For more than two decades, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has led one of the nation’s most complex cleanup missions: locating and removing military munitions from former defense sites. The work honors past service while ensuring a safer, more sustainable future for the nation.
Through its Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP), USACE addresses hazards potentially left behind at former training ranges, testing areas and other legacy defense locations. These sites can contain unexploded ordnance, discarded military munitions and munitions constituents in soil and groundwater, each presenting unique technical and safety challenges.
At the heart of the program is a multidisciplinary approach that brings together experts from across scientific and engineering fields:
“No single discipline can solve this problem alone,” said John Jackson, MMRP action officer with Headquarters USACE. “It takes a coordinated team with specialized expertise working in lockstep to understand the hazards, reduce risk and protect the public.”
That coordination is essential in a field defined by uncertainty. Subsurface conditions vary widely, and while advances in geophysical technology and data analysis have improved detection capabilities, interpreting results still requires collaboration and expert judgment.
“The MMRP is about more than removing munitions,” Jackson said. “It’s about making informed decisions grounded in science and risk that allow communities to safely use and reuse these lands.”
Across USACE, professionals from diverse disciplines contribute to that mission, combining technical precision with a shared commitment to public safety. From the geophysicists to the chemists, risk assessors and OESSs, these professionals are the backbone of MMRP, transforming once-hazardous lands into safe, usable spaces for future generations.
Chad Wood, Geophysicist
For Chad Wood, the challenge lies beneath the surface. As a geophysicist with the U.S. Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville, he works at the intersection of technology, science and field operations, using sophisticated instruments to detect anomalies that may indicate buried munitions. His work often begins long before any soil is disturbed, relying on nonintrusive methods to build a picture of what is hidden underground.
“You’re essentially trying to see underground without digging everything up,” Wood said. “The technology gives us a picture, but it’s up to us to interpret what that picture means.”
Wood’s role requires both technical expertise and a strong understanding of site history. Former training areas can vary widely in how they were used, and that history directly affects how geophysical data is collected and interpreted.
“There are many variables to consider: local geology, site history and types of munitions used, existing infrastructure such as powerlines or roads, and environmental factors such as wetlands or endangered species,” he said. “You have to understand the environment you’re working in and adjust your approach accordingly.”
For decades, field crews have relied on geophysical tools — “essentially very advanced metal detectors,” said Wood — to identify potential munitions, called “anomalies,” within a few feet of the surface. Because the metal detectors are unable to distinguish between hazardous munitions and benign metal objects, teams must excavate each anomaly, a tedious and costly endeavor.
In recent years, however, advances in geophysical mapping and improved sensor capabilities have enhanced the ability to not only detect anomalies buried further underground, but also to classify them as munitions or debris before excavation. This technology, Advanced Geophysical Classification (AGC), helps geophysicists make a critical distinction: what’s likely to be a munition and what’s just clutter.
“AGC allows us to focus only on items that resemble potentially hazardous munitions and avoid excavating most of the debris,” Wood said. “Digging is expensive, time-consuming and hazardous, so reducing unnecessary excavation is a big benefit.”
Wood’s work feeds directly into the broader MMRP process, informing where intrusive investigations are conducted and helping other disciplines focus their efforts. His data serves as the foundation for decisions that ultimately determine how a site is managed or remediated.
“It’s a team effort,” he said. “What we do supports everyone else, and their input helps refine what we’re looking at. That collaboration is what makes the process work.”
Angie Lane, Chemist
As a chemist, Angie Lane focuses on what remains after munitions degrade. While unexploded ordnance presents an obvious physical hazard, the chemical residues left behind can pose more subtle and persistent risks to human health and the environment.
“We’re looking for the chemical fingerprints left behind,” said Lane, the lead chemist for Huntsville Center’s Environmental Protection and Utilities Section. “Even when the munition itself is gone, the contamination can still be present.”
Lane’s work centers on reviewing technical documents, including work plans, sampling strategies and laboratory results. She evaluates whether the right samples are being collected, whether the methods used are appropriate for the contaminants of concern and whether the analytical approaches meet regulatory and scientific standards.
“It’s about making sure we’re asking the right questions and using the right methods to answer them,” she said. “If the data isn’t collected or analyzed properly, everything that comes after that can be affected.”
That level of scrutiny is essential in a program where decisions are driven by data. Lane ensures that sampling approaches are tailored to site-specific conditions, considering factors such as the types of munitions used historically, the characteristics of the soil and groundwater and the potential for contaminants to migrate.
“Contaminants can move through soil, dissolve in groundwater or break down into other compounds that we also have to understand,” she said. “You have to understand the site and the chemistry to know whether the approach makes sense.”
In addition to reviewing quality assurance project plans, Lane also evaluates the capabilities of the laboratories conducting the testing. Not all laboratories are equipped to handle the specialized analyses required for munitions constituents, and ensuring they meet the necessary requirements is a key part of her role.
