Editor’s CornerMichael A. West

The Autumn issue leads off with an interview with Dr. J. WinstonPorter, who served as the assistant administrator of the EnvironmentalProtection Agency’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response(OSWER) from 1985 to 1989. One could make a strong case that OSWERfaced its most difficult and challenging issues during Dr. Porter’stenure. He had to oversee the implementation of the revised ResourceConservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) as well as the SuperfundAmendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)—both of which werevery detailed and demanding. Equally difficult, he had to deftly assertand define the EPA’s role in federal facility cleanup efforts and try tosort out overlapping RCRA and SARA requirements. Throughout, hewas subject to intense congressional and public scrutiny and often-conflicting guidance. To his credit, Dr. Porter was able to accomplish anumber of critical tasks, such as the issuance of a huge number of RCRApermits as well as implementation of many new regulations and pro-grams called for by RCRA and SARA. In his spare time, he also set a na-tional recycling goal of 25 percent of our trash, which was reached in l995.

From the perspective of federal facilities, his most enduringachievement was the fashioning of a tri-party agreement (Federal Fa-cility Agreement or Interagency Agreement) governing cleanups atfederal facilities—primarily at Department of Energy (DOE) and De-partment of Defense (DOD) sites. Although this agreement structuredid not fully satisfy the federal agencies, the EPA, the states, Congress,or various stakeholders, it has proven to be a workable vehicle to rec-oncile RCRA, SARA, and state cleanup requirements at SuperfundNational Priority Listed (NPL) sites. Dr. Porter provides some inter-esting insights about how all this came about.

More importantly, Dr. Porter makes a number of perceptive observa-tions about the state of current federal facility cleanup efforts and offersrecommendations on how to expedite them and reduce the cost of com-pletion. Foremost among them is to place the focus on completion of sitecleanups, with somewhat less emphasis on intermediate deadlines andpaperwork requirements. The litmus test for Dr. Porter is whether a re-maining intermediate requirement would change an emerging consen-sus on the selection of a cleanup remedy. For example, if more samplingor analysis is not likely to change cleanup decisions, the focus shouldshift to making the remedy selection and implementing it.

At larger and more complex sites in the DOE complex, Dr. Porterbelieves that the process could be expedited by setting overarchingsite-cleanup deadlines in order to place the major focus on project

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 2004 1© 2004 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ffej.20019

Michael A. West is the editor of Federal Facilities Environmental Journal.

2 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 2004

Editor’s Corner

completions, not simply on hundreds of intermediate goals. Through-out, he argues for the creation of a “culture of completion” among thoseinvolved in the cleanup of federal facility sites. Although there havebeen some real successes at DOE sites (Rocky Flats is a good example),many sites still operate under a “culture of deliverables,” not under over-all site-completion deadlines.

Another problem Dr. Porter identifies at DOE sites is the need forclearer accountability to ensure that the individual responsible for thepace and quality of cleanup activities is clearly identified—as is usu-ally the case with other types of complex projects. Multiple and over-lapping lines of authority can complicate and delay cleanup efforts.Decision-making roles should be clearly defined and leaders shouldbe held accountable for making informed, tough, and timely cleanupdecisions. Dr. Porter points out repeatedly that remedy selection deci-sions at cleanup sites are not an exact science, but involve large dosesof consensus building and common sense, along with the more tech-nical considerations. He further notes that the Superfund statute re-quires the selection of cost-effective remedies, which, in itself, requiresthe application of what used to be called “engineering judgment.”

Somewhat surprisingly, Dr. Porter also singles out the practice ofrequiring federal agencies to pay additional funding to the EPA, thestate, and other stakeholders for cleanup oversight. He points out thatmost of the other regulatory offices at the EPA do not receive such ad-ditional funding and that it tends to lead to a proliferation of marginalor unnecessary oversight activities—often of the “nit-picking” variety.This, he believes, reinforces the “deliverables,” as opposed to “com-pletion,” mentality. He concedes that there might be some targeted ac-tivities where additional oversight funding and personnel would bebeneficial, but on the whole it has only added to an already overly bu-reaucratic and process-driven cleanup effort.

