature to take further action
in absence of promulgated regulatory standards. I am not authorizing any
environmental restoration study or cleanup beyond sampling and analysis
without a regulatory driver. Similarly, a promulgated regulatory
standard
will be needed for environmental compliance action beyond sampling and
analysis for Ammonium Perchlorate."
We further want the DOD's response to those who argue that DOD may be
trying avoid liability for perchlorate contamination by:
David Danelski
Staff Writer
The Press-Enterprise
3512 14th St.
r e r s i d e . C:A
Contamination
from
2
.1/;-,
Gary,
I mentioned that the EPA risk assessments are flawed because they have
not
included any consideration of human data into the human health risk
assessments. By not considering human data a 10 fold factor is added to
extrapolate from animals to humans. EPA was sued by industry
essentially
for stopping to consider human data without going through a formal rule
making process. Industry prevailed and now EPA is asking for public
input
on this issue. This is a very significant reason why the DOD risk
assessment report is also flawed as it relied on the EPA risk
assessments.
I have obtained the site where you can see the ruling of the court on
this
matter.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200306/02-1057a.pdf.
By the way this is the same issue for the perchlorates as the EPA
assessment does not use the human data therefore it is incomplete and
inaccurate. The NAS is now looking at the issue of using human data and
also has a separate project starting on perchlorates.
Regards,
Judith
2
:
Unknown
Hi Shah,
We (DENIX) received the enclosed query via the DENIX Public Feedback
mechanism. As the Gatekeeper of the 000 Perchlorate Message work area,
I'm forwarding this to you for resolution.
Tks much,
Cal
Cal Corbin
DENIX S~tems Manager --.
E-Mail:! - .
1
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2003 11:15:08 -0500 (CDT)
> Subject: DENIX Public Feedback: Perchlorate working group minutes
>
> name = Douglas Beeman
> company = The Press-Enterprise, Riverside, Calif.
> replyvia = email
> reply to dbeeman@pe.com
> sUbject = Perchlorate working group minutes
> message = I am a reporter for The
> Press-Enterprise newspaper published in
> Riverside, Calif. I would like to
> request access to the minutes of the
> Perchlorate Working Group meetings.
> DENIX seems like the most expeditious
> means to accomplish this. Can you tell
> me whether this is possible and how I
> can accomplish it?
>
> Thanks,
>
> --Doug Beeman
>
2
1
2
;:;..
\. "./"
~-Original Message----
From: Ge9rqe Edmnn~nn rmailto:~ "--> <mail to:
(mail to ~
To:
The results of the survey were requested by Reps. Dingell and Solis last
month by June 6.
Thanks.
, ~rge EdmQIlSon
3
45J
-----Original Messa~e---- \.
From: Keith Beltor
Ct:
-~
To: ,
weu.neSUdY-, -
' , .
~~emoer --.
-i.
t!.':J,
The chemical companies I represent are pleased that EPA wants to make
IRIS reform a priority. We are trying to help by reaching out to those
who use IRIS data to ensure broad political support for reform. Ensuring
that IRIS contains the best scientific information is a goal that all
users of IRIS can support.
2
..
-----Original Message----
From: Waldman, Peter [mailtoh
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 200 3:38 PM
To: 'Miclat, Marriane, Civ, SAF/PAM'
Subject: questions for Ms. Koetz
--
Marriane,
Belated thanks for the responses to the radioactivity story a few weeks
ago.
Several readers wrote me in praise of the Air Force for addressing the
issue.
draft
memo being circulated by John Paul Woodley Jr. concerning testing for
perchlorate (attached below.) Because the Air Force is the lead branch
on
I'm hoping I can obtain these responses from Ms. Koetz, or speak.to her
by
1
...
