 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Witness Testimony
Brigadier General Louis W. Weber
Current Environmental Issues Affecting the Readiness of the Department of Defense
Chairman Gilmore, Chairman Hall, Congressman Pallone, Congressman Boucher, and distinguished members of the Committees, thank you for this opportunity to testify before you on this important issue. Military Training The Army is heavily engaged on a global basis in the war on terrorism as a deterrent to war. We are also transforming toward a more joint and expeditionary force that will be better able to respond to the defense needs of the Nation. Active, Army Reserve and Army National Guard soldiers are deployed around the world. We have a continued commitment to peacekeeping in the Balkans and Haiti. We have a continued deterrent presence in South Korea. Soldiers in all these locations face real threats on a daily basis. Other units and soldiers are "resetting" from current operations, are transforming, and are preparing for future operations. All of this is dependent on training. The exceptional challenges currently faced by our Soldiers in Iraq clearly indicate the uncompromising nature of combat and the absolute need to provide the best possible training for our soldiers. The best way to achieve the required level of individual and collective competency is through repetitive, challenging, and as realistic training as we can provide. We conduct live-fire training focused on weapons firing under realistic combat conditions. Conditions in Iraq are requiring us to change many live fire tasks and events, and to increase the amount of live fire training for not only our combat arms soldiers, but also for soldiers in our combat support and combat service support units. Maneuver training involves practicing combat skills as a team. Because of the effective range of our weapons systems, we must practice maneuver over large land areas where we employ battalion as well as brigade force-on-force training techniques. Another key maneuver skill essential today is conducting operations in an urban situation requiring very specialized training techniques and facilities. To support our live-fire and maneuver training requirements, we manage an extensive range infrastructure consisting of approximately 10,000 operational ranges on over 500 installations and sites. These cover some 16 million acres of land in all the states and territories. These training areas provide fixed-firing ranges for the full array of weapons systems, impact areas onto which firing ranges are oriented, maneuver space, and specialized training ranges, such as our extensive array of Military Operations on Urban Terrain, or MOUT, training facilities. The Army's Transformation involves increasingly greater numbers of combat units, higher levels of tactical skills for all Soldiers, and new weapon systems that will generate a larger operational and training footprint than currently available. Driven largely by increased mobility and the range of new weapon systems, Transformation will place greater demand on our existing ranges and training land. Coupled with a requirement for proficiency across a broader range of the spectrum of military capabilities, the demand for ranges and training land is straining our available assets and training capacities. DoD, the Administration, and Congress must improve the processes by which we integrate the realistic training needs required to maintain readiness and the preservation of the land and resources America entrusts to us. We are committed to providing the best training for our Soldiers, and to intensively managing our ranges and training land through the Sustainable Range Program that I direct in cooperation with the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management. This range management program ensures that our ranges are capable of supporting our training mission, that they are sustainable for the long-term, and that they pose no danger to our fellow citizens. My investment in training land management is over $50M per year in a program called Integrated Training Area Management (ITAM). ITAM involves the effective integration of stewardship principles with conservation management practices applicable to lands used for training. This is in addition to the Army's overall environmental stewardship investment of $1.5 Billion annually that covers Pollution Prevention, Restoration, Conservation, Compliance, and Technology. As an example, this year the Army invested $16.4 Million in mitigation efforts to recover the desert tortoise at the National Training Center at Fort Irwin California. The Army's total investment in desert tortoise recovery will be approximately $70 Million, with a per capita investment of between $36,000 and $80,000 per tortoise. The Army invests both energy and effort in the environmental management and sustainability of its training land assets. The Army is committed to environmental stewardship and our Soldiers, as citizens, are concerned about their environment. We recognize the importance of stewardship responsibilities in sustaining the lands and resources entrusted to us. Legislative Proposals The Administration's Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI) proposals affecting the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are requests to Congress for common sense clarifications to ensure that these laws are applied as intended and that we preserve military training vital to national defense and the flexibility to swiftly adapt to our changing doctrinal training requirements. A proposed amendment to the Clean Air Act (CAA) would provide the Army with the flexibility needed to base and operate military weapons systems and structure forces, while ensuring that compliance, and not an exemption from compliance, is achieved. RCRA and CERCLA The RCRA and CERCLA proposals clarify that certain provisions of these laws cannot be used to shut down training on operational ranges. These proposals reflect existing policies of the Environmental Protection Agency and state environmental regulatory agencies with regard to our operational range activities and remove ambiguity currently in the law. These clarifications will help protect the armed forces from the present threat of lawsuits that seek to extend and, in our view, misapply the requirements of these laws to military live-fire training, with adverse impacts on national defense. Simply put, the RRPI proposals seek to confirm that the normal and expected use or presence of military munitions on operational ranges does not, alone, create RCRA statutory "solid waste" or a CERCLA "release." These provisions will not apply to private or contractor sites, because, by the proposals terms, they apply only to areas under the jurisdiction, custody and control of the Department of Defense. Further, the provisions ensure we cannot avoid our legal duties and responsibilities by simply labeling an area as an 'operational range.' Our operational ranges, and thus our