Environmental Cleanup: Defense Funding Allocation Process and Reported
Funding Impacts (Letter Report, 11/16/98, GAO/NSIAD-99-34).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on: (1)
the Department of Defense's (DOD) process for allocating approved
environmental cleanup budgets when funds received are less than
requested or budget rescissions occur; and (2) reported cleanup schedule
delays due to lack of funding.
GAO noted that: (1) DOD develops and allocates approved budgets through
its departmentwide planning, programming, and budget process; (2) the
components used DOD guidance to establish priorities and distribute
funds to the various installations, but the impact of that guidance is
not necessarily traceable to specific installations or sites; (3) during
fiscal years (FY) 1993 to 1997, Congress took three actions that
significantly affected funding for DOD cleanup activities; (4) in FY
1995, Congress appropriated $400 million less than DOD requested and
then rescinded an additional $300 million of the amount appropriated;
(5) Congress appropriated $200 million less than DOD had requested for
FY 1996; (6) in each case, DOD components adjusted funding priorities in
light of the congressional actions and DOD guidance; (7) while specific
guidance varied, both written and verbal guidance encouraged priority
for sites of high risk and discouraged cleanup studies that were not
essential; (8) data contained in DOD's annual reports to Congress and in
DOD components' records do not show a direct relationship between
installations receiving less or more funding than planned and those
reporting cleanup schedule delays due to funding; (9) for example,
during FY 1995 and FY 1996, about half of the Army installations with
the largest decreases in funding reported cleanup schedule delays--a
frequency similar to Army installations with the largest increases in
funding; (10) during this period, GAO also found that actual funding
changes under the DOD process often varied from that initially
envisioned because of such reasons as inherent uncertainty during
cleanup planning; and (11) for example, DOD initially identified a
potential decrease in funding for two sites at Dugway Proving Ground,
Utah, whereas the Army allocated a slight overall funding increase to
that installation, which has 205 cleanup sites.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-99-34
TITLE: Environmental Cleanup: Defense Funding Allocation Process
and Reported Funding Impacts
DATE: 11/16/98
SUBJECT: Prioritizing
Environment evaluation
Waste disposal
Pollution control
Environmental monitoring
Military facilities
Defense budgets
Defense operations
Budget cuts
Budget authority rescission
IDENTIFIER: DOD Defense Environmental Restoration Program
******************************************************************
** 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 Honorable
Scott Klug, House of Representatives
November 1998
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP - DEFENSE
FUNDING ALLOCATION PROCESS AND
REPORTED FUNDING IMPACTS
GAO/NSIAD-99-34
Environmental Cleanup
(709259)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
AFB - Air Force Base
BRAC - Base Realignment and Closure
DERA - Defense Environmental Restoration Account
DLA - Defense Logistics Agency
DOD - Department of Defense
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-277896
November 16, 1998
The Honorable Scott Klug
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Klug:
You expressed concern that it is not clear how Department of Defense
(DOD) initiatives to better target environmental cleanup funds have
been affected by the availability of funds. In response to your
request, we are providing information on (1) DOD's process for
allocating approved cleanup budgets when funds received are less than
requested or budget rescissions occur\1 and (2) reported cleanup
schedule delays due to a lack of funding. We identified funding and
schedule impact changes from 1993 to 1997, and we focused primarily
on those changes occurring in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. During
those 2 fiscal years, DOD's approved budgets for environmental
cleanup were less than requested and DOD reported an increased number
of cleanup schedule delays due to funding in its annual reports.\2
The scope and methodology of our work are detailed in
appendix I.\3
--------------------
\1 The term rescission refers to congressional legislation that
cancels the availability of some funding previously provided in law.
\2 Annual reports to Congress for fiscal years 1995 and 1996, Defense
Environmental Restoration Program. The reports used the term
"schedule impact" for deferrals or other hindrances to cleanup that
we refer to in this report as delays.
\3 This letter supplements information provided to your office in a
June 1997 briefing.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The Defense Environmental Restoration Program promotes and
coordinates cleanup of hazardous substances associated with past DOD
activities.\4 Funding for cleanup at operational installations and
formerly used defense sites has come from the Defense Environmental
Restoration Account (DERA) since 1984. Cleanup associated with
installations designated for closure or realignment has been funded
through the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process since 1991.
