National Academies Press: OpenBook

Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel (2012)

Chapter: 2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices

« Previous: 1 Introduction
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

2

Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices

INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes current federal policies, funding programs, and relevant government offices, particularly within the Department of Defense (DOD), that deal with recovered chemical warfare materiel (RCWM) and provides a short review of the management practices that have evolved under the RCWM program. The policy discussion addresses the legislative history of the program along with relevant DOD policy and procedural direction to the DOD components involved. The special nature of the program for RCWM has led to a multilayered DOD bureaucracy to plan, program, budget, and execute the program. With the exception of the Army offices that are specifically focused on safe storage and demilitarization of the remaining chemical weapons stockpile and dealing with non-stockpile remediation activities, the overall organizational construct for the RCWM program within DOD follows the existing mission and functions of the relevant DOD offices. This overlay of requirements for dealing with RCWM on top of the existing DOD organization has led to a set of complex management practices, which are summarized in this chapter.

Whereas this chapter focuses on describing the current policies, funding organizations, and processes for the RCWM program, Chapter 7 will examine the results, future needs, and shortcomings of the current programmatic design. That analysis concludes with comprehensive, forward-looking committee guidance on these aspects of the program for RCWM.

POLICY DEVELOPMENT

Historical and Organizational Overview (First World War-2007)

From the beginnings of the U.S. chemical warfare program during the First World War, the destruction and disposal of obsolete or unserviceable chemical warfare agents and munitions was accomplished by open pit burning, land burial, or ocean dumping, and large quantities of U.S. and foreign chemical agents and munitions were destroyed by these methods. In the late 1960s the use of these methods was discontinued owing to health, safety, and environmental concerns, and chemical neutralization and incineration became the preferred alternatives. During the 1970s the United States destroyed several thousand tons of nerve and mustard agents and munitions and expanded its research and development program for the destruction of chemical agents and munitions.

The United States is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC), an international treaty under the auspices of the United Nations. The requisite number of signatory nations for the CWC to enter into force was reached on April 29, 1997. The national policy of the United States, even before April 29, 1997, and certainly after that date, has been and remains to eliminate the entire U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons as well as, upon recovery, all categories of non-stockpile chemical weapons and materiel.

Before the treaty, the United States had begun a preliminary process of eliminating its declared stockpile of chemical weapons, referred to as the chemical stockpile disposal program (CSDP). The United States had also begun to eliminate classes of nondeclared materiel related to chemical agents and chemical weapons; these became characterized as non-stockpile chemical material (NSCM).

Because of the huge quantity of unitary assembled chemical weapons and the containerized storage of large quantities of chemical agents at the eight storage sites in the continental United States and Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean southwest of Hawaii, the program manager for chemical demilitarization focused on the demilitarization of the stored weapons stockpile.

The effort for non-stockpile chemical materials focused to a significant extent on that category of non-stockpile items and materiel that were definable and could be counted in much the same sense that the stockpiled weapons could

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-1 Current organization for policy, oversight, and funding for RCWM. ASD(NCB), Assistant Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense); USD(AT&L), Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics; DUSD(I&E), Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment; ASA(ALT), Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology; ASA(IE&E), Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment); DASA(ECW), Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Elimination of Chemical Weapons; DASA(ESOH), Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Environment, Safety and Occupational Health); AMC, U.S. Army Materiel Command; FORSCOM, Forces Command (U.S. Army); ACSIM/IMCOM, Assistant Chief of Staff, Installation Management/Installation Management Command (U.S. Army); CMA, Chemical Materials Agency; NSCMP, Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project; CARA, Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear (enhanced) Analysis and Remediation Activity; USACE, United States Army Corps of Engineers; AEC, U.S. Army Environmental Command. SOURCE: Prepared by the committee based on presentations received and research of official public information sources.

be defined and counted. There are five defined categories of non-stockpile chemical warfare materiel (NSCWM) (U.S. Army, 2004c):

(1) Binary chemical weapons;

(2) Former production facilities for chemical weapons and related items;

(3) Miscellaneous chemical weapons materiel, such as unfilled munitions and support equipment, for direct use with chemical weapons;

(4) Recovered chemical warfare materiel (RCWM)— buried chemical agent identification sets (CAIS), chemical weapons, and chemical warfare materiel— that were never stored in the stockpile and are found during activities such as range clearing; and

(5) Buried chemical weapons that were disposed of until the late 1960s, when open pit burning, land burial, and ocean dumping were ended.

The first three non-stockpile categories were clearly addressed by the Army’s overall programs for chemical demilitarization. As of July 2011, the first three categories had been taken care of.1 The remaining two categories are the subject of this study.

Figure 2-1 is a high-level chart depicting the organizations involved with policy, funding, and oversight. It is intended to frame the discussion and help the reader follow the titles, acronyms, and chain of command of the various offices involved in the program for RCWM. Further details are provided in the sections that follow. A second summary chart is provided later in this chapter to highlight the organizations that are currently most involved in the execution (i.e., implementation) of the program for RCWM.

image

1Laurence G. Gottschalk, PMNSCM, “Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project Program Status and Update,” presentation to the committee on September 27, 2011.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

Chronology and Context of Directives and Instructions

Numerous instructions and directives have been issued in the course of addressing the problem of elimination of non-stockpile chemical items. This has caused the diffuse assignment of missions and mission accountability throughout the Army. It is instructive to review the chronology of these numerous instructions as they relate to the elimination of non-stockpile chemical materiel.

In 1984, Congress established the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP).2 It and the Superfund Reau-thorization Act of 19863 required the Secretary of Defense to implement the DERP. The Secretary of Defense designated DUSD(I&E) as the DOD planning, policy, and oversight agency. DERP was silent on chemical munitions. DERP activities, in general, were somewhat uneven until base realignment and closure (BRAC) activities began in the late 1980s and cleanup of formerly used defense sites (FUDS) became a crucial component. As DERP efforts intensified, the Army designated DASA(ESOH) as the lead staff agency.

In November 1985, with passage of Public Law 99-145, Congress required that the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents and unitary chemical munitions be destroyed. DOD designated the Army as executive agent (EA).

The Army published its Regulation AR 200-1 (U.S. Army, 2007a) on April 23, 1990. This prescribed the roles and responsibilities for DERP in great detail. However, it did not include procedures for non-stockpile or stockpile chemical weapons and materiel. It referred to AR 50-6, “Chemical Surety” (U.S. Army, 2008a); AR 385-10, “The Army Safety Program” (U.S. Army, 2007c); and DA Pamphlet 50-6 “Chemical Accident or Incident Response and Assistance (CAIRA) Operations” (U.S. Army, 2003a), the regulations that specify the requirements, policies, and procedures for chemical warfare agents.

On October 9, 1990, the House Defense Appropriations Committee in its House Report 101-822 expressed its belief that the fragmentation of responsibility within the Executive Branch for the destruction of chemical weapons and by-products “may cause duplication of effort, inefficiency, undue costs, and compromises to safety and the environment.” The committee directed the Secretary of Defense to organize an overall program “so that operational responsibility for all Defense Department chemical warfare destruction activities rests within a single office which shall be fully accountable for total program execution.”4 On March 13, 1991, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued a directive that designated the Secretary of the Army as the EA for chemical demilitarization activities for DOD, including “demilitarization of non-stockpile chemical warfare munitions, agents, and by-products.”

In 1992, The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), 1993 (P.L.102-484),5 required the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to Congress on the Army’s plans for destroying all chemical warfare material of the United States not covered by Section 1412 of the NDAA 1986 (50 U.S.C. 1521) but that would be required to be destroyed if the United States became a party to the CWC.

