United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

March 1995 CHEMICAL WEAPONS

Army’s Emergency

Preparedness Program

Has Financial

Management

Weaknesses

GAO/NSIAD-95-94

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

B-258694 

March 15, 1995

The Honorable William F. Clinger, Jr.

Chairman

The Honorable Cardiss Collins

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Floyd D. Spence

Chairman

The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums

Ranking Minority Member

Committee on National Security

House of Representatives

As requested, we reviewed how the Army’s Chemical Stockpile Emergency

Preparedness Program (CSEPP) funds—about $281 million appropriated in

fiscal years 1988 to 1994—were spent. We have previously reported

problems the Army experienced in improving the emergency preparedness

capabilities of local communities and the ineffectiveness of its

management approach.1

 The objectives of our current review are to

(1) identify the purposes for which funds were allocated, (2) determine

how funds were spent by states and counties associated with four

chemical weapons storage sites, and (3) examine elements of CSEPP’s

financial reporting and internal control systems.

Background CSEPP was established in 1988 to improve emergency response capabilities

in communities near the eight sites in the continental United States where

chemical weapons are stored. (Appendix I identifies the locations of these

sites.) Under a memorandum of understanding, the Army shares

management of CSEPP with the Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA). State and local officials, in accordance with state laws, have

primary responsibility for developing and implementing emergency

response programs for communities in the event of an emergency

involving chemical agents. (Appendix II lists the states and counties

participating in CSEPP.)

Through fiscal year 1994, CSEPP funds were allocated through the Assistant

Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and the Environment to

Army commands and contractors and to FEMA. Funds for counties flowed

1

See a list of related GAO products on page 24.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

through FEMA regions, to the states, and then to counties. The funds

provided to the states are covered by the Uniform Administrative

Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local

Governments (44 C.F.R., parts 13 and 14). These accounting requirements,

however, do not provide adequate information for program management.

In 1993 and 1994, we reported that program officials were hampered by

inadequate financial information and that CSEPP’s financial management

and organization needed improvements to ensure that communities could

effectively respond to a chemical emergency.2

 We recommended that the

Secretary of the Army establish a single point of accountability for the

program. In October 1994, the Army began operating a consolidated office,

including Army and FEMA staff, within its Chemical and Biological Defense

Command. Officials said that the office is intended to operate as a focal

point for CSEPP activities by improving communication and creating an

environment for teamwork. The office includes teams dedicated to

functional areas, such as training or automation, and teams responsible for

integrating activities at each CSEPP site and advocating site-specific needs.

The Army’s preliminary estimate is that CSEPP will cost $900 million.

Results in Brief Because of weaknesses in CSEPP’s financial management reporting and

internal control systems, Army and FEMA officials lack accurate financial

information to identify how funds are spent or to ensure program goals are

achieved. However, by analyzing why funds were allocated and visiting

four states participating in the program, we developed a general picture of

expenditures. More than $145 million (52 percent) was allocated to states

and counties, $127 million (45 percent) was allocated to the Army and

FEMA, and almost $8.9 million (3 percent) is unallocated.3 More than

$67 million (24 percent) of all program funds appropriated in fiscal years

1989 to 1994 remained unexpended.

The states’ allocations for major program categories were (1) $35.1 million

for communications, (2) $28.4 million for alert and notification,

(3) $18.3 million for salaries and benefits, (4) $15.8 million for automation,

and (5) $12.7 million for emergency operations centers. The amounts

allocated to the 10 states vary, ranging from $2.4 million for Illinois to

2

Chemical Weapons Storage: Communities Are Not Prepared to Respond to Emergencies

(GAO/T-NSIAD-93-18, July 16, 1993) and Chemical Weapon Stockpile: Army’s Emergency Preparedness

Program Has Been Slow to Achieve Results (GAO/NSIAD-94-91, Feb. 22, 1994).

3

Allocation is the distribution of budget or obligational authority from the Army to its commands or

FEMA and FEMA’s distribution of budget or obligational authority to states or counties. The Army

calls these distributions of funds “obligations” and FEMA often calls them “awards.”

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

$30.7 million for Alabama. In general, funds were used for priority items

and other critical CSEPP objectives, but not all items are operational or

have been purchased. For example, final automation systems and

tone-alert radios have not been purchased.4

Although program managers have previously recognized the need to

improve CSEPP’s financial management, they could not provide us complete

and accurate financial data. Adequate internal controls to ensure assets

are safeguarded and program goals are efficiently and effectively achieved

do not exist; leaving the program susceptible to fraud, waste, and abuse.

States and Counties

Have Received More

Than Half the

Program Funds

Because of inadequate financial data and internal controls, Army and FEMA

officials could not provide reliable information on actual expenditures.

