1. Environmental Impacts from U. S
Environmental Impacts from U.S. Military Bases Marla Rawls Hill, MPH student Walden University PUBH Instructor: Dr. Rebecca Heick Spring, 2010
My presentation will address the environmental impacts of military bases and the need for community awareness of the possible environmental issues, specifically at those bases that have been designated for closure, reuse and redevelopment. The audience for this presentation is residents of a community facing base closure and redevelopment.
Script begins here:
Good afternoon and thank you for attending this presentation on military bases and environmental impacts.
As you know, the US Department of Defense – through its Base Closure & Realignment (or BRAC) initiative - has designated a number of military bases around the country for closure. Along with the economic impacts these closures are having on the surrounding communities – loss of civilian employment and loss of the military personnel who support the local economy, for example – other impacts have been discovered as well.
Many of these bases have been designated for redevelopment and reuse. But before we begin the process of identifying a new use for closed bases, past experience with military bases tells us that we have to proceed with caution. Before we can decide what to do with this new community resource, we have to examine how it was used in the past.
Military bases house a variety of operations related to our national defense, and many of these have been identified as contributing to environmental degradation and adverse human health effects.

2. Contents Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Case histories-
Community workshops
Role of the community
Case histories-
Fort McPherson, Atlanta, GA
Vieques Island, Puerto Rico
Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, NC
Known and possible adverse health effects
Measures of concentration
Conclusion
Resources for further investigation
It’s essential for communities to have an active voice in the conversations about military base reuse. The DOD is scheduling a series of community workshops to discuss the proposed closure of the military base in your community, and you should come to these workshops “armed,” so to speak, with the knowledge that allows you to ask the right health-related questions to help you make good decisions from both an economic and environmental standpoint.
In this presentation, I’m going to talk about some of the environmental issues that are associated with military bases, present information from some case histories, talk about substances of concern and human health effects, and leave you with some resources for further investigation.

3. Background U.S. military installations worldwide
More than 30,000 “installations”
Estimated 5,300+, including 1,000 outside the U.S.
I’ll start with a little bit of background on military base closures. The U.S. military currently operates more than 30,000 installations in the U.S. and worldwide. This includes more than 5,300 military bases. For clarity, an installation is an umbrella term for any facility that serves the military; bases are specifically places from which military operations are launched.
Vine, D. (2009). Island of shame: the secret history of the U.S. military base on Diego Garcia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

4. BRAC Budget cuts forced base closures beginning 1960s
Closures peaked at end of Vietnam War
Severe economic impact on communities
BRAC Commission established to protect community interests
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act amended BRAC code in 1992
Governed by NEPA regulations
Base Realignment & Closure Commission. (1993). Report to the President. Retrieved from
Tavana, M., Bourgeois, B. & Sodenkamp, M. (2009). Fuzzy multiple criteria base realignment and closure (BRAC) benchmarking system at the Department of Defense. Benchmarking, 16(2),    Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID:  ).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act. Retrieved from
Large-scale base closures began in the early 1960s, and continued through the 1970s, peaking at the end of the Vietnam War. These closures were driven by budget cuts. And not surprisingly, the economic effect of these closures on local communities was fairly brutal.
Congress passed Section 2687 of Title 10, United States Code in 1977 requiring DOD to notify Congress whenever a base became a candidate for closure or realignment. A 1992 amendment to Section 2687 known as the “Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act” also required environmental evaluations of bases slated for closure and redevelopment under the National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA regulations.

5. EPA Role in BRAC
Base closure goal is to transfer property back to community and encourage private development
Military required to first remediate environmental contamination
…delay in remediation of environmental contamination of real property at such facilities is preventing transfer and private development of such property.”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act. Retrieved from
Why did EPA and NEPA get involved with base closures at all? The Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act states that “the closure of certain federal facilities is having adverse effects on the economies of local communities by eliminating jobs associated with such facilities, and delay in remediation of environmental contamination of real property at such facilities is preventing transfer and private development of such property.”
For the purposes of today’s discussion, we’ll bypass the economics and hone in on that remediation and contamination language.