Thanks,
Peter Waldman
Tel. 415 765 6124
2
~' RE: Questions from Defense Environmental Alert reo Army perchlorate guidance and stra... Page 1 of 5
10/612005
C>'RE: Questions from Defense Environmental Alert reo Army perchlorate guidance and stra... Page 2 of 5
10/6/2005
\
RE: Questions from Defense Environmental Alert reo Army perchlorate guidance and stra... Page 3 of 5
10/612005
RE: Questions from Defense Environmental Alert reo Army perchlorate guidance and stra... Page 4 of 5
Sincerely,
Suzanne YohannaL
I ns ide If,72,SIJ inqt_on Pu.l) ..I...:!..s.hE-)rs
Defense Environment Alert
2178"
S.incc:r:ely,
Suzanne Yohannan
IrLsJ.de Wastli.ngton Publj.sh~rs
10/6/2005
.,., RE: Questions from Defense Environmental Alert reo Army perchlorate guidance and stra... Page 5 of 5
""" \ \
\I \
I
I
I
I
!
i
t
i
S(
j
!
I'
f
!
I
10/6/2005
Page 1 of 1
Unknown 513
From: Brausch. Ric~
Sent: Thursday, Se_er 11, 200315:51
To: 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL'
Cc: C -.-\
SUbject: RE: Workgroup Charter
Sandy - Thanks for the information. I'll distribute it to the folks on our end.
I've also attached a draft document that Regional Water Quality Control Board and Department of Toxic
Substances Control staff have been working on to assist in prioritizing investigative efforts at California's military
installations. We believe that it is a good place to focus our initial efforts in California, and is consistent with the
feedback that we received from representatives from the branches during our meeting with ADUSD Woodley in
july.
As for the call itself, it's probably easier for us if we call you. Could you provide a number that we should call?
Thanks.
Rick
-----Original Message----
From: Cotter( Sandra, Ms( OSD-ATLf
To: 'rbrausch@calepa.ca.gov'
J
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
Rick,
As discussed, I'm forwarding information for discussion in our conference call tomorrow; list of sites where
demonstration requirements.
Are we all set for tomorrow? Should we call you, or are you going to call us? Please let me know.
Thanks,
SC
-----Original Message:---
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
To: l
Rick,
VIR,
S<;lndra Cotter ~
,-J
10/612005
DRAFT
Perchlorate and other emergent chemicals have contaminated California's drinking water
supplies. Department of Defense (DoD) facilities have been identified as potential or
known sources of perchlorate and emergent chemicals. California regulatory agencies
requested that the DoD identify and report potential sources at their facilities. These
facilities include the over 2000 formerly used defense sites, the approximately 200 active/
closing/transferred defense facilities, and the hundreds of defense contractor
facilities/sites that have tested, developed and used these materials. DoD and many of the
bases have raised concerns with complying with the request due to the unknown costs
associated with the sampling and potential investigation cost.
We are presenting an approach to prioritize DoD facilities and sites within facilities in
response to the DoD's expressed desire to cooperate with the State of California's
regulatory oversight agencies (see attached letter from Assistant Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense John Paul Woodley dated July 3, 2003 - Appendix A). This approach does
not preempt any current or previous agreement between the State Agency and the specific
DoD facility to proceed with an assessment or other related remedial investigation
activities. The priority of any work for assessing emergent chemicals will need to be
evaluated in the context of the ongoing CERCLA cleanup, time schedules, funding, and
base closure activities. The source area evaluations requested by Regional Boards, in
letters to the individual bases, is to be performed by the date specified in accordance with
the letter(s) from the Regional Boards to the DoD facility. A schedule for submitting the
requested information by the Regional Board may be considered especially for larger
bases.
Purpose
The primary purpose of this document is to assist the DoD facility and State regulatory
project managers in prioritizing sites within facilities to complete the perchlorate and
emergent chemicals evaluation, in a timely manner. The Regional Board letters provided
a list of potential activities associated with explosives and solvents to be evaluated and
reported. The list is organized from highest estimated threat sites to lowest estimated
threat sites.
