$Unique_ID{USH01391} $Pretitle{122} $Title{Report of the Council on Environment Quality Chapter 4B Defense Lands and Installations: The Services} $Subtitle{} $Author{Hill, A. Alan} $Affiliation{Council on Environmental Quality} $Subject{environmental army hazardous waste air program navy process wastes installations} $Volume{} $Date{1988} $Log{} Book: Report of the Council on Environment Quality Author: Hill, A. Alan Affiliation: Council on Environmental Quality Date: 1988 Chapter 4B Defense Lands and Installations: The Services The Army and Environmental Protection The Army exercises stewardship for 12 million acres of public land and uses 15 million acres of leased land at 1,391 sites in the United States and overseas. To promote environmental protection and enhancement, the Secretary of the Army has adopted seven environmental quality goals, including demonstrated leadership. Several recent actions demonstrate that commitment to leadership. United States Army Environmental Quality Goals Although the primary mission of the United States Army is national defense, we are committed to protecting our environment and conserving our natural resource heritage both for ourselves and future generations. To assure fulfillment of our commitment, the Army has adopted the following environmental quality goals: - Demonstrate leadership in environmental protection and improvement. - Minimize adverse environmental and health impacts while maximizing readiness and strategic preparedness. - Assure that consideration of the environment is an integral part of Army decision making. - Initiate aggressive action to comply with all federal, State, and local environmental quality laws. - Restore lands and waters damaged through our past waste disposal activities. - Support Army programs for the recycle and reuse of materials to conserve natural resources, prevent pollution and minimize the generation of wastes. - Pursue an active role in addressing environmental quality issues in our relations with neighboring communities. To these environmental quality goals, the United States Army remains irrevocably committed. Environmental Compliance Achievement Program Although the Army has made significant progress in recent years toward abating pollution and managing hazardous waste, the increasing number and complexity of laws and regulations make future compliance a real challenge. To promote compliance, the Army is developing an Environmental Compliance Achievement Program (ECAP). It is designed to improve the Army's environmental compliance auditing. With the information obtained from the audits, projects needed for compliance at Army installations can be identified and funds requested. The ECAP involves all organizational levels and reinforces the Army's commitment to the protection of the environment. Environmental Quality Awards The Army has won the Secretary of Defense Environmental Quality Award five times since the Award program began in 1973. For her work at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, Danita Hardy was selected as the winner of the 1987 Environmental Quality Individual Award. Ms. Hardy's accomplishments include completing a thorough environmental analysis for tests proposed to occur in a sensitive riparian area adjacent to a prehistoric Indian village, relocating test activities to avoid damaging valuable archaeological and riparian sites, and developing a computer data base to track hazardous waste. The last three Army winners of the Secretary of Defense's Environmental Quality Installation Awards (Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas in 1986; Fort Lewis, Washington in 1985; and Fort McClellan, Alabama in 1982) demonstrated conscientious and excellent compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental Law Division The Secretary of the Army recently approved the creation of an Environmental Law Division in the Office of the Judge Advocate General. This is another indication of the steps being taken to improve environmental compliance at Army installations. By establishing this single focus for environmental law matters on the Army Staff, the Army can be more responsive to and avoid problems involving legalities. As part of its job, the new law division will supervise annual training of Army installations' environmental attorneys. Environmental Decision Making One of the objectives of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is to promote environmental values in the federal decisionmaking process. The Army issued new regulations implementing NEPA on December 16, 1988 (32 CFR Part 651). These regulations include a requirement to make consideration of the environment an integral part of Army decision making. The Intermediate Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty On December 8, 1987, the President of the United States and the Soviet Union's General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party reached agreement on the elimination of intermediate range and short range missile systems. The Army spent many hours behind the scenes preparing an environmental assessment (EA) in accordance with NEPA. The Legislative EA was sent to the U.S. Senate for its deliberations on whether to ratify the INF Treaty. The Army worked with the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency and several states' agencies, as well as the public, during the environmental impact analysis process. The EA examined all reasonable alternative methods and sites allowed by the language of the Treaty. The missiles to be destroyed under the INF Treaty that would produce considerable