6. Sample of Base Contaminants
Homestead Air Force Base, FL
Designated Superfund site
Findings included hazards from:
Waste storage
Drum storage
Jet engine test area
Pesticide/entomology building
Construction debris landfill
Pesticide disposal area
Aircraft wash rack
Hangar fuel spill
Motor pool oil leak
PCB spills
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Base Realignment & Closure sites by state/U.S. territory. Retrieved from
What kind of contamination does one find at a military base? From the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office (FFRRO) list of BRAC sites, I randomly chose a facility, Homestead Air Force Base in Florida. Homestead AFB is a designated Superfund cleanup site that was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL) for cleanup. By clicking through the links, I found information on the cleanup activities at Homestead. Descriptions of various sources of environmental hazards include:
Waste storage
Drum storage
Jet engine test area
Pesticide/entomology building
Construction debris landfill
Pesticide disposal area
Aircraft wash rack
Hangar fuel spill
Motor pool oil leak
PCB spills
There are several more listed, but these should be sufficient to show you the kinds of materials and substances that contaminate military bases, as well as the enormity of the task of cleaning these bases up. Findings and health standards are continually changing, so you can see how important it is for you to have a working knowledge of the issues associated with military base contamination.

7. BRAC Environmental Remediation Process
Base identified for closure by US Military
BRAC Commission accepts recommendation
Public notice of closure
Draft Environmental Assessment or Impact Statement is prepared
Public review and comment
Final Environmental Impact Statement
Remediation recommendations to EPA
Upon EPA approval (“Record of Decision”), remediation work begins
Public is required to be kept informed and involved throughout
U.S. Department of Defense. (2003). Army environmental clean-up strategy. Retrieved from
The BRAC Process, with respect to the environmental remediation activities, follows these steps:
The Department of Defense (DOD) makes a recommendation to close a base
A Notice of Intent (NOI) is published in the Federal Register and in nearby community newspapers to notify the public that an Environmental Impact Assessment or Statement (EIS) will be prepared
DOD performs an Environmental Condition of Property Report (ECP) to categorize the environmental condition of the property. Areas that are designated as Category 1, 2, 3, or 4 are considered suitable for transfer or lease. Areas that are designated as Category 5, 6, or 7 are not suitable for transfer until further evaluation and/or remedial action has occurred and the areas qualify for reclassification as Category 4 or lower.
A scoping process is held to allow the public to share information and suggest areas for investigation
DOD supervises the preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) to “evaluate the environmental and socioeconomic impacts of the disposal and reasonably foreseeable reuse of the federal property. The EIS is usually completed by the Army Corps of Engineers or a private contractor
Notice of Availability of DEIS for public comment is published
Once comments are received, Final EIS is prepared
Notice of Availability (NOA) is published in the Federal Register and local newspapers notifying the public of the availability of this EIS for review
After 30 days, comment period is closed and a Record of Decision (ROD) is executed
Remedial activities are proposed to EPA; once approved, remediation activities proceed
All related issues – findings, decisions, remedial activities, updates, etc. – are recorded in Records of Decision (RODs)
Now we’ll look at some case histories of actual BRAC initiatives.

8. Case History I: Fort McPherson Atlanta, Georgia
Recommended closure in 2005
Draft EIS issued in September 2008
All BRAC Commission recommendations to be implemented by September 15, 2011
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. (2008, September). Environmental Impact Statement for disposal and reuse of Fort McPherson, Georgia. Retrieved from
Case History I: Fort McPherson, located in Atlanta, GA, was recommended for closure in A Draft EIS was issued in September All BRAC Commission recommendations (i.e., base closure) are to be implemented by September 15, 2011

9. Fort McPherson DEIS Findings
Possibility of lead contamination at any of five firing ranges on the base
Buried Munitions and Explosives of Concerns (MEC) may exist, posing safety hazards to construction and landscaping personnel
Asbestos-containing materials
Lead-based paint
90-day hazardous waste storage, including paint and sulfuric acid
Twenty underground storage tanks (USTs) containing propane, diesel, gasoline, waste oil, and fuel oil
Some of the findings listed in the Draft EIS include:
Possibility of lead contamination at any of five firing ranges on the base
Buried Munitions and Explosives of Concerns (MEC) may exist, posing safety hazards to construction and landscaping personnel
Asbestos-containing materials
Lead-based paint
90-day hazardous waste storage, including paint and sulfuric acid
Twenty underground storage tanks (USTs) containing propane, diesel, gasoline, waste oil, and fuel oil
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. (2008, September). Environmental Impact Statement for disposal and reuse of Fort McPherson, Georgia. Retrieved from

