[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.A.S.C. No. 110-70]
EMERGING CONTAMINANTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AT DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS
__________
HEARING
BEFORE THE
READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
JULY 12, 2007
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
38-034 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Texas, Chairman
GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
SILVESTRE REYES, Texas WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina
LORETTA SANCHEZ, California J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia
ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania MIKE ROGERS, Alabama
JIM MARSHALL, Georgia JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam HOWARD P. ``BUCK'' McKEON,
MARK UDALL, Colorado California
DAN BOREN, Oklahoma ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
NANCY BOYDA, Kansas FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire TOM COLE, Oklahoma
JOE COURTNEY, Connecticut ROB BISHOP, Utah
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona TRENT FRANKS, Arizona
KATHY CASTOR, Florida CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
Dave Sienicki,Professional Staff Member
Eryn Robinson, Professional Staff Member
Tom Hawley, Professional Staff Member
Sarah Schaffer, Staff Assistant
C O N T E N T S
----------
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS
2007
Page
Hearing:
Thursday, July 12, 2007, Emerging Contaminants and Environmental
Management at Department of Defense Installations.............. 1
Appendix:
Thursday, July 12, 2007.......................................... 17
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2007
EMERGING CONTAMINANTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AT DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS
STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Jones, Hon. Walter B., a Representative from North Carolina,
Readiness Subcommittee......................................... 2
Ortiz, Hon. Solomon P., a Representative from Texas, Chairman,
Readiness Subcommittee......................................... 1
WITNESSES
Beehler, Alex A., Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health)................. 3
Stephenson, John B., Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. Government Accountability Office.......................... 5
APPENDIX
Prepared Statements:
Beehler, Alex A.............................................. 43
Stephenson, John B........................................... 21
Documents Submitted for the Record:
[There were no Documents submitted.]
Questions and Answers Submitted for the Record:
Mr. Bishop................................................... 74
Ms. Bordallo................................................. 73
Mr. Loebsack................................................. 74
Mr. McKeon................................................... 72
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers........................................ 71
Mr. Ortiz.................................................... 67
Mr. Taylor................................................... 74
EMERGING CONTAMINANTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AT DEPARTMENT OF
DEFENSE INSTALLATIONS
----------
House of Representatives,
Committee on Armed Services,
Readiness Subcommittee,
Washington, DC, Thursday, July 12, 2007.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:07 p.m. in
room 2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Solomon P. Ortiz
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, A REPRESENTATIVE
FROM TEXAS, CHAIRMAN, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Ortiz. This hearing will come to order. I thank our
distinguished witnesses for appearing before this subcommittee
today to talk about our environmental restoration programs.
The Department has faced a daunting task of addressing
environmental contamination in a variety of bases, both active
and closed, for many years. In some cases, contamination dates
back to the Revolutionary War. But the fact remains that the
costs to complete the cleanup of known contaminants exceed $32
billion. After putting nearly $1.9 billion toward these
requirements in fiscal year 2008, the Department estimates the
overall cost of cleanup known as contaminants is expected to
increase in future years. It is not in the Department's best
interests to conform to the minimum cleanup goals just to avoid
litigation and to establish a formal cleanup goal by the year
2061 because of fiscal limitations. That is not how a great,
free Nation operates.
This strategy is flawed, irresponsible, and will place
additional environmental burdens on the Department in the
future. To the Department's credit, they have done a good job
in determining a risk-based strategy of environmental cleanup,
which could be a useful roadmap to apply scarce resources.
Unfortunately, it appears that the Department has elected to
give highest priority to funding cleanup at active
installations.
The Department must understand that the environmental
contamination left by our forefathers is just as important to
clean up as the environmental contamination left by today's
force. Applying varying cleanup goals to active bases, Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) bases, and closed bases is
losing support in the local communities that have strongly
supported our bases in the past. The Department's current
management strategy for perchlorate--and I hope I pronounce it
right--or rocket fuel contamination is insufficient.
It has been reported that the Department and National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) are responsible for
90 percent of production in the United States. While it is
apparent that the Department has contributed to the overall
rocket fuel contamination, the Department seems to be applying
sufficient Research and Development (R&D) funding to better
characterize the nature of the source. Yet the Department has
not performed a comprehensive review at former defense sites
and has not fully identified the full extent of rocket fuel
contamination to be cleaned up.
The Department must continue to provide a serious review of
former defense sites and provide the necessary funding to
restore trust in the Department's ability to be responsible
environmental stewards.
As for Trichloroethylene (TCE) contamination, the
Department has a long history of using and cleaning it up.
However, unlike rocket fuel contamination, TCE contamination
limits were set by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) way
back in 1989. And it is my understanding that the Department
has said it honored those limits since 1989. Doctors say new
scientific information indicates that the exposure pathways and
health impacts on TCE may not yet be fully understood. I am
concerned that it may be years before this new information
could be incorporated into new regulatory standards.
So I am interested in hearing from you today how the
Department is responding to TCE's uncertain regulatory
requirement.
The Chair now recognizes the distinguished gentleman from
North Carolina, my friend Mr. Jones, for any remarks he would
like to make. Mr. Jones.
STATEMENT OF HON. WALTER B. JONES, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH
CAROLINA, READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE
Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important
and timely hearing. It highlights the difficult policy and
budgetary issues involved in environmental stewardship, as well
as the human element. By law, Federal agencies are now required
to manage lands under their jurisdiction. Before these laws
were enacted, the Department of Defense (DOD) and the military
conducted environmentally harmful activities for some years.
Now the requirements present an immediate and expensive
liability to DOD. With each base closure round and each new
emerging contaminant discovery, the bill grows larger.
For that reason, DOD continues to budget annually for
environmental cleanup at former defense sites, BRAC sites, and
active installations. Cleanup is very expensive, and the sites
are numerous. Nevertheless, human health is paramount and must
be protected against known hazards. All of us are very
sympathetic to those harmed through no fault of their own. It
is especially aggrieving when the harm is caused through the
careless actions of the Federal Government.
In the case of Camp Lejeune, which I have the privilege to
represent, I find it extremely distressing that young Marine
families were required to live in substandard housing in the
1980's, supplied by contaminated water. It is clear that some
children born to mothers living at Camp Lejeune at the time
were affected. However, it is difficult to prove which children
were harmed by the contaminated water and which had health
difficulties unrelated to TCE. I know the matter of individual
tort claims is under review, and I have no wish to interfere in
that process.
However, I urge the witnesses here today to do everything
they can to prevent such tragedies in the future. We must act
aggressively to try to mitigate immediate danger to military
families. Our installations are home to our military families
and military members. Those who volunteered to serve will live
and train there. They expect to be safe during their brief
return from missions overseas. Those in uniform face enough
hazards when deployed. They should not be placed in harm's way
here in America.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you, as I close, for holding
this hearing, and I look forward to our witnesses. And may we
continue to do what is right for those in uniform. I yield
back.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much.
We are very happy to have our witnesses with us today. And
we have the Honorable Alex Beehler, Assistant Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Environment, Safety and Occupational
Health, Department of Defense; and Mr. John Stephenson,
Director of Natural Resources and Environment, Government
Accountability Office. And, without objection, the witnesses'
prepared statements will be accepted for the record. And Mr.
Secretary Beehler, whenever you are ready to start with your
testimony.
STATEMENT OF ALEX A. BEEHLER, ASSISTANT DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
OF DEFENSE (ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH)
Secretary Beehler. Thank you very much, Chairman Ortiz,
Congressman Davis, and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today to discuss the Department of Defense activities
associated with environmental restoration and emerging
contaminants.
The Department is committed to cleaning up property and
protecting human health in the environment from contamination
resulting from past military activities, while being a good
steward of both the environment and the Federal budget.
Department of Defense (DOD) has and will continue to comply
with applicable Federal and state standards.
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program, DERP,
involves 31,000 sites at 4,600 active installations, BRAC
installations and Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS)
properties. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
and Liability Act (CERCLA) and its implementing regulation, the
National Contingency Plan, provide the framework for DOD's
remediation efforts.
Emerging contaminants are addressed under DERP, using the
same CERCLA process. The DERP uses a worst-first cleanup
philosophy that consistently tackles the higher-risk sites to
achieve the greatest risk reduction. DOD considers emerging
contaminants as those contaminants for which there is no
established toxicity values or standards, or the toxicity value
of standards are evolving due to new science. DOD has been
proactively engaged with EPA and the State regulators on how to
respond to emerging contaminants under such circumstances.
By fiscal year 2006, we achieved remedy in place or
response complete at 83 percent of the 28,000 installation
restoration program sites with non-munitions contamination.
In 2001, the Department established the Military Munitions
Response Program, composed of some 3,300 sites, and by fiscal
year 2006 we completed response action at 25 percent of those
sites.