Under its statutory reporting requirements, DOD annually reports to
Congress by providing information on installation cleanup sites,
including, for example, background, status, progress made, and cost
incurred and remaining to complete cleanup. Since fiscal year 1993,
the report has listed when installation cleanup activity schedules
are impeded by a lack of funding.
The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, Environmental Security,
formulates policy and provides oversight for the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program at operational and BRAC
installations and formerly used defense sites. In fiscal year 1997,
the centralized DERA was partitioned into five environmental
restoration accounts: Army, Navy (including Marine Corps), Air
Force, formerly used defense sites, and defense-wide. The components
plan, program, and budget for the individual installation cleanup
projects. The Army, as executive agent for DOD, implements the
program at formerly used defense sites through the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
--------------------
\4 Environmental cleanup includes identification, investigation, and
actual cleanup of contamination from hazardous substances and waste
on active and closing installations and formerly used defense sites.
In its cleanup activities, DOD must comply with two major federal
environmental laws--the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended--as well as
applicable state laws.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
DOD develops and allocates approved budgets through its
departmentwide planning, programming, and budget process. The
components used DOD guidance to establish priorities and distribute
funds to the various installations, but the impact of that guidance
is not necessarily traceable to specific installations or sites.
During fiscal years 1993 to 1997, Congress took three actions that
significantly affected funding for DOD cleanup activities. In fiscal
year 1995, Congress appropriated $400 million less than DOD requested
and then rescinded an additional $300 million of the amount
appropriated. Finally, Congress appropriated $200 million less than
DOD had requested for fiscal year 1996. In each case, DOD components
adjusted funding priorities in light of the congressional actions and
DOD guidance. While specific guidance varied, both written and
verbal guidance encouraged priority for sites of high risk\5 and
discouraged cleanup studies that were not essential.
Data contained in DOD's annual reports to Congress and in DOD
components' records do not show a direct relationship between
installations receiving less or more funding than planned and those
reporting cleanup schedule delays due to funding. For example,
during fiscal years 1995 and 1996, about half of the Army
installations with the largest decreases in funding reported cleanup
schedule delays--a frequency similar to Army installations with the
largest increases in funding. During this period, we also found that
actual funding changes under the DOD process often varied from that
initially envisioned because of such reasons as inherent uncertainty
during cleanup planning. For example, DOD initially identified a
potential decrease in funding for two sites at Dugway Proving Ground,
Utah, whereas the Army allocated a slight overall funding increase to
that installation, which has 199 cleanup sites.
--------------------
\5 DOD uses a relative risk site evaluation process as a part of its
decision criteria to allocate resources to contaminated sites that
pose the greatest risk to human health and the environment
(Environmental Cleanup: DOD's Relative Risk Process,
GAO/NSIAD-98-79R, Feb. 26, 1998).
PROCESS TO ALLOCATE APPROVED
BUDGETS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
DOD planning and budget guidance, as well as headquarters and
component instructions, govern departmentwide planning, programming,
and budgeting for the environmental restoration program. The Army,
the Navy, and the Air Force headquarters allocate funds to
intermediate commands, which ultimately allocate funds for cleanup at
specific installations. Other defense components, such as the
Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), directly allocate funds to specific
locations for cleanups, and the Army Corps of Engineers executes
funding for formerly used defense sites. The impact of overall
planning and budget guidance is not necessarily traceable to specific
installations or sites. The way components allocate funding is
described in appendix II.
For fiscal year 1995, Congress appropriated $400 million less than
DOD requested for cleanup at operational installations and formerly
used defense sites and rescinded another $300 million from the amount
that had been appropriated. For fiscal year 1996, Congress
appropriated $200 million less than DOD requested. Table 1 shows
fiscal years' 1993 to 1997 DERA funding decreased from $1.638 billion
to $1.314 billion.\6
Table 1
DERA Cleanup Funding for Fiscal Years
1993-97
(Dollars in millions)
Amount Rescission (-) Final
Fiscal Amount appropriate and supplemental allocation\
year requested d Difference (+) a
---------- ----------- ----------- ----------- ---------------- -----------
1993 $1,513 $1,200 -$314 $438\b $1,638
1994 2,309 1,962 -347 0 1,965
1995 2,180 1,780 -400 -300 1,482
1996 1,622 1,422 -200 0 1,411
1997 1,333 1,314 -19 0 1,314
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The final allocation totals in the table may not add because of
minor account and other congressional adjustments and transfers,
totaling no more than $11 million, that are excluded from this table.
