Department of Defense Environmental Management Program

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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. Environmental Management Programs ($ Millions) Environmental Management Programs ($ Millions) 4,508 4,279 4,249 4,250 4,18 4,085 3,984 6 6 ^ Reflects an adjustment to match the Annualized Continuing Resolution funding level by appropriation

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

9. (Average From 19 Response Actions) Total Non- UXO 96.7% UXO 3.7% 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)

10. 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

11. DoD Green Remediation Policy DoD Policy Memorandum “Consideration of Green and Sustainable Remediation Practices in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program”

12. 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 13423 and 13514 and reduce our overall energy demand Sustainability is not an excuse to do nothing DoD Green Remediation Policy Overview 11

13. 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

14. 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 Bullets were collected in reused one-ton capacity sugar sacks. The treatment system processed around 300 tons of soil daily. 13

15. 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 14

16. 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

17. 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.

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

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

20. Change in GHG Target Subject Emissions (FY08 to FY10) Total Percent Change -1.7% -3.6% 6.0% Scope 1&2 (with reductions): Scope 3 (without renewables):

21. 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

22. FutureChallenges • 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

23. Questions?Ms. Maureen SullivanDirector, Environmental ManagementOffice of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense(Installations & Environment)703-695-7957Maureen.Sullivan@osd.milhttps://www.denix.osd.mil/portal/page/portal/denix