Focus of Approach
The focus of the approach to prioritize facilities is for the DoD to prepare a Source
Evaluation Report ofthe DoD facilities for perchlorate and emergent chemicals. It
should be noted that this first step does not entail an on-site remedial investigation or
workplan. Based on its Source Evaluation the DOD facility should make an initial
assessment of the priority ofa site and proceed to provide a sampling plan as necessary.
Revised 9110103 1
DRAFT
This approach is divided into three steps and should be addressed to the extent feasible in
the Source Evaluation Report:
1) Source Evaluation and Background Data Review
2) DoD Site Prioritization Tiers
3) Response Action
For example, a high priority site with identified data gaps should provide a sampling
proposal whereas a low priority site does not need a sampling plan proposal. The State
will review these Source Evaluation Reports and provide a response.
DoD
• Review existing records to determine if perchlorate and/or other emergent
chemicals had been used, stored, disposed of, and/or processed on site.
• Review ongoing site investigation and remediation activities to identify
existing data on perchlorate and emergent chemicals.
• Analyze groundwater treatment influent, if a system is operating at a site, and
submit results in the monthly or quarterly monitoring reports. Analytical data
from treatment system influent can be used as an initial assessment tool to .
evaluate potential impacts to groundwater and possible discharge to surface
waters.
• Assess the potential for site surface runoff to impact surface water.
State Agencies
• Evaluate if there is a relationship between emergent chemical detections in
drinking water supply wells and nearby (within 5 miles) DoD facilities.
Geographical Information System (GIS) data provided by the USEPA and
other sources will be used as well as analytical results from drinking water
supply wells. The screening will cover facilities located within one mile and
five miles froll). supply wells. The State Agency will inform DoD of their
findings.
• Evaluate if emergent chemicals have been sampled from drinking water
supply wells located within one mile and five miles of DoD facilities using
historical analytical results.
• Assess the need to collect split samples and, if necessary, send splits to the
California Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Materials
Laboratory (HML) for sample or confirmation sample results.
2. Prioritization Tiers
Prioritization tiers are provided to aid the project managers in assessing the
relative importance of a facility relative to impacted or threatened supply wells
Revised 9110103 2
DRAFT
High Priority
• DoD facilities within one mile of an impacted or threatened supply well
{public or domestic); or
• DoD facilities with known potential sources that have not reported or made
available existing groundwater monitoring or other related data to the state
regulatory agency; or
• DoD facilities with known perchlorate or other chemical impacts to surface
and/or ground water resources; or
• DOD facilities with identified potential sources and no available confirmation
data
Medium Priority
• DoD facilities located between one and five miles of an impacted or
threatened supply well.
Low Priority
• DoD facilities more than five miles from an impacted or threatened supply
well; or
• DoD facilities located in areas with non-beneficial water use designation by
the State agency; or
• DoD facilities with no known potential sources.
State agencies will review the Source Evaluation Reports and coordinate with the base to
determine which sites need a sampling plan and schedule. The State will consider the
information in the Source Evaluation Reports including DOD's assessment of the priority
of its site and the DHSIEPA data base to assign a priority to a site. The facilities
prioritization will be organized from the highest estimated threat sites to the lowest
estimated threat sites. Prioritization will be influenced by if the impacted well is a
domestic supply well, and if concentrations of perchlorate and chemicals and location are
within susceptible basins.
3. Response Action
The Response Action section provides project managers the steps to follow if the Source
valuation and Background Data review identify potential sources.
• DoD: If the facility identifies significant data gapes) and is identified as a high
priority site during the preliminary assessment, the facility should develop a
Revised 9/10/03 3
DRAFT
sampling plan and schedule to address the data gapes), without a request from the
state agency. The sampling plan should address the need for both soil and
groundwater sampling. The sampling plan and schedule should be submitted to
the regulators for review, comment, and acceptance.
• State: In cases where the facility does not identify data gaps, the State will review
the source evaluationlbackground data and prioritization steps to evaluate if a
sampling plan is necessary.
• DoD: If data gaps do not exist, the state may request the DoD facility to produce a
sampling plan and schedule to further characterize contamination magnitude and
extent. The schedule would contain a specific completion date in addition to
available data, if a review of potential source areas requires a high degree of
effort.
