United States General Accounting Office

GAO 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

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

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 occur1

 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

Background 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

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.

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.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

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.

Results in Brief 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 risk5

 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

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).

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

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.

Process to Allocate

Approved Budgets

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

6

During this same period, funding for cleanup at closing installations increased from $488 million to

$724 million.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

Table 1: DERA Cleanup Funding for Fiscal Years 1993-97

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year

Amount

requested

Amount

appropriated Difference

Rescission (-)

and supplemental (+) Final allocationa

1993 $1,513 $1,200 –$314 $438b $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

aThe 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.

bThe 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.

Allocating Approved

Budgets for Fiscal Years

1995 and 1996

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 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.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

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 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

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

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.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

Figure 1: Reported Schedule Delays Due to Funding

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Fiscal year

Army

Navy

Air Force

Formerly used defense sites

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0 39 65 77 72

6 0 33 58 0

0 11 53 48 47

0 62 53 298 16

 Number of installations with affected sites

6

112

204

481

135

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

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

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

Reported schedule delays

Dollars in millions

Installation

Funding

planned, but

not received Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996

Adak Naval Air Facility, Alaska $52.9 Investigations, interim actions,

design, and cleanup

None

Robins AFB, Georgia 24.5 Cleanup None

Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 17.1 Investigations, interim actions,

design, and cleanup

Investigations, interim actions,

design, and cleanup

Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant,

Minnesota

16.7 Design and cleanup Design and cleanup

Pensacola Naval Air Station, Florida 16.6 Interim actions, design,

and cleanup

None

Edwards AFB, California 16.5 Investigations None

F.E. Warren AFB, Wyoming 12.6 Investigations Investigations

Oceana Naval Air Station, Virginia 10.6 None Investigations, design,

and cleanup

Seneca Army Depot, New York 10.1 Investigations and design Investigations

Dahlgren Naval Surface Warfare

Center, Virginia

9.5 None Interim actions

Source: Defense components’ and DOD’s annual environmental restoration reports for fiscal

years 1995 and 1996.

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.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

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.

Funding at Installations

Visited

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

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

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

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.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

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.

Conclusions 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 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.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
B-277896 

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

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Scope and

Methodology

14

Appendix II 

The Process by Which

DOD Allocates

Funding

15

Appendix III 

Defense

Environmental

Restoration Account

Funding for Fiscal

Years 1995 and 1996

by Defense

Component

18

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

19

Tables Table 1: DERA Cleanup Funding for Fiscal Years 1993-97 4

Table 2: Installations Receiving Less Funding Than Planned That

Reported Cleanup Schedule Delays Due to Funding for Fiscal

Years 1995 and/or 1996

7

Figure Figure 1: Reported Schedule Delays Due to Funding 6

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
Contents

Abbreviations

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

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
Appendix I 

Scope and Methodology

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.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
Appendix II 

The Process by Which DOD Allocates

Funding

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.

1

Disposal and other costs associated with DOD weapon systems are paid from separate operation and

maintenance accounts.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
Appendix II 

The Process by Which DOD Allocates

Funding

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

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
Appendix II 

The Process by Which DOD Allocates

Funding

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.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
Appendix III 

Defense Environmental Restoration

Account Funding for Fiscal Years 1995 and

1996 by Defense Component

Dollars in millions

Budget

request

Congressional

appropriations Difference Adjustments

Initial

allocation Rescission Transfers

Final

allocation

Fiscal year 1995

Army $546.9 $473.3 –$73.6 0 $473.3 –$78.4 0 $394.9

Navy 538.3 471.2 –67.1 0 471.2 –66.7 0 404.5

Air Force 518.7 437.5 –81.2 0 437.5 –70.0 0 367.5

Formerly used

defense sites

459.8 329.8 –130.0 0 329.8 –70.7 0 259.1

Defense-wide 116.5 68.4 –48.2 0 68.4 –14.2 $1.8 56.0

Total $2,180.2 $1,780.2 –$400.0 0 $1,780.2 –$300.0 $1.8 $1,482.0

Fiscal year 1996

Army $447.3 $420.9 –$26.4 –$3.2 $417.7 0 0 $417.7

Navy 421.4 365.3 –56.1 –3.1 362.2 0 0 362.2

Air Force 435.7 368.0 –67.7 –2.8 365.2 0 $0.1 365.3

Formerly used

defense sites

252.0 211.0 –41.0 –1.6 209.4 0 0 209.4

Defense-wide 65.8 57.0 –8.8 –0.3 56.7 0 0 56.7

Total $1,622.2 $1,422.2 –$200.0 –$11.0 $1,411.2 0 $0.1 $1,411.3

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.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

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

(709259) Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-99-34 Environmental Cleanup
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100