pollutants are the Army's Pershing missiles. The EA analyzed the explosive demolition method, also called "open burn," in which the rocket motor (without electronics, guidance system, or entry vehicle) would be placed in a pit. Then, an explosive would rupture the side of the motor and ignite the propellant which then burns. In another method, "static firing," a rocket motor stripped of electronics and other components would be fastened to a stand. It is then ignited in the same manner as if it were being launched. Several sites at which destruction of the missiles might be conducted were analyzed in the EA. The Army-developed Geographic Resource Analysis Support System (GRASS) was used to gather relevant data and maps and to facilitate siting analyses. The results were incorporated in the EA. The Army applied certain safety and technological criteria which left them with four sites to consider. The analyses indicated that all sites would be able to sustain the Pershing elimination program without significant environmental impacts. Based on the environmental, safety, technical and economic analyses, the Army is planning to destroy the missiles by "static firing" at Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant, Texas; Pueblo Army Depot Activity, Colorado; and Tooele Army Depot, Utah. Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System (JACADS) The Army must dispose of certain chemical stockpiles by 1997. The prototype demilitarization process, developed on Johnston Atoll, is called JACADS. Another example of the Army's consideration for the environment during decision making is the environmental impact analysis for JACADS. The purpose of JACADS is to destroy obsolete and unserviceable chemical agents and munitions stored on Johnston Island, an unincorporated U.S. territory in the central Pacific about 700 nautical miles from Hawaii. The agents and munitions have been stored on Johnston Island since their movement from Okinawa in 1971. Their transport to the United States is prohibited by Public Law 91-672. The Army recently completed construction of JACADS facilities, and following an initial testing period, full scale operations will begin. JACADS incinerates nerve agents, mustard (a blistering agent) and various explosive components. The Army prepared an environmental impact statement (EIS) to assess both a demilitarization process and facility location. The final EIS was published in November 1983 and a record of decision (ROD) was made by the end of that year. The Army deferred the decision on the disposition of the solid and liquid wastes generated by JACADS pending further study of options. The process wastes include incinerator ash, recyclable and unrecyclable metals, pollution abatement system solid residue, refractory solids from the liquid incinerator and scrubber brines. Studies were begun to determine the feasibility of ocean disposal of the process wastes. The Army asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate a deep ocean disposal site for JACADS wastes. The Army proposed a site 13 to 19 nautical miles from Johnston Island and then prepared a draft EIS for the proposed site, released in October 1985. Public comments on the DEIS raised the issues of whether EPA could evaluate the suitability of an ocean disposal site before the Army supplemented its 1983 JACADS EIS to address ultimate process waste disposal options. The Army published the draft supplemental EIS for JACADS process waste disposition in October 1987 and plans to complete the process in 1989. Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) Environmental Documentation The Army's use of the NEPA process in decision making is illustrated also by the environmental analyses being prepared for Army EMP facilities. EMP generators are used by the DOD to simulate effects that pulses created by nuclear explosions may have on electronic and communications equipment. In 1987, questions about the effects on the environment of EMP devices were elevated to Army decisionmakers. Of particular concern are the unknown factors associated with the effects of EMP testing. The Army took a proactive approach to determine the potential environmental effects of EMP including potential human health and ecological effects. The environmental analyses that the Army is pursuing are comprehensive and include long term monitoring programs as well as review by agencies or persons with special expertise in EMP and its effects. Geographic Resources Analysis Support Systems (GRASS) The management of environmental resources at military installations historically has been a problem due to the wide variations and formats for recorded data. A given installation may have considerable data in a number of different technical areas (wildlife, vegetation, soils, geology, topography). Often, however, it was difficult to assimilate, analyze and present these data in a manner that facilitates routine decision making. To make environmental information more usable by decision makers, the Army has developed the Geographic Resources Analysis Support Systems (GRASS). GRASS permits the combination of different sources of data (e.g., field surveys, maps, satellite and aircraft imagery) and the multi-criteria analysis of these data. GRASS is a prominent geographic information system and thus is being used by a number of other agencies in addition to DOD. When GRASS is used at the installation level, its value is very apparent. GRASS has been used to site new landfills, firing ranges, maneuver areas and housing areas. It has been used to find new road and railroad