HAZARDOUS WASTE Fort BenjaYnin Harrison’s Compliance With Environmental Laws 141280 United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20648 National Security and International Affairs Division B-213706 March 28,199O The Honorable Dan Burton House of Representatives Dear Mr. Burton: On August 9, 1989, you asked us to determine if the Army is complying with federal and state environmental laws and regulations at Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana. You were specifically concerned about reports issued by the Environmental Protection Agency, the Army Envi- ronmental Hygiene Agency, and the Indiana Department of Environmen- tal Management, which stated that Fort Harrison was not in compliance with environmental standards in several areas. The reports identified the following problems. The operating landfill at Glenn and,Otis Avenues is leaching into the groundwater. The closed landfill on Lee Road, which is partially owned by Fort Harrison, is also leaching. The air pollution control system for the coal-fired boilers was turned off, which violates Indiana state law, at least 35 times during a lo-month period in 1987. The hazardous waste storage site has been in noncompliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act since 1985 due to deficiencies in recordkeeping, training, and other areas. . The pesticide storage building, built over 70 years ago, is placed danger- ously close to a stream that feeds Fall Creek. The fort is adjacent to the cities of Indianapolis and Lawrence and is situated on top of a major aquifer that feeds the water supply system of Marion County. Consequently, Fort Harrison’s operational activities could affect the environment and have a serious impact on the health and welfare of the adjacent communities. A map of Fort Harrison is shown in appendix I. The areas reported to be in noncompliance with environmental stan- Results in Brief dards have been problems over the past several years. However, on the basis of recent tests, inspection data, and discussions with Environmen- i tal Protection Agency and Indiana Department of Environmental Man- agement officials responsible for monitoring Fort Harrison’s compliance Page 1 GAO/N&W-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment B-213706 -i- with environmental requirements, we believe that Fort Harrison’s oper- ations are not significantly affecting the environment. Fort Harrison officials appeared to be taking steps to ensure compliance with all requirements and standards. Water samples taken during our review indicated that the operating landfill at Glenn and Otis Avenues was not adversely affecting the aquifer. No adverse effect on the aqui- fer has been attributed to the Lee Road landfill, but future monitoring of groundwater is planned for this site. The coal-fired boilers have been replaced with gas boilers. Improvements have been made to the pesti- cide storage facility to comply with applicable requirements 1 Fort Harrison was established in 1903 on 2,501 acres. Although class- Background room training for administrative functions is the primary activity at Fort Harrison, the fort also provides military housing and community services and accommodates many other government functions, such as the Army Finance and Accounting Center. Like any other community, Fort Harrison provides services to its community that could affect the environment. These services include utilities, transportation, construc- tion, maintenance, repair, pest control, and landfill operation, Fort Harrison uses some hazardous materials during routine operations such as maintenance, equipment repair, printing, painting, pesticide application, and automotive repair. The Defense Reutilization and Mar- keting Service’ has a marketing office on base to store, resell, and dis- pose of surplus and hazardous materials and waste. The Army requires its bases to comply with federal, state, and local standards; monitor environmental compliance; and minimize any effect base operations may have on the environment. Federal standards are implemented and enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency. State and local standards at Fort Harrison are monitored by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management and the Indianapolis Air Pollution Control Management Division. Periodic inspections are made by these agencies and the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency, which evaluates environmental compliance by Army bases. ‘The Dcfcnse Reutilization and Marketing Service is an activity of the Defense Logistics Agency. The Marketing Service operates 218 offices in 5 regions and is responsible for the disposal of surplus property generated by the military services, Department of Defense activities, and other qualified federal and civilian agencies. Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment B-213706 The landfill at Glenn and Otis Avenues has been in use since 1968 and LaII lfill at Glenn and covers about 35 acres. According to Fort Harrison officials, the refuse Otis Avenues Meets placed in this landfill is primarily office and household waste. Although Req lirements problems with the groundwater were cited in 1988 and 1989 inspection reports, groundwater tests at that time and current tests have shown that the landfill is not significantly affecting the groundwater. We reviewed the past 13 inspection reports (8 from 1988 and 5 from 1989) prepared by the Indiana Department of Environmental Manage- ment. We found that two of the 1988 inspections recorded leaching, but subsequent inspections indicated the problem was corrected. In addition, the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency inspection, completed in July 1988, identified several other problems; for example, coal ash was bur- ied in the landfill without first being tested, monitoring wells’ did not have protective covers, and groundwater testing procedures were not consistent due to irregular procedures for obtaining and preserving water samples. At the time these problems were noted, the groundwater from monitor- ing wells surrounding the landfill was routinely tested, and no water quality problems were found. Surface water samples are also taken quarterly from the two major creeks flowing through Fort Harrison. At your request, we have included the most current sample results in appendix II. We found that Indiana state law permits coal ash disposal in sanitary