DOD relies on perchlorate as an oxidizer in explosives,
pyrotechnics, rocket fuel, and missiles, because it is the most
efficient and stable propellant oxidizer available. There are
two misperceptions about DOD and perchlorate. First, while DOD
is a major purchaser of domestic perchlorate, our facilities do
not appear to be the major source of contamination of drinking
water based on the data reviewed to date. While DOD does have
sites with perchlorate releases, these are mostly confined on
base, and DOD is taking appropriate response actions, in
consultation with EPA and State authorities.
Over the past several years, research has revealed a number
of significant natural and non-DOD man-made sources of
perchlorate, such as road flares, fireworks, certain natural
mineral formations, fertilizers, herbicides, and even chlorine
bleach that can cause low-level widespread contamination. Now
that an ability to differentiate between different sources of
perchlorate exists, responsible parties can be identified with
greater confidence.
Second, it has been claimed that DOD will not respond to
perchlorate unless a maximum contaminant level is established.
In fact, DOD has been and will continue to take appropriate
response actions for perchlorate, in consultation with EPA and
State regulators. My written testimony contains seven such
examples.
Moreover, DOD has engaged a three-prong approach to risk
management of perchlorate:
One, assessing potential releases, where I note the vast
majority of samples taken at these sites are either non-detects
or levels well below the current EPA reference dose.
Two, taking appropriate response actions where necessary.
And three, investing millions of dollars in finding
substitutes to eliminate perchlorate for military use, such as
in pyrotechnic flare compositions.
As for TCE, a solvent for cleaning metal parts, it became a
common contaminant in groundwater due to past poor disposal
practices by industry and DOD. Currently, 424 installations and
FUDS properties have ongoing environmental restoration
activities where TCE has been identified. Also, the Department
over the last 10 years has found suitable replacements with
other types of cleaning agents, such as citrus-based agents,
mineral oils, and other non-toxic solutions.
In conclusion, across DOD we are going beyond compliance,
to ensure better sustainability of our assets and our mission
capabilities. We will continue to take appropriate response
actions for perchlorate, TCE, and other contaminants. We
believe that DOD has acted responsibly as the science and
understanding of perchlorate and other contaminants has
evolved.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely thank you for this
opportunity to highlight the Department's response activities
related to chemical contaminants.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Beehler can be found in the
Appendix on page 43.]
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Stephenson.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES
AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Stephenson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Loebsack. I am
pleased to be here to discuss Government Accountability
Office's (GAO) work on the Department of Defense's activities
associated with emerging contaminants and the cleanup of its
hazardous waste sites. DOD faces a daunting task of cleaning up
thousands of active, closed, and formerly used military
installations across the country. Many of these sites are
contaminated with toxic substances in soil, water, or
containers such as underground storage tanks, ordnance, and
explosive and unsafe buildings. Identifying and investigating
these hazards will take decades, and cleanup will cost many
billions of dollars.
Contamination problems at formerly used defense sites has
economic consequences for individual communities, as the sites
are now owned by States, local governments, and individuals for
use for parks, schools, farms, and homes. Also, while many of
the military facilities closed under DOD's BRAC program have
been cleaned up and transferred to local communities for
redevelopment, some have been awaiting cleanup and conversion
for many years, and this delays the ability to replace jobs
that were lost as a result of the base closures.
My testimony today addresses two specific emerging
contaminants, perchlorate and TCE, and draws on our reports on
TCE contamination at Camp Lejeune, efforts to address
perchlorate nationwide, cleanup at formerly used defense sites,
as well as updated information from DOD, EPA, Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), and the Centers For Disease Control
(CDC).
In summary, we found that while DOD classifies both TCE and
perchlorate as emerging contaminants, there are important
distinctions in the extent to which they are regulated and what
is known about their effects on human health and the
environment. TCE, as has been mentioned, is a degreaser for
metal parts that DOD has used widely for industrial and
maintenance processes for decades. It continues to be found in
underground and surface water sources. TCE has been found to
cause dizziness, headaches, nausea, unconsciousness, cancer,
and even death in extreme exposures. EPA adopted a TCE drinking
water standard of five parts per billion, as you mentioned, in
1989, and DOD has used this standard for requiring cleanups at
installations such as Camp Lejeune, where 46 separate sites
have been identified for cleanup.
TCE is a big issue for DOD because of its widespread use.
It has been found in over 1,400 defense sites, over half at
concentrations exceeding the 5 parts per billion standard.
Perchlorate, as you mentioned, is a primary ingredient and
propellant used in rockets and missiles, has been found in
drinking water, groundwater, surface water, and soil across the
United States. However, EPA has in this case not yet set a
drinking water standard, citing the need for additional
research, and notwithstanding recent CDC and FDA studies
showing that perchlorate can cause fetal development problems
in pregnant women, and that there is extensive low-level
perchlorate contamination in the Nation's food supply.
In the absence of a Federal perchlorate standard, 8 states,
including Texas and California, have established non-regulatory
action levels or advisories for perchlorate ranging from 1 part
per billion to 18 parts per billion, all below the National
Academy of Sciences suggested 24 parts per billion.
DOD adopted a new perchlorate policy in December of 2006
that applies broadly to DOD's active and closed installations,
and uses the National Academy's 24 parts per billion action
level to guide its testing and cleanup efforts. DOD has found
perchlorate above 4 parts per billion at 135 active bases or
thereabouts, but only 8 bases had concentrations above the 24
parts per billion action level. So the level which EPA
ultimately sets a perchlorate standard, if they do at all, will
be critical to DOD in terms of cleanup expense.
Interestingly, several states have used their authorities
to require DOD cleanups. For example, Texas required the Navy
to reduce perchlorate levels and wastewater discharges at the
McGregor Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, DOD faces significant
challenges and potentially huge costs in addressing emerging
contaminants, particularly in light of new scientific
developments and regulatory uncertainty surrounding these
chemicals and materials. DOD has stated further efforts to
address perchlorate would require a regulatory standard from
EPA. The fact some States have moved to create such standards
complicates the issue by presenting DOD with varying cleanup
standards across the country.
Until EPA acts, DOD will continue to face questions about
whether its efforts to control perchlorate contamination are
sufficient to protect human health and the environment.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be happy
to take questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stephenson can be found in
the Appendix on page 21.]
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you so much for your testimony.
Dr. Beehler, you know all known high-risk contamination
sites should be speedily cleaned. However, the Department has
elected to place a priority of funding toward active
installations and much lower priority toward former Defense
sites. Can you explain why there is a difference in this
approach between the active sites that we have plus the ones
that have been like bases being closed in the past?
Secretary Beehler. Mr. Chairman, several points. One is
that the percentage spent on high-risk active installations
related sites is the same percentage that is spent on FUDS
high-risk sites within the total amount that is spent on FUDS
versus the total amount that is spent on active installations.
The second point is that in fact one must look at
individual services. For instance, the Navy makes no
discrimination really. They continue to spend money on the
high-risk sites across the board, whether it is FUDS or the
active installations.
As to the Army, they over the last several years, in order
to be the most efficient they could be as far as achieving
cleanup and cost, they went to a performance-based contract
approach, whereby this fiscal year 30 percent of all of their
cleanup contracts are or are about to be performance-base
oriented. And what that allows them to do is when they are in a
given site--for example, Aberdeen Proving Ground has 253 sites,
you know, some high risk, some medium risk, some low risk--
under the performance-based contracting, there is flexibility
to use economies of scale. If there is, for instance, a given
soil contamination interest that may cover--cut across all
three levels of sites, then it is perceived to make the most
sense to deal with that issue at all of those related sites
within Aberdeen Proving Grounds.
So there is this balancing between the triage effect of
making sure that you are dealing with the worst first, as I
alluded to in my testimony, and balancing that with the
economies of scale that can be engendered at sites such as
Aberdeen that have all three different categories.
The other thing, of course, about FUDS sites is there are
greater challenges that the military face. The military does
not own the property, in many instances has had no connection
with the property for decades. They are dealing with current
owners of the property and also with interests from State and
local regulators and communities as to how best to clean up the
properties.
So it is not an exact science, for the reasons that I
suggest.
Mr. Ortiz. You know--and the reason that I ask this
question is because as times change, there might be a necessity
to open new bases. And when we find out that there are certain
communities who have never had their cleanup, other communities
might be hesitant to receive our military. And this could
create problems.
So you say there is a goal that maybe between 2014, 2020,
that maybe----
Secretary Beehler. Mr. Chairman, we are always pushing. The
reason that these goals are set is sort of to establish
benchmarks. And then they are annually reviewed to see where
the services are in not only meeting the goals, but actually
doing better, given--and this would certainly greatly apply to
a FUDS situation--enhanced technology, to both find out what
the contaminants are, as well as how best to remove them. And
we certainly rely heavily on enhanced research to help speed
things up and to do a more effective approach.
We have also found, certainly the Army has, that by going
with performance-based contracts they have found the cleanup is
done more efficiently, more effectively, more expeditiously,
and we would expect that that would carry forth in the dealing
of cleanup of FUDS sites.