• State: The State reviews the DoD facility sampling plan and schedule and
provides comments to the facility.
• DoD: The DoD implements the State agency-accepted sampling plan.
Revised 9/10/03 4
DRAFT
2. Prioritization Tiers
State Agency
Revised 9/10/03 5
DRAFT
Notes:
PRG = U.S. EPA Preliminary Remediation Goal
Ilg/L = micrograms per liter or parts per billion
MCL = California DHS Maximum Contaminant Level
** = The PRG value for Hexavalent Chromium was not provided since it exceeds the
Revised 9/10/03 6
DRAFT
Table 2. Perchlorate and Emergent Chemical Sampling and Analytical Methods for
Water Samples
HML SOP 830. Runs an 8260 2 x 40mLVOA Other VOCs are not analyzed
SIM method with heated closed vials 21lgIL simultaneously using this
purge & trap. [e.g., a Varian method.
ARCHON unit]
EPA Region 5 CRL SOP 024. 2 x 40mLVOA Salts out 1,4 dioxane and
vials THF with sodium sulfate.
Runs full scan GC/MS.
1,2,3-TCP DHS has two methods (Feb 2 x 40ml amber 0.005 ~glL Can not use method 524.2 to
2002): One is a purge and trap VOA vials. achieve detection limits.
GC/MS SIM mode (for
quadrapole MS) or SIS mode
(for ion trap MS).
Revised 9/10/03 7
DRAFT
Table 2. Perchlorate and Emergent Chemical Sampling and Analytical Methods for
Revised 9/10/03 1
Page 1 of2
I
-----0"
t..--""' r1gma I Me55age----
-------_ .....,-----~,.. "
Date: M.Qn. 16 Jun 2003...Q7:58:58 -0700
From:\ _ J
At the end of May, 2003, the Defense Department sent over to Congress the results of the perchlorate survey that
it reportedly conducted in 2001. We have made that document available as a 5.6 Megabyte PDF file at
http://www.cpeo.org/pubs/dod-perchlorate.pdf ,
One can understand why the Department was hesitant to release the survey results. It shows that few Defense
installations had been sampled for perchlorate by that time, despite growing indications that it might be present in
the groundwater or soil at the majority of sites where it had been used.
Furthermore, the questions designed to determine perchlorate use did not fully reflect today's knowledge of
potential sources. For example, Army officials now believe that simulants are a likely source of perchlorate
contamination found on or under maneuver areas, but the survey, written just two or three years ago, didn't ask
whether specific properties used such chemicals.
RegUlators may glean some useful data from the newly released survey results, but it's time to move on. We
should praise the Pentagon for finally releasing the information, and it should expand its level of cooperation. The
military should work with regUlatory agencies and communities to develop a more useful perchlorate survey, and
the results of that survey, as well as knOWledge from known plumes, should be used to establish a
comprehensive national sampling plan.
Lenny
10/6/2005
Page 2 of2
Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
cla PSC, 278-A Hope S~_~~~~tain View, CA 94041
L
0" "
" '
•••• 'I""
10/6/2005
Page 1 of 4
~
~\3
-~---_.
-----Original MeSSage-----~
To: .. - . .
GROUNDWATER PROTECTION
Rialto sues over water contamination
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin - 1/21/04
By Scott VanHorne, staff writer
RIALTO - The city has filed a federal lawsuit seeking what could amount to millions in compensation from
42 defendants it alleges contributed to perchlorate pollution of groundwater,
"The (potentially responsible parties) have left us no choice but to file a lawsuit to recover our costs," said
Public Works Director Brad Baxter. "We've sat down and tried to negotiate in good faith."
The lawsuit names the Department of Defense, San Bernardino County and Black and Decker Inc.,
Denova Environmental as well as six fireworks companies, a host of north Rialto landowners and oth.er
entities.
