Integrating Military Environmental Protection

SECTION III: TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES (cont)

DEPLOYMENT

TOPIC: INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE SURVEYS (EBSs)

DISCUSSION: The discussion of the initial EBS is an important one that affects all echelons involved in an operation, either directly or indirectly. An EBS is a focused environmental protection report using the principles of an area reconnaissance. When you think of an EBS, you should automatically apply the principles of reconnaissance. As a "snapshot in time," it documents the condition of a site prior to occupation by forces and serves as a tool to assist in determining whether the site is acceptable for military use. It has two primary functions. The first function is foremost in the mind of the commander: ensure that troops are not placed in an unhealthy or unsafe location. The second function is to avoid potential financial liabilities against the U.S. after departure from the location.

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: The composition of the reconnaissance force is critical to the success of the survey. This is no different than the special focus applied when a chemical or engineer reconnaissance of an area is performed. The principles of reconnaissance remain constant, only the focus changes. With the change of focus comes the requirement for special capabilities and competencies within the reconnaissance element. In the case of an environmental reconnaissance (performing an EBS), special skills include engineering skills, preventive medicine capabilities, contracting skills, knowledge of hazardous materials, and other environmental considerations. Both preventive medicine (which must deploy early) and engineer expertise (to include Corps Real Estate Support Teams [CREST]) must be consulted before site selection approval occurs. Both should be involved in the initial EBS and as a part of the environmental reconnaissance team performing the survey. Ideally, the team will also include representation from the unit who will occupy the site. This will allow the unit to perform many of the responsibilities associated with quartering party operations. If contractors are used for this mission, they must have the same capabilities present in the environmental reconnaissance team they employ. Ideally, the reconnaissance team will be made up of military specialties. It may also have contractor representation if the contractor who will perform key services at that site is known. The use of a camera to photograph the site will provide an excellent addition to the initial EBS packet.

Fast track environmental baseline surveys, using contracted reconnaissance, were an initial method of identifying potential hazards and reducing U.S. liability during OJE. These surveys documented environmental conditions during the initial occupancy of the property to determine overt health hazards and prevent the U.S. from receiving unfounded claims for environmental damages. Most of the properties surveyed contained no significant environmental or related health problems, but this was more luck than design. Additionally, fast track EBSs did not provide a tactical evaluation on force protection issues associated with the site. At those sites where potential or real problems were identified, recommendations were made to correct the problems or avoid use of the site. While these types of surveys were helpful and necessary given restrictions on the use of troops, they were incomplete and lacked adequate preventive medicine considerations or force protection assessments. The lack of military engineer expertise in these elements caused some camps to be poorly sited from an engineering and tactical point of view.

The use of a two-phased approach for conducting initial baseline surveys became necessary during OJE due to constraints on time and other considerations. These considerations included limitations imposed by manpower caps that did not allow employment of all desired military personnel, and force protection restrictions that made it easier to use contracted rather than military personnel, in some cases, to accomplish the mission. The Phase I investigation (fast track) was designed to provide an initial overview of the property using real-time sampling equipment. The Phase II investigation, performed only when the Phase I investigation indicated the potential for a significant health or environmental hazard, involved a more comprehensive analysis that was used to quantify an identified hazard and to develop exposure and liability mitigation strategies. Given the constraints, this method was clearly better than no EBS. The reality is that it was an abbreviated and otherwise unsatisfactory solution that only became necessary when proper planning, preparation, and execution were not accomplished.

TOPIC: BASE CAMP DESIGN/POSITIONING

DISCUSSION: Doctrine for the design of base camps is weak. Site selection is the first element of base camp design, and it was generally less than ideal during OJE. Reasons for this included a tendency to base decisions on where to position base camps primarily on map analysis and, in some cases, on incomplete or faulty reconnaissance. This was linked to incomplete EBS reconnaissance team reporting (if this was even available in the planning stage), time constraints, snow-covered terrain, the potential presence of mines, and a lack of general engineering input or considerations. Failure to include engineers and preventive medicine personnel in the initial decision-making process doomed several of the base camps to failure before the first unit occupied them. Insights to base camp design are offered in FM 42-424, Force Provider Company.

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: A better primer or planning guide for the design, construction, and sustainment of base camps must be developed. This must be an integrated product that includes general engineering considerations, field sanitation consideration, force protection concerns, and environmental-related considerations. The application of this guide, coupled with a good EBS and reconnaissance of the prospective site, can minimize or perhaps even eliminate poor decisions on the design and positioning of base camps.