landfills without special testing or additional permits. We also found that the fiscal year 1990 Army budget includes funding for protective covers for the monitoring wells. In addition, we found that Fort Harrison’s water monitoring contract for fiscal year 1990 with a state- certified laboratory provides more specific details about how samples are to be taken and preserved to provide more uniform results. The September 1989 Indiana Department of Environmental Management inspection found no evidence of leaching, but the landfill was rated unacceptable because of inadequate soil cover and erosion that resulted from unusually heavy rains. Fort Harrison officials took corrective action, and a subsequent inspection by the Indiana Department of Envi- ronmental Management in October 1989 noted that the erosion and soil ‘Monitoring wells are 6 inches in diameter. They extend into the aquifer and are drilled and screened according to exact specifications. Water is drawn from the wells and sampled to test for groundwater quality and define water flow. Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment E218706 cover problems were corrected, We visited the landfill and observed that these corrections were made. Fort Harrison plans to close the landfill by October 1992 and transport future refuse to an incinerator in Indianapolis. The Lee Road landfill was used from 1940 to 1968. Most of the area was Potential Leaching at subsequently deeded to the city of Lawrence in 1974, but Fort Harrison the Lee Road Landfill maintained ownership of land on the extreme south and west edges. In 1989, inspections by the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management did not show any evidence of leaching, but Fort Harrison has agreed to provide equipment and labor to install monitoring wells to see if any leaching is occurring / and monitor possible future problems. In a series of newspaper articles published between August 24 and Octo- ber 24, 1989, the authors stated that they had found a corridor of dead vegetation covered with a rust-colored substance and several pools of liquid topped with an oily sheen. Other potential problems identified in this landfill have been reported in past inspections. For example, in 1986 the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency inspected the landfill and found differential settling1 of the trenches and evidence of possible leaching. The possible existence of leachate was also reported by the Indiana Department of Environmental Management in 1988. Even though no evidence of leaching was noted in the 1989 inspections, the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency recommended that test wells be drilled at the landfill to monitor the quality of groundwater, These test wells are scheduled to be drilled by the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency in the spring of 1990 and will be tested quarterly using state and federal groundwater standards. During our visit to this landfill, we found settling of trenches, some with standing water, and an orange substance in standing water on the south boundary. At our request, the Fort Harrison contract laboratory tested the surface water in these areas on October 30, 1989. The test results were inconclusive. At your request, we have included the test results in appendix III. The contractor recommended that further testing be done. The contractor stated that the orange substance was an iron bacteria “Differential settling refers to the uneven settling of the trenches in which wastes had been dumped because of inadequate packing or decomposition. Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment F&213706 that did not have the characteristic odor of leachate and was not neces- sarily a result of landfill leaching. The contractor also stated that a high iron content in the ground and water is typical of this area of Indiana. We asked the Indiana Department of Environmental Management to per- form further tests for contaminants and conduct a full inspection of the landfill. The results of these tests will be provided to you as soon as they are available. The heating facility and cooling plant was constructed in 1952. Until Air ‘ollution Control 1988 four coal-fired boilers supplied Fort Harrison’s steam and heating Sysl !m for Coal-Fired needs. In early 1987 Fort Harrison’s air pollution control equipment for Boil rs the boilers was shut off 36 times during night operations, which violates clean air regulations. Subsequently, the Indiana Department of Environ- mental Management imposed a civil penalty of $36,000~$1,000 for each time the equipment was shut down. The Army questioned whether a federal entity can be fined by a state agency. The Indiana Attorney General is pursuing the matter. In 1988 one gas boiler was installed and three coal boilers were phased out of use. A fourth coal boiler was used as backup to the gas boiler. Two additional gas boilers were delivered in October 1989 and became operational on December 17, 1989. The remaining coal boiler was taken out of service on December 29, 1989. The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office moved into its general Haziardous Waste storage facility in 1981. Hazardous waste was stored in this facility until Storage Facility Cited October 1988, when a new hazardous waste storage facility that com- for Noncompliance plied with all Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements was completed. The allegation that Fort Harrison’s hazardous waste storage facility was not in compliance with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act since 1985 due to deficiencies in recordkeeping, not deficiencies with the facility, is factually correct. The Environmental Protection Agency issued noncompliance citations in November 1987 and 1988 for administrative violations, such as out- dated training schedules and incomplete spill and contingency plans. However, in October 1989 Fort Harrison signed an agreement called an agreed order with the Environmental Protection Agency that set a schedule for correcting the administrative violations. The fort hired a contractor to correct these violations. The contractor has submitted a Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment F&213706 time schedule for each task to be completed. At your request, we have included a copy of the agreed order in appendix IV. In its December 1988 inspection report, the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency stated that all wastes appeared to be properly stored and accounted for. We inspected the hazardous waste storage site and found that all procedures to identify, classify, and dispose of hazardous wastes were being used. The quantities stored were small, and we found no evidence of immediate danger, such as leaks or spills, from hazardous wastes. 