Dr. Porter’s assessment of the impact of federal agency funding forregulatory oversight bears out the skepticism we had on the HouseArmed Services Committee when these proposals were being floatedin the late 1980s. Although the stated rationale for such funding trans-fers was that they would expedite cleanups and reduce costs, Dr.Porter has not found that to be the case.

All in all, Dr. Porter puts his finger on a key problem facing federalfacility cleanups—how to get to completion. As I alluded to earlier,most of those directly involved in the DOD and DOE cleanup processdon’t have a vested interest in its rapid completion. Consequently,there are a host of entrenched constituencies dependent on the federaldollars funding cleanup activities. There is always intense interest innew constituents of concern, like perchlorate or lead paint, or military-specific contamination, like munitions constituents, that will extendthe need for DOD cleanup activities.

Recently, concerns have been raised that there have been few new fed-eral facility NPL sites proposed, with the implication that there are a lot

. . .Dr. Porter puts hisfinger on a key problemfacing federal facilitycleanups—how to get to completion.

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 2004 3

Michael A. West

more out there and the EPA is asleep at the switch. Personally, I wouldbe surprised if this were the case, as the initial methodology used to scoreDOD and DOE sites was to go fenceline to fenceline. The result was themaximum number of NPL sites possible at the time, and the only way tosignificantly increase that number would be to include new constituentsof concern or find a lot of new installations (or prevail on Texas, for ex-ample, to allow the EPA to list more DOD installations). Neither of thesealternatives seems likely to produce a lot of new NPL sites.

On the other hand, there are several countervailing forces at workto push cleanup completion. For example, the primary missions ofDOD and DOE are not environmental cleanup, and there will continueto be pressures to shift those resources to core mission requirements.In addition, senior political leadership in the Executive Branch andCongress is generally impatient with programs that seem to go on for-ever. In the case of DOE, we are now talking about deadlines of sev-eral decades for completion of various contaminated sites. Neverthe-less, it will take a lot of sustained high-level management emphasis torealize Dr. Porter’s “culture of completion.”

Mirroring DOD’s highest priority environmental challenges, theAutumn issue contains five range- and munitions-related articles.William E. Sitzabee, Charles A. Bleckmann, and Ellen C. England leadoff with the results of a recent survey evaluating the Air Force’s abil-ity to take advantage of recent amendments to the Endangered SpeciesAct contained in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2004. Thefocus of the survey was whether Air Force installations developedvalid Integrated Natural Resource Management Plans (INRMPs) andwere able to demonstrate to the Department of Interior their ability toeffectively implement them to qualify for an exemption from criticalhabitat designation. The good news is that the survey indicated thatthe Air Force installations have valid INRMPs that are being ade-quately funded and staffed for effective implementation. On the otherhand, the survey identified areas needing further improvement, “par-ticularly in educating natural resources managers about documentingthe impacts of critical species on training ranges, partnering with out-side groups to leverage manpower and financial resources, and im-proving public education and awareness of USAF training range en-vironmental programs.”

Jonathan P. Haliscak makes a case for integrated community/mili-tary planning as a potential solution to the challenge of sustaining basesand ranges for the future. Mr. Haliscak cites the military’s past successin planning its “bases, posts, and stations” and calls for an expansion ofthat planning process to sustain ranges and training areas. He contendsthat the military must “make the time and find the money to work withthe local regional planning board to determine what is planned for10–20 years into the future in the surrounding communities and re-gion.” But he does not believe public outreach should stop there. Themilitary should aggressively reach out to all relevant stakeholders and

. . .it will take a lot ofsustained high-levelmanagement emphasis to realize Dr. Porter’s“culture of completion.”

4 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 2004

Editor’s Corner

explore the ability of academic institutions to serve as conduits. At thesame time, the military needs to exploit joint planning within DOD tocommunicate “about needs, assets, intentions, requirements and roles.”Turning to weapons system acquisition, the author maintains that “weneed to understand how to integrate the testing and evaluation compo-nent of our acquisition process with the operational training communityto determine the extent of the land/airspace training cube needed forfuture systems.” While this will involve significant time and effort, hemaintains that it beats the “traditional ‘wait until it happens to respond’approach.” In addition, Mr. Haliscak suggests the use of innovative ap-proaches involving the “banking” of natural resource assets managedand owned by the military. Thus, the protection of a threatened or en-dangered species at several installations, training areas, and ranges mayprovide offsets that would allow greater flexibility to accommodatetraining requirements at one of the sites. In sum, Mr. Haliscak providesus a great deal of food for thought at one setting that deserves closer ex-amination by all concerned.