Mr. Ortiz. Because you know, we want to be sure that we
have recruitment, retention. It is just like the Veterans
Administration (VA) hospital, when they cannot treat the
veterans coming back from the war. I think this has an impact
also in that if I had a son or daughter in the military, I
don't want to have them go to a place where they are going to
be drinking contaminated water. And you know, we want to work
together, and I hope by working with the Congress and DOD that
we can come up with a solution to hopefully expedite to do some
of this cleaning up.
Secretary Beehler. Well, I certainly appreciate that on
behalf of the Department of Defense. And we certainly do want
to work as closely as possible with Congress to achieve that
goal.
I might add, apropos your comment, that obviously on active
installations we do have 24/7 responsibility of the service men
and women and their families, which once again we want to make
sure that contamination is effectively dealt with in that venue
as well.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you.
Mr. Loebsack, you have any questions?
Mr. Loebsack. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to you as
well, Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Beehler. I am new to the Congress.
And when I got on the Armed Services Committee, you know, of
course I had to choose which subcommittees I wanted to be on.
And the district in Iowa, we don't have bases as such right now
much at all. But I do have, in my district in Middletown, the
Iowa Army Ammunition Plant. And I thought about, while I was
running for this office, I had heard stories about some of the
contamination problems at that plant. And I am on this
subcommittee in no small measure because I want that to be
dealt with while I am in Congress at some point, and the
problems.
And it has been the site of an installation restoration
program (IRP), since 1994. The groundwater and the soil at the
plant are contaminated with both perchlorate and
trichloroethylene. To date, the Army Environmental Center has
spent about $90 million--that is the data that I have at
least--on the cleanup effort. The restoration of the site is
still not complete. And it is projected to cost an additional
$11 million over the course of the next 5 years.
And I suppose even more concerning for me and many of the
people there at the plant and the areas, sites, within the
plant's compound that were not originally selected for cleanup
in 1994, but have since been found to be in need of remediation
as a result of the plant's historical activities, are not
included in the cleanup effort. Meaning that no money has been
made available for the restoration.
So I just want to ask at the outset, Mr. Beehler, if you
have any direct knowledge of the cleanup efforts at the Iowa
Army Ammunition Plant. I know there are many facilities around
the country, but do you have any specific information on this?
Secretary Beehler. Thank you, Congressman. As I think you
know, generally the cleanup issues are handled on an
installation-by-installation basis, and then as an oversight by
the service particularly involved with the effort. I do have
some minimum knowledge. I know, for instance, that a consortium
led by the University of Iowa with other universities and other
entities have a prototype trial project involving
phytoremediation, which at this point is proving to be
effective, and hopefully therefore can be expanded to have a
more efficient cleanup.
And as to the other aspect that you mentioned of sites or
parcels that have been found to be contaminated but have not
been included in the cleanup site, I don't have any direct
knowledge about that. I would be happy to take that back to the
Army, provide you with more detailed information.
I can say that obviously--and I am sure you know this as
well--that the remediation is done in accord with the State and
Federal regulators, and therefore I can only assume at this
point that there is a good reason that the regulators have
concurred in as to why those parcels have not yet been included
in the cleanup. But I will take that back for the record and
get more detail for the committee.
Mr. Loebsack. That is all I request.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 74.]
Mr. Loebsack. I really appreciate that very much, your
cooperation. I look forward to working with you on it in the
future. Thank you.
Secretary Beehler. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Ortiz. Chairman Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, the only
thing that I would ask of you is--I am from down south
Mississippi. We got clobbered a couple years ago with the
hurricane. And I would remind you both when I called the Chief
of Naval Operations (CNO) and the Chief of the National Guard
Bureau and said we desperately needed help, both of them's very
first words were, how are your bases? Where can I put people?
And I got to know, just being human nature, that as you
look at these problems there is going to be a tendency to say,
you know, if we shut down our water well and just use city
water maybe we can eliminate some of these problems.
What I would definitely encourage you to keep in mind is
that when the acts of terror that the chiefs have told us are
going to happen in the States happen here, the same response is
going to be coming from the Chief of the Guard Bureau and the
CNO and others, okay; we got to get people in there. Where can
we put them? Okay, we can put them on the bases. Can we feed
them? Is there a place where they can take a shower, et cetera?
And so I would just encourage you, to the greatest extent
possible, to keep the bases self-sufficient when it comes to
things like their water wells, when it comes to things like
electrical generation, when it comes to things like even sewage
treatment. I know that everything, all the pressure is on you
to save money, say farm it out to the cities. But the cities in
the wake of those storms could not take care of themselves, and
the bases really did become where the folks rode to the rescue
from.
And I just want to throw that at you because it is
something that we have been through that other people are
eventually going to go through. And we should not be giving
away for short-term gain, like to avoid a pollution problem, we
should not be giving away national assets. Because each one of
these assets--any one of those bases could be called upon to do
the same thing that our bases in south Mississippi did two
years ago.
Secretary Beehler. Sir, I appreciate your comments. As you
may know, the Defense Science Board has an energy task force
that is about in the next couple of months to issue their
report after a year's study. And one of the things that
undoubtedly they will focus on is independence of military
bases on energy, on utilities such as water, the very issues
that you are raising. And we certainly anticipate that there
will be significant push within DOD to attempt to achieve as
much independence as possible in these areas per responsive to
the recommendations that will emanate out of the task force.
Once again, we have to wait and see for further detail because
they haven't issued their report.
Mr. Taylor. Sir, if I may, because my memory of the initial
moves by Secretary Rumsfeld--I realize this is six years ago
and he is no longer the Secretary--but a lot of the people that
he brought to the table are still at the table. One of his
moves was, to the greatest extent possible, was to farm out
those responsibilities. If Keesler can get their water from the
city of Biloxi, have them do so, et cetera.
Again, hell, I could not have visualized how catastrophic
that storm would have been, but I can now. And so the only
point I am trying to make is when you make these decisions, I
would hope that you would keep that in mind. Because like I
said, whether it happens in Los Angeles, San Diego, wherever,
those bases are going to--their bases are going to need to be
every bit as self-sufficient as Keesler and the Naval
Construction Battalion bases were for the benefit of south
Mississippi. And I would just ask you, despite all the
budgetary pressures that are telling you otherwise, to try to
the greatest extent possible to protect those resources that
the taxpayers have already paid for.
Secretary Beehler. Yes, sir. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. My good friend, Robin Hayes. You have any
questions, Robin?
Mr. Hayes. I will pass, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you. One of the reasons we are here is
because we do, in my opinion, have a serious problem. But Mr.
Beehler, you indicated in your statement the Department has
identified something like, what, $32 billion worth of
environmental cleanup requirements? Yet the request that has
been made for funding for fiscal year 2008 is only $1.8
billion. I was just wondering, do you have any input as to what
the Department will have to--the request that they make to the
Congress for funding?
Secretary Beehler. I am sorry, sir, do I have any input?
Mr. Ortiz. Input as to how much money you think not only
coming from DOD, but to come to you guys who are the experts,
and to say how much money do you think we should put in?
Secretary Beehler. Well, with all candor, sir, those
decisions are made at a higher level than mine. I can tell you
that the $1.8, $1.9 billion cleanup level per year has been
gradually increasing or being held steady over the course of
the years. So it is sort of a consistent, and, it is my
understanding, has been deemed, under all the circumstances and
with various competing interests involved, the best level to
get the job done given other competing circumstances.
And I believe that, for instance, to date--the program
started after 1986--so in roughly 20 years in today's dollars
at least $32 billion has been spent on cleanup. And we are at
roughly about 80-some percent response complete or in place.
Mr. Ortiz. I think that when we have identified at least,
you know, $32 billion worth of cleanup problems that we have,
1.9 or 1.8 is not sufficient to reduce the existing
contamination that we have. So I am just hoping--and I know
that we have some other priorities. I know we have got two wars
going on at the same time. But it is a very serious problem.
I know that at least one of the bases that we have in Texas
that you are probably familiar with is the one in San Antonio.
And I was just wondering what efforts has the Air Force taken
to moderate potential problems with disease resulting from
exposure to harmful chemicals among former civilian employees
and military personnel who previously worked at the Kelly Air
Force Base?
Secretary Beehler. I am sorry; is this Kelly Air Force
Base?
Mr. Ortiz. Kelly Air Force Base, yes, sir.
Secretary Beehler. As I understand it, there has been about
$300 million spent by the Air Force to clean up Kelly. I
believe that Kelly is basically a BRAC site, so that means that
the base effectively has been closed. They have taken
leadership and worked very closely with the communities in
addressing the TCE issue, which I believe they spent $70-some-
million focused on that issue alone, working closely with the
city health municipal authorities, making sure that TCE no
longer contaminates the drinking water of the surrounding
neighborhoods. And as I understand it, the progress being made
now is in the right direction.