10. Fort McPherson DEIS Findings
Remediation activities are currently underway at Fort McPherson
More resources on Ft. McPherson:
LRA    
CDC    
GHPC    
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. (2008, September). Environmental Impact Statement for disposal and reuse of Fort McPherson, Georgia. Retrieved from
Georgia Health Policy Center. (2010.) Developing Fort McPherson as a healthier place.
Remediation activities are currently underway at Fort McPherson, concurrent with community workshops on reuse and redevelopment.
The Georgia Health Policy Center is playing an active role in working with DOD and the community to ensure that community health concerns are addressed in the remediation. To learn more about ongoing redevelopment and remediation activities at Fort Mac, I suggest you visit these websites:
LRA     CDC     GHPC    

11. Case History 2: Vieques Island, Puerto Rico
Vieques Island, Puerto Rico Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Area is on the National Priorities list
Long history of conflict between the public and DOD concerning base operations and environmental contamination
Current status:
Military operations curtailed
Wildlife refuge on Eastern end
Western end under control of Department of the Interior, city of Vieques, Puerto Rico Conservation trust 
Case History 2: Vieques Island, Puerto Rico
The Vieques Island, Puerto Rico Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Area is another Superfund Site, included on the EPA’s National Priorities list. Vieques has a long history of conflict between the public and DOD concerning base operations and environmental contamination. The base was used as a bombing range and provided “naval gunfire support and air-to-ground training from the 1940s until May 1, 2003.” All military operations were curtailed on the island in The Eastern end is now a wildlife refuge, while the Western end belongs to the Department of the Interior, the city of Vieques, and the Puerto Rico Conservation trust.
Davis, J., Hayes-Conroy, J., & Jones, V.. (2007). Military pollution and natural purity: seeing nature and knowing contamination in Vieques, Puerto Rico. GeoJournal, 69(3), 165.  Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID:  ).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, September). Vieques Island/Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Area. Retrieved from

12. Vieques Island Findings
1999 Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) study
Several contamination pathways tested: drinking water sources like surface water, groundwater, rainwater collection sources, and wells.
Substances identified included:
Barium Boron
VOCs (volatile organic compounds) Ammonia
Chloride Fluoride
Nitrate Nitrite
ATSDR Conclusion: No human health hazards
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2009). Vieques. Retrieved from
In 1999, the Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR) of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) conducted a study of contamination and risks to human health at the request of a Vieques resident. The ATSDR tested several contamination pathways - surface water, groundwater, rainwater collection sources, and wells – all sources of drinking water for the island’s residents.
Some of the substances identified included:
Barium
Boron
VOCs (volatile organic compounds)
Ammonia
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrate
The ATSDR report, issued in 2003, determined that there were no hazards to human health other than possible contamination of a single well.

13. Vieques Island Findings
Vieques bombing range added to NPL by EPA in 2005
EPA findings:
Unexploded ordnance and remnants of unexploded ordnance on the ground and in the water
Mercury, lead, copper, magnesium, lithium, perchlorates, TNT, napalm, and depleted uranium from ordnance
PCBs, solvents, and pesticides
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004).NPL site narrative for Atlantic Fleet weapons training area. Retrieved from
However, despite the ATSDR’s findings, in 2005 the EPA placed the Vieques bombing range on the National Priorities List. These contaminants were identified:
Unexploded ordnance and remnants of unexploded ordnance on the ground and in the water
Mercury, lead, copper, magnesium, lithium, perchlorates, TNT, napalm, and depleted uranium (all ingredients in ordnance)
PCBs, solvents, and pesticides

14. Vieques Status
ATSDR: Quantities of hazardous materials insufficient to affect human health
Vieques citizens hired scientists and health experts
In 2007, ATSDR agreed to take “fresh look” in response to ongoing community concerns
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2009). Vieques. Retrieved from
Davis, J., Hayes-Conroy, J., & Jones, V. (2007). Military pollution and natural purity: seeing nature and knowing contamination in Vieques, Puerto Rico. GeoJournal, 69(3), 165.  Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID:  ).
It’s important to note that the quantities of the found substances are crucial to determining whether human health is affected. In the Vieques example, the ATSDR acknowledged the presence of hazardous chemicals but determined that they were in insufficient quantities to pose a human health hazard. The Vieques community was not satisfied with these findings, and hired their own experts to perform sampling and testing. The experts’ findings did not agree with those of ATSDR that the level of contaminants was not harmful to human health.
As a result, the ATSDR agreed to do a reassessment, stating that “ATSDR is taking a fresh look at available information on public health threats, including its own work to date and also data that have been published by several sources since the agency’s public health assessments were released” ( The agency goes on to say that the “fresh look” is being done to ensure that “all information that could have a bearing on public health has been thoroughly and rigorously evaluated.”