corridors and develop a management plan for a multipurpose training range. It has been very useful during preparation of environmental impact assessments, and to periodically generate maps to help monitor the effects of training and to identify highly stressed areas. At Fort Hood, Texas, GRASS is used extensively by environmental managers and other planners. For example, the Training and Range Control Office gives the Environmental Office the previous month's training intensity data. This information is entered into GRASS, which rates each training area's degree of use and sensitivity. For the coming month, the Environmental Office identifies areas nearing their environmental limits and those that are not stressed. This information is given to training planners for scheduling purposes. GRASS is improving the Army's environmental assessment process by facilitating the analysis of alternatives, using the best models and data and presenting relevant information to decisionmakers. It is a useful tool to better comply with regulatory requirements, use resources in a more efficient and environmentally compatible manner and serve the objectives and goals of the modern Army. Integration of Plans and NEPA To foster better decision making, the Army is integrating the NEPA process with other Army planning processes. The objective is to reduce delays, avoid duplication of data gathering and ensure that decisionmakers are fully informed of consequences. Planning processes being integrated with the NEPA process include: - Installation Master Plans - Natural Resource Management Plans - Stationing Plans - Force Development Plans - Material Acquisition Plans - Hazardous Waste Management Plans - Historic Preservation Plans - Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies Asbestos Management Plans Environmental Restoration Environmental restoration is at the forefront of the Army's efforts to clean up the environment. In 1975, five years before the Superfund law was passed, the Army was grappling with the realities of chemical pollution. One of the reasons the Army faced this challenge before the other military departments did is because the Army produces the munitions for the other DOD components as well as its own use. The Army Installation Restoration Program (IRP) First at Rocky Mountain Arsenal in 1974, and next at Weldon Springs Chemical Plant, the Army's IRP began to identify, assess and remove contamination on and migrating off Army installations as a result of prior manufacturing, testing, storage, or disposal. In 1976, the U.S. Army Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency (USATHAMA) started the records searching process that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) now calls the Preliminary Assessment (PA) under the Superfund law. The Army expects to have completed PAs on all of its properties by the end of 1989. So far, these PAs have disclosed 2,636 potential sources of contamination on 84 installations. Of those installations, Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies (RI/FSs) have been completed on 1,993 potential sources. Those studies indicate that 270 sources on 35 installations need remedial action. By the end of 1988, remediation will have been completed for 114 of those 270 sources. The Army's goal is to complete all RI/FSs by the end of 1992 and all cleanup by the end of 1994. Funding through the Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) has steadily increased. Highest priority is accorded to the Army installations that are listed on the National Priorities List (NPL). The Army's IRP funding in fiscal year 84 was $23 million; in fiscal year 89, it has reached $204.5 million. For the 6 installations that are proposed for the NPL, and the 15 that are on the NPL, installation restoration work is proceeding steadily. For the cleanup of explosives, solvents and acids at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, which is the subject of a two-party agreement, the Army's costs are estimated to reach $55 million in fiscal year 89, or 25 percent of the Army installation restoration program budget. This amount is exclusive of the costs that Shell Oil Company, which is the other responsible party at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, will pay for removal of contamination resulting from their former pesticide manufacturing operations as a tenant at the installation. Total costs for cleaning up Rocky Mountain Arsenal may be as high as $700 million. Driven by escalating prices for remedial measures at this and other installations, the Army is investing in research development, and demonstration projects to find innovative and more cost effective ways to treat and remove contaminants. One such advance is a prize winning vacuum system that extracts toxic gases from abandoned landfills used successfully at Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant. Twin Cities AAP is the first federal facility for which an interagency agreement was signed under Section 120 of the 1986 Superfund amendments. The Army is negotiating several such agreements with EPA and individual States for the 15 NPL and 6 proposed-for-NPL installations. Because these agreements are prerequisites to the final cleanup phase, the Army is focusing on completing these agreements as soon as possible. Environmental Restoration of Formerly Used Defense Sites The Army is the executive agent for DOD's cleanup of properties where contamination is traceable to former ownership or use by DOD. Following procedures similar to those employed in the installation restoration