environmental monitor - winter 1999/2000: us army

2

U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERNORTHERN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICEBUILDING E-4460ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21010-5401

BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDAPG, MD

PERMIT NO. 1

(Continued on page 8)

Winter 1999/2000 U. S. Army Northern Regional Environmental Office

MONITORENVIRONMENTAL“RANGESAFE”

OFFICE CHIEF - Bill HerbPhone: 410-436-7096E-mail: [email protected]

REGIONAL ATTORNEY - Gary ZolyakPhone: 410-436-1275E-mail: [email protected]

REGION I/II COORDINATOR - Robert MuhlyPhone: 410-436-7101E-mail: [email protected]

REGION III COORDINATOR - Fred BoecherPhone: 410-436-7100E-mail: [email protected]

PROJECT MANAGER - Andy CarakerPhone: 410-436-7098E-mail: [email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST - Mitch BrymanPhone: 410-436-7099E-mail: [email protected]

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - Nina GallupPhone: 410-436-7097E-mail: [email protected]: 410-436-7110

CHICAGO SUBOFFICE

REGION V COORDINATOR - Hugh McAlearPhone: 630-910-3213 Ext. 224FAX: 630-910-0370DENIX: [email protected]

NREO KEY PERSONNEL

By Bob MuhlyArmy Region I/II REC

A relatively new program, entitled“RangeSafe,” established by the Army tohelp commercialize emergingenvironmental technologies targeting themanagement, recovery, and remediationof residual contaminants generatedthroughout the life cycle of armamentsystems, is being marketed by PicatinnyArsenal, NJ, engineers. These Picatinnyengineers are currently managing ademonstration project at Fort Dix, NJ, inconcert with the New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection InnovativeTechnology program and the Fort DixEnvironmental and Range Control offices.The Fort Dix project will demonstrate anovel method to clean lead-contaminatedfiring range soils through the application

U.S. Army Showcases Combined InnovativeCleanup Technologies for Firing Ranges

Range 24 “Phyto Bed” readyfor planting winter wheat.

By Fred BoecherArmy Region III REC

ITR, IRP, EQR, EPR, ISR,

Fort Ritchie (MD) and Seneca Army Depot(NY), were among the first installationsto receive the PER workshop.

What exactly is a PER workshop, howdid it evolve, an

re answe Apee antoraon

jectecifn. Te te

restoration program. In 1998 the programwas expanded to include activeinstallations, and the name was changedfrom peer review to ITR. Since the

997,

Fort Ritchie and Seneca Army Depot AmongFirst to Receive PER Training

(just under the state residential safetylevel). Since the project had a somewhatlater start date than originally planned,winter wheat - with its later growingseason - was substituted for the optimallead-absorbing mustard plant in the initialsoil cleansing effort. The winter wheat alsowill serve to reduce winter erosion.

Fort Dix personnel expect completionof the RangeSafe project by the fall of2000. After the winter wheat is harvested,two or three Indian Mustard crops will beplanted, and then harvested for thebalance of the lead. Edenspace, theReston, VA-based company which holdsthe patent on the lead-eating-plant portionof the soil cleaning process, will harvestthe plants, dry and bundle them, and shipthem to a smelter to recover the lead.The recovered lead then will be shippedto a Pennsylvania company for recyclinginto batteries. With redeposit of thecleansed soil, Range 24 will be declared“clean,” and ready for “green bullet” use.

Since this is a first-of-its-kind cleanupprogram, the Fort Dix project will behighlighted with other state-of-the-art

environmental technologies to beshowcased at the InternationalEnvironmental Expo 2000 in Atlantic City,NJ, in June 2000. The expo will focus onthe latest technologic solutions toenvironmental problems, emphasizingtechnologies with wide applicability. TheFort Dix RangeSafe demonstrationproject ultimately may serve as arestoration model for both public andprivate firing ranges worldwide.

The RangeSafe technology is notlimited to lead cleanup. Because it iscapable of removing other metals fromsoil, including low level radioactivematerials, other demonstration projectsare planned, targeting the removal ofdepleted uranium at Aberdeen ProvingGround, MD, and cesium/strontium atFort Greeley, AK.

(continued from page 8)

For further information on theRangeSafe program and the FortDix project contact: Mr. JamesFrankovic, RangeSafe ProgramManager, U.S. Army Armaments

Research Development andEngineering Center, Picatinny

Arsenal, (973) 724-4494, e-mail:[email protected].

4

5

age 9)

IIIIINNNNN T T T T THISHISHISHISHIS I I I I ISSUESSUESSUESSUESSUE

Thinking Outside the Boxon UXO .......................pg.

Ravenna Baseline Study,Badger Bio-RemediationProject ........................pg.

d what is it trying to few of the questionser.rmy launched a pilotr reviews of Based Closure (BRAC)tion projects. The peer

ducted using a team of matter experts, andic remediation sites athe reviews focusedchnical efficacy of the

initiation of the pilot peer reviews in 1 (Continued on p
accomplish, a
we will try to aIn 1997, th

program of Realignmentinstallation resreviews were ctechnical subaddressed span installatioprimarily on th

ECAS……The military is rife withacronyms. Now there is another one toadd to the lexicon of military acronymsassociated with the environmentalprogram: PER, which stands forPrinciples of Environmental Restoration.PER is a workshop that is an outgrowthof independent technical reviews (ITRs),formerly peer reviews, that wereconducted on installation restorationprojects. Two installations in the NorthernRegional Environmental Office’s area,

Northern Regional Environmental Offic

NORTHERN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR

The Northern Regional Environmental Monitor is an unofficial publicationauthorized under the Provisions of AR 360-81. It is published on a quarterlybasis by the U.S. Army Environmental Center Public Affairs Office, AberdeenProving Ground, MD. 21010-5401; telephone: (410) 436-2556 and DSN 584-2556. The views and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of theDepartment of the Army. This publication has a circulation of 500. NREO Chief'stelephone: (410) 436-2427. All articles proposed should be submitted to theRegional Environmental Office two months before issue dates. These submissionsare subject to editing and rewriting as deemed necessary for space considerations.

Commander, USAEC...................................................... COL Edward W. Newing

Deputy/Technical Director (Acting) ...................................... David C. Guzewich

Chief of Staff ................................................................. LTC Thomas M. Frendak

Chief, Public Affairs ............................................................ Thomas M. Hankus

Chief, NREO ...................................................................................... William Herb

Editor ......................................................................................... Andrew Caraker

OUR MISSION: The NREO was established in 1995 to support the Army andDoD mission through coordination, communication and facilitation of regional

environmental activities. The Army REOs are part of a DoD network in which the Army,Navy and Air Force each has lead responsibility for mission implementation in the

federal regions. The NREO has DoD lead responsibility for Region V, and Army leadresponsibility for Regions I, II, III and V.

FROM THE CHIEF

By Bill Herb,Chief, NREO

Well, the new millennium has finallyarrived…or has it? The mathematicalpurists insist that it really won’t start un-til 1 January 2001 when the 2000th yearwill have expired, but those of us whoare more pragmatic point to the yearshown on our calendars for January, andconclude that something indeed haschanged. A recent editorial suggested anelegant compromise solution: “Just partytwice.” Whatever your perspective, weprobably do agree with the assumptionthat time only moves forward. (Unless wewant to consider the possible phenom-enon of a contracting universe,but I don’t want to get intothat here…...my planninghorizon doesn’t extendout seven or eight billionyears and StephenHawking wasn’t avail-able for comment.)Nevertheless, the

clock has moved on,and even if we are notobserving massive,millennial changes, weneed to move on, too.

Time passes, but oldissues persist: theArmy remains con-cerned with open and

e Winter 1999/20

new enforcement actions (ENFs). TArmy continues to receive a disproptionate share of ENFs and fines. It doeseem to matter how the data are “nmalized” — ENFs per inspection, finper inspection, ENFs per installatiENFs per soldier (airman, marine, sai— the Army always suffers by compson with the other services. The ACShas taken steps to address this issand is planning further actions.

Policy and Guidance initiatives hafacilitated prevention and closure of ENand ensured that the Army counts ENthe same way as the other services; Army Must Fund Policy has been resued.

Command emphasis and awareneof environmental compliance is beincreased by:

❿ providing new installation commanders with a copy of theinstallation’s environmental profi

❿ conducting discussions betweeACSIM and MACOM Chiefs oStaff

❿ disseminating information on keenvironmental issues througACSIM Garrison CommanderNotes

❿ briefing ENFs and fines at thAugust Garrison CommanderConference

❿ providing quarterly updates oMACOM ENF/fines status to thArmy Secretariat and Chief of Staand

Northern Regional Environmental Office00 Winter 1999/2000 Page 11

heor-sn’tor-es

on,lor)ari-IM

ue,

veFsFs

theis-

ssing

-irlenf

yh’s

e’s

neff,

are expected to only increase over time. The magnitude ofthe problems posed by invasive species is underscored byPresident Clinton’s Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species,”signed February 3, 1999. The order establishes federal agencyresponsibilities for identifying and managing invasive species.

Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, the largest com-munications and electronics maintenance facility in DoD,achieved a 56-percent reduction in pesticide use in part byencouraging the nesting of insect-eating cliff and barn swal-lows, and by maintaining more than 100 nests and suitablehabitats for the swallows. The depot also achieved this re-duction by switching to mowing weeds instead of sprayingthem with herbicides and by baiting specific pests rather thanspraying insecticides. Despite downward trends, records alsoshow, in any given year, about 20 percent of Army installa-tions use more pesticides than the previous year - reflectingalways evolving pest-related challenges.

RECORD KEEPING

Defense Department policy more than meets therequirements of the EPA and most state regulations byrequiring detailed records of all pesticide operations on militaryinstallations, and by ensuring that all personnel who applycommercial-grade pesticides are certified. Military recordskeep track of all pesticide applications such as work done ongolf courses and pesticide application by non-appropriatedfund activities, by contract services, within land managementand forestry programs, for programs involving installationslands leased for commercial purposes, and for work performedby installation pest control shops.

Maintaining accurate historical records has allowed DoDto estimate that 60 to 70 percent of all reported pesticideapplications at military installations have been used to controlweeds and fungus. This figure reflects national use, asherbicides comprise some 67 percent of pesticide productionin the United States, according to a 1990 EPA report. Whilegolf courses are usually thought of as being heavy users ofherbicides, golf course herbicide activities vary widely and,on average, account for only 20 percent of the herbicidesapplied at Army installations.

