0. Department of Defense Environmental Management Program
Ms. Maureen Sullivan
Director, Environmental Management
Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Installations & Environment)
March 2011

1. Agenda FY2010 Defense Environmental Restoration Program Progress
FY2012 President’s Budget Request
Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Live Demonstration Project
Green Remediation
Green House Gas Accounting

2. Cleanup Progress – Active Installations
IRP Site Status
Goal: Achieve remedy in place or response complete (RIP/RC) by the end of FY2014
MMRP Site Status
Goals: Complete preliminary assessments by the end of FY2007; complete site inspections by the end of FY2010; achieve RIP/RC by the end of FY2020
Data is based on Draft FY2010 Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to Congress.

3. Cleanup Progress -- FUDS
IRP Site Status
Goal: Achieve RIP/RC by the end of FY2020
MMRP Site Status
Goals: Complete preliminary assessments by the end of FY2007; complete site inspections by the end of FY2010

4. Cleanup Progress – Legacy BRAC
IRP Site Status
Goal: Achieve RIP/RC by the end of FY2015
MMRP Site Status
Goal: Achieve RIP/RC by the end of FY2009

5. Cleanup Progress – BRAC 2005
IRP Site Status
Goal: Achieve RIP/RC by the end of FY2014
MMRP Site Status
Goal: Achieve RIP/RC by the end of FY2017

6. Environmental Management Programs ($ Millions)
4,508
4,279
4,250
4,18
4,249
4,085
3,984 6 6
^ Reflects an adjustment to match the Annualized Continuing Resolution funding level by appropriation
FY06
FY07
FY08
FY09
FY10
FY11
FY12
$35.8
$35.9
$42.8
$48.6
$50.3
$39.8
$53.0 6 6

7. Defense Science Board UXO Clean-up Cost Break Out

8. Why Discriminate? Excavation of suspected UXO drives cost and time
Less than 4% of excavations are UXO
Usually <1%
Ex. Camp Butner
7 items out of > 100,000 digs
Most items are harmless scrap
Technology can now discriminate UXO from scrap
Result of a decade of R&D
Proof of concept demonstrated at three real live sites (FUDS)
UXO
3.7%
Total Non-
96.7%
(Average From
19 Response Actions)

9. Live Site UXO Discrimination Demonstrations
Goals:
Accelerate the pace of cleanup
Reduce Risk
Reduce Cost
Parts of the Program:
Make sure the technology works -- different munitions, depths, and terrains
Establish operational procedures and costs
Train government and contractor community
Gain regulatory acceptance

10. DoD Green Remediation Policy
DoD Policy Memorandum
“Consideration of Green and Sustainable Remediation Practices in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program”
Encourages DoD Components to consider green and sustainable remediation practices throughout the cleanup process
Supports DoD’s ongoing efforts to implement Executive Orders and 13514
Reduces DoD’s overall energy demand

11. DoD Green Remediation Policy Overview
Evaluates current and future remedial activities
Encourages the DoD Components to consider green and sustainable remediation options when and where they make sense
Will not re-open Records of Decisions or other decisions and agreements that may already be in place or under negotiation
Supports the Department’s ongoing efforts to implement Executive Orders and and reduce our overall energy demand
Sustainability is not an excuse to do nothing 11 11

12. Implementing DoD Green Remediation
Air Force
Drafting green remediation guidance
Issued acquisition strategy
Army
Incorporated green and sustainable remediation into the Army Environmental Cleanup Strategic Plan for FY 10/11
Evaluating the need for specific Army green and sustainable remediation guidance
Navy
Incorporated into DON’s Environmental Strategy (April 2008)
Implementing as part of the Navy’s existing optimization program
Evaluating methods during optimization reviews
Consider throughout the process
When developing performance objectives and exit strategies
Establishing Green Sustainable Remediation Web Portal

