Environmental Compliance: Continued Need for Guidance in Programming
Defense Construction Projects (Letter Report, 06/21/96,
GAO/NSIAD-96-134).

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the Department of
Defense's (DOD) prioritization of environmental compliance construction
projects, focusing on: (1) the DOD construction program process; and (2)
DOD cost estimates for future projects.

GAO found that: (1) the services have taken actions to improve their
processes for prioritizing environmental compliance construction
projects, such as management centralization, consolidating such projects
with other military construction projects, updating compliance tracking
systems, and creating a single-source headquarters sponsor for
construction projects; (2) the services and the Defense Logistics Agency
inconsistently classify and prioritize environmental compliance
construction projects and charge appropriation accounts for projects
because DOD has not issued specific guidance on such matters; (3) the
lack of guidance and classification and funding inconsistencies hamper
congressional oversight and DOD program management; (4) to fund
projects, the Air Force primarily uses military construction
appropriations, the Army primarily uses operation and maintenance
appropriations, and the Navy primarily uses defense business operating
funds; (5) DOD estimates for fiscal year (FY) 1997 environmental
compliance construction requirements decreased from $257 million in
February 1995 to $84 million in April 1996; and (6) the exact reason for
the decreased funding could not be determined, but could be the result
of lack of documentation, decisions to fund projects in later years, and
decreased project costs.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-96-134
     TITLE:  Environmental Compliance: Continued Need for Guidance in 
             Programming Defense Construction Projects
      DATE:  06/21/96
   SUBJECT:  Military facility construction
             Construction (process)
             Military appropriations
             Appropriation accounts
             Future budget projections
             Compliance
             Environmental monitoring
             Environmental law
             Oversight by Congress
             Prioritizing

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction,
Committee on Appropriations, U.S.  Senate

June 1996

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE -
CONTINUED NEED FOR GUIDANCE IN
PROGRAMMING DEFENSE CONSTRUCTION
PROJECTS

GAO/NSIAD-96-134

Environmental Compliance

(709147)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOD - Department of Defense
  DLA - Defense Logistics Agency
  EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-271581

June 21, 1996

The Honorable Conrad Burns
Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Construction
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The Senate Report accompanying the 1996 Military Construction
Appropriation Bill (S.  Rep.  104-116) requires us to review how the
Department of Defense (DOD) prioritizes environmental compliance
construction projects.  As agreed with your office, this report
discusses DOD's process to program environmental compliance
construction and DOD's cost estimates of future projects. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

Projects funded under the military construction appropriation
generally cost over $300,000 and produce complete and usable new
facilities or improvements to existing facilities.  The Army Corps of
Engineers and the Naval Facilities Engineering Command manage the
design of all service construction projects; each service verifies
that the project designs are at least 35 percent complete when
submitted to Congress for funding.  Congress appropriates 5-year
funds for construction projects. 

The Office of the Secretary of Defense issues planning guidance to
identify, prioritize, and fund construction projects.  The military
services and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) justify selected
construction projects based on the need to comply with environmental
laws and regulations.  Although environmental military construction
projects compete with other military construction projects for
funding, DOD gives additional priority to those environmental
projects that are to correct problems that do or will soon result in
noncompliance with the requirements.  Between fiscal years 1994 and
1996, DOD will have funded $689 million in environmental compliance
construction projects.  Figure 1 shows the funding and the types of
construction projects executed during that time, and appendix I
provides details on projects and their costs for the services,
including the Air National Guard and the Air Force Reserve. 

   Figure 1:  Environmental
   Compliance Military
   Construction Projects, Fiscal
   Years 1994-96 (Dollars in
   millions)

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Figures for fiscal year 1996 are estimates.  Figures for 1994
and 1995 are based on service obligations as of February 1996. 

\a The "other" category represents construction projects such as
engine test facilities, fuel containment dikes, and above-ground
storage tanks. 

In November 1993, we reported that the services' processes for
identifying, classifying, and funding environmental compliance
projects varied.\1 We stated that more consistent processes would
help ensure that needs and costs were identified and ranked so that
DOD and Congress could oversee trade-offs in funding and minimize
inequities among the services' projects.  We recommended that DOD
guidance specify how the services should report costs related to
environmental compliance construction and determine which
appropriation would provide funds. 


