[CPEO-MEF] Army Munitions Information Paper

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

(Here is a new Army information paper on its munitions management
programs. Please note that it only summarizes Army programs, not those
of the other armed services. To best read the table, make sure it's in a
monospace font. - LS)

INFORMATION PAPER

DAIM-ED-M
16 July 2001

SUBJECT:  Managing Military Munitions, Including Unexploded Ordnance
(UXO) and Munitions Constituents (C), to Sustain Testing and Training
Ranges (J-7-01)

ARMY POSITION:  
The Army's test and training ranges are critical to Army readiness. The
Army's readiness would quickly erode without the ability to develop and
evaluate weapons systems and to train soldiers to use those systems
proficiently.   Challenge:  To plan and implement an effective,
integrated, and proactive program for the management of military
munitions, to include UXO(C), associated with activities at
Active/Inactive (A/I) test and training ranges.  

TALKING POINTS:
* An effective Range Sustainment Program must include a Military
Munitions Management Program as a component.
* Ranges are a finite resource and must be managed to ensure long-term sustainability.
* Effective programs for Closed, Transferred, and Transferring (CTT)
ranges instills public confidence, in turn ensuring the Army's continued
access to A/I ranges.
* An effective, integrated, and proactive Military Munitions Management
Program must include and affect both munitions and range lifecycle
management programs.

BACKGROUND:
a. Major Issues:  Management of military ranges is under increasing
scrutiny by internal and
external organizations, including Federal and State regulatory agencies
and Environmental
Interest Groups (EIGs). (See attached examples at Tab A)
 
b.  Deficiencies:   Between 1994 and 1998, the DOD Inspector General and
the SecArmy identified deficiencies in the controls and management of
UXO(C).  The General Accounting Office (GAO) recently completed two
audits relating to Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) and A/I ranges. 
The GAO Report was very critical of DOD's cost estimating methods and
techniques for identifying its response requirements.

c.  Army Response:
* Draft Material Weakness Corrective Action Plan developed
* Multi-service Operational & Environmental Executive Steering Committee
(OEESCM) established to address issues across the lifecycle of munitions
* Senior Readiness Oversight Council (SROC) tasked the Defense Training
and Testing Steering Committee (DTTSG) to analyze range encroachment issues
* Army Range Sustainment Integration Council (ARSIC) established to
support sustainable range management, including military munitions
lifecycle management
* Army is in 2nd Phase of a 100% inventory of all its current and former
ranges, which will include data on UXO(C), and will help determine
future response requirements

CONGRESSIONAL INTEREST:
 Management of UXO(C) has come under increased scrutiny from Congress
and Congressional Staff.  During the period March through May 2001, LTG
Ellis (DCSOPS) and MG Van Antwerp (ACSIM), presented testimony on
encroachment issues, which included UXO(C) areas of concern, to the
SASC, HASC, and the House Committee on Government Reform (HCGR).  On 1
June 2001, the Army also presented a briefing to SASC Staffers on the
Army Range Inventory and UXO(C) response requirements.

Senators Kennedy and Kerry and Congressman Delahunt are involved due to
ongoing issues at Massachusetts Military reservation (MMR).  Congressman
Farr is involved in the ongoing actions at Fort Ord.  Because of
concerns relating to readiness, Senators McCain and Smith have expressed
interest.  The SASC Majority Counsel for environmental issues has also
expressed interest in UXO(C). Overall Congressional interest will
increase as EPA, the States, and EIGs raise more concerns related to UXO(C).

LATEST RECAP - BUDGET AND PROGRAM DATA

Programmed funding of major UXO(C) related activities (in millions of
dollars).  