RESEARCH

The employment of biological weed control methods as aviable alternative to the application of herbicides has beenpoorly promoted in the United States, Dr. Bennett said. Basicresearch involving the ecological interactions of undesirableplants and biological agents used to control them is lacking.Consequently, the ability to select appropriate biological weedcontrol agents can be a formidable challenge. Recognizingthis scarcity of information, the USAEC, the U.S. Army Centerfor Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,

h a v eundertaken

research toidentify alternative

technologies that wouldhelp Army installations better address the pest problems thatare unique to military operations. The intent is to meet orexceed the goals set forth in the PESP.

The need for alternative pest control methods isexemplified by pests such as the musk thistle at IndianaArmy Ammunition Plant. Dr. Bennett said musk thistle is aclassic example of a weed whose distribution has beenenhanced by the absence of natural enemies. In small, isolatedareas, uprooting the plant by hand and ensuring the removalof all vegetative parts can control musk thistle, but no effectivemethod is available to control the weed in larger areas. Theinvasive plant had taken over hundreds of acres of the Indianafacility, to the point where the weed population had posed aserious fire hazard to the munitions stored there.

After screening the possible effects of releasing them, theArmy released 40 mating pairs of Head and Rosette weevilsat the Indiana ammunition plant for biological control of themusk thistle. Feasting on seeds in the flower heads of theweed, the weevils significantly reduced seed production ofthe pest, dramatically reducing the number of thistles.

Many other opportunities exist to reduce pesticide usethrough research and the implementation of innovative IPMstrategies, Dr. Bennett said. He believes Army installationsmust take advantage of these technologies as part of its long-term pest control strategy. The key, he said, is to base thechoice of technology on an understanding of how pests interactwith one another and the environment.

Barn Swallows

For further information contact: Dr. Steve Bennett,USAEC, (410) 436-1565, DSN 584-1565, e-mail:

[email protected].

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Winter 1999/2000Winter 1999/2000

Bradley M. Campbell

Page 10

[Drawn from U.S. EPA Press Reports]

In mid-December, 1999, Bradley M.Campbell succeeded W. Michael McCabeas the Regional Administrator for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Region III office in Philadelphia. Mr. McCabewas promoted to the position of EPA DeputyAdministrator, the agency’s No. 2 job, inWashington, D.C.

Mr. Campbell moved to EPA Region IIIfrom the White House Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ), where heserved most recently as Associate Directorfor Toxics and Environmental Protection.Prior to his CEQ service, he was anattorney-advisor in the Environment andNatural Resources Division of the U. S. Department ofJustice.

A native of Philadelphia, Mr. Campbell is a magna cumlaude graduate of Amherst College (B.A., 1983) and a cumlaude graduate of the University of Chicago Law School(J.D., 1987). Following graduation from law school, Mr.Campbell had an active criminal and civil litigation practicethat included extensive representation of environmentalorganizations concerned with the Chesapeake Baywatershed.

At CEQ, Mr. Campbell helped coordinate administrationpolicy and legislation on Superfund, hazardous waste, safedrinking water, pesticide and food safety, brownfields, wet-lands, and community right-to-know. Mr. Campbell also over-saw issues involving agriculture, federal facilities andenvironmental justice. His activities included helpingdevelop the administration’s brownfields initiative, leading

reforms ofhazardouswaste laws andof environmentalliability for lenders,serving as the administration’s leadrepresentative to the 104th Congress inamending the Safe Drinking Water Act, nego-tiating an administration plan to resolve along-standing dispute over economic and envi-ronmental issues surrounding dredging in thePort of New York and New Jersey, and devel-oping legislation for the 105th Congress toauthorize alternative environmental compliance.

During his service at the U.S. Departmentof Justice, Mr. Campbell served as lead counsel in severalprominent cases, including defense of the lender liabilityrule under CERCLA (Kelley v. EPA), trial of the leadingCERCLA enforcement case involving lender liability (UnitedStates v. Fleet Factors), and the successful defense ofchallenges under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) to the North American Free Trade Agreement andthe Uruguay Round Agreement under the auspices of theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

In 1993, Mr. Campbell received the 1993 Arthur FlemingAward for distinguished government service, which is basedon a national competition. In that year he also received theJohn Marshall Award, the Justice Department’s highest honor.

Mr. Campbell is co-founder of the Common GroundCommunity Housing Development Company in New YorkCity, and he chairs the board of the Echo Hill Outdoor Schoolin Worton, Maryland.

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○

❿ submitting a Chief of Staff of theArmy Weekly Summary article onENFs and fines.

Leadership Conferences❿ focusing increased attention on ENF

closure during MACOM Environmen-tal Quality IPRs

❿ ACSIM requiring MACOMs to providebriefings on corrective actions pro-posed to deal with significant ENFs,and

❿ requmentsevebegin

The strengthcause ievaluatin

pilot installations, and increasing ECASfunding.

ACSIM considers FORSCOM’s Envi-ronmental Campaign Plan 2000-2020 agood example of how MACOMs can takea proactive approach to environmentalmanagement.

As future plans are developed andt

ts

i

U.S. EPA REGION III OFFICE GETS

NEW REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR

(Continued from page 2)

By Mitch BrymanNREO Environmental Specialist

In August 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) presented a Special Achievement Award to theDepartment of Defense (DoD), recognizing the Department’sefforts to reduce pesticide use on military installations by 50percent, two years ahead of schedule. The Army significantlycontributed to this achievement by reducing pesticide releases36 percent - the equivalent of more than 130,000 pounds ofpesticide active ingredient (PAI), or more than 65 tons of non-point-source environmental pollutants.

To help reduce human and environmental exposure to pesti-cides, the Department of Defense signed an agreement withthe EPA, joining forces with the agency in its Pesticide Envi-ronmental Stewardship Program (PESP). The PESP is avoluntary partnership program to reduce pesticide use na-tionwide. Through PESP, the Defense Departmentset forth a goal to reduce the amount of PAI usedat DoD installations 50 percent by the end of fis-cal 2000, based on the amount used during fiscal1993.

Army installations have been able todramatically reduce their use of PAI by:

• renewing their commitment to IntegratedPest Management (IPM);

• improving the quality of pesticide use datagathered from Army installations; and

• funding research to identify and scrutinizealternative IPM strategies.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

Dr. Steven Bennett is the U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Center (USAEC) team leader forpest management and the Center’s mediamanager for compliance with the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA). Dr. Bennett also serves as a seniorconsultant to the Army for pest management and is

the current chairman of the DoDArmed Forces Pest Management

Board. According to Dr. Bennett, “theprimary goal of the military’s pest

management program is to lessen damageto health, property and natural resources

caused by pests.” Dr. Bennett added that IPMhas been promoted by the DoD as a tool for the

services to meet its pesticide reduction goals andaddress the risks posed by insects, rodents, birds, weeds,fungus and microorganisms that jeopardize troop readiness.

He said the IPM program “integrates” monitoring the pestpopulation, knowledge of the targeted pest’s behavior,recording and analyzing the amount and frequency of pestcontrol methods, and communicating results to prevent pestsand pest-borne diseases from causing unacceptable damage.“IPM may employ a wide array of molds, fungi, wasps, beetlesand other natural predators and parasites that feed on thetargeted pest,” Dr. Bennett said. “Still other methods mayinfect pests with viruses and bacteria that kill the pest butleave beneficial plants, animals and insects untouched.Additional IPM strategies also may use pheromones to disruptinsect reproduction.”

With more than a million different species and a globalpopulation estimated to be in the trillions, insects may bethe most successful creatures on our planet. Complicatingmatters further, a growing number of new pests - in many

cases weeds - continue to enter and spread across allregions of the United States. Their impact on

military readiness, training operations,agriculture, native ecosystems and human

health cannot be ignored.The challenges posed by harmful non-

indigenous, invasive plants and animals

ARMY RESEARCHES

MEANS TO REDUCE

PESTICIDE USE

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

IPM may employ a widearray of molds, fungi,wasps, beetles and othernatural predators andparasites that feed onthe targeted pest.

➈

Dr. Steven BennettIntegrated Pest ManagementTeam Leader, USAEC

➇

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Other similarly-directed initiativesinclude:❿ providing DoD semi-annual reports to

MACOM Chiefs of Staff❿ providing review of compliance pro-

gram status at MACOM EngineerConferences

❿ developing command informationpapers and updates for Generalofficer and Garrison Commanders

uned to the NREO Monitorrmation. The long-standingthe Northern Regionalal Office (NREO) to Army still open: if your MACOM will assist in obtainingproval for ENF closeoutfications.

NEW MILLENNIUM!

esting DAIG to include environ- as a special item of interest onral IG inspections in CONUSning in FY00.

ECAS program has beenened by further developing rootdentification methodology,g effectiveness of ISO 14000 at

refined, stay for further infooffer from Environmeninstallations iconcurs, weresponse/aprequests/not

— HAPPY

Northern Regional Environmental Office Winter 1

By Colonel Walter J. Cunningham (Ret.)Formerly U.S. Army Engineering andSupport Center, Huntsville

[Reprinted from the U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Center EnvironmentalUpdate, Fall, 1999]

As penitence for going to graduateschool, I was sent to a researchlaboratory, where I was given theresponsibility of creating a researchprogram. If there ever was a time to thinkoutside the box, that was it. One of thethings I noticed was the tendency to tryto fit new requirements into an existingprogram and then base our solutions onwhat we knew how to do — in effect,taking the new problem and stuffing it inthe old box.

If, for example, we knew somethingabout concrete, then all our newrequirements miraculously had concretesolutions. This was particularly glaringwhen we tried to come up with mobileoverhead cover for airborne units. As Irecall, the air-dropable concrete pillboxdid not get many adherents at Fort Bragg.

The clearance of unexploded ordnance(UXO) reminds me of my experience atthe lab. For a variety of reasons, variousgroups try to stuff UXO clearance intoone of two existing boxes: the militaryoperations box or the hazardous wastebox. While UXO clearance has aspectsof both, it is a unique situation. If we areto efficiently reduce the risk to the publicand protect the workforce, we will needsolutions tailored to the problem.

Military operations treat UXO clearanceas a countermine operation. Much of theresearch and technology applied to UXOclearance is a modification of previouscountermine programs. However, the twoproblems are very different. Mines areshallow and intentionally deadly. We wantsensitive equipment to pick up everypossible trace of the weapon. We wantto mark the extent, usually so we can

move around it. In some cases,we attempt to find everythingand mark the locations so wecan breach or clear it. There isa premium on finding the mines at astandoff. Speed is critical. Themanagement structures in which thetechnologies are embedded are largelytactical elements. Costs are ultimatelymeasured in tactical efficiency andcasualties.