An additional aspect of base camp design is the construction standard for the theater of operations (TO). Will the standard be "initial standard" (up to 6 months of expected use), "temporary standard" (up to 24 months of expected use), or some longer period? In the case of OJE, temporary standards were applied. This worked well for OJE until OJE became Operation Joint Guard (OJG). We are now in the Operation Joint Forge (OJF) phase of a continuing operation and have exceeded the 24 months of expected use. In almost all cases it has become necessary, as well as desirable, to upgrade base camps and their facilities to enhance the quality of life. Unfortunately, infrastructure decisions on bridges, roads, and other critical line of communication elements are now beginning to be felt, given the decision to only design for the temporary standard. The political guidance that drove early decisions has changed over time as the contingency continues. From an environmental set of standards, this means that we are now forced to begin thinking about such items as waste treatment plant extensions and other infrastructure development considerations. Good guidance and planning assumptions are critical to the success of an operation. Given a failure in these, flexibility is the key.

TOPIC: LACK OF SPILL MATERIALS

DISCUSSION: Units brought spill materials to the theater of operations, but only as an afterthought or in insufficient quantities to meet their requirements. Either this was not addressed in unit SOPs or units failed to follow the SOP regarding these items. Spill materials are usually the last items to be included in the load plan. On the surface, this is perhaps understandable. Ordinarily, spill materials are not the most important items to load when going to war (or to a contingency that has the potential of open conflict), but failure to include spill materials is unacceptable. Units eventually rushed to order the materials, only to find that delivery required weeks or sometimes months. The Base Camp Assessment Team (BCAT) team, an element of the Base Camp Coordinating Agency (BCCA) under the control of Task Force Eagle (TFE), ordered absorbent materials for the entire division since the logistical plan did not make provisions to provide them. To supplement the shortage, the Corps of Engineers used its Rapid Response Contract to purchase additional absorbent materials for more rapid distribution to the base camps. Some absorbent material supplies were also located that were administratively "lost" in various base camps or warehoused throughout the theater.

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: Units must transport a basic load of environmental clean-up and storage supplies during deployment. (This will be somewhat generic within a given theater and will need to be adjusted based on the peculiarities of a given operation.) Without this basic load, units will be unable to meet primary responsibilities in the area of spills. Once deployed to a given site or base camp, units should immediately order and track replacement supplies. Ultimately, this was a logistical problem that occurred because of the failure of units to transport spill materials and logisticians did not plan for spill materials in support of the contingency operation. Units will never be able to carry enough spill materials on their vehicles due to the competition of other more critical supplies in the load plan. Logisticians must plan ahead for these requirements and develop a mind-set that makes spill materials a "push" rather than a "pull" item. Units should also have the Corps of Engineers coordinate pre-existing contractor support for contingency purposes.

OPERATIONAL

TOPIC: FIELD SANITATION

DISCUSSION: Field sanitation and preventive medicine in general are major components of Military Environmental Protection. Many units arriving in the AO during OJE were not prepared to handle field sanitation issues. Units did not have established and trained field sanitation teams and equipment on hand. This was compounded by the inability to instantaneously create base camps with more centralized facilities for the soldiers. Preventive medicine assets had little or no preventive medicine oversight of the initial operations by the LOGCAP contractor, Brown & Root Services Corporation (BRSC). The original LOGCAP contract written for OJE had no input from preventive medicine personnel located in Hungary or Bosnia. There was no stipulation that services provided in the areas of food, water, vector control, billeting, and sanitation specifications be based on military standards or requirements. Preventive medicine personnel were not provided the opportunity to assist in reviewing, updating, or regulating the initial LOGCAP contract with respect to these areas. Subsequent inclusion of preventive medicine issues alleviated misunderstanding of standards and expectations, providing the commander with a better field sanitation program. Units were generally not prepared to take care of themselves in a field environment.

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: Units were not prepared to handle field sanitation issues. There was the false expectation that base camps would already be established for them; therefore, many units did not bring tents or heaters. They may have had field sanitation kits, but most were reluctant to use them. (The importance of stocked, maintained, and readily available sanitation kits cannot be overstated. The presence of trained personnel to use the kits is also critical, or the kits remain in vehicles and are not used). To compensate for these shortfalls, preventive medicine detachments conducted field sanitation classes to raise the awareness and skill of soldiers on field sanitation. Classes were also taught to the soldiers of other nations since their field sanitation standards (or lack of standards in some cases) affected U.S. soldiers.