15. Case History 3: Camp Lejeune, North Carolina
Camp Lejeune selected for partial BRAC 2005
Contaminants were discovered in 1982 at 2 water treatment plants
Contaminants included perchloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene from off-base dry cleaner
Other VOCs identified, along with metals and PCBs
Sources included leaking USTs, industrial spills, waste disposal sites
Base added to NPL in 1989
U.S. Marine Corps. (2006, April). Chapter 2: Description of Camp Lejeune. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Retrieved from
U.S. Marine Corps. (n.d.). MCB Camp Lejeune. Retrieved from
Camp Lejeune is a Marine Corps base in eastern North Carolina. The base was opened in September The base’s mission and purpose are to “to maintain combat-ready units for expeditionary deployment” including offensive, defensive and humanitarian efforts. The 2005 BRAC recommended the closure of certain facilities at Camp Lejeune, but the base will remain in operation.
In 1982, contaminants were discovered in drinking water at two of eight water treatment plants on the base. Traces of PCE (perchloroethylene and tetrachloroethylene) found at the Tarawa Terrace treatment plant were traced to an off-base dry cleaner’s improper disposal methods; VOCs were found at the Hadnot Point plant as well. Further testing of the base’s soil, surface water, sediment and groundwater revealed the presence of contamination, specifically VOCs, metals, and PCBs. Contamination was attributed to leaking USTs, industrial spills, and waste disposal sites. Camp Lejeune was added to the NPL list in 1989. 

16. Camp Lejeune Findings Tarawa Terrace Treatment Plant
Main contaminant: PCE (perchloroethylene or tetrachloroethylene)
Maximum level detected in drinking water parts per billion (ppb)
Contaminated wells shut down in February 1985
ATSDR completed water modeling
PCE concentration exceeded current limit of 5 ppb in drinking water for 346 months during November 1957-February 1987
Hadnot Point Treatment Plant
Main contaminant: TCE (trichloroethylene)
Maximum level detected in drinking water was 1,400 ppb
The current limit for TCE in drinking water is 5 ppb
Other contaminants detected included DCE (trans-1,2-dichloroethylene) at a maximum of 407 ppb in January 1985, PCE and benzene
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2009, July). Summary of the water contamination situation at Camp Lejeune. Retrieved from
The ATSDR published these findings from the Hadnot Point and Tarawa Terrace treatment plant investigations:
Tarawa Terrace Treatment Plant
Main contaminant: PCE (perchloroethylene or tetrachloroethylene)
Maximum level detected in drinking water was 215 parts per billion (ppb) in February 1985 The most contaminated wells were shut down in February 1985
Water modeling conducted by ATSDR indicated that the PCE concentration exceeded the current limit of 5 ppb in drinking water at the TT water treatment plant for 346 months during November 1957-February 1987
Hadnot Point Treatment Plant
TCE (trichloroethylene) was the main contaminant identified in the water at Hadnot
The maximum level detected in drinking water was 1,400 ppb in May 1982; the current limit for TCE in drinking water is 5 ppb
Other contaminants detected included DCE (trans-1,2-dichloroethylene) at a maximum of 407 ppb in January 1985, PCE and benzene
The most contaminated wells were shut down by February 1985