In November 1992 the United Nations General Assembly approved the CWC, which would prohibit the production and use of chemical weapons and establish conditions for the destruction of all stockpiled chemical agents and weapons, former chemical weapons production facilities, and miscellaneous chemical warfare materiel. The CWC (to which the United States became a signatory) entered into force in April 1997.

In compliance with P.L. 102-484, the Army created the Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project (NSCMP) to develop systems to safely assess, treat, and destroy chemical warfare materiel that was not part of the declared stockpile. It also established the Chemical Material Destruction Agency to consolidate responsibility for destruction of chemical materials into a single office and delegated the EA responsibility to the ASA(ILE), which exercised this responsibility for elimination of stockpile and non-stockpile chemical weapons and chemical weapons materiel until 1995.

In December 1994, USD(A&T)6 redesignated the entire chemical demilitarization program as an Acquisition Category I (ACAT I) program that would report to the Army Acquisition Executive, who was also the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development and Acquisition [ASA(RDA)]. ACAT I programs, by law and DOD directive, required progress milestone reviews by the Defense Acquisition Board (DAB), chaired by the USD(A&T).

An experienced Chemical Corps general officer was selected as program manager for chemical demilitarization (PMCD). This gave the chemical demilitarization efforts the same status as the program executive offices for other major Army programs. The PMCD was directly responsible for management of the stockpile program; in addition, within the chemical demilitarization program office, a product7 manager for non-stockpile was established, reporting to the PMCD. Technology and systems engineering expertise was provided to the PMCD by the Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) within the Army Materiel Command (AMC).

On February 21, 1997, AR 200-1 was updated in its entirety, ostensibly because the intensity of BRAC activi-

image

2Title 10 U.S. Code 2701 and 2810. DERP was established by Section 211 of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986.

3Available at http://epw.senate.gov/sara.pdf. Accessed April 10, 2012.

4House Report 101-822, Report of the Committee on Appropriations to accompany H.R. 5803, Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, 1991, Title VI, p. 239, U.S. House of Representatives, October 9, 1990.

5H.R.5006. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993, Public Law 102-484, Section 161, paragraph (d), Destruction of Non-stockpile Chemical Material, U.S. House of Representatives, October 23, 1992.

6USD(A&T) was subsequently renamed the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics [USD(AT&L)].

7The name of this position was subsequently changed to “project” manager.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

ties increased pressure for environmental cleanup of FUDS. The updated version again focused in great detail on DERP. Only a general statement about the disposal of RCWM was included; it referred to Army Regulations AR 50-6 and AR 385-61 and to DA Pamphlet 50-6 on policy or procedures for the NSCMP.

The CWC came into force after the 67th nation ratified it on April 29, 1997. The treaty requires reporting and destruction of both unitary stockpiled chemical weapons as well as non-stockpile chemical items. From 1997 through 2007, the chemical demilitarization program continued as an ACAT I program reporting to the Army Acquisition Executive, who had been redesignated the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, ASA(ALT). DOD oversight and milestone reviews were still conducted by DAB.

In September 2003, the DOD Inspector General (DOD-IG) submitted a report recommending that the environmental offices of the DOD components identify, schedule, and fund the disposal of buried CWM from active installations and from base realignment and closure installations (DOD, 2003, 2010).

In May 2005, USD(AT&L) approved the transfer of responsibilities for oversight and policy guidance for the recovery and destruction of buried CWM from the ASD(NCB) to the DUSD (I&E) (see Figure 2-1). In that same action memorandum, USD(AT&L) directed the Secretary of the Army, in coordination with DUSD(I&E), to develop an implementation plan for the recovery and destruction of buried CWM at active installations and FUDS subject to DERP. In a memorandum to the Secretary, USD(AT&L) said the plan would be “one of several factors to be considered in support of a decision by the Secretary of Defense on whether to designate the Secretary of the Army as EA for recovery and destruction of buried chemical warfare material in the U.S.” At a minimum, the plan was to address the following:

(1)  Requirements for consolidation of associated resources into a single Army office;

(2)  Program scope;

(3)  Characterization, destruction, and cleanup of residual contamination;

(4)  Plans for declaring uncovered chemical weapons and/or chemical weapons-related material in accordance with the CWC;

(5)  Available resources;

(6)  Funding requirements over the Future Years Defense Program; and

(7)  cycle cost requirements. (DOD, 2005)

On September 20, 2007, the Secretary of the Army responded to the USD(AT&L) tasking in “Recovered Chemical Warfare Material (RCWM) Program Implementation Plan (Recovery and Destruction of Buried Chemical Warfare Material)” (DOD, 2007). The details of the Army’s RCWM Implementation Plan, 2007, and its implications for the RCWM program will be discussed in Chapter 7.

AR 50-6 was revised in its entirety as of July 28, 2008. The major responsibilities delineated in this regulation can be summarized as follows:

•   Among other things, ASA(IE&E) is the principal Army secretariat for all Department of the Army matters relating to recovered chemical materiel.

•   ASA(ALT) is responsible for chemical agent demilitarization.

•   All Army commands and Army service component commands were required to maintain a chemical surety program and designate a chemical surety officer.

•   AMC is required to maintain a force to respond to chemical accidents or incidents at a chemical facility or during the transport of chemical agents.

•   The Army Forces Command will provide technical escort for the Chemical Surety Program by means of the 20th Support Command.

•   For chemical accidents or incident response and assistance (CAIRA) on Army installations, the Army regulations require that the garrison commander work with the garrison chemical surety director to establish a reporting and response plan.

•   AR 50-6 is not clear on procedures and responsibilities for the overall management of activities required upon discovery of a suspected chemical material.

FUNDING

Congress authorizes programs and appropriates funding for the express purpose of implementing those programs. In most cases, a program’s funding must be expended solely for activities within that program (i.e., it may not be commingled with funding allocated to any other program for other purposes). In the case of the RCWM program, remediation activities directly related to chemical munitions and materiel are funded separately under Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD,D) (see Figure 2-2). This is but one of three major funding programs that frequently come into play during some aspects or phases of an overall remediation effort. Congressional restrictions on the use of each of these funding programs require the Executive Branch (primarily DOD) to carefully coordinate and account for the use of these funds. At many sites, RCWM is buried along with conventional munitions, and this can make proper accounting for the activities and funding in each case costly and complex. An additional foreseeable complication for operations involving RCWM is that because the CAMD,D funding program was established primarily to destroy stockpiled chemical weapons, once the stockpiled weapons have been completely destroyed and the stockpile destruction sites

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-2 Current funding, CAMD,D.

remediated (anticipated circa 2023), CAMD,D funding is expected to expire, leaving future funding for the RCWM problematic.

The three funding programs that may come into play at RCWM sites are described next.

Chemical Agent and Munitions Destruction, Defense (CAMD,D)

As noted in the section on policy above, Congress required the destruction of chemical weapons in 1985 under P.L. 99-145. DOD requests funding under the CAMD,D account as part of its annual budget. The CAMD,D appropriation includes requirements for the Chemical Stockpile Elimination (CSE) project, the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Project (CSEPP), the Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program, as well as the NSCMP, which funds RCWM destruction. The FY 2013 CAMD,D budget request is $1.3 billion (compared to $1.5 billion in both FY 2011 and FY 2012), of which approximately $132 million is requested for operations and maintenance, research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E), and procurement for NSCMP.8 The actual assessment and destruction of RCWM is done through CAMD,D funding. CAMD,D funding for the CSE and CSEPP will continue to decline because destruction of the stockpile is 90 percent complete. Funding for destruction of the remaining 10 percent from the ACWA program will continue until destruction is complete and the plants have been deconstructed. The NSCMP is currently funded through 2017 and funding is expected to continue for the duration of the ACWA project.9 Funding for the program beyond 2017 has not been determined. See Chapter 7 for a discussion on future funding options.

image

FIGURE 2-3 Current funding, DERP. USD(I&E), Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment; IRP, Installation Restoration Program.

Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)

As mentioned in the policy section above, DERP was established by Congress in 1984 to clean up wastes on active and formerly used DOD installations (except for active training ranges). DERP is a very broad program encompassing funding for early site investigation and characterization and continuing through remediation10 (see Figure 2-3).

There are three major line items within DERP:

•  Installation Restoration Program (IRP). This funds cleanup of wastes at active DOD installations. The Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP), established in 2002, applies to cleaning up unex-ploded ordnance (UXO), discarded military munitions (DMM), and munitions constituents that may be present on military facilities.11

•  FUDS. Funding for FUDS is used to clean up wastes on properties that were formerly owned, leased by, or otherwise possessed by DOD and are now the property of other parties. According to a fact sheet prepared by the USACE, there are more than 9,900 potential FUDS properties and cleanup is planned or ongoing at more than 3,000 of the properties that have been evaluated. A single FUDS may consist of multiple cleanup sites. While new FUDS cleanup

image

8From Chemical Agents and Munitions Destruction, Defense FY 2013 President’s Budget Estimate. Available at: http://asafm.army.mil/Documents/OfficeDocuments/Budget/BudgetMaterials/FY13//camdd.pdf. Accessed April 16, 2012.

9Ibid.

10RCWM remediation applies to the assessment, treatment, and waste disposal of RCWM munitions and resulting contamination.

11Military munitions include all ammunition products and components produced for or used by the armed forces for national defense and security. The term refers to chemical and riot control agents, smokes, and incendiaries, including bulk explosives and chemical warfare agents, chemical munitions, and rockets. Discarded military munitions are military munitions that have been abandoned without proper disposal or removed from storage in a military magazine or other storage area for the purpose of disposal.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

    projects are initiated every year, as of 2007, more than 4,600 sites at FUDS properties were undergoing cleanup.12

•  BRAC. The transfer of DOD property being closed under the various BRAC sites authorized by Congress is funded separately from other DOD activities. Many closing DOD properties require cleanup prior to transfer to another owner. BRAC funds applied to those cleanup requirements are not used for the remediation of RCWM on operational ranges, which use CAMD,D funding instead.

Note the statement in paragraph 5.3, Program Management Manual for Military Munitions Response Program (U.S. Army, 2009c):

Funds appropriated to the ER,A (Environmental Response [read: Restoration], Army) account can be used to conduct identification, investigation, removal actions, remedial actions, or a combination of removal and remedial actions to address UXO, DMM, and or MRRP when the location qualifies as a defense site or the munition at a non-defense site came from a defense site or migrated to the non-defense site from a defense site.

Note, however, that DERP funds are commonly used for cleanup of DOD waste and conventional munitions at RCWM sites but only for site characterization and remediation up to the point at which they are identified as RCWM munitions. Once an RCWM is discovered, the common practice is that CAMD,D funding is used for the processing and remediation of the RCWM.

Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

O&M is a significant ($250-$300 billion per year) DOD program that funds a very wide spectrum of DOD requirements, including recruitment, training, day-to-day upkeep of installations, fuels, industrial operations, war fighting requirements, etc. (see Figure 2-4). O&M funding is allocated to each of the Services for their requirements. For example, the Army allocation can normally be identified as OMA, the Navy allocation as OMN, and so on. In the context of RCWM, O&M funding is used for the operations and maintenance of active training ranges for the military, including environmental restoration of the active ranges. As with DERP, O&M funding is not used to remediate RCWM on operational ranges. Rather, CAMD,D funding is employed.

image

FIGURE 2-4 Current funding, O&M. INST CDR, installation commander.

DOD (and the Army as the RCWM EA) must carefully adhere to congressional direction on the use of the various appropriations above. In practice, since work must stop whenever RCWM is discovered until the appropriately funded personnel can become involved, the resultant disruption on work sites drives up costs for assessment and remediation of RCWM as well as for remediation of conventional munitions on the same site. Since CAMD,D, DERP, and O&M funds are programmed by different organizations and funding for RCWM requirements is typically lower than for the other requirements, the funding program managers must adjust their respective budgets for these unanticipated impacts. Chapter 7 contains detailed analysis, findings, and recommendations for the RCWM funding structure.

ORGANIZATION

This section outlines the government organizations that play a significant role in planning, programming, budgeting, and executing the RCWM program. The main players are offices at various levels of the Department of Defense (DOD). The information presented in this section is drawn, for the most part, from presentations to the committee made by representatives of the respective offices. The role played by government contractors in the RCWM program is very significant, particularly in the planning, design, and construction of government equipment and remediation of munitions disposal sites. As these contractors are contracted to perform specific scopes of work under the supervision of the government, this chapter does not distinguish between the tasks performed by government offices and employees or those done by the contractors they hire to assist them.

Figure 2-5 provides a high-level summary of the offices most involved with implementing the RCWM program. Several of these offices are also involved in the policy, funding, and oversight of the program, which was described earlier.

image

12U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fact sheet. “Formerly Used Defense Sites Program.” Available at https://environment.usace.army.mil/downloaddbfle.cfm?fle_id=C98708FB-188B-313F-1B2BBF5FFBB85FA1. Last accessed June 4, 2012.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-5 Current organization for execution for RCWM. ECBC, Edgewood Chemical Biological Center; RDECOM, Research, Development, and Engineering Command.

Department of Defense

The DOD organization relevant to RCWM is illustrated in Figure 2-5. DOD is a large and complex organization with a rigid structure that leads to specialization of the many offices. This size and specialization requires DOD offices to possess a sophisticated set of management practices and coordination skills in order to execute the RCWM program and the many other programs covered later in this chapter.

Office of the Secretary of Defense

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is the highest staff organizational level in DOD. OSD is led by the Secretary of Defense and has many supporting lower level offices. The top positions are led by political appointees or civilian members of the Senior Executive Service (SES).

Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology and Logistics). The office of the USD(AT&L), shown in Figure 2-6, is responsible for the policies for many operational staff functions within DOD. The Under Secretary reports directly to the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense. USD(AT&L) responsibilities include these:13

•  Supervising DOD acquisition,

•  Establishing acquisition policies for DOD,

•  Establishing policies for logistics,

•  Establishing DOD policies for maintenance of the defense industrial base.

The four organizations that are highlighted in Figure 2-6 are the primary organizations under the OSD that bear upon the RCWM program and function through the following:

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs. As the principal advisor to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense and the USD(AT&L) on nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, and chemical and biological defense, the ASD(NCB) provides program, policy, and budget guidance for the U.S. program for destruction of the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile and of non-stockpile chemical materiel and makes recommendations on the safety, surety, security, and safe destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile and non-stockpile chemical weapons and materiel. This includes the program for destruction of non-stockpile chemical materiel that is managed and executed under the supervision of the Secretary of the Army (DOD, 2011). Oversight, coordination and integration for this mission are executed on a day-to-day basis by

image

13Available at http://www.acq.osd.mil/. Accessed February 13, 2011.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-6 Organizational chart for USD(AT&L). SOURCE: Adapted by the committee from material provided by Deborah A. Morefield, Manager, Defense Environmental Restoration Program, Environmental Management, Office of the Deputy Under Secretary for Installations and Environment, Department of Defense, November 1, 2011.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Treaties and Threat Reduction (see first highlight under ASD[NCB] in Figure 2-6).