Mr. Ortiz. Because if I am correct--now, I could be wrong,
but I understand that some of this contamination has spread to
other communities which are not under the in-site existing
military base. And what is being done to have the people who
reside outside the areas of the military jurisdiction? Have
they been advised that that area has been contaminated?
Secretary Beehler. Well, my understanding is that there has
been, at least in recent times, a very effective communication
with the local communities about contamination issues and
problems. And in fact there is, as I recall, two plumes which,
through a wide variety of rather creative forward thinking--and
once again with the approval of the local communities of a
permeable barrier approach, have actually shrunk the respective
plumes by half in the space of about three or four years. Much
quicker than if they had engaged in pump and treat, which is
the standard remediation that has historically been proven.
So, as I say, it seems to be headed, for all those reasons,
in the right direction.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Taylor.
Mr. Taylor. Again just for my memory, what have we spent on
environmental restoration at bases that have been closed by
previous rounds of BRAC to date, and what is your estimated
amount to clean up the bases that have been identified to be
BRAC'd by the panels that have already met and made decisions?
Secretary Beehler. I hope I am going to answer your
question correctly.
Mr. Taylor. I will repeat it, because I tend to mumble. How
much have we spent so far? And there are still installations
that have been targeted for closure that have either not been
closed or have not--or the environmental restoration has not
taken place. So what is your estimate that you will have to
spend just to fulfill what has been mandated by the rounds of
BRAC that have already occurred?
Secretary Beehler. I think there are roughly--if you
include all rounds of BRAC, including the first four plus now
the five, as best we understand the five, which is somewhat a
work in progress----
Mr. Taylor. Sure.
Secretary Beehler [continuing]. Because, of course, these
are relatively newly added to the mix, it is roughly $3.9
billion needed to complete.
Mr. Taylor. And what has been spent so far?
Secretary Beehler. What has been spent so far? I want to
say around $9 billion so far.
Mr. Taylor. May I make this request of you?
Secretary Beehler. I will take that back for the record.
Mr. Taylor. Would you take it for the record and answer for
the record?
Secretary Beehler. I will, and give you the support.
Mr. Taylor. Thank you very much, sir.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 74.]
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Stephenson, in the absence of an EPA
standard, do you think it is prudent for the Department to move
forward and clean up sites contaminated with rocket fuel
contamination?
Mr. Stephenson. Well, I think they are moving forward using
the National Academy's 24 parts per billion. But I think it is
incumbent upon EPA to act first. They need to set a drinking
water standard, and then DOD will know with certainty what the
cleanup standard is. And there is a lot of support for that.
The American Water Works Association, who represents all the
private drinking water facilities and public drinking water
facilities, has encouraged EPA to do so. So I think they
actually need that regulatory standard in order to do a lot
more.
Mr. Ortiz. Does any other member have any questions? I know
you just came in. I know you are full of questions.
Mr. Bishop. Well, I am, and I feel chagrined here, because
usually I have a good reason for either being late or missing a
committee meeting. And this time I have no reason except I just
forgot the time. So I apologize. And I am assuming you may have
covered a lot of these issues. Can I just ask four questions?
And if it has already been covered will you just stop me?
Mr. Ortiz. You go right ahead. You are a very important
member of this subcommittee.
Mr. Bishop. If I was that important I wouldn't be sitting
at the end of the aisle here.
Mr. Stephenson, if I can start with you-- and you were
probably talking about as I came in--but how many sites
catalogued in the government accounting or the GAO's May 2005
report are contaminated sites nationwide where naturally
occurring sources? Does that make sense?
Mr. Stephenson. Yeah, we identified nearly 400 in total. Of
those, there were upwards of 200 of those sites where it
couldn't be determined. And we think it was reasonable to
assume that around 100 of those are naturally occurring. Most
of the naturally occurring perchlorate is in the desert
southwest, in the high plains of Texas.
Mr. Bishop. Based on any information that has come out
since that report, do you have any kind of ballpark estimate of
how many sites exist nationwide? Naturally occurring.
Mr. Stephenson. No. That is the best information there is
available. It is not easy to identify perchlorate sites. We had
to work with EPA and DOD and many local communities and States
to come up with that 400-site estimate.
Mr. Bishop. And once again, you probably said this already,
but I apologize for that. Of the 395-400, roughly, sites that
you have that have been identified in that 2005 report, how
many are currently experiencing remediation activity?
Mr. Stephenson. We don't know. It has been two years since
that study. About 65 percent of those sites were DOD sites, so
maybe Mr. Beehler can shed some light on that. But we have not
updated that information since then.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Beehler, do you have anything to add on how
many are going through remediation at the present time?
Secretary Beehler. I am happy to take that for the record.
I do know that EPA said that we have 34, I believe, Superfund
sites, of which really one installation accounted for 11 of
those sites where perchlorate had been found. And these would
be sites listed on the National Priorities List.
Now, that is not, I don't think, exactly the same question
that you asked, but it is a related answer. But I would be
happy to take that back for the record and provide you the
information we have.
Mr. Bishop. I would be appreciative of that.
[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix
beginning on page 74.]
Mr. Bishop. If I could ask maybe two other questions. Once
again, if they have been covered, I apologize profusely for
that. And it is my understanding that many of the defense, the
aerospace industries are not waiting for the EPA to set the
drinking water standards for this particulate, and they are
spending a lot of money doing that. Is the Defense Department
working with the private industry and other public agencies to
gain the benefit of this private sector knowledge and expertise
in this particular issue in this contaminant remediation
technology?
Secretary Beehler. Absolutely. That is one of the
cornerstones of what we are looking at. For instance, we spent
a total to date of about $114 million for a whole range of
efforts, such as research into substitutes, better pollution
prevention approaches, new technologies for more effective
cleanup, for instance, and more effective handling of
perchlorate. And we have set up a directorate within our office
as a long-term institutional basis to examine perchlorate and
other emerging contaminants. The directorate regularly meets
with industry folks, with health regulators, environmental
regulators, both at the State, local, and Federal level, county
folks, water experts, to make sure that there is the most
effective knowledge share in figuring out how best to proceed
in this in the most cost-efficient manner, using the best
science and technology available.
Mr. Bishop. I am very happy to hear that. Once again, you
probably covered that in your testimony, but that is wonderful
to know, because these industries are putting millions of
dollars into the research in this particular area.
One last question then, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield
back.
Mr. Ortiz. Go right ahead.
Mr. Bishop. If the EPA were to determine that this
perchlorate should not be regulated by the drinking water
standards, what effect would that determination have on the
Department of Defense's current or future remediation
activities?
Secretary Beehler. To the best of my knowledge, I think
very little. I mean we have before us, we all have before us
the various health concerns that have been presented by the
National Academy of Science, by the CDC, Center For Disease
Control and we--and also by past research done by EPA. And we
at DOD have made a commitment to make sure that we get our arms
around, effectively, perchlorate and effectively deal with it.
Right now we are following the current EPA guidance, which EPA
guidance established a reference dose of 24 parts per billion
based on the research put forward by the--and the study done by
the National Academy of Sciences. So we have used that figure
as our point of departure for instructing the services to
examine whether there is a perchlorate problem and how best to
deal with it. And that is the way we will continue.
The other thing is, EPA is only one part of the picture
here as far as a regulator is concerned. The states have a
significant role. And already--and this was mentioned earlier
in the hearing--states have stepped out. Foremost is
Massachusetts, that has set a standard for drinking water of
two parts per billion. We fully expect other states to take,
you know, positions one way or the other on this. And we want
to be--and our feeling is to be ahead of the curve rather than
behind the curve in dealing with this issue, to be most
effective in handling the health issues, and to do it most
efficiently and economically. And that is the way we will
continue to proceed.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate both of you for
answering those questions that I did have. Thank you for your
indulgence. And once again I apologize for my tardiness, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Ortiz. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Mr. Stephenson, please tell us about impact of human
exposure to TCE in drinking water and vapors in the air, if you
could.
Mr. Stephenson. Our TCE knowledge base is really limited to
Camp Lejeune, where we looked at uptake from drinking water
only. The research on intake from vapor is relatively new--
well, not relatively new, but is ongoing, and it is not
finalized yet. The fact that there is a drinking water
standard, though, is we think obviously excellent. And the
research on that continues. And, in fact, EPA may even make
that standard more stringent if the evidence supports that.
Mr. Ortiz. But we are working on it to come up with a
system to----
Mr. Stephenson. We are. There is ongoing research to study
the intake from vapors as well as from drinking water.
Breathing TCE is not good either.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Beehler, I want to ask you the same
question, but this has to do with vapors in the air. How do you
address that?
Secretary Beehler. Well, first we are following very
closely the science and research that Mr. Stephenson has just
alluded to. As he mentioned, there are several studies,
recently the National Academy of Sciences, and in turn another
panel of the National Academy of Sciences is studying Camp
Lejeune. And I believe it is due out with a report in the next
6 to 12 months.
