[CPEO-MEF] UXO Report to Congress released

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

The Pentagon's long-awaited report to Congress on unexploded ordnance
(UXO) has been released, but it wasn't worth the wait. Due in March,
2001 "Unexploded Ordnance Response: Estimated Costs and Technology
Investments" was transmitted to the four Congressional Defense
committees on May 21.

Signed by Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, and
Logistics E.C. Aldridge, Jr., the report contains very little new
information. Most illuminating, perhaps, is Aldridge's cover letter. He
apologized, "In developing this initial report on unexploded ordnance,
the Department developed a methodology to estimate our future costs, but
we acknowledge the available data is not sufficient to provide an
estimate with the necessary fidelity to guide investment decisions and
define technology requirements. I want to assure you the Department
recognizes our obligation to build a disciplined ordnance inventory and
develop a defensible cost estimate."

In the absence of defensible numbers, the Defense Department defers to a
less defensible number, the $14 billion estimate, from the Pentagon's
fiscal year 2000 financial statement, for responses at close,
transferred, and transferring ranges. The General Account Office
rejected that figure in a report this April.

The only hard data in the report, the UXO response technology budget, is
discouraging. The total slipped from about $4 million in fiscal year
1995 to $2 million in 1996, before rising gradually to over $8 million
in fiscal 2000. The report contains an appendix with six charts
summarizing the Department's UXO technology objectives. There's nothing
wrong with the substance of the charts, but in presenting them the
Department ignores some excellent work done by its own staff earlier
this year. That is, the meat of earlier drafts on technology development
was dropped somewhere on the way up the chain of command.

Senators, Representatives, and Hill staffers who have been following
ordnance issues are likely to be seriously disappointed by this report.
Either the baton was fumbled in the transition between administrations,
or the new political leadership has decided not to take the problem
seriously. That is, it's possible that the Bush team was so disappointed
with the state of the DOD range inventory that it sent staff and
consultants back to the drawing board. Or it's possible that they don't
want to play up range response requirement because it might bleed
resources from higher priority weapons systems and readiness support.

The 20-page report (in Microsoft Word), along with the Congressional
cover letters (in PDF format), may be downloaded from CPEO's website:
Go to http://www.cpeo.org/pubs and scroll down to "Other Relevant
Publications." Please note the file sizes before downloading.

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
lsiegel@cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~