UXO clearance is different. Unexplodedordnance depths vary widely, and theheaviest and most dangerous UXO canbe very deep. UXO was intended toexplode, so its deadliness varies widely.We want technologies that discriminate.We need to mark the extent of the UXOhazard, but UXO contamination tends tobe larger, less predictable and morerandom than mines. Finding everythingthat can harm the public is critical.

We have the ability to tailor ourtechnical and management processes.Technologies and processes developedand optimized for countermine operationsare almost certainly not going to beoptimal for UXO clearance, if notdownright ineffective. In the hazardouswaste box, UXO appears to be treatedlike any air or water quality problem. Bothindustry and government haveorganizations and processes to manage,regulate and clean up other hazardouswaste. Those organizations need torecognize the differences between UXOclearance and hazardous waste cleanup.There is common ground that, if exploitedeffectively, will ease the UXO burden.From the industry perspective, we needto create organizations that caneffectively integrate the tasks necessaryto clear an ordnance-contaminated site

efficiently.From the government persp

need experts at every level.ample, “mag and flag” is approa variant of pump-and-treat, trework a site for decades atcosts with little reduction in risk to the public. In addition, be recognition of the risks to thas they clear a site. Dramaticaing the chance of a life-thaccident to eliminate minor ction that may have little practon the environment or public safety is unconscionable.

It is hard to expand our hothink outside our normal exMost situations do not manifesus to stretch our imaginationshuman tendency is magnifiedat hand is dangerous. As thup, risk taking goes down. Mdo not think outside the bothey are the box. At this poevolution of the ordnance program, we need to revetendencies.

[Ed. Note: When thiswas written and publisheUSAEC Environmental COL Cunningham was secommander of the U.SEngineering and SupportHuntsville, Ala. COL Cunningsince retired, and is now inconsulting practice.]

Northern Regional Environmental Office999/2000 Winter 1999/2000 Page 9

PER TRAINING

ective, we If, for ex-ached like

hen we will exorbitantthe actualthere muste workers

lly increas-reateningontamina-ical impacthealth and

rizons andperience.tly require. This very if the taske risks goost peoplex becauseint in the

clearancerse those

articled in theUpdate,rving as. Army

Center,ham has private

projects at over 40 active and BRACinstallations have been conducted.

One of the initiatives that hasresulted from the ITR is the developmentof the PER workshop. Four keyprinciples of environmental restorationform the cornerstone of the PERworkshop: (1) build an effective projectmanagement team; (2) clearly,concisely, and accurately identify theproblem; (3) identify possible responseactions early; and (4) recognize thatuncertainties are inherent and alwayswill need to be managed. The workshopaddresses the applicability of theseprinciples across the spectrum ofrestoration efforts - from siteinvestigation planning through sitecloseout - and how they can be usedto improve the decision-makingprocess at most sites.

The purpose of the PER workshopis to provide tools and approaches that

will help decision-makers collectappropriate investigative information andproceed more quickly to acceptable siteclose-out. The workshop is based on acourse prepared jointly between DOE andEPA, and stresses the need for earlyplanning and development of data qualityobjectives and early development of exitcriteria to ensure that investigations andcleanups stay on track.

The course is intended to (1) providesufficient understanding of ER principlesto ensure that proposed investigative andcleanup requirements are needed tosupport risk-based decisions and actions;and (2) improve the process within whichthe installation project teams operate tobetter focus on the end objectives of therestoration program.

The PER workshop allows for thereview and open discussion of specificprojects or sites at an installation byincorporating those reviews into theexercises that are used at the conclusionof various modules of the workshop. By

including these site reviews as anintegral part of the workshop, no reportis prepared by the instructors, as isdone by the review team at theconclusion of an ITR. However, ITRsare still being performed at installations,especially in cases where there arecomplex and difficult technical issuesto address at specific restoration sites.

Principles of EnvironmentalRestoration training and IndependentTechnical Reviews are conducted atthe request of an installation, or someother organization in their chain ofcommand, such as their MACOM orthe ACSIM. The Army EnvironmentalCenter manages the PER and ITRprograms to include the scheduling ofthe installations and the organizationof an appropriate review team.

If you think one of these programscould be of assistance to yourinstallation restoration program,contact your MACOM restorationprogram POC.


By Hugh McAlearArmy Region V REC

At the 4th Annual Joint Services Pollution PreventionConference and Exhibition held in San Antonio from December6-9, 1999, keynote speaker Mr. Bruce de Grazia, AssistantDeputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Quality,described the updated Department of Defense (DoD) pollutionprevention strategy being formulated to succeed the currentstrategy, whose goals expired at the end of 1999.

The current strategy stresses pollution prevention as theway to meet compliance requirements. Mr. de Grazia notedthat while the strategy has been successful in lowering costs,it has been largely an environmental security program effort.The draft updated strategyaims to go beyond thetraditional environmentalprograms to promotepollution prevention.According to Mr. deGrazia, the greatestpotential for pollution preventioninvestment lies in such other programs as acquisition,maintenance, operations and purchasing. The updatedstrategy therefore seeks to stress pollution prevention inrelation to “return on investment.”

Updated Department of Defense PollutionPrevention Strategy Being Formulated

Objectives for the new goals are expected to be drivenlargely by requirements outlined in Executive Orders thathave been released in the past year and one Executive Orderyet to be released. These orders address such areas asaffirmative procurement, waste prevention, energy efficiency,climate change, bio-based products, toxic chemical releasesand criteria pollutants.

MR. DE GRAZIA OUTLINED SIX GOALS BEING

CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT STRATEGY:

INCORPORATE LIFE-CYCLE COSTS INTO

ACQUISITION SYSTEMS

ENSURE THAT FUNDING POLICIES SUPPORT

POLLUTION PREVENTION

INSTILL A POLLUTION PREVENTION ETHIC THROUGH EDUCATION,TRAINING AND AWARENESS

PROMOTE POLLUTION PREVENTION THROUGH OUTREACH

AND PARTNERSHIPS

DEVELOP POLLUTION PREVENTION BUSINESS PRACTICES

COORDINATE DOD POSITION/POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE

U.S. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATIONS6.5.4.3.2.1.

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Winter 1999/2000Winter 1999/2000 Page 8


In a press release dated December 9,1999, Dave Fordham, Badger ArmyAmmunition Plant Installation Director,announced the start of a project to installan innovative bio-remediation system totreat dinitrotoluene-contaminated soils atthe plant. “Badger will be the first site inthe country where this technology hasbeen used to remove dinitrotoluene onthis scale,” Fordham noted. “However,we’re confident the system will work

tiple-site demonstration of in-situbioremediation. After screening numer-ous sites, Badger was selected.

Because this is an innovativetechnology, a pilot application initially willbe evaluated in the central part of WastePit One at Badger’s Propellant BurningGround. Bio-remediation itself is not newwith regard to dinitrotoluene; studies haveshown that micro-organisms, includingsoil bacteria occurring naturally, willconsume the contaminant. But bio-remediation is a slow process. The

t Badger hopes

through the ground, leaving nutrients forthe bacteria. “This will be a continuousloop process, treating both soil and thegroundwater,” Fordham commented.

Installation is expected to take two tothree months to complete. Once finished,the Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources and Region V of theEnvironmental Protection Agency willoversee the Army’s operation of thesystem. Three months of data will beevaluated to see how well the processmeets its objectives. If all goes asplbePian

Badger Army Ammunition Plant InitiatesBio-Remediation Pilot Project to Treat Dinitrotoluene

Soil Contamination


Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant(RVAAP), OH, has several areas withinits 21,419-acre facility that are beingevaluated for past contamination underthe Defense Environmental RestorationProgram. At the same time, RVAAP iscollecting data that will be useful indetermining the impact of future activitiesat the plant.

RVAAP recently transferred approxi-mately 17,000 acres to the NationalGuard Bureau, which in turn will leasethe land to the Ohio National Guard for atraining area. Because much of the landhas lain fallow at the inactive ammuni-tion facility, environmental managers ofboth RVAAP and the Ohio National Guardforesaw a unique opportunity to docu-ment the ecological condition of the

installation prior to the start of Guardtraining activities.

Taking inventory of the plants andanimals at RVAAP is a critical step inprotecting what exists. A group ofscientists is observing the area’s fieldsand forests, and counting the types andnumbers of plants and animals. This datawill form a baseline for future evaluationsof training site use. Scheduled to becompleted in 2000, the inventories alsowill supply environmental managers withthe names of the most prevalent and rareplants and animals. By knowing whichnatural resources need protection andspecial consideration, trainers and theirtroops can develop environmentalmanagement guidelines.

The inventories further will serve as anadjunct to the ecological receptors stud-ies being conducted as part of ongoingremedial investigations into the extent and

Ravenna Army Ammunition PlantDevelops Ecological Baseline

magnitudeof contaminantconcentrations onRVAAP. Populations of plants and ani-mals in areas where contamination is aconcern will be compared to similar spe-cies populations in unaffected areas. Thisinformation will be useful in conductingecological risk assessments and possi-bly in defining remedial cleanup goals forspecific contaminants.

More information on the Ravennaenvironmental activities can beobtained from Mark Patterson,

RVAAP, at (330) 358-7311.

of a soil washing technology coupled withan agriculturally based biotechnologyknown as phytoremediation.

It’s a fact that lead can be harmful tohuman health, whether it pierces the skinin the form of a projectile or is ingestedorally. For years the military has usedlead-based ammunition, testing andtraining with various weapon systems,firing down range at any number ofmilitary installations nationwide. Fort Dix,for example, has conducted various formsof munitions training, shooting downrange at the 85 ranges located on its 50square miles of property, since openingin 1917. Use of these ranges over theyears has caused lead contamination torange soils.

The problems surrounding soilcontamination from lead, and itsassociated effects on the military’smission and the activities of local civiliancommunities, are evident at a number ofmilitary installations. For example, soiland groundwater contamination at theMassachusetts Military Reservation inCape Cod has received a great deal ofpublic scrutiny in recent years, preventingmilitary training and range use. In anothercase, public concern regarding potentiallead contamination from the ranges atFort Dix, NJ, has occurred within recentmonths. Military training and testing atthese and other sites have been haltedor curtailed because of leadcontamination of soils and apparentmigration to underground or surfacewaters.