See appendix III for a reconciliation of these amounts by year and
component.
\b The fiscal year 1992 supplemental allowed DOD to add $438.4
million to the $1.2 billion that was appropriated for fiscal year
1993.
Source: Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Environmental Security.
--------------------
\6 During this same period, funding for cleanup at closing
installations increased from $488 million to $724 million.
ALLOCATING APPROVED BUDGETS
FOR FISCAL YEARS 1995 AND
1996
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
For fiscal years 1995 and 1996, appropriations for DOD's
environmental cleanup program were less than requested. For fiscal
year 1995, Environmental Security either provided written guidelines
on how to determine which projects to fund or conferred with
component officials verbally on how funds should be used. For fiscal
year 1996, no guidance was given because the congressional
appropriation specified distribution of funds among services.
FISCAL YEAR 1995
ALLOCATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1.1
Environmental Security's November 1994 guidance to the defense
components emphasized cleanup of sites that are the highest priority
to stakeholders (those having interest in cleanup activities, such as
the community surrounding the installation) and regulators'
considerations included by (1) involving stakeholders in
decision-making, (2) taking interim remedial actions (early response
action that is identified and implemented at any time during the
study or design phases of cleanup) instead of continuing studies, (3)
giving priority to higher relative risk sites, (4) deferring studies
that are not essential for safety or compliance with agreements, (5)
reviewing expense data, (6) considering innovative technologies and
generic remedies, and (7) funding field locations according to their
fair share. The guidance was not installation specific and service
officials made the site decisions.
Environmental Security officials stated that they discussed guidance
with the defense components on how to implement the rescission.
Considerations addressed included not deobligating funds for site
projects already underway, limiting medium or low relative risk site
work, limiting studies while ensuring a proper mix of study and
cleanup, and deferring projects scheduled to begin in the later
months of the fiscal year. The officials stated that they were
unable to issue written guidance because there was about a month
between hearing about the proposed rescission and the actual
rescission.
FISCAL YEAR 1996
ALLOCATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1.2
DOD's fiscal year 1996 appropriations act stipulated how the $1.42
billion for environmental restoration was to be distributed to the
components. Environmental Security officials stated that, as a
consequence, no further guidance was provided to defense components
regarding the funding change.
REPORTED CLEANUP SCHEDULE
DELAYS DUE TO FUNDING
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
DOD's annual reports to Congress for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 show
that an increasing number of installations reported that their
cleanup schedules were affected by fund limits. Some installations
that received less funding than planned reported schedule delays,
while others did not. However, some installations that received more
funding than planned also reported unspecified schedule delays.
Reported cleanup schedule delays increased from 6 in fiscal year 1993
to 204 and 481 in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, respectively. In
fiscal year 1997, reported funding schedule delays decreased to 135.
Installations with the largest budget increases and decreases
reported schedule delays with about equal frequency, and not all of
the installations with the largest decreases reported schedule delays
due to funding.
DOD'S ANNUAL REPORTS CITED
SCHEDULE DELAYS DUE TO
FUNDING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
Beginning in fiscal year 1993, DOD's annual cleanup reports to
Congress have identified installations where cleanup schedules were
delayed by funding. Other causes for delays identified in the annual
reports were technical, contracting, personnel, and regulatory. The
reports further specified which of the four phases of cleanup
(studies, interim actions, design, or actual cleanup) were affected.
The greatest number of installations reporting cleanup schedule
delays due to funding was in fiscal years 1995 and 1996. Figure 1
shows delays of cleanup schedules due to funding at installations, as
reported by DOD, for fiscal years 1993-97.
Figure 1: Reported Schedule
Delays Due to Funding
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: A Navy official confirmed that schedule impacts due to funding
in fiscal year 1997 were not significant enough to warrant reporting.
Also, an Army official stated the appropriation for formerly used
defense sites for fiscal year 1997 was more than planned.
Source: Our analysis of DOD annual environmental restoration reports
to Congress for fiscal
years 1993 through 1997.