Paul Reinke seeks to address one of the most vexing issues associ-ated with encroachment—how to quantify its impact on training andreadiness. He outlines the development of a conceptual framework byMitretek Systems that establishes a linkage among “(1) encroachmentimpacts on a training range’s ability to support unit training require-ments, (2) the training experienced at a specific training facility, and (3)the proficiency or skill achieved by the training experience.” This wasfollowed up by the use of questionnaires to secure data for the Train-ing Quality Impact Quantification Algorithm that was validated in asubsequent proof-of-concept pilot study involving F-14B squadrons atNaval Air Station Oceana in Virginia Beach, Virginia. The study “alsodemonstrated that degraded training can be linked back to the rootcauses associated with encroachment or range capacity issues.” Mr.Reinke argues that that this conceptual framework can be applied “viaMETLs [Mission Essential Task Lists] to all military services regardlessof mission or reporting processes.”

Gary W. Chiles and Terry McLendon have a different take on howto achieve sustainable range management by utilizing an ISO 14001framework. The authors argue that the “ISO 14001 framework helpsrange managers identify gaps in any proposed management structureand determine the most effective means of integrating existing rangemanagement tools into the sustainable range management system.”They also provide two examples of existing range management toolsthat can be integrated with the ISO 14001 framework—geographic in-formation systems (GISs) and the ecological model ECOS2T (Ecologi-cal Simulations for a Sustainable Tomorrow).

All this increased emphasis upon range sustainability is encourag-ing. Clearly, DOD has enhanced its ability to manage the environment,ecology, and natural and cultural resources in and around its majortraining areas and ranges in recent years. Significant progress has also

. . .the military needs toexploit joint planningwithin DOD to commu-nicate “about needs, as-sets, intentions, require-ments and roles.”

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 2004 5

Michael A. West

been made in the nature and extent of outreach to engage the regula-tors, surrounding communities, and other stakeholders to address en-croachment issues. However, the asymmetry between the rising life-style expectations driving suburban sprawl and DOD’s growingconcern about conserving the quality and availability of training areasand ranges remains a huge challenge. As yet, community develop-ment is not governed by any comprehensive “smart growth” require-ments, and local authorities and private property are not subject to thesame natural and cultural resource preservation requirements thatapply to federal activities. It is difficult to imagine turning thingsaround in the foreseeable future unless DOD significantly escalates itsoutreach efforts and its exploitation of innovative approaches.

I confess to some wry amusement when I attended Lauren A.Zellmer’s presentation on the treatment of energetic hazardous wasteby open detonation (OD) at the Naval Air Weapons Station, ChinaLake, California, at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 30thEnvironmental and Energy Symposium at San Diego earlier this year.My initial impression is that this was a classic “failure-oriented” sce-nario. I mean everybody knows that the chances the California regula-tors were going to issue a permit for open detonation of energetic haz-ardous waste ranged somewhere between slim and none. Thepresentation and the more detailed account contained in Ms. Zellmer’sarticle, coauthored by Eric D. Erickson, Andrew P. Chafin, and ThomasL. Boggs, proved to be an eye-opening experience. Using a “sciencebased, data-driven approach, a team of China Lake environmental spe-cialists and technical experts in the research and energetics area” over-came rhetoric and preconceptions in establishing the validity of opendetonation as a preferred treatment method. The authors discuss howChina Lake focused on three areas to make a compelling case to theregulators: “(1) development of a validated emission factor databasefrom actual test data; (2) fate of metal casings associated with the ODof munitions; and (3) OD simulation tests for energetic-contaminatedwastes.” While it is true that China Lake provided an ideal location foropen detonation treatment of energetic hazardous waste, the ChinaLake team demonstrated that it was the most environmentally soundapproach by correcting a number of assumptions used in previous reg-ulatory guidance. Taken as a whole, the episode brings to mind MarkTwain’s observation, “It’s not what we don’t know that hurts us, it’swhat we know for certain that just ain’t so.”