1 The pesticide storage facility was constructed in 1908. It is a permanent P&ticide Storage brick structure, measuring about 12 by 24 feet, with two rooms, one Facility Improved to used for storage and the other for mixing and other activities. It is R$duce Potential located immediately adjacent to tributaries of the Fall Creek water system. Hbards Although the facility is structurally sound, it does not meet current Army requirements for design and construction. In a July 1989 inspec- tion report, the Army Environmental Hygiene Agency cited several problems with the facility. It stated that the facility’s proximity to the tributary of Fall Creek could present problems and that the facility was too small. It also stated that the lighting and ventilation were poor, the floors were seamed and possibly porous, and the wooden shelving and pallets posed a potential fire hazard. Fort Harrison officials said that they were concerned with the site of the facility and have requested a new facility at a different site. However, the Army projects that funds for the new facility will not be available until fiscal year 1993. Fort Harrison officials have taken some interim measures to stabilize conditions at the storage site. They are currently upgrading lighting, replacing wooden shelves, regrading ground eleva- tions, and placing erosion mats around the building. A spill plan has been drafted to provide for emergency actions if a spill occurs. Fort Harrison’s fire department has a plan that employs the appropriate methods in case of fire, and fire personnel have been trained in these methods. The base did not maintain an inventory of the pesticides stored in the facility. During our visit to the facility, we found three 55-gallon drums of pesticides and the storage shelves about one-third full of liquid and dry types of pesticides. Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment B-213706 As an interim measure, an agreement with the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Office is being drafted that would allow Fort Harrison to store about 50 percent of its pesticides at the approved Defense Reu- tilization and Marketing Office hazardous waste facility. Although vari- ous chemicals and pesticides would still be mixed at the old facility, Army officials believe the risk of creek contamination from leaks and spills should be greatly reduced. 1 Fort Harrison officials believe they will have to correct the management Othb Issues problems that appear to have contributed to the delay in correcting past problems. For example, since 1982 Fort Harrison officials have been aware that 10 positions are needed in the Natural Resources Manage- ment Division, which is responsible for environmental protection on the base. However, only one permanent and one temporary position were authorized and filled as of August 1988. Consequently, records were dif- ficult to locate, and technical and managerial staff were required to per- form clerical tasks, taking time away from other assignments. Currently, 8 of the 10 authorized permanent positions have been filled, and the division recently obtained a permanent administrative assistant. Fort Harrison’s corrective action responses to the Environmental Protec- tion Agency and other monitoring agencies have been uncoordinated and untimely. Also, standardized procedures for following Resource Conser- vation and Recovery Act and state requirements have not been formu- lated, making it difficult for personnel to ensure compliance. During fiscal year 1989, Fort Harrison spent over $3 million on environ- mental efforts in 14 programs, including air, solid waste, hazardous waste, and land management. Fort Harrison officials stated that they are proud of the fort’s efforts to preserve and maintain wildlife and nat- ural resources. Fort Harrison has also instituted a radon testing pro- gram, and the first radon monitors were shipped to the contractfor for analysis in October 1989. On November 9, 1989, an environmental awareness day program was held at the fort to further communication and cooperation between Fort Harrison and local communities. Most of our work was performed at Fort Harrison. We reviewed current Scope and and past inspections of Fort Harrison made by the Army Environmental Methodology* Hygiene Agency and the Indiana Department of Environmental Manage- ment to identify problems or violations of standards. We also reviewed noncompliance citations issued by these agencies, the Environmental Page 7 GAO/NSIALb90-88 Fort Harrison Environment - Protection Agency, and the Indianapolis Air Pollution Control Division and discussed the citations with officials of those agencies. We obtained ground and surface water monitoring test results and reviewed the analyses of these results with the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. We met with officials at Fort Harrison, including the Chief of Staff, Director of Installation, Chief of the Natural Resources Division, and Chief of the Defense Reutilization and Market- ing Office. We visited each of the five sites that were reported to be in noncompliance with environmental standards. We conducted our review from August through November 1989 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As requested, we did not obtain written agency comments. However, we discussed the contents of this report with agency officials and incorpo- rated their comments where appropriate. Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of the report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time we will make copies available to others. Please contact me at (202) 275-4268 if you or your staff have any questions concerning this report. Other major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V. Sincerely yours, Nancy R. Kingsbury Director Air Force Issues Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-38 Fort Harrison Environment Y Page 9 GAO/NSLAI)-gO-88 Fort Harrison Environment c;Onts Letter A$pendix I Map of Fort Benjamin Harrison 1I Aapendix II Comparison of Fourth Q arter Fiscal Year 1989 Tests of M“,, nitoring Wells With St&e and Federal Standards A@pendix III Contractor’s Report on Test of Surface Water at ithe Lee Road Landfill Appendix IV Agreed Order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency Appendix V Major Contributors to This Report Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-90438 Fort Harrison Environment Y Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment I, I - I Apbndix I 1 Map of Fort Benjamin Harrison Fort Harrlson Lt3WESlC~ cl 18I Creek (surlace) water sample locations 0 Monllorlng wells INDIANA x Proposed monltorlng wells 3 Surlace waler and shallow waler flow dtrectlon Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Appeidix II Co@parisonof Fourth Quarter Fiscal Yew 1989 Tebtsof Monitoring Wells With State and Federal Stmdaxds I Surface waterc Standards8 Well Down- Contanjhant ..c@ill!!~~~~ .__..._____-1 2 3 4 5 6b Upstream stream Priman/ Arserw -1 0.050 . _- ..__ 0.004 0.004 0.005 0.006 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.005 Banum 1.000 0.240 0.070 0.210 0.510 0.040 0.030 0.050 0.070 CadimuIn 0.010 0.004 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.001 Chromlhm 0.050 0.001 <O.OOl 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.007 Lead .. ~.!-= 0.050 0.001 <O.OOl <O.OOl <O.OOl <O.OOl <O.OOl 0.002 0.002 Mercur ~.0.002 <0.0002 ~.-.~-_..... _.- <0.0002 <0.0002 <0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 Selenium 0.010 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 <0.002 co.002 0.002 0.002 Silver ~ 0.050 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.001 Secon+aty Chlond P 250.000 6.500 12.000 35.000 56.000 2.500 8.500 51.000 51.000 Iron 0.300 0.035 0.157 0.157 9.390d 0.062 0.060 0.307 0.283 Chemidalbxygen deman# e 8.000 <2.000 10.000d~' 42.000d 8.000 8.000 22.000 24.000 Cb&CtTvit~ 0 -.-_-.-- 680.000 1200.000' 1460.000d,' 1550.000d 940.000 1180.000 615.000 610.000 Hardness e 388.000 836.000' 805.000d~' 753.300' 515.000 745.000 504.000 446.000 pH .; 6.5-8.5 7.000 6.500 6.500 6.500 6.800 6.500 7.800 7.700 Total dlxsolved solids : 500.000 399.000 707.000' 869.000d,' 949.000d 611.000' 871.000d 364.000 374.000 3tate and federal standards are the same. “Well no, 6 was placed upstream of the groundwater flow to the landfill. It provides the background for natural contaminants in the groundwater so that they can be compared with tests downstream from the landfill. “These samples were taken from Lawrence Creek, which is located directly west and north of the landfill. “According to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, parameters such as iron, hard- ness, specific conductivity, and total dissolved solids often exceed standards and are interrelated. For example, if total dissolved solids increases, specific conductivity increases; if iron increases, total dis- solved solids increases. Higher levels in these parameters is not unusual for central Indiana groundwater. ‘The standard for these items is the reading taken in the upgradient, or well no. 6. ‘According to the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, values are no higher (or not signif- icantly higher) than those for well no. 6 and for groundwater in the area. Y Page 13 GA0/NSIAD90-33 Fort Harrison Environment . ApQendix III C$mtractor’sReport on Test of SurfaceWater at the Lee Road Landfill TO: Ron Smith Directorate of Installation Support National Resources Hanaqement Division Buildlnq 128 Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana 46216-5450 FROM : James It. Keith /LLNccq kLe[L Geosciences Res’. ch Associates, Inc J 627 North Horton Street Bloomington, Indiana 47404 DATE: November 7, 1989 SUBJ: Biological reconnaissance of ditches, wet depressions and a stream near Hawley Army Hospital, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana REF: DABT-15-90-H-0432 INTRODUCTION ANDPURPOSE The purpose of this biological reconnaissence is to identify the fauna and/or flora present in water samples collected from eight stations in the vicinity of Hawley Army Hospital, consisting of two wet depresslons, a dralnage ditch and a stream trlbutary to Lawrence Creek. Somelocal concerns had been voiced about the source and quality of the ground water in this area slnce an old landlfll is situated in the same general area, and since the water in the ditch, and to some extent the wet depressions, contained a reddlsh-orange slimy material of unknown composltlon. As a first step toward determlninq the possible source and quality of the water, a biologlcal reconnaissance was undertaken to determine to what extent the waters are capable of supporting aquatic life. Recommendations for further study are Included with the findings of thls reconnaissance. Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix III Contractor’s Report on Test of Surface Water at the Lee Road Landfill METHODS Samples were gathered from the stations shown in Figure 1 on August 30, 1999: Station 1 - A sample of the reddish-orange material vas gathered from the ditch in a glass jar and returned to the laboratory without pKeSWfatiVe to determine whether the material was of biological origin, or whether it was a chemical precipitate. Station This was a wet depression in a wooded area. The water 2 - was about 6 inches deep and the depression vas full of fallen leaves. It was about 6 feet across, roughly oval, and there was no discernible flow into or out of the depression. One square foot ot bottom sedlment and leaves was collected, placed in a jar with 10 ml of formalin and returned to the laboratory. Station 3 - This too was a wet depression in a wooded area. The water was about 3 inches deep and again was full of fallen leaves. This pool was irregular in outline and was about 10 feet across. It connected with two other smaller pools. The sample was collected and preserved as for Station 2. Station 4 - This sample was from the east-west ditch directly north of the hospital helipad. The ditch, about 3 feet across, was choked with weeds and cattails and contained standing water with no discernible flow. The sample was collected and preserved as for Station 2. Stations 5 and 6 - These samples are from the north-south segment of the same ditch. The ditch was about the same dimensions and had the same vegetation and lack of flow. The samples were collected and preserved as for Station 2. Stations 7 and 8 - These samples are from the Lawrence Creek tributary stream