However, based on our analysis of the $281 million appropriated for CSEPP,

we determined that approximately $145 million (52 percent) was allocated

to states and counties, $127 million (45 percent) was allocated to Army

and FEMA organizations, and almost $8.9 million (3 percent) remains

unallocated.5

 Nearly half of all CSEPP allocations went for automation,

communication, and salaries and benefits. Table 1 lists funding levels for

major CSEPP entities.

Table 1: Funds Allocated to CSEPP

Entities for Fiscal Years 1988 to 1994 Dollars in thousands

CSEPP entity Total Percent

States and countiesa $145,152 52

Army commands and organizations 73,793 26

Army contracts with Argonne and

 Oak Ridge National Laboratories 21,505 8

FEMA headquarters and regions 13,843 5

FEMA contracts 17,718 6

Unallocated 8,887 3

Total $280,898 100

Note: The Army and FEMA were working to reconcile their allocation data, which do not agree.

For example, some of the Army’s totals in this table do not agree with FEMA’s totals in subsequent

tables.

aTwo cities also received CSEPP funds.

Source: Department of the Army.

4

A tone-alert radio is an indoor emergency warning device that provides both an alert signal and verbal

information.

5

Many of the numbers in this report are rounded for ease of presentation.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

The Army allocated funds to various commands for such purposes as

improving emergency operations centers at installations where chemical

weapons are stored, purchasing automation equipment, and paying

salaries. Other Army allocations were for contractor support activities,

including the development and procurement of CSEPP automation systems

for military installations and communities. FEMA used program funds for

salaries and benefits for headquarters and regional staff, and for

contractor support for exercises, automation, and training.

The amount allocated to the 10 states varied, ranging from $2.4 million for

Illinois to $30.7 million for Alabama, as shown in table 2.

Table 2: Funds Allocated to States for

Fiscal Years 1989 to 1994 Dollars in thousands

State Total Percent

Alabama $30,680 21

Arkansas 15,400 11

Colorado 9,462 7

Illinois 2,386 2

Indiana 11,345 8

Kentucky 14,018 10

Maryland 13,001 9

Oregon 18,647 13

Utah 18,319 13

Washington 11,891 8

Totala $145,149 100

Note: The Army and FEMA were working to reconcile their allocation data, which do not agree.

FEMA and state funding began in fiscal year 1989.

aPercents do not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: FEMA.

Funds were specifically allocated for such items as emergency operations

centers, alert and notification sirens, computer equipment, training, and

salaries and benefits. Funding levels, as allocated to the states by category,

are shown in table 3.

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

Table 3: Funds Allocated to States by

Category Dollars in thousands

Category Total Percent

Administration $5,392 4

Alert and notification 28,449 20

Automation 15,785 11

Communications 35,129 24

Emergency operations centers 12,719 9

Salaries and benefits 18,300 13

Travel 3,121 2

Subtotal $118,895

Othera 26,254 18

Totalb $145,149 100

aThe “other” category includes items such as public affairs, contracts, exercises, and training.

bPercents do not total 100 due to rounding.

Source: FEMA.

Allocations at Four

Storage Sites

Generally Reflect

Priorities

Because of weaknesses in CSEPP’s financial management and reporting,

Army and FEMA officials were unable to provide us a complete picture of

how program funds were spent. However, by visiting four CSEPP sites and

four of the five states associated with them, we developed a general

picture of expenditures. In general, the funds were used for priority items

and other critical CSEPP objectives, but not all items are operational or

have been purchased. For example, final automation systems and

tone-alert radios have not been purchased.

Funding Priorities In 1992, CSEPP officials issued a set of priorities to guide program

expenditures. In 1993, officials supplemented the priorities with

benchmarks intended to (1) guide states and local communities in their

preparedness activities, (2) ensure equitable distribution of funds among

states, and (3) result in functional equivalency. For example, two top

priorities are alert and notification capabilities and emergency operations

centers.

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

State and County

Expenditures

We collected expenditure data from states and counties associated with

four CSEPP sites and from the Army and FEMA. (Appendix III describes these

expenditures by locality.) Because these entities do not use the same

accounting systems, the data on expenditures are not comparable.

In general, CSEPP funds were used for emergency response systems and

other critical items, but not all critical items have been purchased. For

example, the counties in Oregon and Washington did not have

CSEPP-funded alert and notification sirens as of December 1994. Oregon is

using $7 million to procure communication equipment and sirens, but this

equipment is not expected to be operational until after March 1995. In

addition, not every site has radio communication capabilities in its

emergency operations centers, and none has protective gear ensembles or

final automation systems. Table 4 shows the status of some critical items.