Among the installations that reported cleanup delays caused by
funding limitations were facilities that received some of the largest
increases in funding as well as facilities that received less funding
than planned. Twelve of 23 Army facilities with the greatest total
decreases between budget requests and funding in 1995 and 1996
reported schedule delays in one or both years. However, 16 of 23
Army facilities with the largest increases in funding also reported
schedule delays. None of the 16 facilities that reported schedule
delays despite receiving more funding than originally planned
identified specific delays in the annual reports. Some
facilities--for example, White Sands Missile Range, New
Mexico--reported that their ability to undertake certain future
actions depended on the availability of funding.
Table 2 identifies selected installations that reported schedule
impacts caused by funding. The table includes installations
receiving net funding of at least $9 million less than planned for
fiscal years 1995 and 1996 combined and shows which of the four
cleanup phases were reported to be affected.\7
Table 2
Installations Receiving Less Funding
Than Planned That Reported Cleanup
Schedule Delays Due to Funding for
Fiscal Years 1995 and/or 1996
(Dollars in millions)
Reported schedule delays
----------------------------------------------------------
Funding
planned,
but not
Installation\ received Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996
-------------------- ---------- -- -------------------- --------------------
Adak Naval Air $52.9 Investigations, None
Facility, Alaska interim actions,
design, and cleanup
Robins AFB, Georgia 24.5 Cleanup None
Aberdeen Proving 17.1 Investigations, Investigations,
Ground, Maryland interim actions, interim actions,
design, and cleanup design, and cleanup
Twin Cities Army 16.7 Design and cleanup Design and cleanup
Ammunition Plant,
Minnesota
Pensacola Naval Air 16.6 Interim actions, None
Station, Florida design,
and cleanup
Edwards AFB, 16.5 Investigations None
California
F.E. Warren AFB, 12.6 Investigations Investigations
Wyoming
Oceana Naval Air 10.6 None Investigations,
Station, Virginia design,
and cleanup
Seneca Army Depot, 10.1 Investigations and Investigations
New York design
Dahlgren Naval 9.5 None Interim actions
Surface Warfare
Center, Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Defense components' and DOD's annual environmental
restoration reports for fiscal years 1995 and 1996.
DOD's annual reports contain narratives of activity progress
associated with a specific installation. Sometimes included in this
description is reference to funding effects.
Examples of report narrative in fiscal year 1995 are:
-- Adak Naval Air Facility: "Several activities planned in [fiscal
year 1995] were deferred due to funding cutbacks, including IRAs
[interim remedial action] at SWMUs [solid waste management
unit]. Removal Actions at two PCB [polychlorinated biphenyl]
sites; and a basewide Remedial Investigation and Feasibility
Study."
-- Aberdeen Proving Ground: "Several activities were not completed
or delayed because of funding cutbacks, including, the J-Field
FS [feasibility study], RI [remedial investigation]
characterization activities at Canal Creek, and RI/FS [remedial
investigation and feasibility study] activities at the Westwood
and Other Aberdeen Areas."
-- Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant: "Closure of the [Grenade
Range and Outdoor Firing Range] areas was hindered as a result
of funding cutbacks."
However, not all installations that reported schedule delays due to
funding provided a narrative reference to the effect in DOD's annual
reports. For example, although funding schedule delays were reported
for Robins AFB and Oceana Naval Air Station as shown in table 2, no
description of these delays were provided in narratives. Overall, of
the 204 installations reporting a schedule delay due to funding in
fiscal year 1995, 42 described the nature of the effect in the
report's progress narratives. In fiscal
year 1996, 190 of 481 installations described the effect in
narratives. In discussing these reports, DOD and service officials
stated that there is no requirement to provide detailed narratives.
In discussing defensewide reports of funding impacts, an
Environmental Security official noted that installations may be aware
of some changes in funding planned and allocated by projects but not
others. The official said his experience indicated that specific
funding changes may sometimes be affected by other changes,
especially among installations with similar priorities.
--------------------
\7 Installations that received budget decreases greater than $9
million but did not report schedule impacts included Cornhusker Army
Ammunition Plant, Nebraska; Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base,
California; Anderson Air Force Base (AFB), Guam; Picatinny Arsenal,
New Jersey; McClellan AFB, California; Travis AFB, California;
Yorktown Fuels Division, Virginia; Elmendorf AFB, Alaska; and Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, Colorado.