--------------------
\1 Environmental Compliance:  Guidance Needed in Programming Defense
Construction Projects (GAO/NSIAD-94-22, Nov.  26, 1993). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

Since our November 1993 report, the services have initiated actions
intended to improve their processes for programming and prioritizing
environmental compliance construction projects.  However, neither the
current nor proposed DOD policy specifies how the services should
report costs related to environmental compliance construction
projects and how they should determine which appropriation account
should provide the funds.  Consequently, the services and DLA
continue to vary the manner in which they classify and prioritize the
projects and determine the source of funds for them.  The continuing
lack of such guidance and the inconsistencies inhibit congressional
oversight and DOD's program management. 

DOD-wide estimates for fiscal year 1997 environmental compliance
construction requirements fell from $257 million in February 1995 to
$84 million in April 1996.  Due to the lack of a uniform approach to
categorizing such projects, we cannot determine whether this drop in
funding is a result of a reduction in the need for such projects or
simply a reflection of differing procedures for categorization.  The
reasons for reductions fell into several different categories, for
example, lack of documentation, decisions to fund in later years, or
decreased project costs. 


   SERVICE INITIATIVES HAVE BEEN
   TAKEN WITHOUT ADDITIONAL DOD
   GUIDANCE
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

The services have taken initiatives to improve their programming and
oversight of environmental construction projects.  The Army is moving
toward more centralization in the management of its military
construction priorities to promote oversight of construction-related
environmental issues on an Army-wide basis.  The Air Force now
requires its commands to prioritize and consolidate environmental
compliance construction projects with other military construction
projects, and has instituted an integrated process team at the Air
Staff level to review military construction requirements during the
budgeting and programming process.  The Marine Corps is updating its
environmental compliance tracking system to more easily identify
environmental compliance and other environmental projects, and the
Navy created a single-source headquarters sponsor for construction
projects.  In addition, the Naval Audit Service annually reviews the
Navy's and the Marine Corps' proposed military construction projects. 
At the installation level, each of the services has formed working
groups and committees to work with Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and state and local representatives to better identify project
requirements. 

Despite these actions, DOD still has not issued specific guidance on
how the services should program and report costs related to
environmental compliance construction projects and how they should
determine which appropriations should be used to fund the projects. 
Consequently, the services continue to inconsistently program and
report environmental compliance construction projects. 

One inconsistency is the manner in which the services justify
projects that are to be funded within the military construction
appropriation. 

  -- In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the Air Force funded about $10
     million for hydrant fuel systems improvements with environmental
     compliance as justification for priority.  Hydrant fuel systems
     consist of pressurized underground piping used to fuel
     various-sized aircraft.  A 1995 Kelly Air Force Base, Texas,
     project was funded to comply with a state enforcement order to
     install leak detection and prevention equipment.\2 On the other
     hand, DLA justifies its hydrant fueling systems based on
     mission-related requirements, but notes that the systems have
     environmental compliance aspects.\3 DLA plans to spend $48
     million in fiscal year 1996 military construction funds for
     these systems and $75 million in fiscal year 1997 funds for
     similar projects.  This inconsistency may be minimized in the
     future because DLA's Defense Fuel Supply Center is now
     responsible for sponsoring all fuel-related military
     construction. 

  -- The Navy classified the construction of a Patuxent River,
     Maryland, hazardous material storehouse as an environmental
     compliance project and spent $3 million in fiscal year 1994 for
     the facility.  Such storehouses are generally required for the
     safe storage and efficient processing of hazardous materials
     used by base and tenant activities.  Under Air Force policy
     similar projects should not be funded as environmental
     compliance projects.  The Army's hazardous material storage
     projects, as we discussed in our 1993 report, are managed by its
     logistics experts rather than by environmental engineers who
     manage most environmental functions and are not justified or
     prioritized as compliance projects. 