13. Case Study: Camp Withycombe
Wetlands and soil were contaminated with a high concentration of metals from small arms training.
Green Remediation Approaches
Soil Treatment Process
Dry particle separation to remove bullets from soil
Wet soil washing process
All water involved in the treatment process was reclaimed for reforestation irrigation
More than 30,000 tons of soil remediated and 270 tons of lead bullet fragments were reclaimed for recycling
Footprint Reduction
Shorter project lifespan and reduced cost ($5M)
Eliminated 914 pounds of PM, 1.8 million pounds of CO2, 141,605 pounds of CO, 36,543 pounds of NOx, and 1,672 pounds of SOx
The treatment system processed around 300 tons of soil daily.
Bullets were collected in reused one-ton capacity sugar sacks.
Background: In 1909, the U.S. Army developed small arms firing ranges at Camp Withycombe. By 1915 the facility included approximately 237 acres and six ranges including that each extended from 25 to 1,000 yards. When the ranges were conveyed to the Oregon DOT in 1989 for development of the Sunrise Freeway corridor, range use ceased and the lead concentrations in soil were determined to require remediation.
GSR Approaches: Used an assortment of GRS practices and technologie4s
Treated nearly 30,000 tons of lead contaminated soil using a dry particle separation process, wet gravity separation, and phosphate amendment, reclaiming all water 300 tons of bullets and 62 tons of scrap metal and steel recovered & recycled. Nearly 300 tons of lead (approximately 25,205,000 bullets) was recovered and only 150 tons of soil did not respond to the treatment process. The remaining soil volume was reused for both on-site and off-site purposes.
Additional GSR practices used at the site include:
abandonment of subsurface structures to minimize waste
capture and reuse of grey water
collection of rain water for reuse
field screening sampling
using recycled materials for fill
restrictions of machinery idling time
sequencing of work to minimize double-handling of materials
use of bio-diesel or other bio-fuels
use of low sulfur diesel
Footprint Reduction: See slide.
Received an Environmental Stewardship award from the National Guard 13

14. Case Study: Volunteer Army Ammunition Plant
TNT and DNT contamination in soil as high as 10% concentration, impacting both soil and groundwater
Green Remediation Approaches: On-Site Alkaline Hydrolysis
Soils were excavated and treated on-site within a contained asphalt-lined former pH control pond
Soil treated in 300 yard increments with caustic soda
More than 112,000 cubic yards of soil treated using alkaline hydrolysis
Total TNT/DNT mass removed is more than 75 tons
Average contaminant mass reduction is >93%
Footprint Reduction
No hazardous waste disposal, landfill space, or off-site backfill
Reduced transportation/ lowered fossil fuel use
Recycled water was used to maintain optimum soil moisture during treatment
No risk from breakdown products
A pilot study was used to identify the viability of the selected remedy in July 2007
Background: Opened in Chattanooga, Tennessee, as a GOCO facility for the production and storage of TNT. The facility was built between 1941 and 1943 to support explosives production used in World War II, then the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. During peak operations from , Volunteer AAP produced 30 million pounds of TNT per month. The facility ceased production in 1977.
Throughout the site’s use, contamination from explosives production affected both soil and groundwater and eleven major waste sites have been identified.
Conducted a deep residuum and groundwater contamination study, with chemicals of concerned found to include TNT and DNT, nitrates, heavy metals, and VOCs.
TNT and DNT contamination in soil as high as 10% concentration, impacting both soil and groundwater.
The target cleanup goals consisted of reducing 2,4,6-TNT to 57 mg/kg and total DNT to 25.4 mg/kg. 14

15. What’s Next for Cleanup
What is after the Goal to have all of the Remedies in Place or Responses Complete by the end of Fiscal Year 2014?
Focus on the latter phases of the cleanup program
Achieving Response Complete (RC)?
What are our Long-term Management requirements?
What is Site Close Out? How do we get there?
The next generation of metrics will:
Drive programming, planning, budgeting, and execution
Help the DoD Components defend their budgets

16. EO 13514 GHG Reduction Targets
34%
Reduction Target
13.5%
Reduction Target
DoD has some of the most aggressive greenhouse gas reduction targets for 2020 in the U.S. Federal Government.

17. FY 2010 Target Subject DoD GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)

18. FY 2010 Target Excluded DoD GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)
Contracted Municipal Solid Waste Disposal
0.2

19. Change in GHG Target Subject Emissions (FY08 to FY10)
Total Percent Change
-1.7%
Scope 1&2 (with reductions):
Scope (without renewables):
-3.6%
6.0%

20. Uncertainty and Data Gaps
Uncertainty in emissions estimates remains for some sources
Business travel
Renewable energy
Municipal solid waste/onsite landfills
Fluorinated gases
Data gaps
F-gas procurement from GSA, credit cards, and service contractors
Solid waste disposal by facilities generating <1 ton/day
GOCOs
Closed landfills
Classified employee data for intelligence agencies

21. Future Challenges CEQ Guidance may require updates to
Third party-owned energy generation on federal lands
Employee business travel and commuting
Updates to baseline and GHG targets
Process for reporting
International reporting
GHGs from government-leased space
Land-use sequestration
Vendor and contractor (supply chain emissions)
Other scope 3 sources
Interagency workgroup is providing recommendations on these updates
Co-chaired by DoE FEMP, OSD, and EPA
FY 08 baselines may be adjusted when
New sources are added
Agency structure changes
Better data become available 21 21

22. Questions? Ms. Maureen Sullivan Director, Environmental Management Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations & Environment)