In the meantime, we are engaged in working groups with EPA
and the State regulators on whatis--given the state of flux, if
you will, of the science and health effects on vapor
intrusion--what should be the smart thing to do here and now as
we are awaiting additional research information?
We are also stepping out on a site-specific basis, going
ahead and specifically testing and monitoring for vapor
intrusion, as appropriate. Some of the services have put out
guidances on how to handle vapor intrusion issues at individual
sites. DOD departmental-wide is going to put out a guidance in
the very near future so that we get a minimum consistent policy
on what to look for and how to handle vapor intrusion issues
while we are waiting for the research to come in and EPA to
decide what to do about this issue.
And, finally, once again, there have been States who have
set vapor intrusion regulatory limits. And, of course, we
comply with those accordingly.
Mr. Ortiz. Any other member have any other questions? If
not, I know there are a lot of members who wanted to be here,
but there is a lot of activities going on, and they will
probably submit to you some questions for the record.
And being no further business, this hearing stands
adjourned. Thank you so much for your testimony.
[Whereupon, at 3 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
=======================================================================
A P P E N D I X
July 12, 2007
=======================================================================
PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 12, 2007
=======================================================================
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
July 12, 2007
=======================================================================
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. ORTIZ
Mr. Ortiz. In the absence of an EPA standard, do you think it is
prudent for the Department of Defense to move forward and clean up
sites contaminated with perchlorate?
Mr. Stephenson. In the absence of a federal standard, at least 8
states have established non-regulatory action levels or advisories that
range from 1 part per billion (ppb) to 51 ppb of perchlorate. In
addition, Massachusetts established a drinking water standard of 2 ppb,
and California is in the final stages of rulemaking to establish a 6
ppb standard. DOD certainly will have to move forward and clean up
sites contaminated with perchlorate in those states.
Our work detailed some of the significant challenges, and
potentially large costs, that the Department of Defense (DOD) must
address with regard to perchlorate.\1\ DOD's designation of perchlorate
as an emerging contaminant, and January 2006 revisions to its
perchlorate policy, reflects the department's recognition that the
chemical has a significant potential impact on people and/or the
department's mission. As we discussed in our April and July 2007
testimonies, DOD has certain responsibilities with regard to
contaminants that are regulated by EPA or state governments, but the
department's responsibilities and cleanup goals are less definite for
contaminants, such as perchlorate, that lack federal regulatory
standards.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Perchlorate: A System to Track Sampling and Cleanup
Results is Needed, GAO-05-462 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2005).
\2\ GAO, Perchlorate. EPA Does Not Systematically Track Incidents
of Contamination, GAO-07-797T (Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2007) and
Environmental Contamination: Department of Defense Activities Related
to Trichloroethylene, Perchlorate, and Other Emerging Contaminants,
GAO-07-1042T (Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fact that some states have moved to create their own standards
further complicates cleanup issues for DOD by presenting the department
with varying standards across the country. Until a national perchlorate
standard is adopted, DOD will continue to face differing requirements
in different states and continuing questions about whether its efforts
to control perchlorate contamination are necessary or sufficient to
protect human health. Until EPA acts, we believe it is prudent for the
department to have adopted a uniform perchlorate policy with sampling
and cleanup criteria for both its active and closed installations. We
also believe that DOD can do more to keep the public informed of its
sampling and cleanup efforts for perchlorate and other emerging
contaminants.
Mr. Ortiz. Please tell us about the impact of human exposure to TCE
from drinking water and from vapors in the air?
Mr. Stephenson. According to the Department of Health and Human
Services' (HHS) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR), trichloroethylene (TCE) is pervasive in the environment and is
known or suspected to cause a range of health effects depending upon
the level and length of exposure. Most people are likely to be exposed
to TCE simply by drinking and breathing, but ATSDR also reported that
TCE has been found in a variety of foods such as meats and margarine.
HHS's National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey estimated that
approximately 10 percent of the U.S. population has detectable levels
of TCE in their blood as a result of these exposures.
ATSDR's toxicological profile provides a summary of the known
short- and long-term effects from drinking and breathing TCE. Drinking
small amounts of TCE over long periods may cause liver and kidney
damage, harm the immune system, and impair fetal development in
pregnant women. Drinking large amounts may cause nausea, liver damage,
impaired heart function, or death. With regard to breathing, ATSDR's
profile states that small amounts of TCE may cause headaches, lung
irritation, poor coordination, and difficulty concentrating, whereas
large amounts may impair heart function and cause unconsciousness,
nerve, kidney and liver damage, and death. However, there is less
certainty about the long-term health effects from breathing small
amounts of TCE on diseases such as cancer.
ATSDR's profile noted that TCE is ``reasonably anticipated to be a
human carcinogen,'' and the International Agency for Research on Cancer
determined that TCE is probably carcinogenic to humans--specifically
kidney, liver, and cervical cancers, Hodgkin's disease, and non-
Hodgkin's lymphoma--based on limited evidence of carcinogenicity in
humans and additional evidence from animal studies. Although EPA's
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) initially contained a
carcinogenicity assessment, EPA withdrew it from IRIS in 1989. As such,
EPA's IRIS database does not currently contain information on the
health effects of TCE exposures. In 1998, EPA initiated a new TCE
assessment but will not likely complete it until 2010, or later.
Mr. Ortiz. Please provide the Committee with your recommendations
for improvements in the management of environmental issues on DOD
facilities?
Mr. Stephenson. We recommend that DOD improve publicly available
testing and cleanup information for emerging contaminants, including
TCE, on its Web sites. During the course of our work, DOD did improve
the information provided to the public about the results from its
perchlorate testing program.\3\ In addition, we suggest that the
Committee ask DOD and EPA to provide information about their joint work
related to emerging contaminants, including (1) DOD involvement in EPA
risk assessments, (2) DOD input into EPA regulations and IRIS updates,
and (3) funding for studies that could advance their understanding of
the health effects of emerging contaminants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See DOD's Materials of Evolving Regulatory Interest Team Web
site, https://www.denix.osd.mil/denix/Public/Library/MERIT/merit.html,
last accessed on September 5, 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Ortiz. Please describe how Environmental Management Systems
function on installations. What proportion of these systems are paper-
based, versus computer-based? I am aware that the Army has been
conducting demonstration programs for web-based Environmental
Management Information Systems. How are the web-based systems
progressing, and how do they compare to the paper-based systems? What
are the prospects for utilizing web-based Environmental Management
Systems at all DOD facilities?
Secretary Beehler. An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a
process for analyzing and improving environmental aspects of
operations. EMS is a formal framework for integrating the consideration
of environmental issues into the overall management structure at an
installation. When properly implemented, an EMS identifies the
environmental aspects of the mission, highlights and prioritizes areas
of risk, promotes pollution prevention, and tracks progress toward
environmental goals. Cross-functional teams are formed with members
from the various organizations on the installation whose activities
interact with and impact the environment. These teams identify issues
that are provided to an environmental management council who advise the
installation commander on the management/prioritization of objectives,
goals, and targets. Through an EMS, actions are implemented to meet the
objectives, goals, and targets, and then assessed for effectiveness.
The management system facilitates correction action for continuous
improvement. With a successful EMS, an installation evaluates the
environmental impacts of the various operations (planned and existing)
on the facility, then establishes objectives, targets, and projects/
programs to improve or mitigate the more `significant' impacts. For
example, the most significant impact at an `administrative' or `school
house' installation (e.g., Fort Myer or West Point) might be energy
use. That installation's EMS objectives and targets would then focus on
reducing energy use and improving energy efficiency.
Within DoD, the majority of installations/organizations with an EMS
use computer based information systems to assist with EMS operation.
Each Service develops its own methods for implementing EMS within
overall DoD policies. It is important to remember that the EMS is a
management process--a way of thinking and operating. An EMS is not
simply an information system.
Within the Army, the web-based Environmental Management Information
Systems (EMIS) fielded in 2005 are fully functional. They have been
well received by installation personnel and are both improving EMS
performance and reducing administrative costs. EMIS automates current
EMS architecture and provides a significant advance in performance and
management of environmental tracking and task performance and has great
potential in providing visibility of environmental performance Army
wide. EMIS is significantly more cost effective than manual EMS systems
and provides operational and management efficiencies.
DoD provides overarching guidance on EMS requirements and
performance, allowing the Services to develop their own implementation
procedures based on their mission requirements. The prospects are good
for each Service to use web-based systems to support their EMS. It
makes good business sense and would further the overall EMS concept by
aiding in information availability and management. Each Service also
provides some or all of their EMS training by web-based delivery. DoD
already uses web-based systems (DENIX, FedCenter, and the Joint
Services Pollution Prevention Library) to provide EMS information,
guidance, lessons learned, best practices, and to facilitate EMS status
reporting.