  -- The services justify as mission-related other projects that must
     comply with regulatory requirements.  For example, the Marine
     Corps is requesting $13 million in fiscal year 1997 military
     construction funds for the construction of a mission-related
     corrosion control facility at New River, North Carolina.  Such
     facilities are constructed to allow functional and
     environmentally safe paint stripping and application to control
     corrosion on various aircraft.  The Marine Corps is constructing
     the facility to reduce air pollution and provide work areas that
     comply with requirements of the Clean Air Act and Occupational
     Safety and Health regulations.  A Marine Corps official told us
     the project could be justified as either mission-related or
     environmental compliance.  Another official told us that safety
     is the driving factor.  Supporting documentation for the project
     shows both safety and environmental compliance requirements. 

  -- The Air Force is funding similar projects as either
     environmental or mission-related.  The Air Force was
     appropriated military construction funds for a fiscal year 1996
     corrosion control facility at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base,
     Arizona, which it justified as environmental compliance.  At
     Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma, a similar project is being
     requested as mission-related, although supporting documentation
     indicates the project is also required to comply with regulatory
     requirements.  Tinker officials had proposed the project to be
     justified as environmental compliance to meet Clean Air Act
     requirements, but Air Force Materiel Command officials believed
     the existing facility could be modified to meet emissions
     requirements, and that the project was justified based on
     Tinker's large paint workload.  In discussing this issue, Air
     Force officials emphasized that while the project had
     environmental compliance aspects, the increased stripping and
     painting requirements drove the need to classify the project as
     mission-related. 

Another inconsistency among the services involves how the projects
are designed, which in turn affects whether projects are funded with
military construction funds or from the operations and maintenance
appropriation.  In this regard, while large projects are funded from
the military construction appropriation, smaller scope minor
construction (less than $300,000) projects can be funded with
operation and maintenance funds or with minor construction funds that
are managed by the installation.  We found that the services
sometimes design seemingly similar projects differently, resulting in
different prioritization and funding of the projects. 

  -- The Air Force obligated over $47 million in fiscal years 1994
     and 1995 military construction funds for 34 underground fuel
     storage tank projects.\4 Environmentally safe storage tanks are
     required to ensure continued operating storage of petroleum
     products and other environmentally controlled substances used to
     support the operation of such things as depot and base shops,
     electric generators, and gas stations.  Air Force installations
     bundled together a number of individual tank projects to create
     single projects that would meet the $300,000 minimum for
     construction funding.\5 For example, Tinker Air Force Base alone
     bundled together 78 individual tank upgrades to create a single
     construction project. 

  -- During fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the Army obligated $80
     million in operation and maintenance funds to upgrade and
     construct underground storage tanks similar to those of the Air
     Force to comply with environmental laws and regulations.  For
     example, Fort Bliss obligated $1.4 million in fiscal year 1995
     operation and maintenance funds to replace a number of
     underground storage tanks; it plans to spend $1.2 million in
     fiscal year 1996 operation and maintenance funds to replace and
     upgrade additional tanks.\6 The Army plans to spend an
     additional $61 million in fiscal year 1996 operation and
     maintenance funds and $47 million in fiscal year 1997 operation
     and maintenance funds for the construction of tanks. 

  -- We also found another example of project design and funding
     flexibility at Tinker Air Force Base.  The Air Force eliminated
     a fiscal year 1996 storm drainage project at Tinker from its
     environmental compliance construction estimate.  Officials
     determined the project would not receive a high enough priority
     if funded with military construction funds.  Instead, Tinker
     officials told us they plan to divide the project into smaller
     units and fund them from the operation and maintenance
     appropriation. 

Services also fund projects in phases using the same appropriation. 
Officials believe this funding method helps ensure the funding of
costlier projects.  Such funding methods can minimize the apparent
total cost of the project when supporting documentation for each
phase does not identify the total project cost. 

