[CPEO-MEF] [Fwd: [CPEO-IRF] Defense Department environmental testimony]

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

{I just sent this out to CPEO's Installation Reuse Forum, but I'm
sending it to this list too because it deals also with the cleanup of
active bases. - LS]

Lenny Siegel wrote:
> 
> 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

-- 


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
_______________________________________________
Military mailing list
Military@list.cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military