Mr. Ortiz. I believe that all known, high-risk contamination sites
should be speedily cleaned. However, I note that the Department has
elected to place a priority of funding toward active installations and
much lower priority toward former defense sites. Can you explain why
there is a difference in approach?
Secretary Beehler. There are currently 21,106 active installation
sites, which account for 68 percent of all Defense Environmental
Restoration Sites. In FY 2007, the Department allocated 58 percent of
the funds appropriated to the Department for Defense Environmental
Restoration Programs towards the cleanup of active installations. By
contrast, there are 4,654 Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), which
account for 14 percent of the total inventory. In FY 2007, the
Department allocated 12 percent of the funds appropriated to the
Department for the Defense Environmental Restoration Programs towards
the cleanup of FUDS. The remainder of the funding is provided to
Components to cleanup BRAC sites. In accordance with Congressionally
mandated statutory requirements, first priority for funding has gone to
BRAC sites, while active and FUDS locations are almost equal in
relative funding.
In determining progress and allocating funding for FUDS, the number
and scope of environmental restoration of all FUDS sites must be taken
into account, including both Installation Restoration Program (IRP)
sites and Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) sites. The
Department is also working diligently to determine the full extent of
FUDS MMRP cleanup requirements. FUDS MMRP projects are generally more
complex, higher cost projects, and are typically perceived to present a
high hazard probability. The actual hazards associated with these sites
will not be known until the Department has completed site surveys. The
Department's goals for conducting MMRP preliminary assessments (PAs)
and site inspections (SIs) are the end of FY 2007 and FY 2010
respectively. When these surveys are completed, they will improve our
understanding of the risks associated with MMRP sites and improve our
ability to identify and prioritize funding requirements and establish
meaningful performance goals with accurate budget links. In 2003, the
Department increased FUDS funding by $20 million a year, to fund MMRP
site surveys, recognizing that these budget requirements should be
revisited once the surveys are completed. In addition, the Department
is implementing a number of improvements to the program that will
result in more efficient cleanups.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Beehler, you indicated in your statement the
Department has identified over $32 billion worth of environmental
cleanup requirements. Yet the Department has elected to request $1.8
billion in funding in fiscal year 2008. Do you believe that the cost to
complete environmental cleanup is a good metric? Do you believe that
sufficient funding has been requested in the environmental restoration
program to reduce existing contamination?
Secretary Beehler. The combined $1.8 billion requested for fiscal
year (FY) 2008 in the Defense Environmental Restoration and BRAC
Accounts is sufficient to fund cleanup requirements identified for that
year and to make progress in the lengthy remediation process for
existing contamination.
The DoD cleanup program cost to complete estimate, currently about
$32 billion, is for a cleanup process that can take 12 or more years
from identification of a cleanup site to having a remedy in place (RIP)
after site characterization, investigation, remedy decision, design,
and construction. The RIP milestone can then be followed by a three to
30-year or longer remedial action-operation phase before reaching the
cleanup objective for the site. Even after reaching the cleanup
objective, cleanup sites may be subject to periodic review and long
term management. The cost-to-complete, as a snap shot of the total
remaining cost of remediation, is a useful metric in managing the
overall DoD cleanup program with 31,000 sites in different stages of
the cleanup process. As site level execution occurs, annual funding
requirements are developed and become the basis for the Department's
annual budget request. Additional annual funding would not appreciably
speed up the DoD cleanup program as a whole.
Mr. Ortiz. If EPA determines that perchlorate should not be
regulated with a national drinking water standard, what effect will
that have on DOD's current and future perchlorate cleanup?
Secretary Beehler. A Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) is a standard
for public drinking water suppliers under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Cleanup actions to address perchlorate releases to the environment are
continuing and will continue at DoD sites, with or without a federal
MCL. The existence of an MCL will not affect whether a cleanup is
conducted. DoD will use the perchlorate reference dose to indicate if a
site-specific cleanup is needed. If it is determined that a response
action is needed, under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act, the cleanup must comply with all
requirements that are applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
site-specific circumstances. If EPA were to promulgate an MCL for
perchlorate, a State or federal MCL, whichever is more stringent, would
generally be used as the cleanup level for ground water that may affect
a drinking water supply.
Mr. Ortiz. What actions is the Department taking to address the
risk of inhalation of TCE vapors in air?
Secretary Beehler. For worker exposures to Trichloroethylene (TCE)
vapors, the Department's policy is to comply with Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) standards in accordance with section
19 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C. 668) and Executive Order 12196. DoD
monitors and controls its worker exposures to TCE to within the OSHA
permissible exposure limits.
DoD is also assessing and addressing inhalation of TCE vapors as
part of its cleanup program. Vapor intrusion is the migration of
volatile chemicals from subsurface media into overlying buildings. For
DoD cleanups that involve a potential TCE vapor intrusion pathway, TCE
exposures are evaluated during the investigation phase, as part of the
site-specific human health risk assessment. If the risk assessment
indicates that an action is required, a diverse set of measures may be
evaluated to address the risk, although ventilation systems are
generally placed on buildings themselves to control exposure to
permissible levels.
DoD is developing guidance on evaluating potential exposures
through vapor intrusion and the DoD Components are also developing more
specific guidance. For example, the Army issued its interim Vapor
Intrusion guidance on November 6, 2006 directing installations to
assess and to mitigate unacceptable risks from vapor intrusion into
existing buildings. DoD representatives are also working with the
Interstate Technology Regulatory Council to develop specific sampling,
characterization, and remediation technologies for indoor air.
Mr. Ortiz. What efforts has the Air Force taken to monitor
potential problems with disease resulting from exposure to harmful
chemicals among former civilian employees and military personnel who
previously worked at Kelly Air Force Base? What is the Department's
approach for addressing contamination that has spread off of DOD
installations into adjoining communities? How is this approach being
implemented at Kelly Air Force Base?
Secretary Beehler. In April 2005, the Air Force Institute for
Operational Health (AFIOH) conducted the Case Series Investigation of
Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Among Former Kelly Air Force Base
Workers. The study resulted from concerns over a possible cluster of
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) among former workers at Kelly Air
Force Base (AFB). In an attempt to gain insight into the occupational,
environmental and lifestyle exposure histories of Persons with ALS
(PALS), the ALS Association-South Texas Chapter (ALSA-STC) and the
AFIOH collaborated on a case series investigation of persons linked to
Kelly AFB who reported having ALS. The report concluded: (1) Using
reported prevalence figures as a comparison, PALS appeared similar to
other ALS cases and the U.S. adult population for ALS disease course,
recreational, immunization, infection/trauma, tobacco use, alcohol use,
and family medical histories. (2) Historically, these cases may have
been more physically active than other ALS case series and U.S. adults
overall, perhaps due to a ``healthy worker'' or ``healthy soldier
effect.'' (3) The limitations of the study, including the highly
heterogeneous population, amount of proxy report, absence of a control
group, length of the questionnaire, and use of generalized comparison
figures, must be considered when discussing and interpreting the
results.
The San Antonio Metropolitan Health District, Environmental Health
and Wellness Center offers free environmental health assessments to
individuals who have ever lived near the former base for at least one
year or who have ever worked at the former Kelly AFB. The center refers
individuals if additional evaluation(s) are needed. In addition, the
Air Force has partnered with the San Antonio Metropolitan Health
District, Public Center for Environmental Health to conduct studies
relating the community health concerns and the environmental program at
the former Kelly AFB.
Additionally, individuals who contact the Air Force claiming health
effects from past on-the-job exposure are referred to the Department of
Labor Federal Employees Compensation division. Using established
employment and medical verification, the Department of Labor processes
these claims.
Mr. Ortiz. Mr. Beehler, can you explain to me the current state of
Environmental Management Systems and how the recent Executive Order may
change the Department's approach for environmental management?
Secretary Beehler. An Environmental Management System (EMS) is a
formal framework for integrating environmental issues and
considerations into the overall management structure at an
installation. When properly implemented, EMS's identify the
environmental aspects of the mission, highlight and prioritize areas of
risk, promote pollution prevention, and track progress toward
environmental goals.
DoD has 596 EMS appropriate facilities (506 U.S. and territories,
90 overseas). Implementing EMS overseas is not required by Executive
Order (EO) 13423; however, DoD decided to make it a requirement for
overseas facilities due to the overall benefits of an integrated
management system. An EMS is ``in-place'' at all 506 U.S. facilities
and 72 of the overseas facilities. (The term ``in-place'' means that
the EMS elements have been developed and the plan-do-check-act cycle is
beginning to function). Full EMS implementation in accordance with EO
13423 requirements is expected by Fiscal Year 2009. A DoD-wide work
group was formed to oversee the implementation and operation of EMS's
across the Department. Its membership includes representatives from the
OSD staff, various DoD agencies, and the Military Departments.