17. Possible & Known Adverse Health Effects from Military Base Contaminants
TCE (trichloroethylene)
Various adult cancers; liver /kidney damage; impaired immune system function and scleroderma; neurological disorders; skin disorders; childhood leukemia
PCE (perchloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene)
Various adult cancers; scleroderma; miscarriages; neurological effects
Benzene
Leukemia; multiple myeloma; Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; aplastic anemia; and spontaneous abortion
The hazardous substances found in Camp Lejeune’s drinking water have been associated with many adverse health effects. The ATSDR outlines the known or suspected health effects of the found substances:
TCE exposure has been linked to cancers including kidney cancer, liver cancer, cervical cancer, and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; liver and kidney damage; Impaired immune system function and scleroderma; neurological disorders such as Parkinson’s disease, memory loss, attention deficit, and delayed reaction time; skin disorders and childhood leukemia.
PCE exposure has been linked to esophageal cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer, rectal cancer, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, cervical cancer, and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; kidney damage, Scleroderma, Miscarriages, memory loss, attention deficit, and delayed reaction time.
Benzene has been linked to acute myeloid leukemia (AML); acute lymphocytic leukemia; chronic lymphocytic leukemia; multiple myeloma; Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma; aplastic anemia; and spontaneous abortion.

18. Possible & Known Adverse Health Effects from Military Base Contaminants (continued)
Arsenic
Carcinogenic; cardiovascular and neurological effects
Lead
Neurological damage, heart and renal disease, reproductive toxicity
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Skin disorders, neurological damage, immunological health of children; carcinogenic in animals
Health effects of substances commonly found on military bases:
Arsenic: Carcinogenic; cardiovascular and neurological effects
Lead: Neurological damage, heart and renal disease, reproductive toxicity
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Exposure to PCBs affects human skin, causes neurological damage and affects the immunological health of children. They have been found to be carcinogenic in animals
Mercury: permanent damage to the brain and kidneys. Toxic to developing fetuses. Behavioral changes and memory loss, lung damage, skin rashes, nausea, glaucoma, cardiovascular damage
Perchlorates: May cause thyroid damage from inability to uptake iodine. Skin rashes, nausea, and vomiting may also occur. Some cases have been fatal.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2007, August 20). Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM), Lead toxicity.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2001, February). ToxFAQs™ for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Retrieved from
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2007, August). Toxicological profile for arsenic. Retrieved from

19. Possible & Known Adverse Health Effects from Military Base Contaminants (continued)
Mercury
Permanent damage to the brain and kidneys. Toxic to developing fetuses. Behavioral changes and memory loss, lung damage, skin rashes, nausea, glaucoma, cardiovascular damage
Perchlorates
May cause thyroid damage from inability to uptake iodine. Skin rashes, nausea, and vomiting may also occur. Some cases have been fatal
Health effects of substances commonly found on military bases:
Arsenic: Carcinogenic; cardiovascular and neurological effects
Lead: Neurological damage, heart and renal disease, reproductive toxicity
Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs): Exposure to PCBs affects human skin, causes neurological damage and affects the immunological health of children. They have been found to be carcinogenic in animals
Mercury: permanent damage to the brain and kidneys. Toxic to developing fetuses. Behavioral changes and memory loss, lung damage, skin rashes, nausea, glaucoma, cardiovascular damage
Perchlorates: May cause thyroid damage from inability to uptake iodine. Skin rashes, nausea, and vomiting may also occur. Some cases have been fatal.
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2008, September). Public health statement for Perchlorates. Retrieved from
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (1999, April). ToxFAQs™ for mercury. Retrieved from

20. Quantity & Concentration
Key to any discussion of health effects
The mere presence of a substance is not necessarily a human health hazard.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, September). Drinking water contaminants. Retrieved from
Measures of concentration
Usually expressed in parts per million (PPM) or parts per billion (PPB). Based on SDWA and CWA standards.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)
The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL)
The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards.
There’s an important detail in these statistics that I touched on before – public health hazards for these substances are dependent upon their quantity or concentration. When you participate in discussions about contamination, it’s essential that you understand this concept. Here are a few terms that apply to the subject.
Measures of concentration – Usually expressed in parts per million (PPM) or parts per billion (PPB).These measures are based on Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Water Act, and similar standards that establish allowable limits for certain pollutants to protect public health.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) - The highest level of a contaminant that is allowed in drinking water. MCLs are set as close to MCLGs as feasible using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into consideration. MCLs are enforceable standards
The mere presence of a hazardous substance is not necessarily a human health hazard. Many chemicals, such as arsenic, occur naturally in the environment and are not harmful unless concentrations exceed MCLG.