            PFY00 CFY01  BFY02FY03-07 TOTAL
BRAC^1       9.0  16.4  15.2  47.3   88.8
FUDS(OE)^2  50.0  53.0  39.0 163.0  305.0
DERA^3       0.0  10.0  10.0  40.0   60.0
Range XXI    5.0   3.0   3.0  38.3   49.3
RDT&E^4     10.3  11.2  16.0  47.0   84.5
OMA^5       10.0   0.0   0.0   0.0   10.0
MMR         30.2  34.4  35.9 229.6  330.1

(figures are as of 2 Jul 01, provided by BRACO, Restoration, AEC, DCSOPS
and SAIE)

^1 For UXO response actions at BRAC installations, exclusive of
Jefferson Proving Ground.  Additionally, the FY00 figure does not
reflect re-prioritization due the recent deferment from FY00 to FY01 in
response to PBD 748.
^2 The Army is the Executive Agent for the FUDS program, a DOD-funded
program.  The program is executed by USACE.  Note:  The numbers used
above were obtained from FUDS BES 02 (00-03) and POM 02 (42-06) and
reflect UXO (ranges) and non-ranges.
^3 Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) for closed ranges on
active Army installations; programmed in OMA pending establishment of a
separate UXO account.
^4 RDT&E needed to identify and discriminate UXO, determine fate,
effects, and transport of munitions constituents
^5 For A/I Range Inventory
 (Note:  OSD has identified a budget issue calling for the establishment
of a separate Program Element (PE) under DERP for UXO(C).)

 Tab A:  Examples of Major Issues

1.  In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposed
regulating munitions/UXO on CTT ranges as statutory solid waste.  If
finalized, the munitions (and the range) would be subject to the
Resource Conservation & Recovery Act (RCRA) clean-up authorities (i.e.,
corrective action, or Section 7003's imminent and substantial
endangerment provisions). This would also set a potential precedent for
A/I ranges to be regulated similarly.  DOD proposed to address
environmental concerns by developing the DOD Range Rule as an
alternative regulatory structure tailored to UXO and munitions
constituents on CTT ranges.  Under the DOD Range Rule, UXO and munitions
constituents would not generally be treated as a solid waste.  EPA
initially agreed to support a DOD Range Rule, but subsequently requested
that DOD withdraw the DOD Range Rule, which occurred on 13 Nov 2000. 
Pending a possible re-proposed Range Rule, DOD is planning to promulgate
a DOD Directive and Instruction for response at CTT ranges.  If the
Range Rule is not ultimately finalized, EPA plans to address UXO,
munitions constituents, and constituents of concern mainly under Federal
environmental laws.  It is anticipated that EPA mainly will use the
Comprehensive Environmental Restoration, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA).  States have indicated they prefer RCRA, and may write their
own Range Rules.  Since withdrawal of the Range Rule however, States
have indicated a renewed interest in working with DOD.  There are
potential spillover impacts to A/I ranges from these events that could
lead to degradation in readiness.

2.   In 1997, in response to concerns about the potential for
contamination of the drinking water supply for Cape Cod, Massachusetts,
EPA ordered the suspension of live-fire training at the MMR. 
Subsequently, the Army was directed to assess of the potential for
military activities to result in the presence of munitions constituents
in groundwater at MMR.  In 2000, study results confirmed RDX in the
groundwater, and preliminary results indicate that live-fire training
may be a contributing source of the RDX.  To date, the Army has spent
$60.9 million trying to characterize the problem at MMR, and do some
remediation.  In addition, the Air Force has spent $237.1 million
remediating environmental problems caused by their activities at MMR. 
So far this fiscal year (FY01), the National Guard has identified an
additional $18 million unfunded requirement for assessment efforts at
MMR.  The regulatory authority used by EPA is the Safe Drinking Water
Act, and not CERCLA.  Several other key Army installations have
identified munitions constituents in the soil or groundwater.  These
installations include Fort Lewis, Aberdeen Proving Ground, and Picatinny Arsenal.

3.  In 1997, Colorado filed suit under state law, challenging the
response at Lowry Former 
Bombing Range, a FUDS.  (Note:  Lowry is also known as Buckley Air
Field.)  Under a settlement agreement, the Army agreed to a detailed
study to determine to what extent this property contains UXO, munitions
constituents, and constituents of concern.  Thus far, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers has spent $30.8 million studying the extent of the
UXO(C) problem at Lowry.

4.  A 1998 citizen's lawsuit under CERCLA challenged the UXO munitions
constituents, and constituents of concern response action at Fort Ord,
an installation being closed under Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC). 
In response, the Army agreed to conduct a remedial
investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) for Ordnance and Explosives on
the former Fort Ord.  That study is still ongoing. 



-- 


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

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