The need for a portable latrine that units can easily carry as part of their field sanitation kit was identified. This portable latrine should be small, easy to sanitize, made of durable material, and ideally able to function as a burnout latrine. A portable latrine of this type would aid in improving field sanitation at the small-unit level prior to establishment of more fixed facilities.

During the sustainment phase of the operation when base camps were established, the Base Camp Assessment Checklist used by the BCAT became a valuable tool for assisting commanders. From this checklist, commanders were able to determine the impact that environmental and sanitation issues would have on their mission accomplishment and on the general health of their troops. As a TTP success, preventive medicine personnel should be taught to apply the Base Camp Checklist. The list should be published in preventive medicine doctrinal documents and technical manuals as standard.

TOPIC: BASE CAMP COORDINATION AGENCY (BCCA), "TACTICAL" HYBRID OF DPW/USACE RESIDENT OFFICE

DISCUSSION: The BCCA was created as a separate staff element to provide technical engineering advice and support to the Assistant Division Commander-Support (ADC-S). The BCAA focuses support on construction (build-up), sustainment, and tear-down of base camps. It was a non-doctrinal staff organization that assumed or overlapped the responsibilities of other staff sections (division engineer, property book, safety, force protection, and others). The BCCA was the controlling agency for the initiation of new work by BRSC. Using the authority of the ADC-S, the BCCA provided letters of direction to BRSC. The BCCA was considered a primary G-staff office working directly for the TFE ADC-S. Most of these duties fall into the role of the traditional or doctrinal responsibilities of the DPW or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: The BCCA staff functions grew as requirements evolved, and included an operations section, environmental section, planning section, real estate section, program management section, and the BCAT. Collectively the BCCA provided:

Tracking for a broad range of information to include base camp building, sustainment, transition, and base camp closure.
Preparation of daily reports to include battle update briefs, BCCA SITREPs, and input to the commander's nightly assessment report.
Interface with the Defense Contracting Management Cell International (DCMCI) and BRSC LNOs, along with monitoring NATO-funded construction.
A single POC for all TFE environmental matters.
Coordination with TFE camp mayors and commanders, BRSC, and USAREUR (FWD) to ensure compliance with all applicable HW management, spill response, and preventive medicine standards and requirements.
Coordination for base camp logistical requirements, working closely with the TFE PBO, G4, BRSC, and camp mayors. Provided a BCCA planning LNO at Eagle Main (Tuzla).
Service as POC for all TFE real estate requirements.
Service as the base camp customer representative to research and validate base camp work requests, developing COAs to resolve issues. Presented work orders and projects to the Joint Acquisition Review Board, coordinating with the work force and providing follow-up to ensure customer satisfaction.
Installation level assessments and assistance in a variety of areas, to include a monthly assessment of each base camp that is provided to camp mayors, camp commanders, and the ADC-S. Assistance was also provided to base camps during both closure and transition activities.

All of this constitutes a major mission for an ad hoc organization whose members rotated at least every 179 days, if not sooner. The obvious question: Is there is an organization already in place designed to do this type of mission or perform the role with minor adjustments? The closest organizational structure with an ability to perform the roles and missions of the BCCA is the HQ, Engineer Group (Construction). With 82 personnel, this doctrinal organization is very robust with the capability to control Facilities Engineer (FE) teams (focused on environmental management services), utility teams, fire truck teams, CREST elements, and other elements that would meet the needs of the current BCCA. A second option would be to employ the Engineer Support Group, another organization that is currently found in ENCOMs. It consists of 18 personnel, and is also designed as a headquarters to control a series of subordinate teams, just like the HQ, Engineer Group (Construction). Its capabilities, as identified in FM 5-116, Engineer Operations: Echelons Above Corps, follow:

Manages engineer resources in support of facility and civil engineering; performs master planning and allocates resources, to include inspecting facilities; identifies, prioritizes, and conducts work, planning boards, and develops facility and civil-engineer projects.

Manages real property, and can control real estate engineer teams and coordinate their activities.

Manages housing and space use.

Manages the theater environmental compliance and prevention programs, to include environmental compliance assessments, recommendations for corrective actions, and proper reporting.

Performs limited design, to include preparing drawings, specifications, and cost estimates in support of facility and civil-engineer projects.