  -- The Marine Corps is funding a $77-million military construction
     wastewater treatment plant upgrade at Camp LeJeune, North
     Carolina, in three distinct phases in fiscal years 1994, 1996,
     and 1997.  Officials stated they selected this funding method
     because they believed the project would more likely receive
     funding if it was submitted in complete and usable increments,
     rather than as a total package.  The Marine Corps could not
     afford to fund such a large project in a single year because of
     fiscal constraints.  Supporting budget documentation submitted
     to Congress identified each phase of the wastewater project but
     did not include the total cost of all project phases. 

  -- The Navy is funding a $24-million military construction oily
     waste collection system at the Norfolk Naval Station, Virginia,
     in two distinct phases beginning with fiscal year 1996.  The
     project is being constructed under a consent agreement with the
     local community.  The Navy requires $12.2 million in fiscal year
     1996 funds and is planning to request an additional $11.5
     million in future year funds.  Officials at the Naval Facilities
     Engineering Command, Atlantic Division, told us phase II of the
     fiscal year 1997 project has been delayed, and is currently
     being considered for fiscal year 1998.  Officials are
     considering the impact of other related projects, such as the
     installation of oil/water separators on aircraft carriers. 
     Supporting budget documentation submitted to Congress identified
     phases but not total project costs for all phases.\7

These inconsistencies and funding practices have continued to occur
because DOD has not clarified its guidance to provide better
definitions for the classification and prioritization of compliance
projects.  Stating the need for more consistency, DOD officials, as
part of a 1995 environmental quality initiative, have issued fiscal
years 1998-2003 annual programming guidance that is designed to
better identify compliance costs.  Officials believe the guidance
will capture recurring costs associated with managing environmental
programs such as manpower, training, and maintenance of environmental
equipment.  However, the guidance does not specify how the services
will program and report compliance costs.  Also, the guidance merges
into one category projects that address existing noncompliance with
projects that address future noncompliance.  Such merging of
previously distinct compliance categories would result in
inconsistency with EPA definitions\8 for compliance projects and
would limit DOD's ability to rank projects. 


--------------------
\2 According to an official at Kelly Air Force Base, Kelly is the
only airport in the state to comply with the enforcement order.  The
official told us all other major airports are contesting the
requirement. 

\3 DLA owns petroleum products in bulk storage.  Hydrant systems on
Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps bases, and intermediate storage on
Army installations were recently transferred to DLA from the
services. 

\4 Figures for 1994 and 1995 are based on obligations as of February
1996. 

\5 In discussing this issue, Air Force officials informed us that
they also spent $49 million in fiscal year 1994 and 1995 operation
and maintenance funds for separate underground storage tank projects. 

\6 Army officials were unable to provide us with the specific numbers
of tanks because, until recently, such numbers were not included in
the Army's system for managing installation projects.  Storage tank
replacement and upgrades can generally run from approximately $5,000
to $25,000 per tank. 

\7 Our review of Air Force project data shows that the Air Force has
also funded underground storage tank projects in phases.  Supporting
documentation did not identify the total costs for all phases. 

\8 DOD and other federal agencies use an EPA classification system
that sorts compliance status into distinct classes and compliance
categories.  Placing projects in the correct compliance class is the
first step in establishing the relative importance of a project. 


   CONTINUED INCONSISTENCIES
   PRECLUDE EFFECTIVE DOD AND
   CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Our 1993 report stemmed in part from congressional concern that the
Air Force's fiscal year 1993 budget request for environmental
military construction was about twice as large as the other services'
requests combined.  However, we found, during that review, that the
Air Force funds most of its environmental compliance construction
projects using military construction appropriations.  The Army funds
most of its environmental compliance construction projects with
operation and maintenance appropriations.  The Navy funds these
projects using defense business operating funds and the Navy could
not identify the source of appropriated funding used to reimburse the
fund.\9 Because of the variances in project definitions and funding
sources, neither we nor DOD could compare the individual service
programs.  DOD's data shows that the Air Force's total environmental
compliance cost was actually less than either the Army's or the
Navy's. 

Figure 2 shows a decrease from 1993 to 1997 in DOD's military
construction funding to comply with environmental construction
requirements.  However, as we found in 1993, the costs are not
representative of all environmental construction, since similar
construction projects are also funded from other valid appropriations
such as operation and maintenance and minor construction. 