program, the Army removes hazardous and toxic materials, including unexploded ordnance, from former sites. By the end of fiscal year 1988, 7,090 formerly-used sites were identified. Of these, 616 do not need restoration. Another 181 have been restored, and 1,966 others are being studies for appropriate remedial actions. Hazardous Waste Minimization Another important environmental quality goal of the Army is to "support Army programs for the recycle and reuse of materials to conserve natural resources, prevent pollution and minimize the generation of wastes." To reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated, the Army established a hazardous waste minimization (HAZMIN) program with specific reduction goals. An executive-level hazardous waste minimization workgroup, formed in 1987, develops policies to support waste reduction. Studies have been initiated to evaluate waste reduction opportunities in both acquisition and handling of hazardous materials. Also, the Army is developing awareness and hazardous waste reduction awards programs to emphasize the program. The Army plans to modify its hazardous waste disposal funding policies in fiscal year 1990 in order to encourage waste reduction at the sites of generation. The Army's goal is a 50 percent reduction of hazardous wastes by 1992 (half of 1985 levels). Source reduction and recycling, toxicity reduction, routine audits, economic analyses and management support are means to that end. The Army's industrial command has hazardous waste reduction goals for specific production processes, and major waste generators have a goal of eliminating all untreated hazardous waste by 1992. The Army annually generates approximately 102,000 metric tons of hazardous waste. Ninety percent of that is produced by the Army's industrial activities. Hazardous wastes include solvents, batteries, industrial sludges and heavy metal wastes. During fiscal years 1987-1989, the Army will have spent $15.8 million to implement an array of hazardous waste reduction projects to include solvent recycling, waste segregation, sludge dewatering and neutralization. Holston Army Ammunition Plant, Tennessee, implemented several HAZMIN projects which reduced hazardous wastes by 90 percent. Badger Army Ammunition Plant, Wisconsin, won a 1988 Secretary of Defense Productivity Excellence Award for saving $1.758 million in disposal costs by selling waste acid for reclamation. Redstone Arsenal HAZMIN Program Redstone Arsenal is the home of the Army Missile Command. It also contains laboratories for performing research on solid and liquid rocket motors, firing areas for testing missiles and rockets, and a propellant manufacturing plant. Redstone Arsenal has aggressively pursued reducing its generation of hazardous waste since 1985. A major area of concern involved the open burning of waste propellants. Since 1985, the percentage of waste treatment by open burning has increased from 46 percent to 78 percent. Redstone Arsenal initiated a research and development program designated to demonstrate that Army munitions and missile systems can be demilitarized by safe, cost effective and alternative methods while avoiding many of the adverse environmental problems associated with open burning. Redstone's research program, called Super Critical Demilitarization for Hazardous Waste Minimization, led to conceptual development and testing of an innovative process designed to demilitarize, reclaim and recycle ammonium perchlorate composite propellants. These types of propellants are typically employed in systems such as the Pershing II, NASA's space shuttle boosters and Titan IVs. The process has the potential to demilitarize hundreds of millions of pounds of propellant in a cost effective manner. Unlike other methods, the process entirely avoids the use of water and allows the reclamation of vast amounts of ammonium perchlorate which would then be available for use elsewhere. Ammonium perchlorate recovered from the process accounts for 75 percent to 80 percent of the waste propellant. This process would significantly reduce DOD requirements for open burning of wastes. Anniston Army Depot HAZMIN Program Anniston Army Depot is a major combat vehicle center. There, the Army's M60 tanks and the new M1 Abrams main battle tanks are repaired and overhauled. Industrial operations at the Depot generate large quantities of hazardous wastes, including paint sludge, obsolete ammunition, sludge from industrial wastewater treatment plants and solutions from chemical cleaning and finishing operations. To reduce the quality and toxicity of hazardous wastes generated, Anniston Army Depot is actively pursuing new methods and technologies. Anniston recently modified an automatic cadmium plating line used in refurbishing the barrels of the M60 and M1 tanks. The depot is also testing a paint sludge minimization system to reduce wastes generated from one of its eight waterfall spray paint booths. The hazardous wastes generated from the automated barrel cadmium plating line consist primarily of cadmium and cyanide laden rinse waters. The plating process steps include cleaning, pickling, plating and dichromating. Rinsing is performed after each process step. Approximately 10,000 gallons per day of contaminated rinse waters containing cadmium and cyanide were discharged into a central sump and subsequently sent to a cyanide destruction unit prior to being discharged to a industrial wastewater treatment plant. Several modifications resulted in a reduction of the total volume of rinse water flowing to the treatment plant by 40 percent and reduced