United States General Accounting Office

GAO 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

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-96-134

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

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 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.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

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

Wastewater

Underground tanks

Water pollution

Oily waste

Fire training

Landfills

Jet fuel delivery

Air pollution

Hazardous waste

Hydrant fuel

Metal facilities

Central wash

Hazardous materials

Other 

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

305.5

108.6

39.6

35.7

29.8

27.4

25.2

23.6

18.9

9.4

7.9

6.3

3.5

a 47.9

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

obligations as of February 1996.

aThe “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

1

Environmental Compliance: Guidance Needed in Programming Defense Construction Projects

(GAO/NSIAD-94-22, Nov. 26, 1993).

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

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.

Results in Brief 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

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

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

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

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.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

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.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

• 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.

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.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

• 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

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.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

inconsistency with EPA definitions8 for compliance projects and would

limit DOD’s ability to rank projects.

Continued

Inconsistencies

Preclude Effective

DOD and

Congressional

Oversight

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.

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.

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.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

Figure 2: DOD Environmental Military

Construction Compliance Funding

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

0

100

200

300

400

500

400

358

257

227

84

Fiscal year

Dollars in millions

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).

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

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.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

Figure 3: Fiscal Year 1997 Environmental Construction Estimates

Army

Navy

Air Force

Marine Corps

Air Force Reserves

Air National Guard

0

10

20

30

40

2

21.7

31.9

12.1

5.7

10.1

Dollars in millions

Matter for

Congressional

Consideration

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.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

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

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

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

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.

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.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
B-271581 

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

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Service Obligations

and Requirements

18

Appendix II 

Major Contributors to

This Report

20

Tables Table I.1: Environmental Compliance Construction Project

Funding, Fiscal Years 1994-96

18

Table I.2: Compliance Construction Estimates for Fiscal Year

1997

19

Figures Figure 1: Environmental Compliance Military Construction

Projects, Fiscal Years 1994-96

2

Figure 2: DOD Environmental Military Construction Compliance

Funding

9

Figure 3: Fiscal Year 1997 Environmental Construction Estimates 11

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

DLA Defense Logistics Agency

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
Appendix I 

Service Obligations and Requirements

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

Project category Army Navy Air Force

Marine

Corps

Air National

Guard

Air Force

Reserve Total

Wastewater collection

and treatmenta

$17.5 $76.0 $112.4 $80.9 $18.2 $0.5 $305.5

Underground storage

tanks

0 0 54.8 0 52.8 1.0 108.6

Water pollution

abatementb

0.8 0 1.2 0 37.6 0 39.6

Oily waste treatment 0 34.4 0 1.3 0 0 35.7

Fire training facilitiesc 0 1.5 21.1 0 1.5 5.7 29.8

Sanitary landfills 0 11.5 7.5 8.4 0 0 27.4

Jet fuel delivery system 0 0 0 2.4 22.8 0 25.2

Air pollution abatementd 0 4.4 2.8 0 15.6 0.8 23.6

Hazardous waste 0 15.7 3.2 0 0 0 18.9

Hydrant fuel systems 0 0 9.4 0 0 0 9.4

Metal preparation facility

improvements

0 7.9 0 0 0 0 7.9

Central wash facility 6.3 0 0 0 0 0 6.3

Hazardous materials

storage

0 3.5 0 0 0 0 3.5

Othere 11.7 17.9 12.5 0 0 5.8 47.9

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.

aIncludes upgrades to and construction of wastewater and industrial wastewater facilities and

sanitary and storm sewer systems.

bIncludes de-icing facilities and upgrades to aircraft fuel and vehicle maintenance facilities.

cExcludes $3.5 million funded through the Defense Business Operating Fund.

dIncludes upgrades to heating plants and corrosion control and blast/paint facilities.

eIncludes 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.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
Appendix I 

Service Obligations and Requirements

Table I.2: Compliance Construction Estimates for Fiscal Year 1997

Dollars in millions

Project category Army Navy Air Force

Marine

Corps

Air National

Guard

Air Force

Reserve Total

Wastewater collection

and treatmenta

0 $1.3 $14.3 $3.2 $0.8 0 $19.6

Oily waste collection 0 17.2 0 0 0 0 17.2

Landfills 0 0 6.7 8.9 0 0 15.6

Underground storage

tanks

0 0 3.9 0 0 0 3.9

Hazardous materials

storage

0 3.2 0 0 0 0 3.2

Tank trail erosion

mitigation

$2.0 0 0 0 0 0 2.0

Engine test facility

upgrade

0 0 3.8 0 0 0 3.8

Boiler conversion 0 0 3.1 0 0 0 3.1

Air pollution abatementb 0 0 0 0 7.6 0 7.6

Water pollution

abatementc

0 0 0 0 1.2 0 1.2

Drainage system

upgrade

0 0 0 0 0.5 0 0.5

Basewide compliance 0 0 0 0 0 $5.7 5.7

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.

aIncludes upgrades to and construction of wastewater and industrial wastewater facilities and

sanitary and storm sewer systems.

bIncludes upgrades to heating plants and corrosion control and blast/paint facilities.

cIncludes de-icing facilities and upgrades to aircraft fuel and vehicle maintenance facilities.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

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

(709147) Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-134 Environmental Compliance
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 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

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 (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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