   Figure 2:  DOD Environmental
   Military Construction
   Compliance Funding

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Note:  Fiscal year 1997 estimate as of April 1996. 

DOD-wide estimates of fiscal year 1997 environmental compliance
requirements to be funded under the military construction
appropriation fell from $257 million in February 1995--when they were
submitted to Congress as part of the fiscal year 1996/1997 biennial
budget estimates--to $84 million in April 1996.  However, neither we
nor DOD could determine the extent of the reduction in the program
from prior years because of continued inconsistencies in project
definition (environmental or mission-related) and design (see pp. 
4-8). 

Some reductions resulted from a lack of support for projects proposed
in 1995 or decisions to fund at a later time.  For example, the Air
Force eliminated over $14 million of industrial wastewater
pretreatment facilities at various installations because subsequent
review at the major command level determined that support for the
projects was inadequate.  Officials at Langley Air Force Base,
Virginia, also told us that they decided to reduce the generation of
hazardous waste at the source.  Air Force officials deferred two
other military construction projects at Beale Air Force Base,
California, and Dyess Air Force Base, Texas, to the future fiscal
years' environmental compliance program.  Air Force data shows that
the Air National Guard has removed a fiscal year 1997 underground
storage replacement project from its military construction budget
estimates, and the project may be funded with operation and
maintenance funds. 

Other reductions can be attributed to reduced project scope resulting
in lower estimates for individual projects.  For example, the Navy
reduced its $25.4 million estimate for an oily waste collection
facility in San Diego, California, to $7.2 million based on a
November 1994 Naval Audit Service report recommendation.  Navy
officials told us they are using a more effective, less costly method
to treat the oily waste.  In January 1996, the Naval Audit Service
reported that the revised $7.2 million estimate was appropriate. 
However, in reviewing cost data provided by the Navy, we noted that
the Navy's current estimate for the project is still $24 million. 
Figure 3 shows a breakout of the $84 million estimate by service as
of April 1996. 

   Figure 3:  Fiscal Year 1997
   Environmental Construction
   Estimates

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


--------------------
\9 In discussing a draft of this report, DOD officials stated that
operation and maintenance funds are generally used to reimburse the
Defense Business Operating Fund. 


   MATTER FOR CONGRESSIONAL
   CONSIDERATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

DOD cannot adequately determine its environmental compliance
construction needs and project priorities.  The continuing lack of
guidance and inconsistencies in the way DOD programs and funds
projects inhibit DOD's and Congress' ability to provide overall
management and effective program oversight.  Given DOD's response to
our 1993 report that it believed more consistent guidance is
unnecessary, the Subcommittee may wish to direct DOD to act now to
ensure that projects are consistently funded and reported for the
fiscal year 1998 budget submission to Congress or to no longer use
environmental compliance to justify higher priority for military
construction funding. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

In oral comments on a draft of this report, DOD officials generally
agreed with our description of project funding and reporting. 
However, they did not agree with our findings and conclusion that
more consistent guidance is needed to ensure that projects are
consistently funded and reported, or with our related matter for
congressional consideration. 

DOD officials stated that the environmental program, like other DOD
programs, is integrated into the appropriations process in accordance
with applicable law and guidance, and that commanders need the
flexibility that the current congressional and DOD guidance provide
in determining when it is appropriate to use operation and
maintenance funds versus military construction funds for smaller
projects.  Officials suggested that the location and type of
facilities frequently impact how the DOD components fund projects. 
For example, underground storage tanks collocated in a fuel farm or
around an airfield may be more appropriately addressed as an entire
area at one time, whereas tanks at a number of different sites could
logically and legally be done with smaller projects, under either the
military construction or operation and maintenance appropriation. 
Officials stated that while inappropriate classification of
environmental projects is possible, it has not been a problem. 

We recognize the flexiability inherent in existing guidance
concerning project design and funding.  As stated in our 1993 report,
however, our position is that DOD's guidance is not comprehensive and
does not ensure consistency in implementation.  These
inconsistencies, which are demonstrated in the examples cited
throughout our report, inhibit analyzing DOD-wide data and estimating
future requirements. 