To combat the continuation of leadcontamination at military ranges, theArmy implemented the “Green Bullet”program, in which a non-toxic metal(tungsten) is being substituted for lead insmall arms ammunition. Full-scaleproduction of “green bullets” has gottenunderway, and many military facilities,such as the Massachusetts MilitaryReservation, already have receivedshipments. However, without cleanranges, the full benefits of “green bullets”cannot be realized.

Developed as a companion to the“Green Bullet” program, RangeSafe isseeking to demonstrate a lower cost andmore environmentally friendly approach torange cleanup. The RangeSafe programtakes a new and novel approach to soilcleaning, by combining two differenttechnologies which, when brought

together, arecapable ofremoving boththe particulate(chunks) andthe ionic (fine

dust) forms of lead andother heavy metalcontaminants. It is themicro fine dust, formedover many years as thebullet chunks corrode inthe soil, which migratesand contaminatesgroundwater.

The new systemtreats contaminatedsoils by first removing

the larger particulate metal in a particleseparation step, which can be viewedalmost as a modern-day equivalent topanning for gold. It relies on differencesin material density to separate the leadfrom the soil. Essentially, the soil will floatin a column of water while the lead sinksto the bottom and is captured.

The second step targets the removalof the remaining lead dust from the soilthrough a unique method by which certainplants actually extract the lead from thesoil through their roots. Phytoextraction,as it is called, is an emerging technologythat uses specifically selected metal-accumulating plants that literally absorbthe micro fine dust from the soil andconcentrate the metal in the above-groundplant tissue. The plants are harvested withminimal disruption to the soil ecosystem,and the lead is extracted from the driedplant material for recycling by a batterymanufacturer. The cleaned soil is thenreturned to the firing range.

Picatinny engineers chose Fort Dix’sRange 24 for its first full-scaleemployment and demonstration of thenew system. The Department of Defenseprovided $1.7 million to fund the project.The first step, soil washing, took place inSeptember 1999, during which 4,000 tonsof soil were excavated for sifting out thelarger lead particles. Workers removedapproximately 14 tons of lead slugs,reducing reported lead levels from 6,800parts per million to 385 parts per million

“RANGESAFE”(Continued from page 1)

Soil washing in progress. The 4,000tons of soil sent through this processyielded approximately 14 tons ofspent slugs.

Supersack with someof the 14 tons of leadslugs removed duringsoil washing.


anned, the bio-remediation system will extended over the remainder of Wastet One as well as to Waste Pits Twod Three.

More information on the Badgerinnovative treatment process can

be obtained from Dave Fordham at(608) 643-3361 or (608) 356-5525.

ss. injected into then their ability toene. Second, the

ndwater from 100e surface. There,ed and nutrients be added to thel percolate back

effectively here because it’s beenextensively tested in laboratories usingsoil from Badger.”

The demonstration is part of a largertechnology program being undertaken bythe U.S. Air Force Center for Environmen-tal Excellence (AFCEE). In the spirit ofmulti-service cooperation, the U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Center asked AFCEE toinclude an Army installation in its mul-

innovative application ato speed up the proce

First, oxygen will besoil to aid bacteria iconsume the dinitrotolusystem will pump groufeet below grade to thacidity will be neutralizsuch as molasses willwater, which then wil

Northern Regional Environmental Office Winter 1999/2000 Wint

Environmental Technology Expo 2000, RCRA Cleanupreforms, and the U.S. EPA’s push for EnvironmentalManagement Reviews at military installations.

The P2 Partnership Group opened its session withdiscussion of Service P2 initiatives in the state. The remainderof the meeting was devoted to Executive Order 13101/RCRAsection 6002 and the federal requirement to buy recycledproducts. Beginning in CY 2000, the U.S. EPA will inspectfacilities with an eye on “recycled product procurement.”

NEW YORK/DOD QUARTERLY WORK GROUP

The New York/DoD Quarterly Work Group met onSeptember 22, 1999, in the Albany headquarters offices ofthe New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (NYSDEC). Principal topics included a recapof the New York P2 Conference held in August in Rochester,the munitions rule training conducted the previous week inSeptember at Fort Drum, BRAC facilities in New York (i.e.,cleanup and productive new use), the enhanced Vehicle I/MProgram, and RCRA 6002 (i.e., concern with vehiclemaintenance - whether motor pools will be in violation).

REGION III EPA/DOD/STATE

ENVIRONMENTAL COLLOQUIUM

The next Region III Environmental Colloquium involvingDoD, U.S. EPA and state regulators is scheduled for August22-24, 2000, at the Omni Hotel in Baltimore. The theme willinvolve some combination of compliance assistance andpartnering. Social functions being considered include aluncheon, a private reception at the aquarium, and a dinnercruise in the Baltimore Inner Harbor.

DOD/ILLINOIS POLLUTION

PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP

The Partnership met on November 3,1999, in the U.S. EPA Region V offices inChicago. Printed copies of the new P2brochure describing the P2 opportunity

assessment program offered by thepartnership were distributed. Goals for the year

2000 were discussed, and efforts will be madeto develop and establisha training curriculumunder the auspices of atraining subcommittee.Partners will completean annual achievementreport to document pastactivities and establish

[From Staff Reports]

NEW JERSEY VOLUNTARY CLEANUP AGREEMENT

The Army Region I/II REC and NREO Regional Counsel meton November 16, 1999, with other-Service representatives andMs. Karla Perri, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense(Environmental Cleanup), to review progress toward a VoluntaryCleanup Agreement (VCA) with New Jersey and plan for thenext round of discussions with the state. Ms. Eleanor Winsor,the consultant hired by DoD to facilitate the New Jersey VCA,reported that the main issue voiced by DoD and New Jerseyofficials during her interviews concerns the differing DoD/stateinterpretation of the 10-6 Risk-Based cleanup value. It is clearthat the New Jersey VCA will not follow the same track as thePennsylvania Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement, but insteadwill be more like a “partnering” agreement.

A DENIX Web site is being constructed to allow open linesof communication among VCA participants. Copies of currentNew Jersey VCAs with private industry will be distributed, orposted to the new Web site, for participant review and com-parison. The current schedule calls for the VCA to be ready forsignature by April 2000.

NEW JERSEY/EPA/DOD QUARTERLY ENVIRONMENTAL

WORK GROUP AND P2 PARTNERSHIP GROUP

The two groups met on October 21, 1999, at New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) headquartersin Trenton. Installation issues were the first topic of discussionin the Environmental Work Group session. Picatinny Arsenalrepresentatives reported that the additional sampling parametersrequired to address Perchlorate issues have significantlyincreased Subpart X permit-related costs. This apparently is astate-wide issue, affecting other DoD facilities as well. Other

topics covered during the meeting includedthe status of the New Jersey Voluntary

Cleanup Agreement, DoDinvolvement in NJDEP’s

objecRegiprogrRockestabRock

Ththe Mana(dod-and ReprEnvirat Terfor thefrom Instisubs

Fustrateconfesumm

ThCentThe AinstalPolluundeDepafocuswashpharmAir G

Thin theSubcand bat Do

Northern Regional Environmental Officeer 1999/2000 Page 7

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ONTHESE ACTIVITIES, CONTACT:

NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK

Bob Muhly, Army Region I/II REC,(410) 436-7101 • DSN 584

e-mail: [email protected]

REGION III ENVIRONMENTAL COLLOQUIUM

Fred Boecher, Army Region III REC,(410) 436-7100 • DSN 584


ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN,OHIO, WISCONSIN

Hugh McAlear, Army Region V REC,(630) 910-3213 • Ext. 224


tives/targets for the coming year. U.S. EPAon V provided a briefing on the Waste Wiseam, which focuses on municipal solid waste. Island Arsenal briefed the Partnership on thelishment of a P2 partnership with the City of Island.

DOD/INDIANA POLLUTION PREVENTION

PARTNERSHIP MEETING

e Partnership met on December 10, 1999, atIndiana Department of Environmentalgement in Indianapolis. A Partnership [email protected]) has been established,a web page is under development.

esentatives of the Indiana Department ofonmental Management and the Air Guard Basere Haute were selected to serve as co-chairs partnership during the coming year. A speaker

the Indiana Clean Manufacturing Technologytute briefed the Partnership on solventtitution options for parts cleaning.ture agenda topics include development of agic plan, and Partnership participation in P2rences to be held in Indiana in the lateer/early fall 2000.

DOD/MICHIGAN POLLUTION PREVENTION

ALLIANCE MEETING

e Michigan Air Guard Combat Readiness Traininger hosted the meeting in Alpena on October 26, 1999.lliance Listserve ([email protected]) has beenled on the server managed by the Great Lakes Regionaltion Prevention Roundtable. An Alliance web site, stillr development, will be managed by the Michiganrtment of Environmental Quality. The October meetinged on hazardous waste management and partsers, and ended with a tour of the hazardous wasteacy and vehicle maintenance shops at the Alpena

uard unit.

DOD/OHIO POLLUTION PREVENTION

PARTNERSHIP MEETING

e Partnership met on November 30, 1999, in Columbus, offices of the Ohio EPA. The Opportunity Assessmentommittee has prepared an introductory questionnaireriefing for use in conducting opportunity assessmentsD entities. A draft tri-fold Opportunity Assessment

brochure was distributed for comment, as was a draft strategicplan for the Partnership. Both are expected to be ready foradoption at the next meeting. The 179th Airlift Wing (Air NationalGuard) reported success in achieving a greater than 50 percentreduction of hazardous wastes generated in connection withtreatment of C-130 engine compressor wash water andaqueous-based parts washer water.

WISCONSIN/DOD POLLUTION PREVENTION

ALLIANCE MEETING

The Wisconsin Army National Guard hosted the Allianceon November 9, 1999, in Madison. Web site options werediscussed to link into the DENIX site for the DoD/State P2partnerships. The Alliance Charter is almost complete, andwill be printed for distribution at the next meeting. An Allianceaward program has been established to recognize military andcivilian innovations and P2 successes. The next meeting willfocus on waste paint disposal options and Defense Reutilizationand Marketing Office activities.

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Winter 1999/2000 Winter 1999/2000 Page 6

Environmental Technology Expo 2000, RCRA Cleanupreforms, and the U.S. EPA’s push for EnvironmentalManagement Reviews at military installations.

