Issues/Concerns/SuccessesGeorgia Environmental
Protection Division
June 20, 2007
Amy Potter Unit Coordinator
DoD Remediation Unit
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Dobbins Air Reserve BaseLockheed Martin Air Force Plant No. 6
Fort Gillem & Fort McPherson Fort Gordon
Moody Air Force Base
Fort Benning
Robins Air Force Base
Naval Submarine Base - Kings Bay
Fort Stewart
Hunter Army Airfield
www.gaepd.orgwww.gaepd.org
Military Presence Military Presence in thein the
State of GeorgiaState of Georgia
Issue #1:
BRAC 2005
Marine Corps Logistics Base
Dobbins Air Reserve Base
Moody Air Force Base
Fort Benning
Robins Air Force Base
Naval Submarine Base - Kings Bay
Savannah International Airport Air Guard Station
Gaining InstallationsGaining InstallationsBRAC 2005BRAC 2005
Fort GillemFort McPhersonNaval Air StationPeachtree Leases
U.S. Army Reserve Center Columbus
Closing Closing InstallationsInstallationsBRAC 2005BRAC 2005
Marine CorpsInspector/Instructor Naval Supply Corps
School Athens
• Of the seven closing installations, no substantive environmental restoration oversight is anticipated at five: Marine Corps Inspector/Instructor, Naval Supply Corps School Athens, Naval Air Station, Peachtree Leases and
U.S. Army Reserve Center Columbus.
What is the Impact of BRAC 2005 on Georgia’s
DSMOA Program?
• Of the seven closing installations, only two require substantive environmental
restoration oversight by Georgia:Fort Gillem and Fort McPherson.
What is the Impact of BRAC 2005 on Georgia’s
DSMOA Program?
Fort Gillem• Reviewed
Environmental Condition of Property
• Land Reuse Plan has been approved
•Completing Delineation in Several Areas
•Working with Army to get Acceptable Background
•Finding and closing out old USTs
Fort McPherson • Completing delineation especially at pesticide mixing areas & ranges
• Finding and closing out old USTs
•Completing remediation of old USTs
•Land reuse plan has not yet been approved
•ECP has been completed and reviewed
Issue/Concern #2: MNAConcern that MNA is being applied as a sole
remedy where is not effective or appropriate because:
• Timeframe to clean up is too long; or • Concentrations of contaminants are too high;
or• Microbes that destroy contaminants are not
present; or• No sampling has begun to provide lines of
evidence.
MNA (continued)• MNA is being applied without considering more
active remedial strategies that will clean the site up faster or cost less money.Example: AF project: resulted in cost savings of millions that could be applied to more contaminated areas.
• Several installations have determined that MNA is ineffective, & are accelerating the process by adding nutrients or microbes to speed up the process. Example: Army project: UST site where actual reductions were less than anticipated. Added ORC to groundwater to reduce clean up time.
Issue/Concern #3: FUDS
• 228 FUDS identified in GA; Approximately 5 per year are investigated
• It all comes down to $$
• Priority – Have no idea what actual dangers/contaminants are present until site is investigated.
• Limited sampling conducted.
Success Story @ Camp Wheeler
338 60mm mortar rounds and 10 grenade fuses found and destroyed
. . . But there is still work to do.