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment). The mission of the Office of the DUSD(I&E) is to provide management and oversight of military installations worldwide and manage environmental, safety, and occupational health programs for the DOD. DUSD(I&E) has staff responsibility for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program and funding. The Director of Environmental Management, highlighted under DUSD (I&E) in Figure 2-6, has the immediate responsibility within DUSD(I&E) for the RCWM program.

Not shown in Figure 2-6 but also under the DUSD(I&E), the DOD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) administers the explosives safety program for DOD and ensures that chemical agent operations are performed safely. DDESB is responsible for resolving issues that arise between explosives safety and environmental standards. It also oversees the implementation of safety standards at all munitions response sites with the goal of ensuring safe handling, storage, and disposal of munitions and explosives of concern (MEC). The Services involved in cleanups at munitions response sites are required to submit to DDESB for its review and approval Explosive Safety Site Submissions and, where CWM are known or anticipated, Chemical Safety Submissions for all cleanup operations. Within the component Services, applications must first be approved by the respective Service safety organization. DDESB regulations are articulated in DOD 6055.9M (DOD Ammunition and Explosives Safety Standards).

Office of the Secretary of the Army

The Office of the Secretary of the Army is the civilian-led policy organization responsible for leading the U.S. Army. It has a very broad mission encompassing all peacetime and wartime responsibilities for the U.S. Army. As part of this mission the office has significant environmental responsibilities stretching through all levels of the U.S. Army. Note that assistant secretaries of the Army have similar civilian and military organizational structures. The Office of the Secretary of the Army has been assigned as DOD EA for the stockpile and non-stockpile (RCWM) chemical weapons remediation programs and has redelegated these to other parts of the Office of the Secretary of the Army organization.

A high-level depiction of the Army organizations that play a role in the Army’s total environmental responsibilities (a small piece of which is RCWM) is provided in Figure 2-7.

The tiers depicted in Figure 2-7 for the Army environmental organizational structure are distinguished by the roles of policy, delivery, or execution. The policy roles are shared by offices in the Pentagon as principal Secretariat or Army staff offices.

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Acquisition, Logistics and Technology)

ASA(ALT) is the political appointee reporting to the Office of the Secretary of the Army. He or she is the Army Acquisition Executive, Senior Procurement Executive, Science Advisor to the Secretary, and the senior research and development official for the U.S. Army.14 ASA(ALT) is also responsible for all policy matters related to U.S. Army logistics. For the chemical demilitarization program, the Secretary assigned both stockpile and non-stockpile leadership to ASA(ALT). The chemical weapons responsibilities within ASA(ALT) are discharged by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Elimination of Chemical Weapons (DASA(ECW)). The Secretary has since decided to delegate non-stockpile (such as RCWM) responsibilities to ASA(IE&E), a counterpart to this office.

Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Energy and Environment)

ASA(IE&E) provides strategic direction for Army installations and facilities in all matters related to infrastructure, energy, and the environment, to support global missions in a cost-effective, safe and sustainable manner.15 The policy and oversight of the RCWM program has been assigned to the office of DASA(ESOH). This office has served as an integrator of the Army with the other military service offices involved in the execution of the RCWM program.

Chief of Staff of the Army

The Chief of Staff of the Army (CSA) is the most senior uniformed officer serving in the Department of the Army, the principal military advisor to the Secretary of the Army, and a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A four-star general responsible for the recruitment, training, readiness, and sustainment capabilities of the U.S. Army, the CSA leads a large, diverse, multilayered staff organization that is responsible for the planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBES) of missions assigned to the U.S. Army by the Congress.

Assistant Chief of Staff (Installation Management). ACSIM is an Army staff organization led by a three-star general and is responsible for the planning, programming, budgeting, and executing Army resources required to build, operate, and maintain the Army’s installations and facilities. A significant part of this charge is to serve as the leader of the Army’s environmental stewardship role. ACSIM plays an important role in the RCWM program since the requirements and budgets of this program are rolled up to the ACSIM and defended by

image

14Available at http://www.army.mil/asaiee. Accessed February 15, 2012.

15Ibid.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-7 Army environmental organizational structure. SMDC(ASCC), Space and Missile Defense Command (Army Service Component Command); DRU, Direct Reporting Unit; USAR, U.S. Army Reserve; NGB/ARNG, National Guard Bureau/Army National Guard; ACOM, U.S. Army Command; MEDCOM, U.S. Army Medical Command; Evn CoP, Environmental Community of Practice; EM CX, Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise; Army Geo Ctr, Army Geospatial Center; ERDC, Engineering Research and Development Center; Env Lab, Environmental Laboratory. SOURCE: Bryan Frey, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Installation Services Directorate, Environmental Division, presentation to the committee on January 18, 2012.

this Office. The organization, roles, and responsibilities of the ACSIM are depicted in Figure 2-8.

RCWM funding is managed by the cleanup branch of the Army Environmental Division of the Installation Services Directorate. The functions of the Army Environmental Division for the RCWM program are these:16

•  Provide environmental policy guidance, execution (allocation of funds) authority, and overall program management for resourcing under DERP.

•  Coordinate and integrate the efforts of the Army program execution managers.

•  Participate as a member of the RCWM Integrated Product Team.

•  Defend RCWM program funding requirements to the OSD.

Installation Management Command

The U.S. Army Installation Management Command (IMCOM) is a field operating agency of ACSIM.17 The three-star general who leads ACSIM is also the IMCOM Commander. IMCOM “supports the United States Army’s warfighting mission by providing standardized, effective & efficient services, facilities and infrastructure to Soldiers, Civilians and Families for an Army and Nation engaged in persistent conflict.” IMCOM is headquartered in San Antonio, Texas, on Fort Sam Houston. Its headquarters relocated in October 2010 from Arlington, Virginia, as part of the Base Realignment and Closure Act of 2005.18

IMCOM directly manages the Army’s 180-plus installations throughout the world. AMC still manages its 21 installations, depots, arsenals, ammunition plants, RD&E centers and laboratories and other such installations, although a pilot study is under way to measure the effectiveness of transferring them to IMCOM. The IMCOM functions on each

image

16Bryan M. Frey, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Installation Services Directorate, Environmental Division, presentation to the committee, January 18, 2012.

17Available at http://www.imcom.army.mil/hq/kd/cache/fles/69B948B6-423D-452D-4636808C49A57094.pdf. Accessed February 14, 2012.

18Available at http://www.imcom.army.mil/hq/about/commander/. Accessed February 22, 2012.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-8 Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management. DACSIM, Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management. SOURCE: Bryan Frey, Headquarters, Department of the Army, Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management, Installation Services Directorate, Environmental Division, presentation to the committee on January 18, 2012.

installation are performed by a garrison staff. A map of the Army’s installations is provided in Figure 2-9.

Environmental management is a key function of the garrison staffs at each Army installation. With respect to the RCWM program for both IMCOM and AMC installations, the installation commander (i.e., the highest ranking military mission leader) and the garrison commander would be charged with the management of planned or unplanned RCWM remediation at active installations and BRAC sites.

Army Environmental Command

The Army Environmental Command (USAEC) is the component within the IMCOM staff responsible for developing environmental requirements (including those for RCWM) and executing the budgeted projects as directed by ACSIM. The USAEC organization and RCWM roles are provided in Figure 2-10.