the concentrations of cadmium and cyanide in the waste water by 30 percent and 70 percent, respectively. Other aggressive waste reduction programs, such as recycling solvents, reusing paint strippers and segregating treatment plant sludges clearly demonstrate Anniston Army Depot's commitment to reducing its generation of hazardous wastes. Fort Bliss HAZMIN Program Even though the Fort Bliss HAZMIN program is small, as compared to examples cited previously, it illustrates the Army's commitment to hazardous waste reduction at all installation and not just at industrial facilities. At Fort Bliss, they are evaluating all incoming hazardous materials. They first identify the process that use hazardous materials and those that produce hazardous wastes. They analyze whether the process producing the hazardous wastes could be eliminated or changed. By doing this, they will substantially reduce their waste disposal needs. For example, they found that battery acid wastes constituted 86 percent of all hazardous wastes on the installation. With the completion of a battery acid neutralization facility this year and the elimination of scale remover at the radiator repair shop, the volume of wastes is expected to decrease 95 percent by 1992. The Navy and Environmental Protection The Navy has made great strides in its environment program since the early 1970's. In the earlier years, Navy focused on getting permits for point discharges into the nation's waters, testing air emissions from boilers and industrial facilities, installing sewage collection systems and holding tanks on naval vessels and constructing pollution control projects ashore to comply with new air and water quality regulations. In the late 1970's, Congress passed new legislation requiring stricter controls and focused on handling and disposal of hazardous waste. Thus, the Navy's program expanded to maintain compliance. The Navy soon realized that the solution was not the end of the pipe. Changes to basic procedures and processes that produce pollutants in the first place would be necessary. Entire operations, from "cradle-to-grave," now integrate environmental considerations. In many cases this has proven to be a win/win situation. Often, not only is the environment improved, but process changes incorporate new technologies that increase productivity, save energy and improve the safety and health of workers. Working within the common goal of cleaning up and protecting our environment, the Navy is working hard to convey concerns, in the case of unique operations, to local rulemakers. For example, Navy engineers are working with regulators in California that are writing air emission standards. The objective is to clean up the air using proven, cost-effective technologies while still allowing the use of special coatings for high performance aircraft. Rulemakers are generally reasonable in accommodating unique Defense requirements as long as environmental objectives are also achieved. Like many large corporations that found it appropriate to involve senior management in environmental issues, the Navy established a Flag Officer Environmental Policy Steering Group to insure that operations are environmentally sound. This group of Navy admirals provides support and oversight at the highest levels in the Navy. In order to support base commanders, the Navy has established a central network of environmental professionals to provide direct technical support. Environmental staffs at each of the Navy's six regional facilities engineering field divisions provide direct, on-site support for the bases' environmental programs. In addition, centers of expertise have been established to handle Navy-unique aircraft, ordnance and ship environmental issues. The Navy's research laboratory at Annapolis is developing a special, high volume trash compactor to be used aboard ships to reduce a large volume of trash into a small slug of solid waste that will sink if discharged overboard. The compactor is automatic, simple and safe to operate and easy to maintain. Environmental Compliance: Air and Water Quality One of the Navy's success stories is the Air Quality Program. In the early 70's, the Navy began assessing central heating plants and industrial facilities. The Navy modified processes, improved performance, replaced antiquated equipment, added air pollution control devices and trained operators to insure that emission limits were met. The Navy obtained permits and monitored and reported performance. With over 7,000 air sources, the Navy has operated with over 99.5 percent compliance for the last three years. Equipment failures and operator error cause a few violations each year, but these are promptly corrected when they occur. Perhaps the most significant air quality challenge today is the control of volatile organic compounds. Clean Air Act non-attainment area limitations on volatile organic compound emissions challenged the Navy to find alternative paints in California last year. The Navy responded by developing compliant paints for repair work and by modifying methods. The Navy is working closely with local regulators to develop innovative work processes to allow the Navy to meet mission demands and comply with the total emission limits. To reduce dependence on foreign oil and to help solve solid waste disposal problems, the Navy has modified several heating plants to allow coal, trash, or even wood chips to be burned instead of oil. To avoid any problem with air quality, electrostatic precipitators were installed as were scrubbers to meet stringent standards. The result is that the Navy has