The P2 Partnership Group opened its session withdiscussion of Service P2 initiatives in the state. The remainderof the meeting was devoted to Executive Order 13101/RCRAsection 6002 and the federal requirement to buy recycledproducts. Beginning in CY 2000, the U.S. EPA will inspectfacilities with an eye on “recycled product procurement.”

NEW YORK/DOD QUARTERLY WORK GROUP

The New York/DoD Quarterly Work Group met onSeptember 22, 1999, in the Albany headquarters offices ofthe New York State Department of EnvironmentalConservation (NYSDEC). Principal topics included a recapof the New York P2 Conference held in August in Rochester,the munitions rule training conducted the previous week inSeptember at Fort Drum, BRAC facilities in New York (i.e.,cleanup and productive new use), the enhanced Vehicle I/MProgram, and RCRA 6002 (i.e., concern with vehiclemaintenance - whether motor pools will be in violation).

REGION III EPA/DOD/STATE

ENVIRONMENTAL COLLOQUIUM

The next Region III Environmental Colloquium involvingDoD, U.S. EPA and state regulators is scheduled for August22-24, 2000, at the Omni Hotel in Baltimore. The theme willinvolve some combination of compliance assistance andpartnering. Social functions being considered include aluncheon, a private reception at the aquarium, and a dinnercruise in the Baltimore Inner Harbor.

DOD/ILLINOIS POLLUTION

PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP

The Partnership met on November 3,1999, in the U.S. EPA Region V offices inChicago. Printed copies of the new P2brochure describing the P2 opportunity

assessment program offered by thepartnership were distributed. Goals for the year

2000 were discussed, and efforts will be madeto develop and establisha training curriculumunder the auspices of atraining subcommittee.Partners will completean annual achievementreport to document pastactivities and establish

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION ONTHESE ACTIVITIES, CONTACT:

NEW JERSEY, NEW YORK

Bob Muhly, Army Region I/II REC,(410) 436-7101 • DSN 584


REGION III ENVIRONMENTAL COLLOQUIUM

Fred Boecher, Army Region III REC,(410) 436-7100 • DSN 584


ILLINOIS, INDIANA, MICHIGAN,OHIO, WISCONSIN

Hugh McAlear, Army Region V REC,(630) 910-3213 • Ext. 224


[From Staff Reports]

NEW JERSEY VOLUNTARY CLEANUP AGREEMENT

The Army Region I/II REC and NREO Regional Counsel meton November 16, 1999, with other-Service representatives andMs. Karla Perri, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense(Environmental Cleanup), to review progress toward a VoluntaryCleanup Agreement (VCA) with New Jersey and plan for thenext round of discussions with the state. Ms. Eleanor Winsor,the consultant hired by DoD to facilitate the New Jersey VCA,reported that the main issue voiced by DoD and New Jerseyofficials during her interviews concerns the differing DoD/stateinterpretation of the 10-6 Risk-Based cleanup value. It is clearthat the New Jersey VCA will not follow the same track as thePennsylvania Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement, but insteadwill be more like a “partnering” agreement.

A DENIX Web site is being constructed to allow open linesof communication among VCA participants. Copies of currentNew Jersey VCAs with private industry will be distributed, orposted to the new Web site, for participant review and com-parison. The current schedule calls for the VCA to be ready forsignature by April 2000.

NEW JERSEY/EPA/DOD QUARTERLY ENVIRONMENTAL

WORK GROUP AND P2 PARTNERSHIP GROUP

The two groups met on October 21, 1999, at New JerseyDepartment of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) headquartersin Trenton. Installation issues were the first topic of discussionin the Environmental Work Group session. Picatinny Arsenalrepresentatives reported that the additional sampling parametersrequired to address Perchlorate issues have significantlyincreased Subpart X permit-related costs. This apparently is astate-wide issue, affecting other DoD facilities as well. Other

topics covered during the meeting includedthe status of the New Jersey Voluntary

Cleanup Agreement, DoDinvolvement in NJDEP’s

objectives/targets for the coming year. U.S. EPARegion V provided a briefing on the Waste Wiseprogram, which focuses on municipal solid waste.Rock Island Arsenal briefed the Partnership on theestablishment of a P2 partnership with the City ofRock Island.

DOD/INDIANA POLLUTION PREVENTION

PARTNERSHIP MEETING

The Partnership met on December 10, 1999, atthe Indiana Department of EnvironmentalManagement in Indianapolis. A Partnership Listserve([email protected]) has been established,and a web page is under development.Representatives of the Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management and the Air Guard Baseat Terre Haute were selected to serve as co-chairsfor the partnership during the coming year. A speakerfrom the Indiana Clean Manufacturing TechnologyInstitute briefed the Partnership on solventsubstitution options for parts cleaning.

Future agenda topics include development of astrategic plan, and Partnership participation in P2conferences to be held in Indiana in the latesummer/early fall 2000.

DOD/MICHIGAN POLLUTION PREVENTION

ALLIANCE MEETING

The Michigan Air Guard Combat Readiness TrainingCenter hosted the meeting in Alpena on October 26, 1999.The Alliance Listserve ([email protected]) has beeninstalled on the server managed by the Great Lakes RegionalPollution Prevention Roundtable. An Alliance web site, stillunder development, will be managed by the MichiganDepartment of Environmental Quality. The October meetingfocused on hazardous waste management and partswashers, and ended with a tour of the hazardous wastepharmacy and vehicle maintenance shops at the Alpena

brochure was distributed for comment, as was a draft strategicplan for the Partnership. Both are expected to be ready foradoption at the next meeting. The 179th Airlift Wing (Air NationalGuard) reported success in achieving a greater than 50 percentreduction of hazardous wastes generated in connection withtreatment of C-130 engine compressor wash water andaqueous-based parts washer water.

WISCONSIN/DOD POLLUTION PREVENTION

ALLIANCE MEETING
Air Guard unit.
DOD/OHIO POLLUTION PREVENTION

PARTNERSHIP MEETING

The Partnership met on November 30, 1999, in Columbus,in the offices of the Ohio EPA. The Opportunity AssessmentSubcommittee has prepared an introductory questionnaireand briefing for use in conducting opportunity assessmentsat DoD entities. A draft tri-fold Opportunity Assessment

The Wisconsin Army National Guard hosted the Allianceon November 9, 1999, in Madison. Web site options werediscussed to link into the DENIX site for the DoD/State P2partnerships. The Alliance Charter is almost complete, andwill be printed for distribution at the next meeting. An Allianceaward program has been established to recognize military andcivilian innovations and P2 successes. The next meeting willfocus on waste paint disposal options and Defense Reutilizationand Marketing Office activities.

mailto:[email protected]



No

of a soil washing technology coupled withan agriculturally based biotechnologyknown as phytoremediation.

It’s a fact that lead can be harmful tohuman health, whether it pierces the skinin the form of a projectile or is ingestedorally. For years the military has usedlead-based ammunition, testing andtraining with various weapon systems,firing down range at any number ofmilitary installations nationwide. Fort Dix,for example, has conducted various formsof munitions training, shooting downrange at the 85 ranges located on its 50square miles of property, since openingin 1917. Use of these ranges over theyears has caused lead contamination torange soils.

The problems surrounding soilcontamination from lead, and itsassociated effects on the military’smission and the activities of local civiliancommunities, are evident at a number ofmilitary installations. For example, soiland groundwater contamination at theMassachusetts Military Reservation inCape Cod has received a great deal ofpublic scrutiny in recent years, preventingmilitary training and range use. In anothercase, public concern regarding potentiallead contamination from the ranges atFort Dix, NJ, has occurred within recentmonths. Military training and testing atthese and other sites have been haltedor curtailed because of leadcontamination of soils and apparentmigration to underground or surfacewaters.

coApr(tusmprunsuRshraca

“Gsemrataclte

“RANGESAFE”(Continued from page 1)

Suofslso

rthern Regional Environmental Office

To combat the continuation of leadntamination at military ranges, the

rmy implemented the “Green Bullet”ogram, in which a non-toxic metalngsten) is being substituted for lead inall arms ammunition. Full-scale

oduction of “green bullets” has gottenderway, and many military facilities,ch as the Massachusetts Military

eservation, already have receivedipments. However, without clean

nges, the full benefits of “green bullets”nnot be realized.Developed as a companion to thereen Bullet” program, RangeSafe iseking to demonstrate a lower cost andore environmentally friendly approach tonge cleanup. The RangeSafe programkes a new and novel approach to soileaning, by combining two differentchnologies which, when brought

together, arecapable ofremoving boththe particulate(chunks) andthe ionic (fine

dust) forms of lead andother heavy metalcontaminants. It is themicro fine dust, formedover many years as thebullet chunks corrode inthe soil, which migratesand contaminatesgroundwater.

The new systemtreats contaminatedsoils by first removing

the larger particulaseparation step, walmost as a modepanning for gold. Itin material densityfrom the soil. Essenin a column of wateto the bottom and i

The second stepof the remaining lethrough a unique meplants actually extrsoil through their roas it is called, is an that uses specificaccumulating plantthe micro fine duconcentrate the metplant tissue. The plaminimal disruption and the lead is extplant material for rmanufacturer. Thereturned to the firin

Picatinny engineRange 24 for employment and dnew system. The Dprovided $1.7 millioThe first step, soil wSeptember 1999, duof soil were excavalarger lead particleapproximately 14reducing reported lparts per million to

Soil washing in prtons of soil sent thyielded approximspent slugs.

persack with some the 14 tons of leadugs removed duringil washing.

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeWinter 1999/2000Winter 1999/2000 Page 5


In a press release dated December 9,1999, Dave Fordham, Badger ArmyAmmunition Plant Installation Director,announced the start of a project to installan innovative bio-remediation system totreat dinitrotoluene-contaminated soils atthe plant. “Badger will be the first site inthe country where this technology hasbeen used to remove dinitrotoluene onthis scale,” Fordham noted. “However,we’re confident the system will workeffectively here because it’s beenextensively tested in laboratories usingsoil from Badger.”

The demonstration is part of a largertechnology program being undertaken bythe U.S. Air Force Center for Environmen-tal Excellence (AFCEE). In the spirit ofmulti-service cooperation, the U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Center asked AFCEE toinclude an Army installation in its mul-

tiple-site demonstration of in-situbioremediation. After screening numer-ous sites, Badger was selected.