The EMS work group is refining EMS guidance to emphasize the cross
functional nature of the EMS framework, and the inter-relationships
outside of the environmental community. For example, EMS implementation
and operation is being written into both the Defense Installations
Strategic Plan and the AT&L Implementation Plan. In addition, the
Military Departments have developed EMS policies and training that
emphasize awareness outside of their environmental directorates, as
well as the criticality of senior leadership involvement. Together,
these efforts are beginning to change how environmental management is
perceived--moving from being a restriction on operations to being a
mission enabling asset.
Many aspects of EO 13423 were already underway by the Department
before the EO became official. DoD is moving towards a more
sustainability based approach to environmental management by balancing
mission, environment, and support activities. The EO will strengthen
this relationship and will foster a closer relationship with the energy
and transportation communities. These functions have always been
related to our environmental programs, but they will now complement and
enhance one another.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MRS. MCMORRIS RODGERS
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. A 2002 GAO report (GAO-02-658) indicated
that the Army Corps of Engineers had performed insufficient
investigations in determining that certain Formerly Used Defense Sites
did not require cleanup action. A chief concern of the GAO report was
the Corps files did not contain evidence that the presence of
hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste was assessed. The Corps
determinations covered by the report date back to 1984. One of the
subjects of this hearing is trichloroethylene or TCE. Because methods
for testing for TCE in the 1980s were inconclusive at best, and the EPA
did not adopt a TCE drinking water standard until 1989, does the
Department of Defense intend to reassess for this hazardous contaminant
as previous determinations are incomplete? Should public confidence in
the Corps determinations be increased? If so, why?
Secretary Beehler. The referenced GAO report (GAO-02-658) concerned
the methodology used to identify potential hazards at Formerly Used
Defense Sites (FUDS) based on records, site visits, and the No DoD
Action Indicated (NDAI) process. The Department addressed GAO's
recommendations in 2002, acknowledging that in some cases, the FUDS
project files were not complete or sufficient for an outside agency,
such as GAO, to identify the ``paper trail'' leading to all decisions,
but maintained that the Corps had amply demonstrated that decisions
associated with site evaluation for FUDS eligibility and hazard
evaluation were made appropriately and in cooperation with regulatory
agencies. The Corps of Engineers subsequently issued new policies for
file content and maintenance. In addition, the US Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) offered to review `no further action' sites if new
information about a site became available or at the request of a state
or EPA.
The GAO report (GAO-02-658) does not mention trichloroethylene or
the chemical sampling and analytical methods used for testing for
trichloroethylene. The methods for testing for trichloroethylene have
changed little since the 1980's, and still use the same technologies
and method performance (precision, accuracy, sensitivity, and
selectivity) capable of detecting concentrations between 1 to 5 parts
per billion.
Further, the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act, enacted
in 1986, institutionalized the requirements for investigation and
remediation of all chemical contamination that could potentially pose a
risk to human health or the environment on active installations and
Formerly Used Defense Sites. As such, previous NDAI determinations are
considered complete unless new information becomes available about the
site or site chemicals or if a state or federal regulatory agency
requests a review of a previous NDAI site.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. I would also like you to address your
office's working relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers, the
Environmental Protection Agency and other related agencies. How do you
work with these entities to address environmental concerns in Formerly
Used Defense Sites? Is there a review process for past determinations
as new environmental concerns emerge? I appreciate the Department's
work to address environmental issues resulting from important
Department activities, but I hope that some isolated concerns are not
neglected as we learn more about environmental hazards and possible
connections to the Department of Defense.
Secretary Beehler. The Secretary of the Army is designated as the
DoD Executive Agent for the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) program.
As such, the Department of Defense develops policy and oversees the
FUDS program, the Secretary of the Army manages the program, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) executes environmental restoration
activities. With regard to relationships with regulatory agencies, DoD
policy requires substantive involvement of the US Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and state regulatory agencies, current and
prospective federal land managers, other federal agencies, states,
local agencies, and tribes throughout the environmental restoration
process. USACE is required to take proactive steps to identify and
address issues of concern to all stakeholders, including EPA.
Over the past six years, the Department of Defense, the Army, and
USACE worked with regulatory agencies to further improve overall
coordination on FUDS. Through that effort, USACE developed statewide
management action plans with states and EPA to reconcile cleanup
priorities and revised policy and guidance to ensure that each phase of
FUDS cleanups is coordinated with regulatory officials. In addition,
USACE offered to review `no further action' sites if new information
about a site became available or at the request of a state or EPA. The
2003 General Accounting Office report, GAO-03-146, ``ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINATION: DoD has Taken Steps to Improve Cleanup Coordination at
Former Defense Sites, but Clearer Guidance is Needed to Assure
Consistency'', recognized USACE efforts, finding that they had improved
overall coordination with regulatory agencies.
Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. My office has been coordinating with the
Army Corps of Engineers for several months regarding a Nike battery
site near Fairchild AFB in Spokane, WA. This site was reviewed by the
Corps in 1989 but the EPA recently raised concerns about the accuracy
of the determination and thoroughness of the investigation. The Corps
advised that they would issue a report revisiting in February of this
year. The report is still pending and the response from the Corps upon
inquiry has been, ``I'm sorry that I have been unable to reply to your
message before now. I would like to assure you that we are in the final
stages of the final review of the document for release ability. I
really do not have any more information to provide at this time.'' I
realize that you are not the Corps, but they are not in attendance.
This is an important issue that has affected the lives of many people
that I represent in Eastern Washington. I would appreciate any insight
you could offer as to the reason for the delay.
Secretary Beehler. The Corps of Engineers completed the Site
Ownership and Operational History (SOOH) report for former Nike Battery
87 near Fairchild AFB, Washington in July 2007. That report was
provided to EPA Region 10 and Representative McMorris's staff on July
18, 2007. The Corps of Engineers experienced a delay in completing the
report due to additional studies conducted in order to better
understand the relationship between the site operational practices and
physical characteristics of the former Nike Battery 87, and EPA
sampling results. The letter accompanying that report summarized the
results of the investigation, and the Army's consequent position
regarding the Department's responsibility for contaminants found in the
vicinity of former Nike Battery 87.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. MCKEON
Mr. McKeon. Perchlorate moves faster through groundwater than most
contaminants, suggesting that groundwater (which is often drinking
water in Southern California) contamination remediation needs to be
implemented in the early stages of the site investigation and clean up
process. (a) What special requirements will be imposed on DoD to ensure
that groundwater supplies will be given a high priority? (b) In the
event that drinking water supplies are threatened or contaminated, will
DoD make provisions for replacement drinking water until a containment/
abatement plan is implemented?
Secretary Beehler. (a) DoD has a published relative risk ranking
system that prioritizes response actions at sites according to the
widely accepted risk factors of source, pathway, and receptor.
Groundwater paths, especially those with human receptors, would
typically be ranked high. (b) Where necessary, to prevent unacceptable
exposures from DoD contamination, DoD has provided, and will provide,
replacement drinking water.
Mr. McKeon. The executive branch has been an advocate of a
reference dose (a level often used in establishing drinking water
standards) concentration for perchlorate ingestion/consumption, which
is higher than California and other states. Will DoD be required to use
the lower state standards in developing their risk based clean up
plans?
Secretary Beehler. Based on the preface to the question, there
appears to be confusion between a reference dose (risk based health
standard) and a drinking water regulation such as a Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) under the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is important that the
difference be fully understood. The reference dose is the amount of a
contaminant per unit of body weight per day from all sources that over
a long period is not expected to cause unhealthful effects. The
National Academy of Science and EPA have both indicated that the
reference dose of 0.0007 mg/kg/day for perchlorate is protective for
humans, including sensitive subpopulations such as pregnant woman and
infants. In setting a drinking water regulation, regulators consider a
number of other factors including the quality and extent of information
and the relative source contribution of the contaminant between food
and water. For example, if a regulator determines that there is a need
to account for perchlorate intake from food, the final drinking water
standard may be adjusted downward proportionately. This explains
differences in the reference dose and drinking water standard. It's
important to understand that an MCL is applicable to public drinking
water suppliers. For cleanup, DoD will use the perchlorate reference
dose to indicate if a site-specific cleanup is needed. If it is
determined that a response action is needed, under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), the
cleanup must comply with all requirements that are applicable or
relevant and appropriate to the site-specific circumstances. If a State
has promulgated a drinking water standard (i.e., MCL) for perchlorate,
that value is likely to be viewed as a ``relevant and appropriate
requirement'' and thus the groundwater cleanup level for sites in that
State. Applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements are
determined on a site-specific basis.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. BORDALLO
Ms. Bordallo. The military build-up on Guam will cost over $10
billion dollars over a multi-year period; undoubtedly, the build-up on
island will raise serious questions about the environmental impact of
constructing new facilities for 8,000 Marines and their families. In my
opinion, this build-up also affords the Department of Defense an
opportunity to ensure that old installations, which may be re-used for
the incoming forces, are free from harmful contaminants. According to
some reports, there is a $32 billion backlog of identified
environmental remediation; can you describe what steps are being taken
to identify any environmental remediation that may be needed on Guam?