21. Conclusion & Thanks Takeaways from today’s presentation:
BRAC Closures = economic/environmental impacts
US Military, EPA, Centers for Disease Control (ATSDR) lead investigation and remediation at BRAC sites
Other communities’ experiences are available and useful
Okay to hire your own “experts”
Understand the nature of contamination: concentration
Public involvement is your right: stay active and involved
Thank you for your time!
Any questions?
Conclusion
 This concludes my presentation on military base environmental impacts. The main points I hope you will take away from the presentation are:
Base closures are likely to involve both economic and environmental impacts
The federal government, including the U.S. military, Environmental Protection Agency, and Centers for Disease Control, has an established program of environmental investigation and remediation to ensure that contaminants that may be found on these military bases are addressed before public access is allowed
Many communities have already completed this process; many more are currently engaged with the federal agencies’ cleanup activities. Information on their findings and experiences can be found at the websites listed throughout the presentation and on the following slide.
Take time to read up on the concepts involved in measuring contamination and determining human health impact.
It’s perfectly acceptable for a community to hire its own experts – be sure that they are objective for maximum credibility. Universities may be good sources for this expertise.
Public involvement is a requirement of BRAC, Superfund and other remedial activities. Be active, informed, and involved in the various public involvement forums that will be taking place throughout this process.
Thanks for your time and attention. Are there any questions?

22. Resources for Further Study
aminants/index.html#1
.htm
htm.
SOH/doc/Army-Environmental- Cleanup-Strategy-Final- 28April03.pdf
edytech/remed.htm
Provides MCLs of various contaminants
Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office that lists “partners in cleanup”
FFRRO site that lists BRAC closures and status of remediation activities
Describes Army’s cleanup strategies, including prioritization methods; glossary of terms and acronyms associated with base cleanups
List of “green” remedial technologies
Resources for Further Study:
To look up the MCLs of various contaminants, visit this website:
is a website of the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse Office that lists several “partners in cleanup” involved in any remediation at a federal facility. Partners may include EPA and “other federal offices; state, tribal and local governments; community groups; environmental justice communities; and advocacy organizations.” These partners will be useful in helping you explore the history of other communities that have experienced or are experiencing base closure and realignment and of the resources available to you.
This is another FFRRO site that lists every BRAC closure and the status of remediation activities there.
- Describes the Army’s cleanup strategies, including prioritization methods; also includes a glossary of terms and acronyms associated with base cleanups
  - List of “green” remedial technologies

23. References
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2007, August 20). Case Studies in Environmental Medicine (CSEM), Lead toxicity. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2009, July). Chemicals at Camp Lejeune: FAQs. Retrieved from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2003). Public health assessment - drinking water supplies and groundwater pathway evaluation, Isla de Vieques Bombing Range, Vieques, Puerto Rico. Retrieved from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2008, September). Public health statement for Perchlorates. Retrieved from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2009, July). Summary of the water contamination situation at Camp Lejeune. Retrieved from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (1999, April). ToxFAQs™ for mercury. Retrieved from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2001, February). ToxFAQs™ for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs). Retrieved from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2007, August). Toxicological profile for arsenic. Retrieved from Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2009). Vieques. Retrieved from Base Realignment & Closure Commission. (1993). Report to the President. Retrieved from Davis, J., Hayes-Conroy, J., & Jones, V.. (2007). Military pollution and natural purity: seeing nature and knowing contamination in Vieques, Puerto Rico. GeoJournal, 69(3), 165. Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: ).

24. References, continued
Georgia Health Policy Center. (2010.) Developing Fort McPherson as a healthier place. Tavana, M., Bourgeois, B. & Sodenkamp, M. (2009). Fuzzy multiple criteria base realignment and closure (BRAC) benchmarking system at the Department of Defense. Benchmarking, 16(2), Retrieved from ABI/INFORM Global. (Document ID: ). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. (2008, September). Environmental Impact Statement for disposal and reuse of Fort McPherson, Georgia. Retrieved from U.S. Department of the Army. (2003). Army environmental clean-up strategy. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Base Realignment & Closure sites by state/U.S. territory. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2006). Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, September). Drinking water contaminants. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2004).NPL site narrative for Atlantic Fleet weapons training area. Retrieved from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, September). Vieques Island/Atlantic Fleet Weapons Training Area. Retrieved from U.S. Marine Corps. (n.d.). MCB Camp Lejeune. Retrieved from U.S. Marine Corps. (2006, April). Chapter 2: Description of Camp Lejeune. Final Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan. Retrieved from Vine, D. (2009). Island of shame: the secret history of the U.S. military base on Diego Garcia. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press