Because this is an innovativetechnology, a pilot application initially willbe evaluated in the central part of WastePit One at Badger’s Propellant BurningGround. Bio-remediation itself is not newwith regard to dinitrotoluene; studies haveshown that micro-organisms, includingsoil bacteria occurring naturally, willconsume the contaminant. But bio-remediation is a slow process. Theinnovative application at Badger hopesto speed up the process.

First, oxygen will be injected into thesoil to aid bacteria in their ability toconsume the dinitrotoluene. Second, thesystem will pump groundwater from 100feet below grade to the surface. There,acidity will be neutralized and nutrientssuch as molasses will be added to thewater, which then will percolate back

through the ground, leaving nutrients forthe bacteria. “This will be a continuousloop process, treating both soil and thegroundwater,” Fordham commented.

Installation is expected to take two tothree months to complete. Once finished,the Wisconsin Department of NaturalResources and Region V of theEnvironmental Protection Agency willoversee the Army’s operation of thesystem. Three months of data will beevaluated to see how well the processmeets its objectives. If all goes asplanned, the bio-remediation system willbe extended over the remainder of WastePit One as well as to Waste Pits Twoand Three.

Badger Army Ammunition Plant InitiatesBio-Remediation Pilot Project to Treat Dinitrotoluene

Soil Contamination

More information on the Badgerinnovative treatment process can

be obtained from Dave Fordham at(608) 643-3361 or (608) 356-5525.


Ravenna Army Ammunition Plant(RVAAP), OH, has several areas withinits 21,419-acre facility that are beingevaluated for past contamination underthe Defense Environmental RestorationProgram. At the same time, RVAAP iscollecting data that will be useful indetermining the impact of future activitiesat the plant.

RVAAP recently transferred approxi-mately 17,000 acres to the NationalGuard Bureau, which in turn will leasethe land to the Ohio National Guard for atraining area. Because much of the landhas lain fallow at the inactive ammuni-tion facility, environmental managers ofboth RVAAP and the Ohio National Guardforesaw a unique opportunity to docu-ment the ecological condition of the

installation prior to the start of Guardtraining activities.

Taking inventory of the plants andanimals at RVAAP is a critical step inprotecting what exists. A group ofscientists is observing the area’s fieldsand forests, and counting the types andnumbers of plants and animals. This datawill form a baseline for future evaluationsof training site use. Scheduled to becompleted in 2000, the inventories alsowill supply environmental managers withthe names of the most prevalent and rareplants and animals. By knowing whichnatural resources need protection andspecial consideration, trainers and theirtroops can develop environmentalmanagement guidelines.

The inventories further will serve as anadjunct to the ecological receptors stud-ies being conducted as part of ongoingremedial investigations into the extent and

Ravenna Army Ammunition PlantDevelops Ecological Baseline

magnitudeof contaminantconcentrations onRVAAP. Populations of plants and ani-mals in areas where contamination is aconcern will be compared to similar spe-cies populations in unaffected areas. Thisinformation will be useful in conductingecological risk assessments and possi-bly in defining remedial cleanup goals forspecific contaminants.

More information on the Ravennaenvironmental activities can beobtained from Mark Patterson,

RVAAP, at (330) 358-7311.

te metal in a particlehich can be viewedrn-day equivalent to relies on differences to separate the leadtially, the soil will floatr while the lead sinkss captured. targets the removalad dust from the soilthod by which certain

act the lead from theots. Phytoextraction,emerging technologyally selected metal-s that literally absorbst from the soil andal in the above-groundnts are harvested withto the soil ecosystem,racted from the driedecycling by a battery cleaned soil is theng range.ers chose Fort Dix’s

its first full-scaleemonstration of the

epartment of Defensen to fund the project.ashing, took place inring which 4,000 tonsted for sifting out thes. Workers removed tons of lead slugs,ead levels from 6,800 385 parts per million

ogress. The 4,000rough this processately 14 tons of


Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Winter 1999/2000 Winter 1999/2000Page 4

PER TRAINING

By Colonel Walter J. Cunningham (Ret.)Formerly U.S. Army Engineering andSupport Center, Huntsville

[Reprinted from the U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Center EnvironmentalUpdate, Fall, 1999]

As penitence for going to graduateschool, I was sent to a researchlaboratory, where I was given theresponsibility of creating a researchprogram. If there ever was a time to thinkoutside the box, that was it. One of thethings I noticed was the tendency to tryto fit new requirements into an existingprogram and then base our solutions onwhat we knew how to do — in effect,taking the new problem and stuffing it inthe old box.

If, for example, we knew somethingabout concrete, then all our newrequirements miraculously had concretesolutions. This was particularly glaringwhen we tried to come up with mobileoverhead cover for airborne units. As Irecall, the air-dropable concrete pillboxdid not get many adherents at Fort Bragg.

The clearance of unexploded ordnance(UXO) reminds me of my experience atthe lab. For a variety of reasons, variousgroups try to stuff UXO clearance intoone of two existing boxes: the militaryoperations box or the hazardous wastebox. While UXO clearance has aspectsof both, it is a unique situation. If we areto efficiently reduce the risk to the publicand protect the workforce, we will needsolutions tailored to the problem.

Military operations treat UXO clearanceas a countermine operation. Much of theresearch and technology applied to UXOclearance is a modification of previouscountermine programs. However, the twoproblems are very different. Mines areshallow and intentionally deadly. We wantsensitive equipment to pick up everypossible trace of the weapon. We wantto mark the extent, usually so we can

move around it. In some cases,we attempt to find everythingand mark the locations so wecan breach or clear it. There isa premium on finding the mines at astandoff. Speed is critical. Themanagement structures in which thetechnologies are embedded are largelytactical elements. Costs are ultimatelymeasured in tactical efficiency andcasualties.

UXO clearance is different. Unexplodedordnance depths vary widely, and theheaviest and most dangerous UXO canbe very deep. UXO was intended toexplode, so its deadliness varies widely.We want technologies that discriminate.We need to mark the extent of the UXOhazard, but UXO contamination tends tobe larger, less predictable and morerandom than mines. Finding everythingthat can harm the public is critical.

We have the ability to tailor ourtechnical and management processes.Technologies and processes developedand optimized for countermine operationsare almost certainly not going to beoptimal for UXO clearance, if notdownright ineffective. In the hazardouswaste box, UXO appears to be treatedlike any air or water quality problem. Bothindustry and government haveorganizations and processes to manage,regulate and clean up other hazardouswaste. Those organizations need torecognize the differences between UXOclearance and hazardous waste cleanup.There is common ground that, if exploitedeffectively, will ease the UXO burden.From the industry perspective, we needto create organizations that caneffectively integrate the tasks necessaryto clear an ordnance-contaminated site

efficiently.From the government perspective, we

need experts at every level. If, for ex-ample, “mag and flag” is approached likea variant of pump-and-treat, then we willrework a site for decades at exorbitantcosts with little reduction in the actualrisk to the public. In addition, there mustbe recognition of the risks to the workersas they clear a site. Dramatically increas-ing the chance of a life-threateningaccident to eliminate minor contamina-tion that may have little practical impacton the environment or public health andsafety is unconscionable.

It is hard to expand our horizons andthink outside our normal experience.Most situations do not manifestly requireus to stretch our imaginations. This veryhuman tendency is magnified if the taskat hand is dangerous. As the risks goup, risk taking goes down. Most peopledo not think outside the box becausethey are the box. At this point in theevolution of the ordnance clearanceprogram, we need to reverse thosetendencies.

[Ed. Note: When this articlewas written and published in theUSAEC Environmental Update,COL Cunningham was serving ascommander of the U.S. ArmyEngineering and Support Center,Huntsville, Ala. COL Cunningham hassince retired, and is now in privateconsulting practice.]

projects at over 40 active and BRACinstallations have been conducted.

One of the initiatives that hasresulted from the ITR is the developmentof the PER workshop. Four keyprinciples of environmental restorationform the cornerstone of the PERworkshop: (1) build an effective projectmanagement team; (2) clearly,concisely, and accurately identify theproblem; (3) identify possible responseactions early; and (4) recognize thatuncertainties are inherent and alwayswill need to be managed. The workshop

will help decision-makers collectappropriate investigative information andproceed more quickly to acceptable siteclose-out. The workshop is based on acourse prepared jointly between DOE andEPA, and stresses the need for earlyplanning and development of data qualityobjectives and early development of exitcriteria to ensure that investigations andcleanups stay on track.

The course is intended to (1) providesufficient understanding of ER principlesto ensure that proposed investigative andcleanup requirements are needed tosupport risk-based decisions and actions;and (2) improve the process within

t teams operd objectives

op allows focussion of span installatio reviews intd at the concf the worksho

including these site reviews as anintegral part of the workshop, no reportis prepared by the instructors, as isdone by the review team at theconclusion of an ITR. However, ITRsare still being performed at installations,especially in cases where there arecomplex and difficult technical issuesto address at specific restoration sites.

Principles of EnvironmentalRestoration training and IndependentTechnical Reviews are conducted atthe request of an installation, or someother organization in their chain ofcommand, such as their MACOM or



At the 4th Annual Joint Services Pollution PreventionConference and Exhibition held in San Antonio from December6-9, 1999, keynote speaker Mr. Bruce de Grazia, AssistantDeputy Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Quality,described the updated Department of Defense (DoD) pollutionprevention strategy being formulated to succeed the currentstrategy, whose goals expired at the end of 1999.

The current strategy stresses pollution prevention as theway to meet compliance requirements. Mr. de Grazia notedthat while the strategy has been successful in lowering costs,it has been largely an environmental security program effort.The draft updated strategyaims to go beyond thetraditional environmentalprograms to promotepollution prevention.According to Mr. deGrazia, the greatestpotential for pollution preventioninvestment lies in such other programs as acquisition,maintenance, operations and purchasing. The updatedstrategy therefore seeks to stress pollution prevention inrelation to “return on investment.”

Updated Department of Defense PollutionPrevention Strategy Being Formulated

Objectives for the new goals are expected to be drivenlargely by requirements outlined in Executive Orders thathave been released in the past year and one Executive Orderyet to be released. These orders address such areas asaffirmative procurement, waste prevention, energy efficiency,climate change, bio-based products, toxic chemical releasesand criteria pollutants.