In the non-stockpile RCWM program, Army Environmental Center (AEC) develops requirements and plans and executes the DERP (IR and MR) and the Compliance Cleanup (CC) Program. Program activities may be funded by the Environmental Restoration, Army (ER,A) or OMA accounts. AEC is responsible for everything from initial investigations through the implementation of remedial actions for sites containing hazardous waste, traditional munitions, and constituents in media. It is also responsible for the handling and disposal of items not considered CWM, such as riot control agents; chemical herbicides; smoke- and fame-producing items; soil, water, debris, or other media contaminated with chemical agent; and MEC.19

U.S. Army Forces Command

FORSCOM is one of three Army major commands (MACOMs). Its mission statement is as follows:

FORSCOM prepares conventional forces to provide a sustained flow of trained and ready land power to Combatant Commanders in defense of the Nation at home and abroad.”20

FORSCOM is headquartered at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. Its RCWM responsibilities are exercised by an element of its subcommand, 20th Support Command.

20th Support Command (Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High-Yield Explosives)

The 20th Support Command (CBRNE) was activated on October 16, 2004, by FORSCOM to provide specialized CBRNE response in support of military operations and civil authorities. Subordinate elements include the 48th Chemical Brigade, the 52d Ordnance Group [Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)], the 71st Ordnance Group (EOD), and the CBRNE Analytical and Remediation Activity (CARA), all under a single operational headquarters at the Edgewood Area of Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. CBRNE operations detect, identify, assess, render safe, dismantle, transfer, and dispose of unexploded ordnance, improvised explosive devices and other CBRNE hazards. These opera-

image

19Jim Daniel, Chief, Cleanup and Munitions Response Division, Army Environmental Command, and Tim Rodeffer, Cleanup and Munitions Response Division, “Operations of Recovered Chemical Warfare Material from Burial Sites,” presentation to the committee on December 12, 2011.

20Available at http://www.forscom.army.mil/. Accessed February 15, 2012.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-9 Map of U.S. Army Installation Management Command garrisons. Installations in green are managed by IMCOM headquarters.

SOURCE: http://www.imcom.army.mil/hq/about/garrisons/. Accessed February 14, 2012.

tions also include decontaminating personnel and property exposed to CBRN materials during response.

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and High Yield Explosives (CBRNE)/Analytical and Remediation Activity (CARA)

CARA is an all-civilian unit of the 20th Support Command established in 2007 (Jensen, 2008). CARA’s mission is to deploy and conduct operations in support of combatant commanders or other government agencies in order to counter CBRNE and threats of weapons of mass destruction in support of national efforts to combat weapons of mass destruction. It includes operations within the continental United States and outside of it.21 CARA asserts that it is the only organization within the DOD authorized to escort chemical surety material off a military installation (U.S. Army, 2008a).

According to CARA’s briefings to the committee, CARA has four sections: two remediation response sections, an

image

21LTC Charles A. Asowata, Acting Director, and Dalys Talley, Chief of Operations, CARA, “CBRNE Analytical and Remediation Activity Missions,” presentation to the committee on September 28, 2011.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-10 U.S. Army Environmental Command. PAO, Public Affairs Officer; CSM, Command Sergeant Major; XO, Executive Officer; GIS, Geographic Information Systems. SOURCE: Jim Daniel, Chief, Cleanup and Munitions Response Division, Army Environmental Command, and Tim Rodeffer, Cleanup and Munitions Response Division, “Operations of Recovered Chemical Warfare Material from Burial Sites,” presentation to the committee on December 12, 2011.

aviation section, and the mobile expeditionary laboratory(MEL).22

The remediation response sections (RRSs) (RRS East at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland, and RRS West at Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas) conduct site characterization, assessment, demilitarization, and elimination of RCWM; site remediation projects; emergency response to RCWM incidents; and technical escorts of chemical surety and nonsurety material. They also support Army stockpile and non-stockpile operations.

The aviation section transports chemical surety escort teams, RCWM emergency response teams, and the 20th Support Command’s response teams.

The mission of the MEL is to conduct field confirmatory chemical, biological, and explosive analyses as well as near-real-time chemical air monitoring. The lab also operates the tactical mobile expeditionary labs that bring the necessary analytical capability to any location as soon as the need becomes known.

CARA performs remediation operations at FUD sites, military installations, and BRAC sites in support of installation commanders, other agencies, and USACE. CARA operates in the continental United States as well as abroad.

In a typical operation in which military munitions are found, CARA would conduct the emergency response if the munitions are determined to be chemical. If a munition is determined to have a liquid fill, CARA conducts a non-intrusive assessment using portable isotopic neutron spec-troscopy (PINS) on board a mobile munitions assessment system (MMAS). CARA operates the MMAS on behalf of the NSCMP.

U.S. Army Materiel Command

The AMC is a second Army major command with responsibilities for the RCWM program. Its roles and responsibilities are as follows:23

The U.S. Army Materiel Command (AMC) is the primary provider of materiel to the United States Army. The Command’s mission includes the research & development of weapons systems as well as maintenance and parts distribution. AMC operates research and development engineering centers; Army Research Laboratories; depots; arsenals; ammunition plants; and other facilities, and maintains the Army’s prepositioned stocks, both on land and afloat. The command is also the Department of Defense EA for the

image

22Ibid.

23Available at http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/Fact%20sheets/HQAMC2011.pdf. Last accessed February 15, 2012.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

chemical weapons stockpile and for conventional ammunition. AMC is responsible within the United States Department of Defense for the business of selling Army equipment and services to allies of the United States and negotiates and implements agreements for co-production of U.S. weapons systems by foreign nations. AMC is currently headquartered at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, and is located in approximately 149 locations worldwide, including more than 49 American States and 50 countries. AMC maintains employment of upwards of 70,000 military and civilian employees.

Materiel Assessment Review Board

The Army’s Materiel Assessment Review Board (MARB) evaluates digital radiography and computed tomography (DRCT) and PINS data, photographs, and historical data and recommends methods for disposing of the RCWM. The MARB is made up of representatives from a dozen Army organizations, including AMC’s RDECOM, Edgewood Chemical Biological Center, CMA, PMNSCM, the 20th Support Command; and CARA.24 The MARB usually convenes within two or three days of receiving assessment data. After all the assessment data are reviewed, members vote to recommend one of four ways to dispose of the suspect item: If an item is found to contain chemical agent, the board may select either nonexplosive or explosive system demilitarization. If an item is found to be conventional, its disposition is determined locally. If it is found to be unsafe, the MARB recommends immediate destruction.25

U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency

The CMA is a subordinate agency of the Army Materiel Command focused on the destruction of the chemical munitions stockpile and non-stockpile agents and materiel. The mission of CMA is as follows:

The U.S. Army’s Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) is the world leader in programs to store, treat, and dispose of chemical weapons safely and effectively. The agency developed and used technologies to safely store and eliminate chemical weapons at seven stockpile sites while protecting the public, its workers and the environment. CMA also has the storage mission at the Nation’s final two stockpile sites. CMA was created to incorporate the former Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization and portions of the U.S. Army Soldier and Biological Chemical Command into one agency.26

Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project

Background information on the NSCMP was presented in Chapter 1. Organizationally, the NSCMP falls under CMA. Its mission is to provide centralized management and direction to the U.S. Department of Defense for the disposal of non-stockpile chemical materiel in a safe, environmentally sound, cost-effective manner while ensuring compliance with the CWC.27 At this time and for the foreseeable future, the chemical agent identification sets (CAIS) and chemical weapons that are accidentally or deliberately recovered from bodies of water or burial sites constitute the primary non-stockpile chemical materiel requiring disposal. The organization chart and roles and responsibilities for NSCMP are shown in Figure 2-11.28

Project Management. The NSCMP is responsible for project management for the assessment and disposal of all RCWM. Activities include estimation of assessment and disposal costs, disbursement of funding for assessment and disposal, and preparation of project schedules. The NSCMP prepares the relevant documentation and obtains the approvals needed to commence and carry out operations. The documents involved include the site plan, the site safety submission, the destruction plan, and the environmental permits. If either explosives or chemical agents, or both, are involved the site safety submission must be approved by the Department of Defense Explosive Safety Board (DDESB). If a recovered munition is to be destroyed, all information germane to that munition must be forwarded to the MARB, which conducts an assessment of that munition to determine its chemical fill and explosive configuration. The MARB’s assessment determines the conditions under which destruction of the munition is carried out. The NSCMP also has responsibility for satisfying the obligations of the CWC.29 (See the “Treaty Requirements” section in Chapter 3.) The NSCMP also works with USACE in public involvement and public relations efforts in communities near remediation projects, providing literature and speakers as needed.