saved money, reduced the amount of waste put into landfills and complied with emission limits. One of the original thrusts in the Navy Environmental Program was geared toward compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, now called the Clean Water Act. Part of this program focused on the elimination of sewage discharge from ships in coastal waters and in America's harbors. Over $150 million in pier sewer connections were installed in Navy ports to accept ships' waste. Likewise, the Navy installed over $500 million worth of internal modifications on ships - putting in sewage collection, holding and transfer systems. All commissioned ships as well as service craft and small boats have been equipped with wastewater systems so that sewage is routinely pumped ashore for proper treatment. The Navy is making similar process in installing oil/water separators aboard ships, and all new ships are constructed so they meet the largest environmental standards. To combat oil spills, the Navy has purchased over $70 million worth of oil spill cleanup equipment throughout the world, including a fleet of over 40 oil skimmers. Hazardous Waste Minimization The Navy has over 150 major installations which produced about 200,000 tons of hazardous waste in 1987. That is about one tenth of one percent of the nation's hazardous wastes. There is no question that hazardous waste minimization is the ultimate solution to hazardous waste disposal problems. Therefore, the Navy has set a goal of 50 percent reduction by the end of 1992. That can be accomplished by continually studying hazardous waste production and looking for improved methods and processes as well as product substitutions. At the Naval Torpedo Station in Keyport, Washington, chemical paint stripping of torpedoes was replaced with dry plastic media blasting. That change eliminates use of hazardous solvents and 3,500 gallons per week of hazardous wastewater, thus saving over $200,000 each year. In addition, workers are not exposed to hazardous chemicals, energy is saved due to lower ventilation requirements and productivity is increased. This same process will be incorporated throughout the Navy for many other paint stripping operations. In March 1988, the Governor's Award for Excellence was awarded to the Marine Corps Air Station and the Naval Aviation Depot at Cherry Point, North Carolina, for significant achievement in waste management. Governor Martin made this award based on the Marines' virtual elimination of hazardous wastewater disposal through the use of new electroplating processes and the use of plastic media blasting on 75 percent of their aircraft paint stripping work. A "model" hazardous materials management program will soon be complete. This model will be used by Navy installations to carefully manage hazardous materials, inform workers of dangers and precautions and seek to eliminate hazardous material during the development of specifications and procurement documents. The newest challenge, and one which the Navy has as its highest priority, is identifying and cleaning up old waste disposal sites as mandated by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilities Act (CERCLA). The Navy began investigating inactive hazardous waste disposal sites in 1980. This process included interviewing current and former employees concerning their operations and disposal practices and reviewing records and aerial photographs to determine potential hazardous waste disposal sites. The sites identified range from a few square yards to several acres in size. The Navy has completed preliminary assessments of old waste disposal sites at over 200 Navy installations. As each assessment was completed, the report was sent to EPA, state and local agencies. As a result of these preliminary assessments, over 900 sites have been identified for further investigation. The vast majority of the Navy's sites are quite small. This is because most installations are old, located in urban areas and the Navy has disposed of much of its hazardous wastes off the station through private disposal operations. Typical examples of potential hazardous waste disposal sites are spills of small quantities of hazardous substances, solid waste landfills with some hazardous waste and fuel leaks from old tanks. After the preliminary assessment is completed, the Navy initiates a remedial investigation and feasibility study to verify the presence of contamination at each site. This includes drilling wells, collecting samples and analyzing them. If contamination is confirmed, the study is expanded to measure its extent and evaluate cleanup alternatives. Finally, the site is cleaned up. The Navy consults with EPA, state and local regulatory agencies each step of the way. Meetings are held with the public and questions answered. The Navy has 13 old hazardous waste disposal sites either listed or proposed on EPA's National Priorities List. These 13 sites have top priority for clean up. In conclusion, the Navy's active environmental program strives to comply with the nation's environmental laws. Navy personnel have the same concerns for protecting the environment as other members of the community, and are sincerely concerned about the quality of our land, air and water. Marine Corps and the Environment Because of the mission of the Marine Corps and the need to maintain capability for amphibious operations worldwide, Marine Corps installations reflect a special character with abundant environmental management challenges. Amphibious training means that some Marine bases must be located near ocean environments with