Are there any sites, which for example may be used for housing or for
training, that need substantial environmental clean-up and mitigation
work? Moreover, has the cost of clean-up and remediation been factored
into the overall estimate for the cost of the build-up?
Secretary Beehler. The Department of the Navy (DON) is addressing
all contaminated sites on its installations through the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program. To date, DON has invested over $3
billion to cleanup sites across the department, with emphasis placed on
addressing the higher risk sites first. The estimated cost to complete
all DON sites is $2.14 billion. There are 112 remediation sites on
Guam, of which only 17 require further action. DON has invested just
under $190 million investigating and remediating these sites, with a
cost to complete the remaining sites of just over $40 million. All
remaining sites will have a remedy in place by 2014, which is prior to
completion of the build-up construction phase. As the military build-up
plans progress, the status and condition of the remaining cleanup sites
will be factored into these plans. DON will ensure that all remediation
is completed to be protective of human health and the environment to
support the build-up, including housing, training, and other
operational needs.
Ms. Bordallo. Additionally, the Joint Guam Program Office completed
its initial scoping meetings a few months ago and has begun to draft
the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Can you describe what steps
are being taken to incorporate the lessons learned about emerging
contaminants at Department of Defense installations into the EIS for
Guam?
Secretary Beehler. The Department of the Navy is working closely
with the Office of the Secretary of Defense to identify and share
lessons learned regarding emerging contaminants. The analyses conducted
during an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) do not specifically
address emerging contaminants. However, the emerging contaminants
lessons learned will be incorporated into the planning, design,
material selection, and construction for the build up on Guam.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. LOEBSACK
Mr. Loebsack. So I just want to ask at the outset, Mr. Beehler, if
you have any direct knowledge of the cleanup efforts at the Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant. I know there are many facilities around the country,
but do you have any specific information on this?
Secretary Beehler. In 1941, the Army constructed the Iowa Army
Ammunition Plant (IAAP) in Middletown, Iowa to load, assemble and pack
various conventional ammunition and fuzing systems. During operations,
industrial process wastewater and by-products were disposed at the
installation. Department of Defense (DoD) cleanup sites include surface
impoundments, former production disposal areas, landfills, and a fire
training pit. Soil and groundwater contamination resulted primarily
from historic practices of disposal of explosives and heavy metal-
containing wastes directly onto the soil. The installation also
identified contamination by volatile organic compounds such as
trichloroethylene. Perchlorate was detected at one location in 2000,
however, follow-on sampling did not confirm its presence.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) placed IAAP on the
National Priorities List in August 1990, and in December 1990, the
installation and EPA signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) that
identified specific sites and cleanup schedules. DoD cleanup actions
taken include treatment and removal of contaminated soil, capping
landfill cells, groundwater treatment and connecting local residences
to a public water supply. Funding through FY 2006 has been over $95
million. Evaluations related to past use of the property by the Atomic
Energy Commission have been conducted and three sites are being
addressed under the separate Department of Energy Formerly Utilized
Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP).
In 2001, DoD added a new category of sites to its Defense
Environmental Restoration Program--the military munitions response
program (MMRP). In FY 2004, the Army identified MMRP sites at IAAP.
Site inspections to evaluate the extent of munitions and level of risk
continued through FY 2007. The Army reached agreement with EPA to add
these munitions sites to the FFA so that they could be addressed
according to the munitions response site prioritization protocol
regulation and the risk they present.
Groundwater cleanup activities and the MMRP at IAAP are expected to
continue to FY 2017 with a remaining cost to complete of more than $20
million. Groundwater treatment system operation will continue beyond
2017.
The Army is working with the local community to keep it informed
and receive input into the cleanup decision process. In FY 1997 the
Army established a Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) which meets
regularly.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. TAYLOR
Mr. Taylor. What have we spent on environmental restoration at
bases that have been closed by previous rounds of BRAC to date?
Secretary Beehler. Through the end of FY 2006, $9.12 billion has
been spent for site level environmental restoration at all BRAC
properties, including BRAC 2005 installations. The funding came from
the BRAC Accounts and the Defense Environmental Restoration Account.
______
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. BISHOP
Mr. Bishop. Do you have any kind of ballpark estimate of how sites
exist nationwide? How many are going through remediation at the present
time?
Secretary Beehler. DoD has a number of sites with detectable
concentrations of perchlorate. A summary of sampling results was
provided in the written statement. Detection does not necessarily mean
there is a need to remediate. After sampling and assessing the risks,
many of the DoD sites with perchlorate detections have been determined
not to require remedial actions. DoD sampling has also demonstrated
that, for the most part, contamination was confined to our bases. The
Department is taking appropriate actions for perchlorate releases.
These actions include sampling, assessing risks to human health,
coordinating with regulators and, where necessary, taking remedial
actions. The remedial actions are being conducted under the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) in coordination with
regulators.
The May 2005 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report
noted that approximately 400 sites had been identified as having
perchlorate. That GAO Report on perchlorate noted that 65 percent of
the sites containing perchlorate were DoD, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration (NASA), or defense related activities but did not
differentiate among the activities or site owners. The prevalence of
DoD sites reported is a manifestation of the fact that DoD has been
sampling for perchlorate for about a decade and it is this information
that makes up the majority of data available to regulators. Thus,
mathematically, DoD and NASA would be expected to comprise a high
percentage of the sites sampled. Again, perchlorate detections do not
equate with the requirement to remediate.
DoD's cleanup database cannot ascertain every site where
perchlorate is part of the remediation. This is because perchlorate is
often mixed with other more significant contaminants and as such is
often assessed and remediated in conjunction with these other
contaminants. Nevertheless, we are aware of the following sites with
completed or ongoing perchlorate remediation:
Massachusetts Military Reservation (MMR). Removal
actions have been completed for contaminated soils. Groundwater
contaminated with RDX (Cyclotrimethylene-trinitramine) and perchlorate
is being remediated through a groundwater treatment system which is in
place and operating. All investigations and actions were fully
coordinated with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1 and the
State of Massachusetts.
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant, Texas. A fluidized bed
reactor was added to a TCE (Trichloroethylene) groundwater treatment
system in 2001 to remove perchlorate from an effluent. There is no
groundwater use and actions were taken to protect Caddo Lake (drinking
water supply). Soil covers were placed over two soil sites which
contained high perchlorate concentrations to prevent runoff into
streams. Final Records Of Decisions (RODS) are being developed to
address remaining soil contamination through soil removal and disposal.
All actions have been fully coordinated with EPA Region 6 and Texas.
Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP),
McGregor, Texas. At McGregor, the Navy completed a ROD. An in-situ
biological treatment system is treating perchlorate in groundwater and
soil; this is the first--and world's largest--full-scale bio-wall
application for groundwater remediation of perchlorate and volatile
organic compounds. Recent groundwater data shows a marked decrease in
the amount of perchlorate in groundwater. In fact, last October, the
NWIRP McGregor became the very first U.S. Naval facility to receive a
Ready for Reuse determination from EPA. This verifies that
environmental conditions at the property are protective of human health
and the environment for its current and future commercial, industrial
and agricultural uses.
Former Naval Surface Warfare Center (NSWC), White Oak,
Maryland. NSWC-White Oak has a number of completed RODs. The RODS
primarily address other key contaminants, but the treatment systems put
in place under the RODs are also addressing perchlorate. All actions
have been coordinated with EPA Region 3 and Maryland, and both agencies
concurred with the remediation goal for perchlorate.
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama. Perchlorate was detected in
soil and groundwater. A Remedial Investigation report was completed in
July 2005. A Feasibility Study is underway to analyze remedial options.
A health risk evaluation was conducted for surface water off-base,
which concluded that there was no health risk to recreational users and
residents. Sampling showed non-detectable levels in the Tennessee
River. Drinking water is supplied by the municipal water system. There
is no human consumption of groundwater either on-base or off-base, and
thus no threat to human health. The Arsenal is working closely with EPA
and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM).
Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), California.
Perchlorate was detected in groundwater, but drinking water supplies
have not been affected. The Air Force initiated a pilot treatment
process that uses injections of lactate and a dechlorinating agent to
groundwater. The pilot study was successful, and both TCE and
perchlorate were removed to non-detectable levels in one month.
Planning is underway to scale up the pilot treatment process to
complete TCE and perchlorate removal at this site.
Edwards AFB, California. Perchlorate was detected in soil and
groundwater. Drinking water supplies have not been affected. In May
2003, Edwards AFB implemented a pilot project/treatability study to
evaluate the effectiveness of using ion-exchange technology for
removing perchlorate from groundwater. As of January 2007, the system
has treated 32.1 million gallons and removed 133.7 pounds of
perchlorate from the groundwater. This pilot treatment system continues
to operate. Also, a treatability study that examined the effectiveness
of flushing to remove perchlorate from soil at Edwards AFB demonstrated
almost complete removal of perchlorate from the soil column.