Ownership and/or Management of Assessment and Disposal Systems. The assessment and disposal equipment employed by the NSCMP is listed and described in Chapter 4. For the most part, this equipment—notably, the Explosive Destruction Systems (EDSs)—is owned and maintained by NSCMP. An exception is the TC-60 Transportable Detonation Chamber (TDC), which is owned by CH2M HILL and is

image

24MARB fact sheet, U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency. Available at http://www.pmcd.army.mil/fndocumentviewer.aspx?docid=003677814. Last accessed February 6, 2012.

25Ibid.

26Available at http://www.cma.army.mil/home.aspx. Last accessed February 15, 2012.

27U.S. Army Chemical Materials Agency, Fact Sheet, Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project Overview. Available at http://www.cma.armymil/fndocumentviewer.aspx?DocID=003671053. Last accessed March 21, 2012.

28Laurence G. Gottschalk, PMNSCM, “Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel Project Program Status and Update,” presentation to the committee on September 27, 2011.

29Dan G. Noble, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, comments to committee during Spring Valley site visit on November 1, 2011.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-11 NSCMP organizational chart. EDS, explosive destruction system, SCANS, Single Chemical agent identification set Access and Neutralization System; MRC, multiple round container. PPI, planned product improvement; ILS, integrated logistical support; TIPT, test integrated product team. SOURCE: Personal communication from Laurence G. Gottschalk, Project Manager, Non-Stockpile Chemical Materiel, to Nancy Schulte, NRC study director, March 7, 2012.

leased from that company under a basic ordering agreement. Field operation of the EDSs and the TDC is carried out by ECBC. These systems and other equipment are described in Chapter 4.

NSCMP provides the interim holding facilities (IHFs) described in Chapter 4 and used for safeguarding recovered munitions at remediation sites.

NSCMP has an active, ongoing R&D program to improve the various systems that it uses to assess and destroy chemical warfare materiel. These systems and the improvements to them that are under way are described in Chapters 4 and 7.

NSCMP Relationships with Other Organizations. One focus of this report is very large CWM remediation efforts, in which NSCMP works with USACE. Other military organizations that are directly involved include the U.S. Army Technical Center for Explosives Safety (USATCES), the DDESB, CARA, USACE, and ECBC. The general relationships between these organizations when executing a project managed by USACE are shown in Figure 2-12.

U.S. Army Research, Development, and Engineering Command

RDECOM is a direct reporting command under the Commander, AMC. According to RDECOM’s Web site,30

The U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command is the Army’s technology leader and largest technology developer. RDECOM ensures the dominance of Army capabilities by creating, integrating and delivering technology-enabled solutions to our Soldiers. To meet this commitment to the Army, RDECOM develops technologies in its eight major laboratories and research, development and engineering centers. It also integrates technologies developed in partnership with an extensive network of academic, industry, and international partners. RDECOM provides the Army with an organic research and development capability. More than 17,000 Soldiers, civilian employees and direct contractors form this world-class team. As part of that team, there are 11,000 engineers and scientists, many of whom are the Army’s leading experts in their fields.

Edgewood Chemical Biological Center

ECBC is designated under the CWC as a laboratory that is able to accurately and predictably identify prohibited chemical compounds. ECBC also maintains the only declared facility under the CWC where chemical compounds regulated by the CWC treaty can be produced for protective purposes. It is also the single repository for the Army’s research and development stock of toxic chemical agents.

The center houses analytical equipment, including self-contained mobile modular laboratories that allow for near-real-time monitoring of an airborne chemical agent.

In support of USACE in the remediation of FUD sites, ECBC has provided chemical and biological analysis of

image

30Available at http://www.army.mil/rdecom.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-12 Typical chemical warfare materiel project. PM, Project Manager; HNC CWM, Huntsville Engineering and Support Center, Chemical Weapons Materiel. SOURCE: Christopher L. Evans, Special Assistant for Military Munitions Support Services Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, “USACE Military Munitions Support Services for Chemical Warfare Materiel,” presentation to the committee on December 13, 2011.

environmental samples and chemical agent filtration systems. It has also built vapor containment structures and certified them.

ECBC operates and maintains (but does not own) several systems for the disposal of recovered chemical warfare material, including the EDS, the TDC, the detonation of ammunition in a vacuum-integrated chamber (DAVINCH), and the static detonation chamber (SDC). These systems are discussed in Chapter 4.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)

USACE plays an important role in demilitarizing chemical warfare materiel on behalf of the U.S. Army and other DOD organizations. USACE does this utilizing the skills available at its Washington, D.C., headquarters, nine division offices, 41 district offices, and over 900 field offices. There are approximately 600 military personnel and 37,000 civilian employees distributed worldwide throughout USACE offices. USACE has two main missions: military programs and contingency operations and civil works and emergency operations. The latter mission is authorized and funded separately from Army and DOD authorizations and budgets. Alternatively, the military programs and contingency operations mission is authorized and funded entirely by DOD. With the exception of headquarters and division offices, the bulk of USACE requirements are project-funded for both mission areas. In addition to in-house assets, USACE utilizes a vast array of private sector talent through over 10,000 contracts.31

The chemical demilitarization program is managed centrally for USACE by its Huntsville Engineering Center (HNC). While it does not have any field offices, HNC partners with USACE district offices to execute its programs. Private sector assets for HNC programs, including chemical demilitarization, are tasked through contracts managed by HNC and by USACE district offices. Funding for any given requirement is appropriated by Congress.

USACE has a long history of executing stockpile and non-stockpile chemical demilitarization as requested by the Army and DOD authorities. In general, USACE performs the following functions for chemical demilitarization customers:

•  Centralized program management and financial management,

•  Decentralized project, contract, and quality management,

•  On-site technical expertise and contractor quality and safety assurance,

•  Requirements assessment and site characterization,

•  Public outreach and strategic communications,

•  Regulatory coordination and compliance,

•  Real property appraisal, acquisition, and disposal, and

•  Targeted applied research and development.

The USACE organizations involved with the military environmental management programs include the HQUSACE Special Assistant for Military Munitions Support Services; five military munitions design centers; the HNC Mandatory Center of Expertise for Chemical Weapons, and nine remedial action districts. The relationship between these USACE organizations is provided in Figure 2-13.

As briefed to the committee, the USACE role in the non-stockpile buried chemical material program includes the above generalized functions tailored to the needs and direction of the responsible Army program executive:32

•  Execute CWM responses and other planned activities, with the exception of explosives or munitions emergency responses where the probability of encountering CWM or chemical agent identification sets (CAIS) is medium to high or where CWM or CAIS have been encountered.