legal responsibilities, are defined by the activities conducted on those ranges. In order for an area to qualify as an operational range, it must be used for range activities (research, development, testing, and evaluation of military munitions, other ordnance, and weapons systems; or the training of military personnel in the use and handling of military munitions, other ordnance, and weapons systems). If the range is not currently being used for such activities, it may still be considered an "operational range" but only if it has not been converted to a use incompatible with range activities. By definition, therefore, lands that were once used as ranges, even if they are still under the control of the military, are no longer operational ranges if put to an incompatible use and consequently would not enjoy any protection under the RRPI's provisions. Any former ranges that have passed into private ownership would not be covered by the RRPI's provisions. Once a range ceases to be an "operational range," it would lose the protections of the RRPI. Under our proposal, our responsibility to address munitions that land off our operational ranges is unchanged from current law. Additionally, state and federal regulatory agencies retain authority to address an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health or welfare or the environment, whether the threat is on or off an operational range. Neither of DoD's proposals affect DoD's responsibilities on former ranges or other defense sites. These provisions do not seek to avoid the military's responsibilities to cleanup formerly used defense sites or to protect the environment from potentially harmful impacts. Rather, they seek to clarify and affirm existing policies and ensure that operational ranges, set aside to allow live-fire training, remain available to the forces that need to train for combat. Under the current statutory language, those seeking to halt military training can - and have - argued that CERCLA and RCRA require the cessation of live-fire on operational ranges pending investigation and potential cleanup of munitions and munitions-constituents. Obviously, if they were successful, this would make it nearly impossible for the Army to fulfill our national defense mission. Some have characterized the administration's request to clarify the intent of Congress with regard to the application of certain environmental laws to military training operations as a "roll back" of environmental laws. Such characterizations are entirely unfounded. We comply with, and we will continue to comply with, all applicable environmental laws and regulations to the extent required by law. The RCRA and CERCLA proposals we support today are narrowly tailored to address specific concerns - they are not wholesale exemptions. Indeed, they clarify and confirm regulatory practices and policies that have been in place for years, but are now being challenged in the courts. Historically, environmental regulatory agencies have recognized that RCRA and CERCLA were not intended to apply to live-fire training and testing activities on operational ranges. In fact, these operational ranges were set aside precisely for these types of activities, activities that are essential to national defense. The RRPI provisions seek to enact this regulatory practice and prevent expanded application of these laws beyond Congress' original intent. We seek a clarification of Congressional intent that will provide certainty to regulators and the courts. Such clarification will allow the military to maintain required levels of training and readiness proficiencies while properly managing the resources entrusted to us by our Nation. While it is possible under some of the environmental statutes to seek national security exemptions - most often at the Presidential level - such exemptions are narrowly tailored to a specific site, regarding a specific issue, and for a limited time (e.g., RCRA provides for a 1 year Presidential exemption, renewable thereafter). The readiness activities we are concerned with are not "one-time" events. They are part of the day-to-day training regimens of our servicemen and women, and it is simply unrealistic to expect the military to repeatedly request exemptions for training that must occur on a regular basis - a practice that would be inefficient and ineffective over time. Use of these exemptions is, in fact, the opposite of what we seek. We believe our use of operational ranges is consistent with current law and therefore needs no exemption. We seek only clarification of current law and policy to ensure they are not extended in an unwarranted fashion in the courts. The use of existing statutory exemptions for range activities would imply we are unable or unwilling to comply with the law, which is most certainly not the case. In our view, a clarification of the statutory framework applicable to military testing and training operations is the appropriate manner in which to address this issue. Although, as we've noted, existing regulatory policies are consistent with our RCRA and CERCLA proposal, the Department of Defense, as well as the regulatory agencies themselves, are vulnerable to citizen suits seeking to impose an inflexible interpretation of these and other environmental laws to military munitions and munitions constituents on operational ranges. The Army at Fort Richardson, AK, is currently engaged in such a lawsuit in which the private party plaintiffs alleged violations of CERCLA and RCRA associated with firing munitions at Eagle River Flats (ERF) range. The court challenge implies that CERCLA should be applied to the act of firing munitions onto an operational range and that the continued presence of those munitions on the range constitutes a release of hazardous substances requiring reporting, investigation, characterization, and remediation. If the court agrees with the plaintiff, then live-fire training and testing operations at ERF, and potentially every other operational range (more than 500 sites), could be subject to CERCLA response requirements. Live-fire training during the remediation would likely be impossible, and the only mortar and artillery impact area at Fort Richardson would be unavailable for training. The RCRA allegation in the Fort Richardson case was that munitions fired into ERF -- an operational range - were subject to state pollution abatement requirements. In their original complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that an Alaska anti-pollution statute was made operative against the federal government because of the broad waiver of federal sovereign immunity found in RCRA. In the Fort Richardson case, the RCRA count has since been voluntarily dismissed; however, the United States has also been sued under RCRA regarding the range on the island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, where, in an effort to shut range operations down, plaintiffs claimed that use of ordnance on an active range was an activity regulated by RCRA. If munitions