Re: [CPEO-IRF] Defense Department environmental testimony

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

The Defense Department says that its cleanup program is mature, and that
costs have been identified. It also says that most remedies are in
place. DON'T BELIEVE EITHER CLAIM.

1. Maturity

The Defense cleanup program is as mature as my 18-year old son, who
actually grew up with the military's cleanup program. (Some readers may
remember him from meetings of the Federal Facilities Environmental
Restoration Dialogue Committee in the mid-1990s.)

That is, the program for cleaning toxic and radioactive wastes is
full-grown, but it still maturing in other ways. Most important, it is
full of surprises. For example, the former Moffett Naval Air Station
(CA), in my community, was closed as part of BRAC '91. The Navy's
cleanup program at Moffett is generally well regarded. Yet two of the
biggest cleanup challenges (volatile organic compounds in the shallow
groundwater beneath a military housing area now owned by the Army, and
PCBs and other contaminants built into the huge dirigible Hangar) were
only identified within the past few years.

The only way that such new discoveries will not boost the cleanup
expense will be if the Defense Department refuses to pay for the cleanup
- as the Air Force is doing at the former Lowry Air Force Base (CO) and
the Navy is trying to do at the Moffett Military Housing Area. As BRAC
'05 bases open up and communities develop reuse plans, one can expect
major new cleanup challenges on those as well.

The Military Munitions Response Program, on the other hand, is in its
infancy. It will take the armed services some time to finish identifying
closed ranges on active bases. And as bases with operational (active and
inactive) ranges close, those ranges will have to be added to cleanup
calculations. Remember, the military does not spend munitions response
dollars on operational ranges. Of course, if the armed services simply
refuse to make those ranges safe - as the Army has done at the Jefferson
Proving Ground - then the cost of "cleanup" will be much lower.

2. Remedies in place.

When it reports that a large share of sites (portions of bases) have
response complete, the Defense Department usually counts those sites
which required no further action after initial identification or
investigation. It's inaccurate to describe those as having "remedies in
place." A relatively small fraction of sites requiring cleanup actually
have remedies in place. This is true in general at Defense Department
facilities, and spot-checking some of the major bases currently on the
BRAC '05 list shows very few remedies in place.

Lenny Siegel



Lenny Siegel wrote:
> 
> Most BRAC '05 Environmental Restoration Remedies in Place
> 
> By Gerry J. Gilmore
> American Forces Press Service
> August 11, 2005
> 
> WASHINGTON ? The Defense Department has identified and provided remedies
> for environmental restoration issues associated with most of the
> installations on the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure list, a senior
> DoD official told the BRAC commission today.
> 
> "From a base-reuse perspective the department will enter implementation
> of BRAC '05 with a mature restoration program," Philip W. Grone, deputy
> undersecretary of defense for installations and environment, told BRAC
> committee members at a hearing here.
> 
> Among the installations recommended for closure under this BRAC round
> "84 percent of those sites, over 1,000, have remedies in place" that
> address environmental restoration issues, Grone said.
> 
> And at installations possessing information on environmental conditions,
> "restoration projects are already identified and in various stages of
> completion," Grone said, noting that "required funding and goals have
> already been established to achieve required environmental actions."
> 
> DoD "has mature relationships" with federal and state regulators and
> local communities involved with the 2005 BRAC process, Grone pointed
> out.
> 
> "In each of the states where DoD has recommended an installation
> closure, the department has signed agreements to engage and financially
> support state agencies to assist us in restoration efforts," he said.
> 
> Half of the 180 major and minor installations recommended for closure
> under BRAC 2005 contain environmental restoration sites, Grone reported.
> Those 90 installations contain more than 1,200 individual restoration
> sites, he said, with 6 percent involving military munitions clean-up
> sites.
> 
> If implemented, the department's 2005 BRAC recommendations would close
> just over 10 percent of today's existing military bases, Grone had said
> June 6 at a community redevelopment association meeting in Denver. The
> 2005 BRAC recommendations propose closing 33 major stateside bases, as
> well as 29 major realignments and 775 minor closures and realignments.
> 
> There are 843 environmental restoration sites among the 33 bases
> recommended for closure, Grone reported, noting that 78 percent of those
> sites "report either response complete or remedy in place."
> 
> The certified estimate for the cost to clean up all the installations
> recommended for closure "was approximately $1 billion," Grone noted.
> That figure is based on fiscal 2003 data as reported to the BRAC
> commission, he said.
> 
> "This figure includes both the cost for traditional clean up as well as
> for the military munitions response program," Grone said.
> 
> In this BRAC round DoD wants to quickly transfer BRAC-affiliated
> property "by using the full range" of tools available in the public and
> private sectors," Grone said.
> 
> DoD is applying knowledge gained from previous BRAC rounds to conduct
> more rigorous processes for transferring property within the federal
> government, Grone noted. The department will also employ a wider variety
> of property disposal methods, integrate environmental clean up and
> redevelopment more closely, and share full information on the condition
> of property early in the process with all interested parties, he said.
> 
> Grone noted that DoD's environmental strategy for BRAC 2005 consists of
> four main elements:
> 
>                  Streamlining the process consistent with existing laws
> and regulations;
>                  Making the process more market-oriented by using the
> full range of tools available for property transfer;
>                  Leveraging existing environmental assessments available
> for each installation to provide critical environmental information
> early to all parties for planning purposes; and
>                  Involving DoD components and all interested parties in
> early planning.
> 
> "The department will use early transfer authority to the maximum extent
> practicable," Grone pointed out, to return property "to productive use
> as quickly as possible."
> 
> Early transfer of formerly DoD-owned properties allows "reuse to occur
> in advance of the environmental cleanup being completed," Grone
> explained. However, such transfers "do not eliminate the department's
> responsibility to ensure that all necessary response action will be
> taken," he emphasized.
> 
> "And it is a responsibility we take very seriously," Grone concluded.
> 
> ...
> 
> For the entire article, see
> http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Aug2005/20050811_2394.html
> 
> --
> 
> Lenny Siegel
> Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
> c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
> Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
> Fax: 650/961-8918
> <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
> http://www.cpeo.org
> _______________________________________________
> Installation_Reuse_Forum mailing list
> Installation_Reuse_Forum@list.cpeo.org
> http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/installation_reuse_forum

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org
_______________________________________________
Installation_Reuse_Forum mailing list
Installation_Reuse_Forum@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/installation_reuse_forum