This section describes the manner in which the U.S. military is organized to carry out its missions, how the military uses contractors to perform many essential services during contingency operations, and the existing air quality in Afghanistan and Iraq. The U.S. command structure in each nation has evolved over time. To perform its military missions around the world, DOD operates geographic combatant commands that conduct activities within assigned areas of responsibility. Combatant commanders oversee U.S. military operations that take place within their area of responsibility. CENTCOM extends from the Middle East to Central Asia, including Afghanistan and Iraq. In Afghanistan, American forces fought as part of the International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF), a multinational strategic unit. The Combined Joint Task Force (CJTF), which was subordinate to ISAF, was responsible for the command and control of operations throughout Afghanistan. In 2009, the U.S. troops’ designation became U.S. Forces-Afghanistan (USFOR-A). According to administration estimates, as of September 2010, about 104,000 American troops, including 30,000 reinforcements that were announced in December 2009, were deployed in Afghanistan. The United States plans to begin withdrawing troops from Afghanistan in July 2011. American forces fighting in Iraq originally came under a similar dual command structure. Multinational Forces-Iraq (MNF-I) was the strategic component. It housed a multinational staff that included logistics, procurement, intelligence, combat operations, and engineering, among other things. The engineering staff, with input from health officials, had responsibility for developing the policies that governed the management of solid waste in Iraq. In addition, Multi-National Corps-Iraq (MNC-I) constituted the operations component of the Iraq command structure. It, too, had a multinational staff that roughly paralleled the MNF-I staff, although it focused more on day-to-day operational issues. On January 1, 2010, MNF-I and MNC-I merged to form U.S. Forces-Iraq (USF-I). By August 31, 2010, about 65,000 American combat troops will have withdrawn from Iraq, reducing U.S. troop levels to about 50,000. The United States’ presence in Iraq is scheduled to end no later than December 31, 2011. The U.S. military relies on civilian contractors to provide supplies and services, including managing some burn pits, in support of its contingency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Kellogg, Brown, and Root (KBR) has provided burn pit services in Iraq through the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP) III contract. On April 18, 2008, DOD announced the Army had awarded LOGCAP IV contracts to DynCorp International, Fluor Intercontinental, and KBR. The transition of requirements from the LOGCAP III to the LOGCAP IV contracts is ongoing and will be used for combat support services in Afghanistan, including burn pit management. KBR retains responsibility for burn pit support in Iraq, as well as a role in aiding the transition of LOGCAP III to LOGCAP IV in Afghanistan. Typically, contractors such as KBR, DynCorp, and Fluor work under task orders. The task order process begins when a military customer, such as a commander in Afghanistan or Iraq, identifies a need, such as assistance in managing a burn pit. This need is documented in a task order statement of work, which establishes the specific tasks for the contractor, and the time frames for performance. In the case of contracting for burn pit support, the customer contacts its contract program management office (the contract office), which obtains a cost estimate from a contractor and provides the cost information to the customer. If the customer decides to use the contractor’s services, the contract office obtains funding and finalizes the statement of work, and the contracting officer issues the task order and a notice to begin work. If the customer identifies a change in need, the process begins anew. Additionally, the military services, as well as DCMA, perform contract management functions to ensure the government receives quality services from contractors at the best possible prices. Customers identify and validate the requirements to be addressed and evaluate the contractor’s performance, and ensure that the contract is used in economical and efficient ways. The contracting officer is responsible for providing oversight and management of the contract. The contracting officer may delegate some oversight and management functions to DCMA, which may then assign administrative contracting officers to (1) provide on-site contract administration at deployed locations, and (2) to monitor contractor performance and management systems to ensure that the cost, product performance, and delivery schedules comply with the terms and conditions of the contract. DCMA administrative contracting officers may have limited knowledge of field operations. In these situations, DCMA normally uses contracting officers’ technical representatives who have been designated by their unit and appointed and trained by the administrative contracting officer. They provide technical oversight of the contractor’s performance, but they cannot direct the contractor by making commitments or changes that affect any terms of the contract. Air pollution in Afghanistan and Iraq is generally high. For example, the level of particulate matter is higher in Afghanistan and Iraq than in the United States. Particulate matter includes coarse particles between 2.5 and 10 micrometers in diameter, as well as fine particles smaller than 2.5 micrometers. Particle pollution may contain a number of components, including acids, organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles, according to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Both coarse and fine particles pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Fine particles can also become deeply embedded in lung tissue. Health problems associated with particle pollution identified by EPA include irritation of the airways, coughing, or difficulty breathing; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; nonfatal heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. According to DOD, sources of particulate matter include dust storms, dust from vehicle disturbance of the desert floor, emissions from local industries, and open pit burning conducted by Afghans, Iraqis, and American troops. Since the beginning of hostilities in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), the military has relied heavily on open burn pits to dispose of the large quantities of solid waste generated at its installations, but CENTCOM did not develop comprehensive guidance on operating or monitoring burn pits until 2009, well after both conflicts were under way. Furthermore, our site visits and review of contractor documentation found that burn pit operators did not always comply with this guidance. In addition, DOD health officials said that many items now prohibited from burn pits, such as plastics, have been routinely burned at U.S. military bases from the start of each conflict. Prior to 2004, the military used burn pits exclusively to handle waste disposal needs in Afghanistan and Iraq. Beginning in 2004, the military began to introduce alternative waste disposal methods. For example, according to DOD officials, between 2005 and 2010, there was a large increase in the number of operational solid waste incinerators in both countries. We discuss incineration issues and other alternatives to open pit burning in more detail in the next section of this report. Nonetheless, as of August 2010, burn pits remained an important waste disposal method for the U.S. military in both wars. According to DOD officials, the military’s reliance on open burn pits is primarily the result of their expedience, especially in the early phases of both wars when combat operations were most intense. Although senior DOD officials said virtually every U.S. military installation in both countries has used burn pits, it is difficult to determine the number of burn pits in use at any given time. First, CENTCOM does not routinely collect such data. In fact, to respond to our request for information, CENTCOM had to query individual base commanders to determine the number of burn pits in each country. In addition, the exact number of active burn pits in both countries varies with fluctuations in the number of bases. As U.S. troops leave Iraq and additional troops arrive in Afghanistan, these totals change. In November 2009, CENTCOM reported 50 active burn pits in Afghanistan and 67 in Iraq. However, by April 2010, those numbers had changed to 184 and 52, respectively. By August 2010, there were 251 active burn pits in Afghanistan and 22 in Iraq. Bases in both countries also vary substantially in their size, resulting in varying amounts of solid waste. For example, large bases may house 5,000 or more U.S. servicemembers, as well as U.S. civilian contractors, while a patrol base may house only about 150 troops. Relatively small bases, such as patrol bases, are likely to rely on open burning for their solid waste disposal needs. Major bases, such as Bagram (Afghanistan) and Balad (Iraq), may employ alternatives, such as incinerators, to handle a substantial portion of their solid waste disposal. Although DOD has long recognized the dangers of open pit burning—June 1978 waste management guidance states that U.S. personnel should not burn solid waste unless there is no other alternative, in part because of the environmental dangers it poses—CENTCOM and its subordinate commands did not provide comprehensive instructions on managing and operating burn pits or minimizing these dangers until 2009. Earlier guidance was largely limited to noting the inherent dangers of open burning and suggesting that various alternatives—such as landfills and pollution prevention—be used instead.