Also, officials stated that the slight change in EPA category
definitions (discussed on pp.  7 and 8) more clearly demonstrates the
funding priorities than treating all future requirements in a single
category regardless of their immediacy.  Officials stated that EPA
staff have accepted DOD's changes. 

With regard to compliance category definitions, we believe the
changes are substantive and not slight as characterized by DOD. 
EPA's category definitions distinguished among projects to address
situations (1) already out of compliance, (2) to be out of compliance
by the end of the current year, and (3) to be out of compliance in
future years' budgets.  We agree that EPA has accepted DOD's
definition to include all three in one category for the purposes of
DOD's report to Congress.  However, it obtained DOD agreement to
provide additional supporting information on individual projects. 
That information would allow EPA to categorize DOD's projects under
EPA definitions.  We are monitoring DOD's implementation of its
revised definitions for the requester of this report and other
requesters.  Technical corrections have been incorporated where
appropriate. 


   SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7

To obtain information on DOD's and the military services' programming
processes, we held discussions and obtained information from
officials in EPA and in headquarters and field offices of DOD, the
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and DLA.  We also reviewed
pertinent documents, laws, and regulations.  To obtain information on
DOD's and the military services' environmental requirements and
costs, we reviewed budget reports and submissions for fiscal years
1994 through 1997 and service cost data.  We compared the fiscal year
1997 biennial estimates with DOD's estimates as of February 1996, and
updated the 1997 estimates as of April 1996.  We relied on the
accuracy of DOD's data in conducting our analysis and selectively
verified data for certain projects.  We visited and obtained
information at the following military installations and major
commands:  Fort Sill, Oklahoma; Training and Doctrine Command,
Virginia; Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division,
Virginia; Norfolk Naval Base, Virginia; Commander in Chief, Atlantic
Fleet, Virginia; Commander in Chief, Pacific Fleet, Hawaii; San Diego
Naval Station, California; Edwards Air Force Base, California; Air
Combat Command and Langley Air Force Base, Virginia; Tinker Air Force
Base, Oklahoma; and Marine Corps bases at Camp LeJeune, North
Carolina; Quantico, Virginia; and Camp Pendleton, California.  We
obtained additional information from the Air Force Materiel Command
at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Dayton, Ohio; Kelly Air Force
Base, Texas; and headquarters offices of the Air Force Reserve and
the Air National Guard. 

We conducted our review between October 1995 and February 1996 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

We are sending copies of this report to appropriate House and Senate
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the
Air Force; the Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director,
Defense Logistics Agency. 

Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report.  Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix II. 

Sincerely yours,

David R.  Warren
Director, Defense Management Issues


SERVICE OBLIGATIONS AND
REQUIREMENTS
=========================================================== Appendix I

Table I.1 summarizes the services' estimated funding by project type
during fiscal years 1994-96. 



                                    Table I.1
                     
                      Environmental Compliance Construction
                      Project Funding, Fiscal Years 1994-96

                              (Dollars in millions)

Projec
t                                                      Air
catego                           Air    Marine    National   Air Force
ry          Army      Navy     Force     Corps       Guard     Reserve     Total
------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ----------  ----------  ========
Wastew     $17.5     $76.0    $112.4     $80.9       $18.2        $0.5    $305.5
 ater
 colle
 ction
 and
 treat
 ment\
 a
Underg         0         0      54.8         0        52.8         1.0     108.6
 round
 stora
 ge
 tanks
Water        0.8         0       1.2         0        37.6           0      39.6
 pollu
 tion
 abate
 ment\
 b
Oily           0      34.4         0       1.3           0           0      35.7
 waste
 treat
 ment
Fire           0       1.5      21.1         0         1.5         5.7      29.8
 train
 ing
 facil
 ities
 \c
Sanita         0      11.5       7.5       8.4           0           0      27.4
 ry
 landf
 ills
Jet            0         0         0       2.4        22.8           0      25.2
 fuel
 deliv
 ery
 syste
 m
Air            0       4.4       2.8         0        15.6         0.8      23.6
 pollu
 tion
 abate
 ment\
 d
Hazard         0      15.7       3.2         0           0           0      18.9
 ous
 waste
Hydran         0         0       9.4         0           0           0       9.4
 t
 fuel
 syste
 ms
Metal          0       7.9         0         0           0           0       7.9
 prepa
 ratio
 n
 facil
 ity
 impro
 vemen
 ts
Centra       6.3         0         0         0           0           0       6.3
 l
 wash
 facil
 ity
Hazard         0       3.5         0         0           0           0       3.5
 ous
 mater
 ials
 stora
 ge
Other\      11.7      17.9      12.5         0           0         5.8      47.9
 e
================================================================================
Total      $36.3    $172.8    $224.9     $93.0      $148.5       $13.8    $689.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Data based on fiscal year 1994 and 1995 obligations and fiscal
year 1996 estimates. 