their fragile estuarine ecosystems. Marine bases in the California desert conscientiously protect and enhance endangered species and archeological sites. Air stations work with their neighbors to prevent incompatible wastes which they treat or dispose. At many installations past waste disposal practices have resulted in sites that must be evaluated and cleaned up under the Department of Defense Installation Restoration Program. To meet the hazardous waste reduction challenge, the Marines initiated waste minimization studies at the greatest generators, the Marine Corps Logistics Bases at Albany, Georgia and Barstow, California. At Barstow, they are working with the State of California to cleanup hazardous waste sites. Remedial designs are complete and may be the first remedial actions of their scale undertaken by the Department of Navy. The Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro, California, has a model recycling program that can serve as a prototype program for all Marine Corps installations. The Marine Corps Air Station at Cherry Point, North Carolina, contains the Naval Aviation Depot which presents some formidable environmental challenges. The base has responded by developing an award-winning environmental protection program. In March 1988 the Governor's Award for Excellence was presented to the Marine Corps Air Station and the Naval Aviation Depot for significant achievements in waste management. Governor Martin presented the award based upon the virtual elimination of hazardous wastewater through the use of new electroplating processes and the use of plastic media blasting on 75 percent of their aircraft stripping work. The Air Force and Environmental Protection The Air Force operates 9,500 aircraft from over 100 major installations in the United States. These are small cities, ranging in population from 4,000 to 20,000. Air Force installations are among the largest population communities in some states and the five main maintenance facilities are the major employers in their areas. The Air Force has a longstanding commitment to environmental quality. Initially, this was a matter of protecting the well-being of the military. That meant making sure that liquid and solid wastes were properly collected, treated and disposed of and that groundwater protection was an integral part of all siting considerations. Today the protection of the environment has a much broader scope and is an integral part of the mission. Pollution Abatement and Control The increasing environmental awareness of the 1970's beginning with NEPA, sent a clear message to the nation. The Air Force also realized that an organization with capabilities in the various technical, economic and social disciplines was needed. Thus the Air Force Environmental Division was formed with responsibilities for development and oversight of multi-media pollution prevention, control and abatement programs, natural resources programs, environmental and base comprehensive planning, the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Program and the Air Force Installation Restoration Program. But, in total, the Air Force has a dedicated environmental quality force of over 800 full time military and civilian professionals. These are augmented by another thousand who spend some time on environmental matters. Additionally, almost 1,500 people operate and maintain pollution control facilities. Since its inception as the Army Air Service, the Air Force has recognized that pollution control and abatement was important. Initially programs were established to protect the health and safety of employees. The environmental program has evolved to not only protect and enhance the quality of the environment for Air Force employees, but also to manage the mission in a manner that is sensitive to the surrounding community and the complexities of the environment and natural resources. The beginning of the Air Force's environmental program of today has a long history of protecting water quality. The first biological treatment system to be installed anywhere in DOD went into operation at Randolph Field, Texas, during World War I. Passage of the 1965 Clean Water Act brought added emphasis to this program. The Air Force also aggressively pursued air pollution control both from fixed facilities and aircraft engines. Initial control methods for stationary sources focused on conversion from old coal-burning plants to cleaner fuels, such as oil and natural gas. The energy crisis of the mid 70's caused reevaluation of "simple" solutions and renewed emphasis on treatment to reduce emissions while burning available coal supplies. Particulate emissions have been reduced, so efforts now concentrate on volatile organic compounds (VOC) emission control. The Air Force is focusing on reduction of emissions from fuel storage facilities which make up half of the VOCs from Air Force sources. Together with the Federal Aviation Administration and NASA, the Air Force has actively pursued the development and installation of a smokeless combustor for aircraft a problem compounded by the necessity to maintain combat performance ability. The Air Force prefers aircraft which do not trail smoke or any other exhaust signature. Thus, an Air Force requirement for Low visibility exhaust and environmental protection come together in a common need for improved aircraft engines. Hazardous Waste Minimization Building on initial efforts in water and air pollution control, the Air Force focus today is on control at point of generation. Thus waste cleanup and minimization are receiving a lot of attention. Past