FUNDING AT INSTALLATIONS
VISITED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
Although DOD developed information on the effect of receiving less
funding than it requested, the actual changes were often different
than envisioned. Environmental Security officials prepared a May
1995 list that identified specific locations and sites that could be
potentially affected by the $500 million in budget decreases.\8 That
list identified 5 programs and specific sites at 409 potentially
affected locations. In discussing a draft of this report, DOD and
service officials emphasized that variances should be expected in
envisioned versus actual impacts in quick reaction responses such as
the May 1995 list. Officials said this was especially true in this
case because actual expenditures by mid-year would already have
varied from plans available at headquarters.
The May 1995 list and our visits to locations selected from it
indicated that as DOD components made specific decisions, the
potential effects of receiving less than requested during fiscal
years 1995 and 1996 did not always occur as initially envisioned by
DOD and that the results of funding changes varied widely at the
affected locations. For example:
-- Dugway Proving Ground, Utah, was identified to receive about $22
million less than requested, according to the list, for a medium
relative risk priority site and a site not yet evaluated.
However, Army records showed that the installation has 199 sites
identified and actually received an increase of $631,000. An
installation official stated that they were not aware of a
potential reduction during that time period.
-- Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare Center, Virginia, was identified
to receive $1.6 million less than requested according to the
list but received $9.5 million less according to Navy data.
Command officials overseeing cleanup at the center stated that
funding was reduced because its projects were not known to be
executable. However, center officials stated that the projects
had been delayed and that they knew of no impediments to
beginning work on the affected sites if funds had been made
available. Center officials also said that they did not provide
input for DOD's 1995 annual report and did not know why a
funding impact was not reported.
-- The former Lake Ontario Ordnance Works, New York, was identified
to receive about $10.9 million less than requested, according to
the list. But Army officials responsible for the location said
that the site was still in the design phase and that they knew
of no plan to spend $10.9 million in fiscal years 1995 or 1996.
Regarding your specific interest in the Badger Army Ammunition Plant,
Wisconsin, DOD's May 1995 list identified the plant to potentially
receive about $1.3 million less than requested. DOD's annual reports
for fiscal
years 1995 and 1996 indicated that the plant had schedule delays due
to funding for projects in cleanup design and actual cleanup phases.
Although plant officials told us that they did not receive the full
amounts they had requested in fiscal years 1995 and 1996, they did
not know of funding differences attributable to changes in actual
funds versus requested funds made by Congress. Funding data for the
plant varied by reporting source. For example, Environmental
Security office data attributed $2.7 million of the President's
budget for fiscal year 1995 to the Badger plant, increasing to $6.5
million after the $300-million rescission. Army Environmental Center
data initially attributed $17.2 million to the plant rather than $2.7
million, but showed a figure similar to Environmental Security's
figure after the rescission ($6.5 million).
At the times of our visits, Army, state, and contractor officials
were working together to optimize results within available funds.
For example, plant officials had proposed reducing ground water
monitoring wells while increasing actual cleanup, such as for
contaminated soil. Also, the Army Industrial Operations Command
determined, subsequent to our visits, that the plant is excess to its
production mission, requiring some additional demolition of the
facilities.
--------------------
\8 In response to a congressional inquiry regarding the impact of the
$200-million reduction in fiscal
year 1996, Environmental Security prepared a list in May 1995 of
installations that would be potentially affected by a decrease in
funding totaling $500 million--the $200-million reduction and the
$300-million rescission for fiscal year 1995.
CONCLUSIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
DOD uses its planning, programming, and budgeting process for making
funding decisions, and DOD components ultimately make site-specific
decisions. When DOD received less funds than requested or
rescissions occurred, Environmental Security provided written or oral
guidance for DOD components' actions. Cleanup schedule delays
occurred at installations when the funding received was more or less
than planned. Reports of cleanup schedule and other impacts varied
according to individual project circumstances and were not clearly
linked to installation planned and allocated funding levels.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
We requested comments on a draft of this product from the Secretary
of Defense or his designee. An official of the Office of the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security stated that DOD
concurred with our presentation of the issues. Technical comments
have been incorporated as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1
As arranged with your office, we plan no further distribution of this
letter until 30 days from its issue date, unless you publicly
announce the letter's contents earlier. At that time, we will make
copies available to the appropriate congressional committees; the
Secretaries of Defense, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force; the
Commandant, Marine Corps; the Directors, Defense Logistics Agency and
Defense Special Weapons Agency; and other interested parties.
Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you have any questions about
this report. Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix IV.