Reviews the designs of contract architects and engineers to ensure they conform to the user's requirements, mission, and codes.

Manages utilities services, maintenance, and repair efforts, and can control engineer utility teams and coordinate their activities.

Inspects and ensures that the quality standards of construction projects by contract or troop labor are met.

Manages base operations, to include sanitation and landfill operations, and can control fire-fighting and utility teams and coordinate their activities.

Can perform limited supervision of troop labor and indigenous personnel.

Manages facility engineering supplies through assigned units.

These capabilities and roles roughly parallel those performed by the BCCA. The question of whether or not we should build another unit in our TOE infrastructure or simply use the Engineer Group (Construction) or the Engineer Support Group as the control element to meet the requirements of the BCCA in contingency operations is a question worthy of discussion. While the BCCA is a Bosnia-specific solution, the need for an organization to perform these roles and functions is not a Bosnia-specific event. Similar requirements will be present in nearly every contingency mission, even if the duration of the operation is relatively short. There is a continuing requirement for a unit (or units) trained and identified to perform these roles and functions. Organizations should be identified and linked to the regions in which they will operate.

It is necessary to support the tactical commander in the same sense that we have installation staffs in CONUS and OCONUS today. In Europe we have institutionalized the Area Support Group/Base Support Battalion (ASG/BSB) structure to command and control these necessary functions. This is another potential candidate organizational structure to meet the roles and missions identified for the BCCA if we want to pursue a TDA solution. In any case, an organization must be available to support the tactical commander and provide a staff organization to handle the majority of the commander's non-tactical responsibilities. If the ASG/BSB organization is refocused to be deployable, it might also be a candidate to perform this mission. In any case, a dedicated solution needs to be institutionalized. An ad hoc organization is a sub-standard solution.

TOPIC: BASE CAMP ASSISTANCE/ASSESSMENT TEAM (BCAT)

DISCUSSION: The BCAT was developed as a component of the BCCA in support of TFE. This ad hoc organization became essential for the command to track the status of environmental programs and conditions at all base camps and sites. Besides a reporting function, the BCAT acts as an assistance team that works with the base camp mayor and his staff. It assures standardized application of directives on environmental conditions and helps the base camps meet those standards. Due to the constant changes in leadership at base camps and rotation of mayors and their staffs, the BCAT was critical in maintaining theater-wide standardization.

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: The BCAT assistance and sustainment assessment visits to base camps proved to be very beneficial. The predominant purpose of the team's assessment visits was to ensure that standards were being met in the areas of force protection, environment, safety, and health (preventive medicine), and in the overall quality of life for the soldier. While assessments were performed, the critical focus was on assistance to correct situations rather than just report conditions as they were. Standards were developed and approved by the ADC-S. The goal was to visit each base camp once in a four-week cycle. Personnel on the BCAT made assessments in their areas of expertise and provided ratings of red, amber, and green. The ratings were applied to the base camp sustainment slides shown each evening at the nightly divisional briefing.

TOPIC: HAZARDOUS WASTE (HW) REMOVAL

DISCUSSION: The logistician is tasked with the mission of coordinating the transportation, storage, handling, and disposal of HAZMAT or HW as articulated in FM 101-5. This role relates to the mission of coordinating unit spill prevention plans and field sanitation. The logistician relies on the expertise of the engineer for assistance in these environmentally related areas, just as he relies on the expertise of the surgeon when it comes to field sanitation.

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: When building a plan for HW, a good initial planning strategy for the logistician is to plan to back-haul an amount of HW equal to the amount of HW being taken into the AO. Assuming there is no other planning guidance, this should at least put the logistician "in the ballpark" for planning purposes. The question of how to remove or back-haul HW is more challenging. In the case of Bosnia, there were no facilities in the country infrastructure that were acceptable to receive HW, so units were required to haul the material out of the area. Waste had to cross international borders for disposal, and it had not been anticipated that these transboundary movements might be subject to the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of HW and Their Disposal.

The Basel Convention also provided that parties to the Convention might not allow the import of HW from non-Basel Convention parties unless there was a specific bilateral agreement which achieved environmentally sound management and disposal of such wastes. In this case, Bosnia-Herzegovina was not a party to the Basel Convention. Although the United States is a signatory to the Basel Convention, it does not have Congressional approval of that action. Regardless, the United States found itself bound by the restrictions of the agreement and soon had a significant amount of HW accumulated in temporary storage areas. (See Appendix C for a discussion of the OJE waste generation in 1996.)