Moving on to a compliance issue with readiness implications, ElmerW. Ransom and Jeff A. Davis assess potential Marine Corps trainingand operational impacts from new air quality standards for fine parti-cles (PM2.5). As the EPA plans to propose an implementation rule forthe PM2.5 standard this fall, it is a matter of particular concern to theMarine Corps in Southern California, as their training areas and instal-lations lie within areas of partial nonattainment or nonattainment. Ac-cordingly, the Marine Corps “commissioned a study to further define

. . .the episode brings tomind Mark Twain’s ob-servation, “It’s not whatwe don’t know that hurtsus, it’s what we know forcertain that just ain’t so.”

6 Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 2004

Editor’s Corner

and evaluate potential impacts of the PM2.5 standards and proposedimplementation rule on training and readiness operations.” The pre-liminary results of the study indicate that “the primary contributor toannual PM2.5 emissions is area sources for unpaved road dust associ-ated with field training activities” with aircraft operations as “a sub-stantially smaller contributor” and stationary sources as “a relativelyminor contributor.” Given the nature and amount of training at MarineCorps Air Ground Combat Center (MCAGCC) Twentynine Palms andMarine Corps Base (MCB) Camp Pendleton, the Marine Corps has itswork cut out for it to meet emerging PM2.5 emission standards in the2010–2015 time frame.

Kirk R. Kropinack provides another look at Marine Corps compli-ance with an examination of stormwater-management challenges atMarine Corps Air Station, New River. The author examines a numberof options that were considered leading up to the development of athree-pronged approach “designed to cost-effectively reduce adversestormwater impacts at their source, rather than providing large-scale,end-of-pipe structural solutions.”

Dennis R. Knisley, Louis A. Evans, Edward Goodwin, and CharlesMcKnight discuss the development of an air permitting strategy at acountermeasure flare production facility at Milan Army AmmunitionPlant in Milan, Tennessee. The authors describe the consideration ofvarious air pollution control technologies leading up to the selection ofan “activated carbon absorption system for treatment of combinedgases from two main batch sources: mixing and drying processes” andthe benefits associated with this approach.

Although facility closures and their attendant RCRA and SafeDrinking Water Act (SDWA) requirements are not confined to federalfacilities, they merit careful consideration by federal managers whereapplicable. C. Russell H. Shearer and John H. Heath provide a com-prehensive and detailed discussion of closure requirements and pro-vided a useful checklist to assist those responsible for assessing thecost-effectiveness of closing a facility.

The 9th Annual Joint Services Environmental Management Confer-ence & Exhibition at San Antonio, Texas, on August 16–19, highlightedrange sustainment and the development and implementation of envi-ronmental management systems within DOD. There were a host of ex-cellent technical sessions, but it was difficult to choose between be-cause so many were held concurrently. As one of the keynote speakers,Mr. Steve Johnson, Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protec-tion Agency, set a precedent as being the highest-ranking EPA officialto participate in any DOD-sponsored environmental conference.While his remarks were generally positive about DOD’s environmen-tal efforts, he voiced concern about significant noncompliance withClean Water Act requirements. According to representatives from theOffice of Federal Facility Compliance, Clean Water Act noncompliancerepresents a major systemic problem that is the subject of high-level

. . .the Marine Corps hasits work cut out for it tomeet emerging PM2.5emission standards in the 2010–2015 time frame.

Federal Facilities Environmental Journal/Autumn 2004 7

Michael A. West

DOD-EPA consultation. Hopefully, these efforts will result in a mutu-ally agreed-upon approach to achieve compliance and avoid a majorconfrontation. Clean Water Act compliance has always been a chal-lenge for DOD because fixes have usually involved significant capitalexpenditures requiring military construction funding. Under the bestof circumstances, getting such projects into the military constructionbudget request has been difficult, and the competing demands associ-ated with a war on terrorism make it that much harder. Nevertheless,one would think that ongoing privatization of DOD utilities and theimplementation of environmental management systems would haveeased the pressure on military construction funding and provided forthe timely identification of major noncompliance problems. �