\a Includes upgrades to and construction of wastewater and industrial
wastewater facilities and sanitary and storm sewer systems. 

\b Includes de-icing facilities and upgrades to aircraft fuel and
vehicle maintenance facilities. 

\c Excludes $3.5 million funded through the Defense Business
Operating Fund. 

\d Includes upgrades to heating plants and corrosion control and
blast/paint facilities. 

\e Includes the construction or upgrade of such projects as engine
test facilities, above-ground fuel storage tanks, tank trail erosion,
fuel containment dikes, consolidated fuel facilities, potable water
facilities and pipelines, and other projects under $2 million each. 

Table I.2 summarizes projects for fiscal year 1997.  Wastewater
collection and treatment is estimated to be the most costly effort
during this period. 



                                    Table I.2
                     
                      Compliance Construction Estimates for
                                 Fiscal Year 1997

                              (Dollars in millions)

Projec
t                                                      Air
catego                           Air    Marine    National   Air Force
ry          Army      Navy     Force     Corps       Guard     Reserve     Total
------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ----------  ----------  ========
Wastew         0      $1.3     $14.3      $3.2        $0.8           0     $19.6
 ater
 colle
 ction
 and
 treat
 ment\
 a
Oily           0      17.2         0         0           0           0      17.2
 waste
 colle
 ction
Landfi         0         0       6.7       8.9           0           0      15.6
 lls
Underg         0         0       3.9         0           0           0       3.9
 round
 stora
 ge
 tanks
Hazard         0       3.2         0         0           0           0       3.2
 ous
 mater
 ials
 stora
 ge
Tank        $2.0         0         0         0           0           0       2.0
 trail
 erosi
 on
 mitig
 ation
Engine         0         0       3.8         0           0           0       3.8
 test
 facil
 ity
 upgra
 de
Boiler         0         0       3.1         0           0           0       3.1
 conve
 rsion
Air            0         0         0         0         7.6           0       7.6
 pollu
 tion
 abate
 ment\
 b
Water          0         0         0         0         1.2           0       1.2
 pollu
 tion
 abate
 ment\
 c
Draina         0         0         0         0         0.5           0       0.5
 ge
 syste
 m
 upgra
 de
Basewi         0         0         0         0           0        $5.7       5.7
 de
 compl
 iance
================================================================================
Total       $2.0     $21.7     $31.9     $12.1       $10.1        $5.7     $83.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  Air Force officials informed us that the February 1996 $33.1
million estimate was reduced to $31.9 million due to a change in
inflation factors. 

\a Includes upgrades to and construction of wastewater and industrial
wastewater facilities and sanitary and storm sewer systems. 

\b Includes upgrades to heating plants and corrosion control and
blast/paint facilities. 

\c Includes de-icing facilities and upgrades to aircraft fuel and
vehicle maintenance facilities. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix II

NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Brad Hathaway
Uldis Adamsons
Elizabeth G.  Mead
Jacob W.  Sprouse

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

William T.  Woods
Thomas H.  Armstrong

KANSAS CITY FIELD OFFICE

Stephen L.  Pruitt

NORFOLK FIELD OFFICE

Edwin J.  Soniat
Raul Cajulis

*** End of document. ***