“We need to have confidence in the data,” she said. “That means making sure the labs are qualified and that their methods can meet the project requirements.”
Lane works closely with project teams, regulators and other technical experts to resolve issues and refine approaches before and after sampling is conducted. Her input helps prevent problems early, reducing the likelihood of costly rework and ensuring that the data collected can support sound decision-making.
“Good decisions depend on good data,” she said. “My role is to help make sure the data holds up, both scientifically and from a regulatory standpoint, so we can make informed decisions about how to address the contamination.”
By ensuring data collection and analysis are conducted correctly from the outset, Lane helps provide the reliable information needed to assess risk, guide cleanup strategies and protect human health and the environment.
Glenn Hoeger, Risk Assessor
For Glenn Hoeger, the central question is not just what is present at a site. It is what that presence means for people and the environment. A risk assessor with the Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise, Hoeger translates technical data into an understanding of potential impacts, helping decision makers determine whether action is needed.
“Risk assessment is about context,” Hoeger said. “We take the data from the field and translate it into potential impacts on human health and ecological systems.”
That process begins with identifying potential exposure pathways. Hoeger considers how people or wildlife might come into contact with contaminants, whether through direct contact with soil, ingestion of groundwater or other routes. He then evaluates the likelihood and magnitude of those exposures.
“Not every detection equals a risk,” he said. “Our job is to distinguish between what’s there and what actually matters from a safety standpoint.”
This distinction is critical in a program like MMRP, where both physical hazards and chemical contamination may be present. Risk assessment helps prioritize actions, ensuring that resources are focused where they are most needed.
“We’re helping answer the question of what needs to be done and what doesn’t,” Hoeger said. “That’s a key part of making the program efficient and effective.”
Hoeger’s work also plays an important role in regulatory compliance, as risk assessments are often used to demonstrate that sites meet federal and state environmental standards. But beyond the technical and regulatory aspects, he emphasized the importance of communication.
“People want to understand what the data means for them,” he said. “We have to be able to explain that in a way that’s accurate and accessible.”
That communication can take many forms, from written reports to public meetings, where community members may have concerns about safety and long-term impacts. Hoeger works to present complex information in a way that builds understanding and trust.
“It’s about transparency,” he said. “If people understand how decisions are made, they’re more likely to have confidence in the outcome.”
By bridging the gap between technical data and real-world implications, Hoeger helps ensure that MMRP decisions are both scientifically sound and responsive to the needs of the communities they affect.
Jim Hug, Ordnance and Explosives Safety Specialist
Safety underpins every aspect of the MMRP, and for Jim Hug, that responsibility is central to the mission. As the lead OESS for the Range Support Center, one of the Military Munitions Design centers with resources from USACE South Pacific and Southwestern divisions, Hug ensures that all work involving potential munitions hazards is conducted in a way that protects workers, the public and the environment.
“Our role is to make sure the work is done safely for the team, for the public and for the environment,” Hug said. “There’s no margin of error when you’re dealing with explosives.”
Hug brings more than two decades of military experience to the role, beginning his career in theUnited States Marine Corpsbefore transitioning from the infantry into explosive ordnance disposal (EOD). He spent the majority of his service as an EOD technician, gaining hands-on experience with the very hazards he now helps manage.
That background is not incidental; it’s required. USACEis unique in requiring its OESSs to be graduates of a military EOD school.
“That requirement exists because of the mission,” Hug said. “Former EOD techs are trained to understand how military ordnance functions, how fuzes operate, how components interact. Without that background, it’s difficult to fully grasp the hazards.”
Hug’s work begins in the planning phase, where he reviews project plans, procedures and safety protocols to ensure they meet rigorous standards. He evaluates everything from how field teams will approach a site to how they will respond if a munition is encountered.
“You have to think through every scenario: what happens if you find something, how you handle it and how you keep everyone safe in the process,” he said.
Once work moves into the field, Hug’s role continues through oversight and coordination. He works closely with project teams, contractors and other specialists — travelling to sites 250 to 300 days each year — to ensure that safety procedures are followed and that any hazards are properly managed.
“You have to respect the hazards,” he said. “People often assume this work attracts a ‘cowboy’ mentality, but in reality, the opposite is true. You have to be structured and disciplined. You must follow regulations and procedures to keep yourself and everyone else safe.”
Hug also emphasized the importance of training and awareness. Personnel working on MMRP sites must be prepared to recognize potential hazards and respond appropriately, often in unpredictable conditions.
“Safety is about preparation as much as it is about response,” he said. “Everyone on the team needs to understand the risks and know what to do.”
His work is deeply integrated with the other disciplines involved in the program, ensuring that safety considerations are incorporated into every aspect of planning and execution.
“Safety isn’t a separate step,” he said. “It’s part of everything we do.”
Through that integration, Hug helps ensure that the MMRP not only achieves its technical objectives, but does so in a way that protects all those involved.