Sincerely yours,
David R. Warren, Director
Defense Management Issues
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I
To describe the Department of Defense's (DOD) process for allocating
funds, we reviewed DOD's April 1994 management guidance that
addressed how DOD handles funding responsibilities for the defense
restoration program, and a March 1998 update to this guidance. In
addition, we reviewed supplemental program guidance, DOD's April 1996
defense instruction on the Defense Environmental Restoration Program,
and components' restoration guidance. We interviewed officials at
the Environmental Security office, the Defense Logistics Agency
(DLA), the Defense Special Weapons Agency, and the military services
about the implementation of DOD's guidance for allocating funds.
To identify reported schedule changes due to funding, we compared
automated funding data obtained from the defense components showing
planned and obligated cleanup funding by installation with automated
information from DOD's annual reports on cleanup schedules affected
by funding. We discussed funding changes and effects with
environmental and budget officials and compared what was reported for
the installations in DOD's annual reports for fiscal years 1995 and
1996 with command and installation records at the following selected
commands and field installations.
-- Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, Virginia
-- Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Chesapeake Activity,
Washington, D.C.
-- Naval Facilities Engineering Command, Atlantic Division,
Norfolk, Virginia
-- Air Force Aeronautical Systems Center, Dayton, Ohio
-- DLA Defense Distribution Region East, New Cumberland,
Pennsylvania
-- Dugway Proving Ground, Utah
-- Badger Army Ammunition Plant, Wisconsin
-- Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare Center, Virginia
-- Yorktown Naval Weapons Station, Virginia
-- Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base, North Carolina
-- Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
-- Air Force Plant Number 4, Texas
-- former Lake Ontario Ordnance Works,\1 New York
We conducted our review from March 1997 to July 1998 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
--------------------
\1 Because the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works is a formerly used defense
site, environmental restoration staff are not assigned to the
location. To obtain information on this installation, we contacted
an official from Corps of Engineers, New York District.
THE PROCESS BY WHICH DOD ALLOCATES
FUNDING
========================================================== Appendix II
Beginning in fiscal year 1997, with the devolvement of the Defense
Environmental Restoration Account (DERA), the responsibility for
planning, programming, and budgeting transferred from the Office of
the Secretary of Defense to the individual military components.
According to March 1998 management guidance for the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program, the Office of the Under Secretary
of Defense for Environmental Security formulates policy and provides
oversight for the environmental restoration program at operational
and Base Realignment and Closure installations and formerly used
defense sites. The components, the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA),
and the Defense Special Weapons Agency execute their own restoration
programs.
Environmental Security's April 1994 guidance for the execution of the
Defense Environmental Restoration Programs of fiscal years 1994-95
and development of the program for fiscal year 1996 directed defense
components to submit funding requirements to Environmental Security,
which would transfer funding to military component appropriation
accounts like operations and maintenance. Furthermore, the guidance
states that the risk to human health and the environment presented by
a site should be the main factor in determining priority and be
considered in scheduling site cleanup with regulatory agencies.
Although the previously single DERA was devolved to five separate
accounts, Environmental Security is still involved in setting policy
and oversight for component execution of DOD's cleanup program.\1
The Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and
Environment, through the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for
Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health, is responsible for
policy on all Army environmental programs. The Assistant Chief of
Staff for Installation Management, through the Director of
Environmental Programs, oversees the Army's environmental program.
The U.S. Army Environmental Center, as the program manager, develops
the budget and workplan and coordinates program activities and
requirements with the major Army commands. Before fiscal year 1997,
the Army Environmental Center allocated funds to the installations,
but that function is now the responsibility of the major commands.
Army officials indicated that, before allocating funds to major
commands for program execution, funding is first set aside for
priority installations, program management, defensewide programs, and
certain sites with either medium or low relative risk.
The Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Installations and Environment
is responsible for the Navy program and coordinates Navy and Marine
Corps policy. The Chief of Naval Operations establishes policy,
directs and monitors the program, and coordinates sites with the
Marine Corps. The Naval Facilities Engineering Command executes the
Navy and the Marine Corps programs, provides technical support,
develops and supports resource requests and programs, and manages
funds allocated for program execution. The command implements the
program through its engineering field divisions and activities, which
are responsible for executing the program at the installation level.