•  Provide the provisional RCWM integrating office (described in Chapter 7) with a single point of contact that has decision and tasking authority to coordinate the scheduling and execution of CWM responses or other planned activities.

•  Coordinate scheduling of CWM responses or other planned activities (e.g., range clearance activities) that may involve CWM or CAIS with the RCWM IO and, when required, with ASA(IE&E).

image

31Available at http://www.amc.army.mil/amc/Fact%20sheets/HQAMC2011.pdf, and http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/MilitaryPrograms.aspx. Accessed March 22, 2012.

32J.C. King, Assistant for Munitions and Chemical Matters, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health, “The Army RCWM Program A Policy Perspective,” presentation to the committee on September 27, 2011.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

•  Provide technical advice to DOD components on the need for and design of CWM responses, operational range clearance and other activities where the probability of encountering CWM or CAIS is medium to high, and when requested, when the probability of such encounters is low.

•  Support DOD components in

—Providing public affairs support for information exchange and public involvement related to CWM responses, to include the implementation of required UXO safety education programs.

—Responding to regulatory inquires and concerns.

—Preparing and coordinating DDESB required safety submissions for conventional munitions according to DOD and the appropriate Service’s policy.

—Coordinating plans and operational details with the stakeholders.

•  Plan CWM responses.

•  In coordination with the Army program execution managers, develop cost-to-complete estimates for the DERP portion of RCWM program site costs.

•  Prepare and submit required reports related to CWM responses or other actions under its management.

•  Coordinate and integrate all on-site CWM response activities, including security of RCWM and other munitions or materials of interest.

•  Coordinate and conduct required preoperation surveys and table top exercises per DOD and Army policy.

•  Manage on-site CWM site activities, in coordination with the DOD Services environmental program managers, Army program execution managers, and site project managers.

•  Perform contract activities for CWM responses, except those related to (1) assessment and destruction and (2) response involving CAIS.

•  Perform real estate functions—for example, obtaining rights of entry, reviewing deed restrictions— required to support a CWM response.

•  Provide for safety oversight on all CWM responses and responses involving CAIS.

•  Schedule assessment of munitions or other materials of interest and, when appropriate, CAIS.

•  Participate on the Munitions Assessment Review Board (MARB).

image

FIGURE 2-13 USACE Military Munitions Support Services. M2S2, Military Munitions Support Services; MM, military munitions; CX, center of expertise, POC, point of contact. SOURCE: Christopher L. Evans, Special Assistant for Military Munitions Support Services Headquarters, USACE, “USACE Military Munitions Support Services for Chemical Warfare Materiel,” presentation to the committee on December 13, 2011.

USACE relationships with other DOD organizations, regulators, and contractors are depicted in Figure 2-13. The roles and responsibilities of state and federal regulatory authorities are described in Chapter 3. The roles and responsibilities of the DDESB are described in Chapter 4.

Office of the Secretary of the Navy

There are very few RCWM sites for the Navy compared to those for the Army. By its latest count, the Navy has identified only two suspected and three potential RCWM sites. Nonetheless, it is responsible for environmental issues on its installations, including any buried chemical weapons

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-14 NAVFAC overview. CNO, Chief of Naval Operations; ASN, Assistant Secretary of the Navy; CNIC, Commander Navy Installation Command; NAVFAC, Naval Facilities Engineering Command; LANT/PAC, Atlantic, Pacific; OPCON/ADDU, Operational Control/Additional Duty; OICC, Officer in Charge of Construction; PWO, Public Works Officer; ROICC, Resident/Regional Officer in Charge of Construction; CMC, Command Master Chief; MARFOR/MEF, Marine Corps Forces/Marine Expeditionary Force; MCI, Marine Corps Institute. SOURCE: Robert Sadorra, Manager Munitions Response Program Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “The Navy’s Roles and Responsibilities Related to Remediation of RCWM,” presentation to the committee on January 18, 2012.

MISSION

Why we exist: NAVFAC is the Systems Command that delivers and maintains quality, sustainable facilities, acquires and manages capabilities for the Navy’s expeditionary combat forces, provides contingency engineering response, and enables energy security and environmental stewardship.

VISION

What we aspire to: We strengthen Navy and Marine Corps readiness through our work across the facility life cycle and our support of the shore expeditionary mission.

munitions recovered on its properties. Once RCWM is suspected on Navy property, the Navy acts through the Department of the Army, which is the EA for the chemical demilitarization program, for the remediation of any RCWM munitions.

Like the Office of the Secretary of the Army, the Office of the Secretary of the Navy provides civilian political and policy leadership for the Department of the Navy. The Navy RCWM program is overseen by the Assistant Secretary of the Navy (Installations and Environment). Funding and policy requirements for the Navy are determined and defended by this office. Planning, programming, budgeting, and execution of Navy requirements are performed through the Navy staff organization led by the Chief of Naval Operations, as outlined below.

Office of the Chief of Naval Operations

The Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) is the senior naval officer in the Department of the Navy. A four-star admiral, the CNO is responsible to the Secretary of the Navy for the command, utilization of resources, and operating efficiency of the forces of the Navy and of the Navy shore activities assigned by the Secretary. The CNO is the Navy counterpart to the Chief of Staff of the Army. The RCWM requirements are defined and executed on behalf of the CNO through the Navy Facilities Engineering Command, which is headquartered in Washington, D.C.

Naval Facilities Engineering Command

The Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) has military construction responsibilities similar to those of USACE and responsibilities for the installation of public works similar to those of the Army’s Installation Management Command. NAVFAC is organized according to Figure 2-14.

NAVFAC performs roles much like those of the Army Environmental Command but for Navy DERP requirements at active Navy installations. It identifies suspected and planned Navy RCWM in close coordination with the Army’s provisional RCWM integrating office. This also requires integrating the planned RCWM activities into the relevant DERP projects (as performed by ACSIM for the Army). NAVFAC assigns a Project Manager to coordinate with USACE on RCWM remediation (funded by CAMD, D) and carry out the Navy’s real estate, installation security, and explosive safety responsibilities.33

image

33Robert Sadorra, Manager Munitions Response Program Naval Facilities Engineering Command, “The Navy’s Roles and Responsibilities Related to Remediation of RCWM,” presentation to the committee on January 18, 2012.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

image

FIGURE 2-15 Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment. SOURCE: Adapted from http://www.afcee.af.mil/about/organizationalchart/index.asp.

Office of the Secretary of the Air Force

As is true for the U.S. Army and the U.S. Navy, the civilian leadership of the U.S. Air Force is vested in the Secretary of the Air Force. The Office of the Secretary of the Air Force oversees the mission and programs assigned to the Air Force through a structure similar to those of the other Services. The Air Force is held responsible for the environmental quality of its installations, including any planned and/or discovered chemical weapons munitions, but like the Navy, the number of RCWM sites is very small compared to the Army. The remediation of RCWM on Air Force installations is executed by the U.S. Army, through the PMNSCM.

Air Force Civil Engineer

The Air Force Civil Engineer is a two-star general billet within the Air Force staff. The Air Force staff is led by the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, a four-star general. The Air Force Civil Engineer reports to the Deputy, Chief of Staff, Logistics, Installations and Mission Support. The Air Force Civil Engineer is responsible for installation support at the Air Force’s 166 installations. The office is also responsible for organizing, training, and equipping the Air Force engineering force, for planning, developing, building, and maintaining Air Force bases worldwide, and for their utilities and environmental quality. Additionally, the Air Force Civil Engineer oversees the Air Force Civil Engineer Support Agency at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, and the Air Force Center for Engineering and the Environment at Brooks City Base, Texas.34

Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment

The Air Force Center for Engineering and Environment (AFCEE) is a field operating agency under the Air Force Civil Engineer organization. AFCEE is led by an Air Force civilian from the SES. The mission of AFCEE is to “provide integrated engineering and environmental products, services, and advocacy that optimize Air Force and Joint capabilities through sustainable installations.”35 AFCEE’s organization chart is provided in Figure 2-15.