that receives input from both the ditch and the wet * depressions. Station 7 is upstream from the input and Station 8 is Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix III Contractor’s Report on Test of Surface Water at the Lee Road Landfill - downstream. Flow at both stations was over a substrate that varied from gravel to cobbles. Samples were collected from the two stations by disturbing 2 square feet of bottom area by hand and capturing the drifting material in a 0.75 mmhand strainer. The material was trsnsferred to a glass jar with water and 10 ml of Eormalin was added. In the laboratory the collected materials were hand washed and sorted through no. 10, 35 and 120 sieves, then examined by microscope and identiEled. RESULTS As a general observation, it should be noted that most of the reddish-orange material was located in the ditch, and that very little was seen in the wet depressions. It should also be noted that the water in the ditch and depressions had a distinctive odor of iron, but no septic odors could be detected. What follows is a discussion of the organisms found in each of the samples. Sample 1 - This sample was collected unpreserved in order to identify the nature and perhaps the source of the reddish-orange material. At a magnification of 675X, the material appeared as a collection of unbranched filaments, some covered with tiny orange particles, The filaments proved to be iron-precipitating bacteria of the ms - l&&&i,& group of filamentous bacteria. These bacteria find optimum growth in water at a pH range of 6-8, a dissolved oxygen concentration of l-3 mg/L, and a dissolved ferrous iron content of >0.2-5.0 mg/L (Hackett and Lehr, 19851. There is some doubt in the literature about whether these organisms directly metabolize dissolved iron, or whether lron precipitation Is a byproduct of metabolizing other dissolved substances. Sample 2 - Oliqochaetes - (/square foot Empty shells of aquatic snails W&ma and LDIM.U Page 16 GAO/NSUD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix IJI ~ntractks Report on Test of Surf&e Water at the Lee Road LandfIll A.- Sample 3 - &&hp& sp. larva (Colcoptcra, Dryopidac) - l/square foot Pupa, prob. !&l,~x (Dlptera, Cullcidael - l/square foot Empty shell of the aquatic snail Planorbus sp. Sample 4 - Oligochaetes - 57/square foot tlmneblus sp. (Coleopteta, Hydracnidat) - l/square foot Empty shells of u and flngernall clams Sample 5 - Oligochaetes - l’l/square foot Dlpteran larva (partly destroyed) - l/square foot Sample 6 - Oligochaetes - l/square foot Sample 7 - PEionocera sp. (Diptera, Tlpulidae) - O.S/square foot Hvdroosvchc sp. (Trlchoptcra, Hydropsychidae) - l/square foot PlcrenoPsePhalns sp. (Coleoptera, Psephenidae) - l/square foot “Orthocladiini” larvae (Diptera, Chironomidae) - l/square foot fragmented pupa Sample 8 - &lcranm sp. - O.S/square foot m sp. - 1.5 square foot DISCUSSION The organisms identified from the wet depressions and ditch are typical of those that might be found In temporary or semipermanent aquatic habitats: ollgochactes (earthworms), larvae of semiaquatic organisms such as &J&&L and Llmncblus. and empty shells of small, immature aquatic snails, and dlpteran larvae. Likewise, the organisms found in the stream are probably typical of those found in snrall strerw draining developed areas. However, unlike some of the fauna of the pools and ditches, the stream organlsms are fully aquatic. All of the organisms ldentlfled have a certain amount of tolerance for varying water quality condltlons, and can withstand the varying levels of water quality that would be typical of developed areas such as Fort Benjamin Harrison. The wdters sampled are capable of supporting aquatic life to varylng ” Page 17 GAO/NSL4D-90-M Fort Harrison Environment Appendix m Contra&@r Re~0rt on Test of Surface Water atthekeRoadLandflll degrees, but the results of this reconnaissance do not reveal the chemical nature and origins of the wet depression and ditch waters. The proximity of dn old landflll has been the some of some local concern regarding the possible origins of the water, It should be pointed out the the iron bacteria found In the waters are not ncCtSSdriiy dsaocidted with pollution, but can be wldespread In water with a hlgh iron content. It should also be pointed out that ground water in Harion County Is In many places characterized by Its hlgh lron content and reddish color. Btown (1882) noted that there were a number of springs In Marion County of thls sort, one of which he named the Minnewa Spring, located 1.5 miles northeast of the ‘vlllaqe of Lawrence”. While it Is not suqgested that the depressions are part of thls spring, it Is clear that Iron-bearlng ground Wdter iS not uncommonin the Lawrence area. To further ChdrdCterlZe the nature and possible source of the water in the wet depresslons and ditch, it 1s recommendedthdt samples of water be collected from one depression (S-21, from the ditch (S-61, and from the tributary creek (S-7 and S-61, and analyzed for primary parameters listed for Phase I landflll monltorlng In 329 IAC 2-16-6, and secondary parameters llstcd In 329 IAC 2-16-7(c). These parameters should indicate the probable source of the waters in those areas, and whether they may present a threat t0 human health dnd welfare. LITERATiJRECITED Brown, R.T. 1882. Report of a geological and topographical survey of Marion County, Indiana. 12u Annual Report of the Indiana State Geologist.: 79 - 99. Hackett, G. and J.H. Lehr. 1985. Iron bacteria occurrence, problems and control methods in water wells. NdtiOndi Water Well Association. 79 p. Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Contractor’s Report on Test of Surface Water attheLeel&adLandfIll 0 500 1000 fret -1 Y Fipure 1. Locrtion of sampling points. Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Pm. i&kkd Order Between Fort Harrison and the F$vironmental Protection Agency INTMEMA!lTEROF ; DEpAHRdwTOFTHEARMY U.S. ARMYSoLDIERSuPF0Kr(33rrER FEDEZALFACIIJTY Fmr BENJAMINHARRISON,INDIANA i axPLxANcE AGFERm ,' Dxket No. V-W-89-R-4 Respotient. ) \ 1. - 1. ?heUnitedStatesEnvironmentalhrotectionAgency, RegionV, (hereinafter U.S. EPA) and the Department of the Amy, U.S. Amy Soldier support Center, Fort Benjamin Harrison, Indiana (hereinafter USASSC)are the parties to this Federal Facility Cmpliance Agreemmt ("agreement") which is entered into pursuant to Ekextive Order 12088, October 13, 1978 (43 G& 47707) and the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amruJ& by the ResourceCoMervationand~eryAd,asfurtheramerdedbytheHazardous and Solid Waste Amenbents (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. §6901& m. 