used for their intended purpose are considered statutory solid waste under RCRA, the Armed Forces could be forced to cease firing activities on operational ranges and seek operating permits and perform corrective action or remediation of ranges while they are still operational. While no suit has to date shut down range operations, we believe it is unwise to risk an adverse ruling that could have tremendously significant adverse consequences to an activity that is critical to military readiness. An adverse ruling in the Fort Richardson or Vieques cases, along with the potential for further lawsuits, could compel EPA and state regulators throughout the U.S. to enforce the same standards on other operational ranges. Live-fire training would be severely constrained throughout the Department of Defense and military readiness would be critically threatened. Clean Air Act Amendment The Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative (RRPI) also proposes a common-sense amendment to the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Services need the flexibility of limited time extensions to comply with General Conformity rules of the CAA so they can plan moves of missions and weapons systems to installations based on operational needs and still ensure that they can meet clean air requirements. Currently, when new actions such as replacing weapon systems are taken in non-attainment or maintenance areas, the CAA conformity requirement prohibits initiating replacement without first demonstrating that the future action conforms to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) requirements in place today. While this "conformity" requirement has not yet prevented military readiness actions, it has the potential to significantly disrupt readiness activities whenever we seek to replace or realign forces and equipment to improve military efficiency and effectiveness, to modernize, or to meet the requirements of legally mandated realignments and closures. Both existing and new military readiness activities, and hence, warfare readiness capabilities, could be adversely impacted by the existing CAA General Conformity provision. RRPI does not propose to exempt DoD from CAA conformity requirements; it merely requests that DoD be allowed a three-year period to find mutually beneficial solutions to offset emissions and avoid disrupting military readiness activities. Further, this extension does not apply to just "any activities," but rather to the narrow category of military readiness activities, which characteristically generate relatively small amounts of emissions-often less than 0.5% of total emissions in air regions. Examples of Sustainable Management at Live Fire Training and Testing Areas Although the Army is very concerned with the impact that environmental encroachment has on training, we are also mindful of public concern for the potential impact that training and testing may have on the environment. To address public concern, the Army implemented local community outreach programs and environmental studies to better understand and manage the implications associated with live-fire training. For example, the Army is conducting Regional Range Studies designed to gather credible data on the true environmental impact of live fire training and weapons testing. We are studying conditions and effects at ranges at different installations representing a wide variety of climatic, geologic and ecological settings. The program includes the development of field assessment protocols, field studies, and a lessons-learned report that will include a tool to prioritize future range assessments. Soil, surface water, sediments, groundwater, and vegetation are sampled and analyzed for explosives and metals related to live-fire. Small mammals are also studied to determine ecological impacts. Field protocols are being developed and will be continually refined over the course of the Regional Range Study. The Army is studying the behavior of military-specific chemical compounds and the potential effects they may have on human health and the environment. The major objective of this project is to identify available data for modeling of chemicals typically associated with munitions and their respective emissions and to compile toxicity benchmarks for these chemicals. The findings will help develop strategies for the removal or destruction of harmful byproducts, or to design processes and products that minimize environmental impact. Operational ranges produce scrap metals as byproducts of live-fire training. The Army regularly removes this scrap from the range as part of maintenance operations. Much of the range scrap contains valuable metals that can be recycled, and some of this scrap may contain hazardous residues that are handled in compliance with state and Federal requirements. In response to issues associated with the removal of range residue, the Army is chemically characterizing this material and developing best management practices for managing spent munitions at Army troop training ranges. All such scrap is subject to RCRA and would continue to be under the RRPI. The Army is also investing in Research and Development to eliminate potentially harmful compounds from munitions throughout their lifecycle. The most notable of these efforts is the Army's "Green Bullet." The Army has developed a substitute material (tungsten/tin or tungsten/nylon) for the lead core bullet of our 5.56mm (M-16) round. The Army has authorized the procurement of approximately 5 million rounds this year and expects to complete the transition to the "Green Bullet" by fiscal year 2005. A similar effort is underway for other small arms rounds including 7.62mm and 9mm rounds. The Army also recognized the need to eliminate potentially harmful dyes from two smoke grenades and developed alternative materials for these smoke grenades. CONCLUSION In closing, I would ask you to consider a few basic facts: We have just over 1 million soldiers in uniform in the Active Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard who are committed to protecting and defending the national interests of the United States. We must train those soldiers for the fight. We must prepare them for the uncompromising conditions of combat - and today, combat is a certainty for most of them. Our most effective training is "live" - live fire and maneuver with real weapons over real distances, in realistic settings, including urban areas - making our ranges and training land indispensable our readiness. The Army's total range and land holdings of 16 million acres represents less than one half of one percent of the nation's landmass. A small investment in training considering the risk faced by our soldiers. We are committed to being good stewards of the Nations's resources entrusted to our care and its environment The RRPI initiatives that DoD proposes are small measures to ensure that our ranges on that land provide for the realistic training of American soldiers. Related Documents |
|||||||||||
|