The RCWM program is managed within the Environmental Restoration (ER) Division. ER “provides centralized management of the Air Force Environmental Restoration Program and serves as the Air Force Restoration Program Management Office to facilitate the cleanup of contaminated sites at all active installations except Air National Guard and base realignment and closure facilities.”36 This office performs functions like those of the U.S. Army Environmental Command (USAEC) and NAVFAC, for DERP requirements; and it coordinates with the Army, as EA for all RCWM program activities on active Air Force installations.

PROCESSES

As described above, the RCWM program is governed by a long history of legislation, regulation, and policy at the federal, state, and local levels. The impact of this policy legacy (and the accompanying multitude of funding sources) on the

image

34Available at http://www.afcesa.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-110103-058.pdf, and http://www.af.mil/information/bios/bio.

35Available at http://www.afcee.af.mil/about/organization/index.asp. Accessed March 14, 2012.

36Available at http://www.afcee.af.mil/publications/factsheets/factsheetasp?id=18928. Accessed March 14, 2012.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

existing multilayered government organizational structure requires that a complex set of management practices be put into use. This last section summarizes the processes by which these organizations apply their policy mandates within the context of an uncertain threat posed by recovered chemical weapons. These management practices are provided in Appendix E.

There are two categories of RCWM sites to which the government must respond: (1) planned RCWM recoveries at buried locations and (2) emergencies. For planned RCWM recoveries, the sites have been identified through a detailed literature research effort, largely by DOD and its contractors. The nature of the buried chemical munitions is only generally understood. In many instances they are buried alongside conventional munitions. The necessity of remediating these sites calls for a systematic planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBES) approach following DOD established PPBES management practices. Management practices for these planned sites are depicted in Figure E-1, Management Practices for U.S. Army Planned RCWM Recovery at Burial Locations, in Appendix E.

The planned RCWM management practices are performed in seven phases: response; planning; packaging; assessment; storage (if required); treatment; and waste disposal and site closure. The first phase, response (notification) differs depending upon whether the site is an active Army CONUS installation, an active Army installation in Alaska or Hawaii, a FUDS site, or a BRAC site, since different government offices are responsible for the real property and the funding. Funding for each phase of the process changes according to the appropriation rules: DERP funds response, planning, packaging, and storage, while CAMD,D funds assessment, treatment, waste disposal and site closure. Army regulations govern which entity performs each phase, with installation commanders, CARA, USACE, NSCMP, CMA, ECBC, ACSIM, AEC and others being brought in to perform the tasks that fall within their relevant responsibilities. Figure E-1 details the planning, packaging, assessment, storage, treatment, and disposal tasks and identifies the players for three levels of anticipated RCWM munitions. Each phase has different levels of emphasis as the number of munitions at a given site increases. The processes apply only to U.S. Army organizations. Navy and Air Force sites would have similar processes at the installation level and shared processes in the execution of the remediation tasks with the Army.

Requirements for the second category of RCWM management practices—response to an emergency—are characterized, in general, by a discovery of suspected RCWM on active installations or on BRAC installations, FUDS, or on private property. The discovery of suspected RCWM requires immediate attention by civil authorities and Army personnel until such time as the risk to the public (including military personnel) has been assessed. In addition to law enforcement units, CARA and PMNSCM are alerted and involved in the preliminary phases of an emergency RCWM response. The PMNSCM tasks for these sites are commonly described as its “firehouse” function. (See Figure E-2, Management Practices for U.S. Army RCWM Emergency Response at Burial Locations.) The management practices are the same as those for the phases in the planned response scenario with the exception of the planning phase. Emergency responses involve a larger number of organizations in the response phase than do planned (and more deliberate) recovery operations. Until such time as discovered munitions have been identified, packaged, and assessed, emergency response activities are accelerated to ensure that public safety is maintained. Depending on the type and condition of munition(s) found, the storage, treatment, and waste disposal and site closure phases may be carried out at an accelerated pace or a more deliberate one.

These complex RCWM management practices involve many organizations, several funding sources, and several large and small sets of equipment and other technology. This complexity is partly the result of extensive policy direction in the form of congressional statutes, federal regulations, and internal (primarily DOD) directives. In addition, applying business rules for the various funding sources and coordinating with numerous government agencies adds many activities (and overhead cost) to the management practices. Because these management practices are performed in a public safety context that does not tolerate failure, the costs and time delays experienced during each phase may be significant.

SUMMARY

This chapter provided an overview of the government policies, organization, and processes related to the RCWM program. While some of the policies that govern the program were enacted by Congress and others were implemented by the Executive Branch through Executive Orders or regulations, most of the regulations and policies for the RCWM program are internal to the Department of Defense. Other policies and regulations relevant to the program are national rather than state based and cover a broader spectrum of environmental or life/safety policy. Given the potential severity of health impacts if agent is released from buried chemical weapons munitions, these policies and regulations are very risk averse.

The organizations that are charged with implementing these statutes, policies, and regulations are broad, diverse, and complex. The relatively small and specialized RCWM organizations that have been created for the program are hidden deep within the DOD hierarchy. The U.S. Army, having been assigned by OSD as EA for the stockpile and non-stockpile programs, is the most involved of the Services in the program. This chapter provided a detailed examination of several of the more important RCWM players, each of which has a specific role to play. Close coordination among these organizations is vital to ensure that the threat to public

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×

health and safety is minimized as the remediation of RCWM continues.

This chapter concluded with a brief overview of the management practices that apply to the RCWM program. These management practices are very complex by the nature of the DOD PPBES, which applies to all DOD programs, as well as the specialized functions of the RCWM program itself. The processes must also be designed to apply to several possible scenarios depending on where, when, and how buried chemical weapons munitions are discovered.

Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"2 Current Policy, Funding, Organization, and Management Practices." National Research Council. 2012. Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13419.
×
Page 38
Next: 3 Treaty and Regulatory Framework and Public Involvement Considerations »
Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $45.00 Buy Ebook | $36.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

As the result of disposal practices from the early to mid-twentieth century, approximately 250 sites in 40 states, the District of Columbia, and 3 territories are known or suspected to have buried chemical warfare materiel (CWM). Much of this CWM is likely to occur in the form of small finds that necessitate the continuation of the Army's capability to transport treatment systems to disposal locations for destruction. Of greatest concern for the future are sites in residential areas and large sites on legacy military installations.

The Army mission regarding the remediation of recovered chemical warfare materiel (RCWM) is turning into a program much larger than the existing munition and hazardous substance cleanup programs. The Army asked the Nation Research Council (NRC) to examine this evolving mission in part because this change is significant and becoming even more prominent as the stockpile destruction is nearing completion. One focus in this report is the current and future status of the Non-Stockpile Chemical Material Project (NSCMP), which now plays a central role in the remediation of recovered chemical warfare materiel and which reports to the Chemical Materials Agency.

Remediation of Buried Chemical Warfare Materiel also reviews current supporting technologies for cleanup of CWM sites and surveys organizations involved with remediation of suspected CWM disposal sites to determine current practices and coordination. In this report, potential deficiencies in operational areas based on the review of current supporting technologies for cleanup of CWM sites and develop options for targeted research and development efforts to mitigate potential problem areas are identified.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!