These field divisions and activities provide information for the
Navy, manage and administer cleanup contracts, coordinate and
negotiate remediation agreements with regulators, develop and perform
site-specific projects in coordination with installations, track
project progress, and provide technical and financial oversight.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Environmental,
Safety and Occupational Health, is responsible for interpreting and
disseminating environmental guidance, and overseeing the development
and dissemination of Air Force restoration policy and program
guidance. The Air Force Civil Engineer has overall responsibility
for the Air Force program and oversees the related policy and
guidance. The Civil Engineer develops Air Force policy and guidance,
develops Air Force goals, submits the budget, and monitors its
execution. Air Force major commands are responsible for providing
guidance to their installations, validating and programming funding
requirements, and executing the program. The Civil Engineer
allocates funds to Air Force commands, which allocate funds to their
installations.
DLA and the Defense Special Weapons Agency both centrally manage
funding of their installations. Environmental Security determines
how much funding each agency will receive based on cleanup
requirements submitted to support their budget requests. Funding
plans are developed by the agencies for executing cleanup. DLA uses
the Army Corps of Engineers to implement and oversee cleanup
operations at its installations.
The Army serves as the executive agent for formerly used defense
sites, and its program is executed by the Army Corps of Engineers.
Corps districts implement and oversee projects. Corps officials
stated that the Corps consolidates and prioritizes requirements
workplans, which are provided to the Army for approval.
Environmental Security programs and budgets funding to the Army,
which then provides funds to the Corps, for formerly used defense
sites. Corps districts allocate funds for site cleanup and oversee
action. Because of the devolvement of DERA, a separate environmental
restoration account exists for the formerly used defense sites
program.
--------------------
\1 Disposal and other costs associated with DOD weapon systems are
paid from separate operation and maintenance accounts.
DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION
ACCOUNT FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEARS
1995 AND 1996 BY DEFENSE COMPONENT
========================================================= Appendix III
(Dollars in millions)
Congressio
nal Initial Final
Budget appropriat Differen Adjustme allocat Rescissi Transfe allocati
request ions ce nts ion on rs on
-- ------- ---------- -------- -------- ------- -------- ------- --------
Fiscal year 1995
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ar $546.9 $473.3 -$73.6 0 $473.3 -$78.4 0 $394.9
my
Na 538.3 471.2 -67.1 0 471.2 -66.7 0 404.5
vy
Ai 518.7 437.5 -81.2 0 437.5 -70.0 0 367.5
r
F
o
r
c
e
Fo 459.8 329.8 -130.0 0 329.8 -70.7 0 259.1
r
m
e
r
l
y
u
s
e
d
d
e
f
e
n
s
e
s
i
t
e
s
De 116.5 68.4 -48.2 0 68.4 -14.2 $1.8 56.0
f
e
n
s
e
-
w
i
d
e
=================================================================================
To $2,180. $1,780.2 -$400.0 0 $1,780. -$300.0 $1.8 $1,482.0
t 2 2
a
l
Fiscal year 1996
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ar $447.3 $420.9 -$26.4 -$3.2 $417.7 0 0 $417.7
my
Na 421.4 365.3 -56.1 -3.1 362.2 0 0 362.2
vy
Ai 435.7 368.0 -67.7 -2.8 365.2 0 $0.1 365.3
r
F
o
r
c
e
Fo 252.0 211.0 -41.0 -1.6 209.4 0 0 209.4
r
m
e
r
l
y
u
s
e
d
d
e
f
e
n
s
e
s
i
t
e
s
De 65.8 57.0 -8.8 -0.3 56.7 0 0 56.7
f
e
n
s
e
-
w
i
d
e
=================================================================================
To $1,622. $1,422.2 -$200.0 -$11.0 $1,411. 0 $0.1 $1,411.3
t 2 2
a
l
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Totals may not add because of minor account and other
congressional adjustments and transfers. Adjustments refer to funds
taken by Congress from an approved appropriation and used for some
other purpose and transfers refer to funds obtained through repayment
from third-party recovery of cleanup costs. The term rescission
refers to congressional legislation that cancels the availability of
some funding previously provided by law. Initial and final
allocations are made by DOD.
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV
NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Charles Patton, Jr.
Uldis Adamsons
Bruce Brown
George Shelton
DALLAS FIELD OFFICE
David Marks
KANSAS CITY FIELD OFFICE
Virgil Schroeder
Robert Hammons
OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL,
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Margaret Armen
*** End of document. ***