The city is seeking unspecified damages for perchlorate pollution at 20 wells in the Rialto-Colton
Page 2 of 4
groundwater basin. City officials estimate cleanup will cost more than $50 million and take decades to
complete.
Baxter hopes the lawsuit will prompt perchlorate pollution suspects to come to the bargaining table and
offer settlements. The litigation will also force suspected polluters to notify their insurance companies about
"It will probably tie everything up," West Valley Water District General Manager Anthony "Butch" Araiza
The Army Corps of Engineers refused to turn over a report about the Rialto Ammunition Storage Point to
the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board after Rialto sent the military a notice of intent to sue.
The military handled about 3.5 million tons of ammunition and explosives at the site in the 1940s,
"There is no inclination of releasing any part of the report because of the pending litigation," said Jennie
The report delay has stymied the board's investigation, but the city's lawsuit could also speed things up,
City Attorney Bob Owen said the time for waiting has passed.
"How many years should we wait before they voluntarily agree to spend millions of dollars on a cleanup?"
he asked.
The water board began investigating perchlorate pollution in the basin about two years ago, but none of the
San Bernardino County is the only one that has completed an investigation, but the $2.25 million study
County spokesman David Wert said the county will abide by the board's orders, but he declined to
comment on the lawsuit because officials have not seen the 53-page document.
The city's lawsuit does not target B.F. Goodrich Corp., even though the company is suspected of releasing
The company gave $4 million in January 2003 to help pay for water treatment systems. The cash bought
RELATED
City files suit to force perchlorate probe
Officials hope to require those responsible for water pollution to begin a cleanup effort.
9/13/2005
Page 3 of 4
Rialto and its water utility filed suit Wednesday to force an investigation into perchlorate contamination in
the city's groundwater basin and require those responsible to pay for the cleanup.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court, names 41 people and entities officials believe are responsible,
including the Department of Defense, San Bernardino County, and Black & Decker Inc. Some of the
defendants named are defunct companies.
Damages were not specified but could go up to $50 million, said Robert Owen, Rialto's city attorney. The
amount will be determined once the extent of responsibility is known, he said.
"This is the culmination of two years of work," Owen said. "This is just the beginning of a very lengthy
process."
Because of the complexity of the case, it may continue for five years, he said.
"We can't continue to wait for people to keep pointing fingers back and forth while our water keeps getting
polluted," said Brad Baxter, the city's public works director.
The Rialto Utility Authority, the other plaintiff in the suit, supplies water to about half of Rialto's population of
100,000. The city relies solely on groundwater to meet its needs.
Several of the entities named in the suit were served with investigation orders from the Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board over the last two years, including American Promotional Events West, Pyro
Spectaculars, Whittaker Corp. and San Bernardino County.
Bob Wyatt, counsel for Black & Decker, said he is reviewing the lawsuit and wouldn't comment further.
County officials had not been served with the lawsuit Wednesday.
"We've carried out all the testing the (water quality control) board has requested," said county spokesman
David Wert. "We will continue to work with the board on any testing, and eventually on any cleanup."
Absent from the complaint is B.F. Goodrich Corp., which settled with the city and its surrounding water
purveyors for $4 rTlillion in 2002. That money went toward installing cleanup devices on wells.
"Goodrich should be modeled. They're trying to do the right things," Baxter said. "Other companies have
dug their heels in so hard, and they have refused to help us."
The legal action invokes the involvement of defendants' insurance companies, Baxter said. He hopes
insurance companies can persu.ade the defendants to participate in the investigation.
Perchlorate is a salt used in rocket fuel and fireworks. It is believed that the chemical interferes with thyroid
function and development of fetuses and newborns. It was first discovered in the San Bernardino Valley
drinking water in 1997.
Rialto has been hit hard by perchlorate contamination, with four of its 13 wells taken out of service due to
pollution. In Fontana and Colton, 15 other wells are affected.
Officials have said that a 160-acre site in north Rialto is the source of much of the pollution. That site was
home to many pyrotechnic companies and defense contractors.
9/13/2005