practices for disposal of hazardous wastes, while accepted at the time, have been shown to be potential threats to the environment and public health. The Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP) addresses these problems. Initiated in 1979, the IRP includes finding, assessing and cleaning up waste disposal sites which pose a threat to the environment or health. While the program was initiated in 1979, passage of special appropriations legislation in 1984 for a Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) thrust IRP into the forefront of environmental issues as an analog to the Superfund. All major installations have been assessed to determine if cleanup is required and further investigations are under way at 96 bases. Since 1980, removals or other remedial actions have been undertaken at 44 bases. DERA funds are also used to fund IRP technology research and a share of cleanup costs at sites off bases which received Air Force wastes. To date, the Air Force has spent over half a billion dollars to study the problem and clean up bases. Through the end of the century, almost four billion dollars may be required to finish the job. Federal and state environmental regulatory agencies regularly inspect Air Force installations for compliance with environmental regulations. To improve environmental compliance, the Air Force established the Environmental Compliance Assessment and Management Program (ECAMP), a self-auditing program. The objective of ECAMP is to enhance environmental compliance through the use of compliance evaluations and management action plans. This approach allows installation commanders to identify the compliance issues, correct the immediate problems and program the resources needed for the longer term and expensive efforts. Initiated in 1987, the Air Force Radon Assessment and Mitigation Program (RAMP), was prompted by results of commercial radon testing throughout the United States and concern for public health. During the initial assessment phase, 4,040 indoor air samples were taken in housing units, schools, child care centers and dormitories at 135 major Air Force installations worldwide. Of these, over 95 percent had radon levels below the EPA mitigation levels. The bases identified by this initial screening process will be entered into the detailed assessment phase to identify all Air Force structures requiring mitigation. Land Use Planning The Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) program promotes compatible land use around military airfields. The goal is to protect both the public and the flying mission of the installation from the negative effects of incompatible off-base development. Since its inception in 1973, the Air Force's AICUZ program has been a model for similar programs implemented by the other military services and the FAA. To date, 90 Air Force installations have prepared and distributed AICUZ studies in an effort to supply local governments information on the noise and safety considerations associated with aircraft operations. Land use compatibility guidelines based on these considerations are also provided to the communities for use in their land use planning and zoning process. Where AICUZ recommendations have been adopted, both the public's quality of life and the installation's operational integrity have been enhanced. The Base Comprehensive Planning (BCP) Program strives to develop new concepts for base utilization and quality of life into the 21st century. The objective of BCP in the Air Force is to build a comprehensive framework for many separate but interrelated programs in order to provide an overall, long range plan to effectively manage the installation's natural, constructed and human resources. It is the primary means to assess the effects of operational changes on an installation's natural resources and support systems in order to guide development into the 21st century. Comprehensive planning is a process in which very early programming and design decisions are made to provide the foundation for sound community development. Environmental Challenges Ahead The foregoing review of each of the military departments reveals a set of concerns common to all the services, which emerge as the most challenging environmental problems facing the Department of Defense. The Department appears to be fully aware of enormous task it faces and prepared to be diligent in solving these problems in creative and effective ways. In summary, these challenges include: - Acquiring and maintaining access to sufficient land and airspace to accomplish defense missions - Integrating environmental considerations into the complex defense systems development and acquisition process - Effectively managing hazardous materials, and minimizing the generation of hazardous wastes - Cleaning up past waste disposal sites that pose a threat to public health or environmental quality. Caring for the environment is a mission of the military of which most citizens are unaware. Yet billions of their tax dollars have been spent through the Defense budget over the past 25 years to provide environmental protection and restoration. This commitment will continue to be reflected in the way the Defense Department does business. Proper management of natural resources on the nation's Defense lands and installations provides many benefits, both to the Department and the public. For the Department of Defense not only maintains facilities and training areas for present and future use, but demonstrates to the American people that a military installation can be a good neighbor and a good guest.