TOPIC: SOLDIER SAFETY

DISCUSSION: Protection is the fourth element of combat power. Along with maneuver, firepower, and leadership, the effective application of protection enables a commander to apply the unit's full measure of combat capability. Safety is the third component of protection, and it overlaps many of the other elements. Safety protects us from ourselves as well as from external dangers. More American fighting men and women have been killed throughout our history by non-battle injuries and deaths than by enemy action. In contingency operations this is multiplied. Pollution prevention blends into the established safety considerations. Human waste, medical waste, and other hazardous material waste are similar issues that must be considered to provide protection for soldiers.

"PROTECTION CONSERVES THE FIGHTING POTENTIAL OF A FORCE SO COMMANDERS CAN APPLY IT AT THE DECISIVE TIME AND PLACE."

--FM 100-5, Operations

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: Military Environmental Protection is a key element of safety. Its integration is essential for a variety of reasons, but none is more pressing than the health and welfare of soldiers. Human waste, medical waste, other hazardous wastes, other aspects of preventive medicine, and the soldier's overall environment are continuous safety considerations for units. They are present at all times and exist in all phases of an operation.

REDEPLOYMENT

TOPIC: BASE CAMP TRANSFER AND CLOSURE

DISCUSSION: At some point a base camp is either transferred to another unit as they assume responsibility for the site, or it is closed and turned over to the proper authorities.

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: The BCCA closure and transfer team was very successful and well received by TFE base camp personnel. The team consisted of an OIC from the BCCA and the BCAT, and representatives from the force protection, environmental, and real estate sections of the BCCA. Other team members came from the G4, the DRMO, the PBO, and JAG. For transfer visits, the main players are the OIC, the PBO, the environmental representative, and the real estate representative. The transfer visit is conducted after the new mayor arrives and conducts a 100-percent inventory with the outgoing mayor. Base camp transfer should generally be performed as a variant of a relief-in-place operation (FM 71-3, Chapter 6). Responsibility for the base camp should not be transferred until the majority of the troops on site belong to the new unit and the command structure is ready to take command. The official transfer occurs only after the Transfer Checklist is completed and signed by the ADC-S.

The transfer of a base camp is not purely an administrative action. There may be aspects of force protection and related tactical actions that must be performed as well. The philosophical baseline for this part of the equation can be best understood if you follow existing doctrinal guidelines for a relief-in-place. The responsibilities for both the incoming and outgoing unit are clearly articulated for this process and should be applied when transferring control of a base camp.

During base camp closures, the focus of the BCAA closure and transfer team is to assist the base camp mayor and the responsible unit in conducting an orderly close-out of the camp. (Those soldiers who participated in the drawdown of facilities in Europe or BRAC closings in the United States should already understand the fundamentals involved.) The first visit to a camp preparing for closure is scheduled six weeks out from the closure date. A follow-up visit is conducted three weeks out, and a final close-out visit is conducted on the closing day. On the final inspection, the team ensures that all personnel and equipment have departed, no force protection related materials remain, turnover of the property to its owner is completed, and any maneuver damage or environmentally related concerns have been remedied or addressed in some other fashion. A base camp is officially closed when a Close-Down Checklist is completed and signed by the ADC-S.

POST-DEPLOYMENT

TOPIC: CLOSURE ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE SURVEY (EBS)

DISCUSSION: The closure EBS is directly linked to the initial EBS and any environmental compliance reports (ECR) that may have been performed on a site. It is a "snapshot in time" to document the endstate of the occupation. Although conducted as a part of redeployment, it is in the post-deployment phase where its importance will likely be greatest. In an historical document role it serves two primary functions. The first is to prevent improper claims from being brought against the United States. It is also a record of a site over time that can be reviewed if health problems occur among soldiers that were stationed at a site. This role proved important in the aftermath of Operations DESERT SHIELD/DESERT STORM when soldiers became ill with what is now known as the "Gulf War Syndrome."

TECHNIQUES AND PROCEDURES: Quality and detailed record keeping on the life of a base camp is valuable in helping medical personnel identify potential medical problems of the soldiers who served there. The EBS (both initial and closure) is an important document that needs to be used to protect the soldier from harm and the United States from potential financial liability.

Section III: Techniques and Procedures, Part 1

Section IV: DTLOMS Integration

NEWSLETTER

Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list