MR. DE GRAZIA OUTLINED SIX GOALS BEING

CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT STRATEGY:

INCORPORATE LIFE-CYCLE COSTS INTO

ACQUISITION SYSTEMS

ENSURE THAT FUNDING POLICIES SUPPORT

POLLUTION PREVENTION

INSTILL A POLLUTION PREVENTION ETHIC THROUGH EDUCATION,TRAINING AND AWARENESS

PROMOTE POLLUTION PREVENTION THROUGH OUTREACH

AND PARTNERSHIPS

DEVELOP POLLUTION PREVENTION BUSINESS PRACTICES

COORDINATE DOD POSITION/POLICY WITH RESPECT TO THE

U.S. GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATIONS6.5.4.3.2.1.

addresses the applicability of theseprinciples across the spectrum ofrestoration efforts - from siteinvestigation planning through sitecloseout - and how they can be usedto improve the decision-makingprocess at most sites.

The purpose of the PER workshopis to provide tools and approaches that

the installation projecbetter focus on the enrestoration program.

The PER workshreview and open disprojects or sites at incorporating thoseexercises that are useof various modules o

whichate toof the

r theecificn by

o thelusionp. By

the ACSIM. The Army EnvironmentalCenter manages the PER and ITRprograms to include the scheduling ofthe installations and the organizationof an appropriate review team.

If you think one of these programscould be of assistance to yourinstallation restoration program,contact your MACOM restorationprogram POC.

Northern Regional Environmental Office Winter 1999/2000

By Mitch BrymanNREO Environmental Specialist

In August 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) presented a Special Achievement Award to theDepartment of Defense (DoD), recognizing the Department’sefforts to reduce pesticide use on military installations by 50percent, two years ahead of schedule. The Army significantlycontributed to this achievement by reducing pesticide releases36 percent - the equivalent of more than 130,000 pounds ofpesticide active ingredient (PAI), or more than 65 tons of non-point-source environmental pollutants.

To help reduce human and environmental exposure to pesti-cides, the Department of Defense signed an agreement withthe EPA, joining forces with the agency in its Pesticide Envi-ronmental Stewardship Program (PESP). The PESP is avoluntary partnership program to reduce pesticide use na-tionwide. Through PESP, the Defense Departmentset forth a goal to reduce the amount of PAI usedat DoD installations 50 percent by the end of fis-cal 2000, based on the amount used during fiscal1993.

Army installations have been able todramatically reduce their use of PAI by:

• renewing their commitment to IntegratedPest Management (IPM);

• improving the quality of pesticide use datagathered from Army installations; and

• funding research to identify and scrutinizealternative IPM strategies.

INTEGRATED PEST MANAGEMENT

Dr. Steven Bennett is the U.S. ArmyEnvironmental Center (USAEC) team leader forpest management and the Center’s mediamanager for compliance with the FederalInsecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act(FIFRA). Dr. Bennett also serves as a seniorconsultant to the Army for pest management and is

the current chairman of the DoDArmed Forces Pest Managemen

Board. According to Dr. Bennett, “theprimary goal of the military’s pes

management program is to lessen damageto health, property and natural resources

caused by pests.” Dr. Bennett added that IPMhas been promoted by the DoD as a tool for the

services to meet its pesticide reduction goals andaddress the risks posed by insects, rodents, birds, weedsfungus and microorganisms that jeopardize troop readiness

He said the IPM program “integrates” monitoring the pespopulation, knowledge of the targeted pest’s behaviorrecording and analyzing the amount and frequency of pescontrol methods, and communicating results to prevent pestsand pest-borne diseases from causing unacceptable damage“IPM may employ a wide array of molds, fungi, wasps, beetlesand other natural predators and parasites that feed on thetargeted pest,” Dr. Bennett said. “Still other methods mayinfect pests with viruses and bacteria that kill the pest buleave beneficial plants, animals and insects untouchedAdditional IPM strategies also may use pheromones to disrupinsect reproduction.”

With more than a million different species and a globapopulation estimated to be in the trillions, insects may bethe most successful creatures on our planet. Complicatingmatters further, a growing number of new pests - in many

cases weeds - continue to enter and spread across aregions of the United States. Their impact on

military readiness, training operationsagriculture, native ecosystems and human

health cannot be ignored.The challenges posed by harmful non

indigenous, invasive plants and animals

ARMY RESEARCHES

MEANS TO REDUCE

PESTICIDE USE

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

IPM may employ a widearray of molds, fungi,wasps, beetles and othernatural predators andparasites that feed onthe targeted pest.

➈

Dr. Steven BennettIntegrated Pest ManagementTeam Leader, USAEC

➇

○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeWinter 1999/2000

Bradley M. Campbell

Page 3

[Drawn from U.S. EPA Press Reports]

In mid-December, 1999, Bradley M.Campbell succeeded W. Michael McCabeas the Regional Administrator for the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)Region III office in Philadelphia. Mr. McCabewas promoted to the position of EPA DeputyAdministrator, the agency’s No. 2 job, inWashington, D.C.

Mr. Campbell moved to EPA Region IIIfrom the White House Council onEnvironmental Quality (CEQ), where heserved most recently as Associate Directorfor Toxics and Environmental Protection.Prior to his CEQ service, he was anattorney-advisor in the Environment andNatural Resources Division of the U. S. Department ofJustice.

A native of Philadelphia, Mr. Campbell is a magna cumlaude graduate of Amherst College (B.A., 1983) and a cumlaude graduate of the University of Chicago Law School(J.D., 1987). Following graduation from law school, Mr.Campbell had an active criminal and civil litigation practicethat included extensive representation of environmentalorganizations concerned with the Chesapeake Baywatershed.

At CEQ, Mr. Campbell helped coordinate administrationpolicy and legislation on Superfund, hazardous waste, safedrinking water, pesticide and food safety, brownfields, wet-lands, and community right-to-know. Mr. Campbell also over-saw issues involving agriculture, federal facilities andenvironmental justice. His activities included helpingdevelop the administration’s brownfields initiative, leading

reforms ofhazardouswaste laws andof environmentalliability for lenders,serving as the administration’s leadrepresentative to the 104th Congress inamending the Safe Drinking Water Act, nego-tiating an administration plan to resolve along-standing dispute over economic and envi-ronmental issues surrounding dredging in thePort of New York and New Jersey, and devel-oping legislation for the 105th Congress toauthorize alternative environmental compliance.

During his service at the U.S. Departmentof Justice, Mr. Campbell served as lead counsel in severalprominent cases, including defense of the lender liabilityrule under CERCLA (Kelley v. EPA), trial of the leadingCERCLA enforcement case involving lender liability (UnitedStates v. Fleet Factors), and the successful defense ofchallenges under the National Environmental Policy Act(NEPA) to the North American Free Trade Agreement andthe Uruguay Round Agreement under the auspices of theGeneral Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.

In 1993, Mr. Campbell received the 1993 Arthur FlemingAward for distinguished government service, which is basedon a national competition. In that year he also received theJohn Marshall Award, the Justice Department’s highest honor.

Mr. Campbell is co-founder of the Common GroundCommunity Housing Development Company in New YorkCity, and he chairs the board of the Echo Hill Outdoor Schoolin Worton, Maryland.

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○○

○

❿ submitting a Chief of Staff of theArmy Weekly Summary article onENFs and fines.

Other similarly-directed initiativesinclude:❿ providing DoD semi-annual reports to

MACOM Chiefs of Staff❿ providing review of compliance pro-

gram status at MACOM EngineerConferences

❿ developing command informationpapers and updates for Generalofficer and Garrison Commanders

Leadership Conferences❿ focusing increased attention on ENF

closure during MACOM Environmen-tal Quality IPRs

❿ ACSIM requiring MACOMs to providebriefings on corrective actions pro-posed to deal with significant ENFs,and

❿ requesting DAIG to include environ-ment as a special item of interest onseveral IG inspections in CONUSbeginning in FY00.

The ECAS program has beenstrengthened by further developing rootcause identification methodology,evaluating effectiveness of ISO 14000 at

pilot installations, and increasing ECASfunding.

ACSIM considers FORSCOM’s Envi-ronmental Campaign Plan 2000-2020 agood example of how MACOMs can takea proactive approach to environmentalmanagement.

As future plans are developed andrefined, stay tuned to the NREO Monitorfor further information. The long-standingoffer from the Northern RegionalEnvironmental Office (NREO) to Armyinstallations is still open: if your MACOMconcurs, we will assist in obtainingresponse/approval for ENF closeoutrequests/notifications.

— HAPPY NEW MILLENNIUM!

U.S. EPA REGION III OFFICE GETS

NEW REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR


t

t

,.t,t

.

t.t

l

ll

,

-

○○

Northern Regional Environmental OfficeNorthern Regional Environmental Office Winter 1999/2000 Winter 1999/2000

NORTHERN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL MONITOR

Page 2

The Northern Regional Environmental Monitor is an unofficial publicationauthorized under the Provisions of AR 360-81. It is published on a quarterlybasis by the U.S. Army Environmental Center Public Affairs Office, AberdeenProving Ground, MD. 21010-5401; telephone: (410) 436-2556 and DSN 584-2556. The views and opinions expressed are not necessarily those of theDepartment of the Army. This publication has a circulation of 500. NREO Chief'stelephone: (410) 436-2427. All articles proposed should be submitted to theRegional Environmental Office two months before issue dates. These submissionsare subject to editing and rewriting as deemed necessary for space considerations.

Commander, USAEC...................................................... COL Edward W. Newing

Deputy/Technical Director (Acting) ...................................... David C. Guzewich

Chief of Staff ................................................................. LTC Thomas M. Frendak

Chief, Public Affairs ............................................................ Thomas M. Hankus

Chief, NREO ...................................................................................... William Herb

Editor ......................................................................................... Andrew Caraker

OUR MISSION: The NREO was established in 1995 to support the Army andDoD mission through coordination, communication and facilitation of regional

environmental activities. The Army REOs are part of a DoD network in which the Army,Navy and Air Force each has lead responsibility for mission implementation in the

federal regions. The NREO has DoD lead responsibility for Region V, and Army leadresponsibility for Regions I, II, III and V.

FROM THE CHIEF

By Bill Herb,Chief, NREO

Well, the new millennium has finallyarrived…..or has it? The mathematicalpurists insist that it really won’t start un-til 1 January 2001 when the 2000th yearwill have expired, but those of us whoare more pragmatic point to the yearshown on our calendars for January, andconclude that something indeed haschanged. A recent editorial suggested anelegant compromise solution: “Just partytwice.” Whatever your perspective, weprobably do agree with the assumptionthat time only moves forward. (Unless wewant to consider the possible phenom-enon of a contracting universe,but I don’t want to get intothat here…...my planninghorizon doesn’t extendout seven or eight billionyears and StephenHawking wasn’t avail-able for comment.)Nevertheless, the

clock has moved on,and even if we are notobserving massive,millennial changes, weneed to move on, too.