'Ihe authority to enter this agreement has been delegated by the U.S. EPAAdJnkistrator to the Regional Administrator of U.S. EPA, R&on V. 2. Executive Order 12088 was prcmlgatsd to insure Federal compliance with applicable pollution control star&u&. The Office of Managementam3 Budget and the Cepartmznt of Justice will take uqnizernce of thisagreement pumuant to their respective duties to assure compliance with the envirormwtal lam under Fxecutive Order 12088 and RCRA. This agreemant contains a l*plarP, as described in Section l-601 of Executive Page 20 GAO/NSIADW-SS Fort Harrison Environment Agmed Order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency -20 Oxder 12088, to achieve an3 maintain cxmplianc8 with the specified hazazdouswasteniles oftheState of IMianawhich axe contained atTitle 329 of the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), and of U.S. EPAwhch are contained at 40 CFRpart 268. U.S. EPAard USASSC have reached a determination as to the steps thatUSASSCm.ktake to achieve compliance and those steps are setoutherein. 3. l'his Federal Facility C!cmplianceAgreement does not address corrective action or response rmasuns p'lmuant to sections 3004(u), 3004(v), 3008(h) or 9003(h) of RCF$ 42 U.S.C. 95 6924(u), 6924(v), 6928(h), or 699lb(h), or pursuant to the Comprehensive EinvFronmantal Reqmnse Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (VEXLA~~), as amer&d by the supartund Amardmmts and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (%ARA"), 42 U.S.C. 99601 & a. IhiB Federal Facility Compliance Agreemnt has been agreedtobyUSASSCardU.S.EPAtoresolve ohlythematters stated below and tc facilitate im&mentation of the measureedescribedherein. II. 1. USASSC shall, imediately upon signature of this agreement, begin markingal1storagecontainers ofhaztiouswastewiththedateuponwhich accunailation begins ti with the words %azaxdous Wast& as reqired by 329 IAC 3-9-5. 2. USASSC shall develop adetailsdwaste analysis plan, as mquiredby 329 IAC 3-16-4, for the facility. lhisplanshallbecampletedwithinby USASSC120 days of sicmature of this agremant. Page 21 GAO/NSLAD-90-98 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix N Agreed Order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency -3- 3. USASSC shall, within ;-180 days of signature of this agreemnt, canplete a thormgh haza.rdcmswaste determination at all its waste generation poti* Said inventoryshalllist allgensrationpA.nts, detsmins quantitiesgtxnam~, ardshallirdicatswhid~areconsidemdsatsllite aammlation arsas as described in 329 IAC 3-9-5 (c)(l). 4. Within 45 days of signature of this agresment, USASSCshall devise and maintain a ccmplete upsrating record as requhd by 329 IAC 3-19-4. 5. WitMn 30-cbys of signature of this agremmt, USASSC will Mtiate weekly inspections, as required by 329 IAC 3-16-6, for all areas not currently being inspezted by the Defense Reutilization ard MarMA.ng Office t-1 l USASSCshallseeto itthatits inspection reports ars ombined withthose of the DRMsuchthatallinspectionrep&cs, logs, and summries are in one location that is easily accessible to inspectors and safety pentonnel. 6. USASSC will revise its w SEill m-1 ~-wlY with the rmts of 329 IAC 3-18-3, within 180 days of signature of this agreerent. Page 2 2 GAO/NSIAD-9088 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix IV Agreed Order Between Fort Harrbon and the Environmental Protection Agency -4 - 7. USASSCshall, as rquired by 329 IAC 3-17-7, &date its emergency response agmmen~wlthlccal authorities oramtracbd respmseteam within 60 clays of signature of this agreemn t. USASSCshalldl8trlbut8the revi6edoxkirqency plant0 all mspmsebamsthatmaybecalledupcnto pmvide emargenq imnrlcas, as rcrquired by 329 IAC J-18-4, within 75 days of slgnatum of this agreement, 8. USASSC will identify tralniq needs ard prwlde training tc appropriate personnel, :&I acxmdance with 329 DC 3-M-7, w1M.n 210 days of signature of thb agreement. Fhotocopiae of aupersonne1tra* remrde (inclubing~,fFrcrdeparbnant,etc.)ahall~#~~inadinonelocatlon that is eablly accessible to lnqectors and safety personnel. 9. USASSC shallwithJn - 60 days of signature of this agremen t, suhdtan ao=eptable clcsure plan for the entire facility to the Indiana Departmsnt ofE!nvlrcnmentalManagmt(Im),asrerluired by 329 IAC 3-21-3 ti 4. 10. USASSC shall cmpkti puklal facility closure of the old~~Hazardcus mtsrial storage kdkting (!124), in accomlanm with 329 IAC 3-21 and elm11 amenditeRCRApennitapplicatlcmtc lncludethenewhazardouewa&e mtorags' building. Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-90-38 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix N Agreed Order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency 11. The ampliance schedule set out herein is inter&d to achieve cmpliance as expeditiously as practicable, pm%ant to Section l-601 of Fmcutive order 12088, The schedule was detemined after consultation between USASSC and U.S. EPA. USASSC agrees to take the specified adioffi toachieve am@&ncewiththeregulatory requirerrwts within the specified ti.nmparicds subject,hcrwever, tothe followingparagraphs ehtitled Vuniing~~ ard Welay in Perf~rmance.~~ Whenever reasonably possible, USASSC will expedite the schedule. III. EUNDINC uSASscahal1eeekal1fundingnecessary to inplement the CcqAiancerequirementofthisagreement pursuanttotheechedulesetforth herein. Section l-5 of E-0. 12088 states The head of each executive agency ehall ensure that sufficient fur& for compliance with applicable pollution ccntrol standards are requested in the Agency budget." Failure to obtain adequate fur& or appropriations frcm Congrees does not, in any Way, release USPSSCfrom its obligation to cmply with the applicable rules at 329 IX and the ReMurce ConsemationarxlReccvery?kt, ae am&&, 42 U.S.C. 5 69OlfA seq. If, hcmver, sufficient fur& are not appmpriatedbytheCongrtz33 as reguestedardexistFng funds arenot availableto achieve conpliancewiththes&eduleepmvided inthis Agreemmt, arkdUSMSCreporte thelackof fur& in accordancewithSection VIofthisa grwnznt, any resulting delay shall be presumed to have been duetocircvmstanoesbeyondthemhablecontrP1 of USASSCwhichanitd not have been overwm by due diligence. Noth.inginthisAgmmentshall be construed tonquh theUSASSCto obligate fur&i in any f&al year in Y contravention of the Anti-Deficiency M, 31 u.s.c. 91341. Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix N Agreed Order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency -6- Iv* UEZAY Ifanyeventcccurs whichcausesdelay inthe achievemnlz ofthe reqbemntsofthba gremmt,US?GSC ehallhavethebuxdenofpmvirq that the delaywas ceusedby cirams~beyotithe masonable control of U!3!3SCwhichcculdnothavebencveram byduediligenw. z4sscmnas USASSC becmes aware of a delay, USASSCshall firstname.lastname@example.org notify U.S. EPA’s Designated Project Officer orally of the delay and shall, within Qhty (30) calendar days of oral notification to U.S. EPA, notify U.S. EPA in writing of the cause am3anticipated length of the delay, the measures taken ard/ortobetakentoprevMtorminFmizethedalay, tithe timetablebywkichUSASSCinterdsto~l~tthesa~. If the parties agree that the delay or anticipated delay hae been or will he causedbycFrcumstancesbeyondthe~onablecontrolofUSAsSC, the time for parZommnce of the affected task ehall be extemhd in writing for a period equal to the delay reeulting for such cirnm\atnnccls. If the pnrties cannot agree that the delay or anticipated delay hae been or will be caused by cm beyonilthe reasonable control of USASSCor cannot agree on the period forextenclingperfom~, thedisputeresolutionpmxduresof this agreementshallapply. USASSCshall adopt allreasonablemasuree to avoid or minimize delay. Failure of USASSC to oxnply with tie notice requkamento oftkieparagraphahdllmnsti~awaiverofthe Respodentt6 right to x-quest awaiverofthe requbmn~ofthis cul@lianm AfJmment. Y Page 26 GAO/NSIALb90-98 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix IV Agreed Order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency -7- v* AMESICMPTT In the event them is an amrdmsntofRCRA,or~estothe regulations prumlgated under RCRA,statutes, prior to ampletion of the requirements setforthwithinthis agreemnttheom@iance schedulemaybe renegotiated to aaxmda te any acaitional time necessary to ourply with the newRCRAreqkemnt.9. rxUrbqthepsn%ncy ofanyrenegotiation, the cmplianm schedule, tothe utentitdoes notamflictwith stztutmy or regulatory changes, shall remin in effect unless specifically waived by U.S. EPA, Region V. VI. - 1. IfUS?GSC subsequentlydetennines thatfuIr3sarenot appropriatfxl frommqress as reques~and&ing funds arenot available to achieve compliance in awxdancs with the schedule, USASSC shall notify the U.S. EPA inmdiately in writing. 2. USASSCshallsulmitnrx~thlyprcgress reportsuntil theampliance activities set forthhsreinhavekeen ompleted and a final reportwithin one mmth of ampletion of the find cepnpliarxa activities. The prcgress rep%Lswillbs submitted to U.S. EPA& Im. Theprogress reports shall indicataccanpliana3 ornon-campliancewiththe schedule. Inthe event of nonumplianc8, the report f3hallincludethe cause ofnon-aqliance and any remedialactionsbksn. 3. USMSCintends tokeeptheU.S. EPAand IDEM informed of other enviromtal sties ardadivities~~tosolidwaste~gement Y units which are not addressed as partofthis F&&al Facilityccmpliance Agreementardto &copies of such studies and plans and reports on such Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix IV Agreed Order Between Fort H&on and the Environmental Protection Agency -8- activities to U.S. EPAas they beccnneavailable. The pm&ions of this pamgrapharenotumsidered requhmnts urder section VIII of this Agreclment. 4. Allagreedtoitem ardreports shculdk suhittxdtoWilliamE. Muno, Chief, RCBAEnfo-t Eiran&, U.S. EPA, 230 South Ce&xxn Street, 5HR-12, Chicago, Illinois 60604, ard to Iknnh Zawodni, Chief, Enforcenmt Section, HamrdousWasteManagementBxm&, Indcana Deparhentof EnvFrormwtalMaMgenwt,105southMeridianstreet, Itianapolis, Irdiana 46206-6015. VII. ENFoRcEABIL;ITy 1. usAssc ?IEcqlizes its obligations tooomplywithRcxA as set forth in Section 6001 of RCBA,42 U.S.C 56961. 2. me pruvisions of this Agr-t including those related to statutory rquirements, regulations, permits, closure plans, recordkeeping, reporting ard schedules of appliance, shall be enformable w&r citizen suits pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 16972(a)(l)(A), including actions or suits by the State of Irdhna ard its agencies. USASSC agrees that the State aml its agencies are a t$exsontl within the mar&q of Section 7002(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C 86972(a). 3. In the event of any action filed under Section 7002(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. $6972(a), alleging any violation of any such req&ment of this ~t,itahallbepresumedthatthepmvisionsof~s~t includ~thosepnxrisionswhichaddressrecordkeeping,report~,ard Page 27 GAO/NSJAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Agreed Order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency -9- schedules of ccnpliance are related to statutory mqhmf&s, rcqilations, permits, or claare plans, and are thus enforceable urder Section 7002(a) of RCR%,42 U.S.C. 56972(a). VIII. 8F;sOIJJI'IONOF DI- 1. Fxcept as specifically set forth elsewhers inthisFgpem3nt, if a diSpUb?l.dSWti~thiSAgreemerrtthep- ofthbmrtshall w@y. Inaddition,duringtheperdencyofanydispute,USASSCagrees thatitshallwntinueto iqL3mentthoseportions of this Agreemntwhich are notaffectedbythedisputeard~chcanbereasoMbly inplementea pending final reSOlUtiOn of the issue(s) in d&put& If U.S. EPA determines inwritingthatallorpart of any fieldworkaffeztedbythe disputeahouldst4p~rewlutionofthedisplte,USASSCshall discontinue implemnting those portions oftheworkorproceed at its own risk. 2. Allpartiestothis~~tshallmakereasoMbleefforts~ informally resolve disputes at the level of the Installation Cmmander and the U.S. EPARegion V RCW Ehforcement Rranch chief reqmsFble for USASSC RcmAamplh.nce, ortheirdesignees. Ifresolutioncmnotbe achieve3 hformally, withinthethirtydayperiodpruvidmA for.inParagra~ 3 or 4, theprooEiduresofParagraph5ofthisPartEihdllbe~l~~to~lve the dispute. 3. within thirty (30) days of the date of receipt by USASSC of a written notice frm u.s #, EPA of a decision or an action pertaining to Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-9088 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix IV Agreed order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency - 10 - USXXX's implementation of this aglrement with which USASSC disagrees, USASSCmaysulPnittoU.S.