Time passes, but oldissues persist: theArmy remains con-cerned with open and

new enforcement actions (ENFs). TheArmy continues to receive a dispropor-tionate share of ENFs and fines. It doesn’tseem to matter how the data are “nor-malized” — ENFs per inspection, finesper inspection, ENFs per installation,ENFs per soldier (airman, marine, sailor)— the Army always suffers by compari-son with the other services. The ACSIMhas taken steps to address this issue,and is planning further actions.

Policy and Guidance initiatives havefacilitated prevention and closure of ENFsand ensured that the Army counts ENFsthe same way as the other services; theArmy Must Fund Policy has been reis-sued.

Command emphasis and awarenessof environmental compliance is beingincreased by:

❿ providing new installation com-manders with a copy of theirinstallation’s environmental profile

❿ conducting discussions betweenACSIM and MACOM Chiefs ofStaff

❿ disseminating information on keyenvironmental issues throughACSIM Garrison Commander’sNotes

❿ briefing ENFs and fines at theAugust Garrison Commander’sConference

❿ providing quarterly updates onMACOM ENF/fines status to theArmy Secretariat and Chief of Staff,and

are expected to only increase over time. The magnitude ofthe problems posed by invasive species is underscored byPresident Clinton’s Executive Order 13112, “Invasive Species,”signed February 3, 1999. The order establishes federal agencyresponsibilities for identifying and managing invasive species.

Tobyhanna Army Depot in Pennsylvania, the largest com-munications and electronics maintenance facility in DoD,achieved a 56-percent reduction in pesticide use in part byencouraging the nesting of insect-eating cliff and barn swal-lows, and by maintaining more than 100 nests and suitablehabitats for the swallows. The depot also achieved this re-duction by switching to mowing weeds instead of sprayingthem with herbicides and by baiting specific pests rather thanspraying insecticides. Despite downward trends, records alsoshow, in any given year, about 20 percent of Army installa-tions use more pesticides than the previous year - reflectingalways evolving pest-related challenges.

RECORD KEEPING

Defense Department policy more than meets therequirements of the EPA and most state regulations byrequiring detailed records of all pesticide operations on militaryinstallations, and by ensuring that all personnel who applycommercial-grade pesticides are certified. Military recordskeep track of all pesticide applications such as work done ongolf courses and pesticide application by non-appropriatedfund activities, by contract services, within land managementand forestry programs, for programs involving installationslands leased for commercial purposes, and for work performedby installation pest control shops.

Maintaining accurate historical records has allowed DoDto estimate that 60 to 70 percent of all reported pesticideapplications at military installations have been used to controlweeds and fungus. This figure reflects national use, asherbicides comprise some 67 percent of pesticide productionin the United States, according to a 1990 EPA report. Whilegolf courses are usually thought of as being heavy users ofherbicides, golf course herbicide activities vary widely and,on average, account for only 20 percent of the herbicidesapplied at Army installations.

RESEARCH

The employment of biological weed control methods as a

h a v eundertaken

research toidentify alternative

technologies that wouldhelp Army installations better address the pest problems thatare unique to military operations. The intent is to meet orexceed the goals set forth in the PESP.

The need for alternative pest control methods isexemplified by pests such as the musk thistle at IndianaArmy Ammunition Plant. Dr. Bennett said musk thistle is aclassic example of a weed whose distribution has beenenhanced by the absence of natural enemies. In small, isolatedareas, uprooting the plant by hand and ensuring the removalof all vegetative parts can control musk thistle, but no effectivemethod is available to control the weed in larger areas. Theinvasive plant had taken over hundreds of acres of the Indianafacility, to the point where the weed population had posed aserious fire hazard to the munitions stored there.

After screening the possible effects of releasing them, theArmy released 40 mating pairs of Head and Rosette weevilsat the Indiana ammunition plant for biological control of themusk thistle. Feasting on seeds in the flower heads of theweed, the weevils significantly reduced seed production ofthe pest, dramatically reducing the number of thistles.

Many other opportunities exist to reduce pesticide usethrough research and the implementation of innovative IPMstrategies, Dr. Bennett said. He believes Army installations

Barn Swallows

viable alternative to the application of herbicides has beenpoorly promoted in the United States, Dr. Bennett said. Basicresearch involving the ecological interactions of undesirableplants and biological agents used to control them is lacking.Consequently, the ability to select appropriate biological weedcontrol agents can be a formidable challenge. Recognizingthis scarcity of information, the USAEC, the U.S. Army Centerfor Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, and the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, Waterways Experiment Station,

must take advantage of these technologies as part of its long-term pest control strategy. The key, he said, is to base thechoice of technology on an understanding of how pests interactwith one another and the environment.

For further information contact: Dr. Steve Bennett,USAEC, (410) 436-1565, DSN 584-1565, e-mail:

[email protected].


U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENTAL CENTERNORTHERN REGIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL OFFICEBUILDING E-4460ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MD 21010-5401

“RANGESAFE”

(just under the state residential safetylevel). Since the project had a somewhatlater start date than originally planned,winter wheat - with its later growingseason - was substituted for the optimallead-absorbing mustard plant in the initialsoil cleansing effort. The winter wheat alsowill serve to reduce winter erosion.

Fort Dix personnel expect completionof the RangeSafe project by the fall of2000. After the winter wheat is harvested,two or three Indian Mustard crops will beplanted, and then harvested for thebalance of the lead. Edenspace, theReston, VA-based company which holdsthe patent on the lead-eating-plant portionof the soil cleaning process, will harvestthe plants, dry and bundle them, and shipthem to a smelter to recover the lead.The recovered lead then will be shippedto a Pennsylvania company for recyclinginto batteries. With redeposit of thecleansed soil, Range 24 will be declared“clean,” and ready for “green bullet” use.

Since this is a first-of-its-kind cleanupprogram, the Fort Dix project will behighlighted with other state-of-the-art

environmental technologieshowcased at the InternEnvironmental Expo 2000 in AtlaNJ, in June 2000. The expo will the latest technologic soluenvironmental problems, emptechnologies with wide applicabFort Dix RangeSafe demonproject ultimately may servrestoration model for both puprivate firing ranges worldwide.

The RangeSafe technologlimited to lead cleanup. Becacapable of removing other metsoil, including low level radmaterials, other demonstrationare planned, targeting the remdepleted uranium at AberdeenGround, MD, and cesium/stroFort Greeley, AK.

(continued from page 8)

For further information on tRangeSafe program and theDix project contact: Mr. JamFrankovic, RangeSafe ProgManager, U.S. Army Armam

Research Development anEngineering Center, Picatin

Arsenal, (973) 724-4494, [email protected].

sanfotihis

b

yuaio p

Pn

h F

re

n

BULK RATEU.S. POSTAGE

PAIDAPG, MD

PERMIT NO. 1IIIIINNNNN T T T T THISHISHISHISHIS I I I I ISSUESSUESSUESSUESSUE


Thinking Outside the Boxon UXO .......................pg. 4

Ravenna Baseline Study,Badger Bio-RemediationProject ........................pg. 5

Winter 1999/2000 U. S. Army Northern Regional Environmental Office

MONITORENVIRONMENTALOFFICE CHIEF - Bill Herb

Phone: 410-436-7096E-mail: [email protected]

REGIONAL ATTORNEY - Gary ZolyakPhone: 410-436-1275E-mail: [email protected]

REGION I/II COORDINATOR - Robert MuhlyPhone: 410-436-7101E-mail: [email protected]

REGION III COORDINATOR - Fred BoecherPhone: 410-436-7100E-mail: [email protected]

PROJECT MANAGER - Andy CarakerPhone: 410-436-7098E-mail: [email protected]

ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST - Mitch BrymanPhone: 410-436-7099E-mail: [email protected]

ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT - Nina GallupPhone: 410-436-7097E-mail: [email protected]: 410-436-7110

CHICAGO SUBOFFICE

REGION V COORDINATOR - Hugh McAlearPhone: 630-910-3213 Ext. 224FAX: 630-910-0370DENIX: [email protected]

NREO KEY PERSONNEL

By Bob MuhlyArmy Region I/II REC

A relatively new program, entitled“RangeSafe,” established by the Army tohelp commercialize emergingenvironmental technologies targeting themanagement, recovery, and remediationof residual contaminants generatedthroughout the life cycle of armamentsystems, is being marketed by PicatinnyArsenal, NJ, engineers. These Picatinnyengineers are currently managing ademonstration project at Fort Dix, NJ, inconcert with the New Jersey Departmentof Environmental Protection InnovativeTechnology program and the Fort DixEnvironmental and Range Control offices.The Fort Dix project will demonstrate anovel method to clean lead-contaminatedfiring range soils through the application

U.S. Army Showcases Combined InnovativeCleanup Technologies for Firing Ranges

Range 24 “Phyto Bed” readyfor planting winter wheat.

By Fred BoecherArmy Region III REC

ITR, IRP, EQR, EPR, ISR,ECAS……The military is rife withacronyms. Now there is another one toadd to the lexicon of military acronymsassociated with the environmentalprogram: PER, which stands forPrinciples of Environmental Restoration.PER is a workshop that is an outgrowthof independent technical reviews (ITRs),formerly peer reviews, that wereconducted on installation restorationprojects. Two installations in the NorthernRegional Environmental Office’s area,

Fort Ritchie (MD) and Seneca Army Depot(NY), were among the first installationsto receive the PER workshop.

What exactly is a PER workshop, howdid it evolve, and what is it trying toaccomplish, are a few of the questionswe will try to answer.

In 1997, the Army launched a pilotprogram of peer reviews of BaseRealignment and Closure (BRAC)installation restoration projects. The peerreviews were conducted using a team oftechnical subject matter experts, andaddressed specific remediation sites atan installation. The reviews focusedprimarily on the technical efficacy of the

restoration program. In 1998 the programwas expanded to include activeinstallations, and the name was changedfrom peer review to ITR. Since theinitiation of the pilot peer reviews in 1997,

Fort Ritchie and Seneca Army Depot AmongFirst to Receive PER Training


to betionaltic City,cus on

ons toasizinglity. Thetratione as alic and

is notse it isls fromactiverojectsoval ofroving

tium at

eort

esamnts

dyail:










environmental monitor - winter 1999/2000: us army

Documents