~Aawrittenstatementofdtspltasett~ forth the nature of the dispute, USASSC~S position with respeot to the dispute ard the information USASSCis relying upon to support its position, and any inpactsu&disp~tenayhave onspecifiedsohedules, elements ofwork, submittals, oractions requhdbythispqreement. IfUSMSCdoesnot provide suchwritten statementtoU.S. ETPAwithinthis 3O-dayperiod, USASSC shall be deemedtohave agreedwiththe actiontakenbyU.S. EPA which led to or generated the dispute. 4. Where U.S. EPA issues a Written Notice of Position, if USASSC disagrees with the Written Notice of position it my provide U.S. E!PA with awritten statementofdispute setting forththenatxre of the dispute, its position with respect to the dispute and the information it is relying on to support its pition, ard any hpaot such dispute may have on speoified schedules, elements of work, submittals or actions required by this Agreement. If USASSC does not provide such a written statemnt of dispute within thirty (30) days of receipt of the Written Notice of Position, USASSC shall be deemd to have agreed with the Written Notice of Position. 5. Uponreceiptofthewrittenstatemntofdispute,theFarties shall engage in dispute resolution WerardtheEPA between the MlcC%24 RCRAEhforcementmch Qlief ortheFrdesignees. Theparties shall have thirty (30) days fmn the receipt by the U.S. EPAof the written statement Page 29 GAO/NSIAIMO-88 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix IV AgreedOrder Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental F’ratectlon Agency - - 11 - ofdisputetoresslvethedispute. lNrh-gthispericd, theParties shall meet as mny tims as are necessary to dismss am2 attmpt resolution of thedisplta. Anyagm&resclutionshallbe inwriting, signedbyboth parties. IfagreementcaMotbereachedonanyissuebytheendofthis thirty (30) day period, each party shall state its position in writing and provide it to the other Farty within 10 days of the erd of the 30 day period. Either Party my, within twelve (12) days of the issuance of the other party's position, suhitawrittennuticetothe other party eSCidathg the dispute to the Dispute F&solution Cmunittee (IXC) for resolution. If no Partyelevatesthedispute tithe IZRCwithin inthis twelve (12) day escalation pariod, the Parties shall be deemd to have agreed with U.S. EPA's fhl written position with respect to the dispute. 6. The URC! will serve as a forum for resolution of displtes for which agreerrenthaa notbeenreached prsuant to paragraphs 3,4 or 5 of this section. Theparties &all. eachdesignate one Mividual toeerve onthe DRC. The i~-~Jividuals designated to seme on the DRC shall be employed at the policy level (SES or equivalent) or be delegated the authority to participate on the IlRC for the purposes of dispute resolution v&r this Agrmt . Follcwing escalation of a dispute to the CRC as set forth in Paragraph 5, the URCBhallhavethFrty (30) days to unanhxely resolve the dispute. Any agreed resolution shall be inwritirg ard signedbyboth parties. If the KRCis unable to umnimuely resolve the disputx withb this thirty (30) day period, eachparty shallpltits position inwriting ard provide it to the other Party within (10) days of the erd of the 30 day period. Eitherpartymay, withintwelve (U) days oftheissuance of the Y ~e.rparty'spositon, subnitawrittennotic8 ofdispltstothe Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix Iv Agreed Order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency ALbIbiStratOr Of U.S. EPA. Intheeventthatthedisputeistiescalated to the Administrator of the U.S. EPAwithin the designated twelve (12) day escalation period, the parties shallbadeenmzdtohave agresdwith the U.S. EPADRCrepresentativels fill written position with respect to the displte. 7. Upon escalation of a dispute to the J!&ninistrator of U.S. EPA pu.rsmnttOParagraph 6, theAdministratorwillreviewardresolve such dispute as axpeditiously as passible, but not later than sixty (60) days, follcwFng escalation. Upon resolution, the Administrator shall pruvide USASSC with a written decision resolving the dispute. 8. lheU.S. EPArepresentativeonthe DRCis theWa&eManagement Division Director of U.S. EPA's Region V or tis designee. USASSC~s designat;edmemberis~~ldJ.mcdar~rorhis designee. Notice of any delegation of authority ix-cm a PartyBra designated representative on the DRC shdllbeprovidedtotheother Party. 9. The pendehcy of any dispute under this Section shall not affect USASSCresponsibility for timsly parformance oftheworkrsquiredbythis Agreemnt, except that the time period for ccanpletion of work affsctsd by sudr dispute shall be exterded for a pxicd time not tn exceed the achnl delay caused by the resolution of any gocd faith dispute in accordance with thepmcedwesspecifiedharein. All elements oftheworkmguirsdbythis Agreamntwhich are notaffectezlbythedisplta shall continue andbe mmpleted inaaxdancewiththeapplicable schedule. Page 3 1 GAO/NSIAD-90-88 Fort Harrison Environment _. Appendix IV Agreed Order Between Fort Harrison and the Environmental Protection Agency - 13 - 10. Within thirty (30) days of resolution of a dbput43 pursuant t4 the procedures spacified inthisSection,usAssCshallimxpxat8the resolutionard final detemination intotheappropriateplan, scheduleor prazduresandprcasdtf~ ixqGmentthisAgmemntaw~totheamm%d plan, schedule orprmedure. 11. Resolution of a disput8 puxsuant to this Section of the Rqrement constitutes a final resolution of any d&ah arising tier this Agreemnt. The Parties shallabideby alltems and com%tions of any final resolution of dispute obtained px8umt to this section of thin Agreement. Page 32 GA0/NSIAD40-88 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix N Agreed Order Between Fort Her&on and the Environmental Protection Agency Fort Benjamin Barrison IN4 210 090 003 ” V-W-89-R-b Page33 GAO/NSLAD9088 Fort Harrison Environment Appendix V Major Contributors to This Report A LL,Aasuciate Director National Security and ~~~~JJ$~$!$L.., rh A- -L”“-““-.V Ancictant -A*--“-- lXrwt.nr Indernational Affairs Jacob W.*Sprouse, Assignment Manager Division, Washington, D.C. Frank Kallmeyer, Evaluator-in-Charge Cibcinnati Regional Pat Roush, Site Senior Office (202522) Page 34 GAO/NSJAD-90-38 Fort Harrison Environment First-Class Mail Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GlOO
Hazardous Waste: Fort Benjamin Harrison's Compliance With Environmental Laws
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1990-03-28.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)