According to FEMA officials, interim or substitute capabilities for critical

items exist in some locations.

Table 4: Availability of CSEPP-Funded

Critical Items for Four Storage Sites Umatilla

Item

Anniston,

Alabama

Pine Bluff,

Arkansas Tooele, Utah Oregon Washington

CSEPPequipped

emergency

operation

centers

Yes Yes Yes Partiala Partiala

Protective

gear

ensembles

No No No No No

Emergency

operations

plans

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Final

automation

systemsb

No No No No No

Alert and

notification

Sirens Yes Yes Yes No No

Tonealert

radios

No No No No No

aMorrow County, Oregon, has a CSEPP-funded center; Umatilla County, Oregon, has a limited

operational center but plans to construct a new center with program funds; and Benton County,

Washington, has built a center with non-CSEPP funds.

bThe Automation Program was approved in 1994. According to FEMA officials, the system has not

undergone a government acceptance test.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

Program funds were allocated to some state emergency management

organizations to procure large items, such as communication systems, for

all CSEPP entities in the state. Funds were also allocated to salaries and

benefits for state and local personnel, such as emergency response

directors, automation analysts, trainers, and public information officers.

Financial Data and

Internal Controls Are

Not Adequate

Controls over CSEPP funds are inadequate. Army and FEMA officials lack

accurate financial information to identify how funds are spent and to

ensure program goals are achieved. In testimony presented in July 1993,

we suggested that the Army establish strict controls over the

accountability of program funds. Army officials subsequently stated that

they are working to improve CSEPP’s financial management and internal

controls. However, our review revealed that little improvement has been

made. Specifically, we found that (1) CSEPP expenditure data are limited

and allocation data are discrepant; (2) FEMA’s reports to the Army have

been incomplete, inconsistent, and untimely; (3) the Army and several

states are maintaining large unexpended balances of funds; and (4) some

states have reprogrammed funds without the knowledge of federal

officials.

Expenditure Data Are

Limited

CSEPP expenditure financial data at the federal level are limited. Neither

FEMA nor the Army has data comparing program expenditures by states

and counties to specified allocations or program priorities. Data at FEMA

headquarters and regions consist primarily of quarterly financial status

reports that track aggregated expenditures and reports that identify states’

withdrawals from the federal treasury, but not how the funds were spent.

The Army does not maintain centralized expenditure data for the entire

program, or for funds allocated to or spent by Army commands or

contractors. Army commands also do not maintain comparable

expenditure data.

FEMA’s guidance on CSEPP requires states and jurisdictions to maintain

detailed financial records on allocations and expenditures. However,

agency officials believe the Office of Management and Budget Circular

A-102 prevents them from requiring states to report how funds are spent.

In September 1994, Army officials requested that FEMA obtain an Office of

Management and Budget exception to the requirements of circular A-102.

FEMA officials told us that they have not requested an exception but will

survey the states to satisfy the Army’s needs.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

Allocation Data Are Not

Accurate or Consistent

CSEPP allocation data are not accurate or consistent. In February 1994, we

reported that, although FEMA had administered 65 percent of allocated

program funds, it could not accurately account for how funds were spent.

Instead, its managers could provide only the amounts originally allocated

for a particular purpose.

However, we found discrepancies in allocation data at all management

levels—between Army and FEMA headquarters, FEMA headquarters and its

regions, FEMA regions and the states, and states and counties. In addition,

data from Army headquarters and different commands do not agree. Army

officials were unaware of the discrepancies in their data or FEMA’s data

until we mentioned them.

Army and FEMA officials are working to correct the discrepancies. For

example, the Argonne National Laboratory has created a database to track

allocation data for the Army. In addition, FEMA has several efforts

underway to improve its financial data and reports, and officials said they

began investigating ways in September 1994 to improve communication

across program and financial organizations. The agency plans to

implement a new system by October 1995.

FEMA Reports Are

Incomplete, Inconsistent,

and Untimely

During 1994, FEMA’s programmatic and financial reports to the Army were

incomplete, inconsistent, and untimely. FEMA officials told us that this was

because they had not enforced their own reporting requirements for

states. In 1993, the FEMA Inspector General and we reported that the

agency’s financial reports on CSEPP were not adequate. The Inspector

General reported that financial reports did not (1) include information

required to monitor the program’s progress, (2) identify how funds were

used to accomplish program goals, and (3) compare expenditures to

program activities. In July 1993, we testified that program officials had

inadequate information on the status of funds.

Although FEMA officials said that they are improving the agency’s financial

reporting, little progress has been made, and weaknesses in reporting

continue. For example, its 1994 third-quarter report contained financial

information from only 3 of the 10 states. The formats and the amount and

type of detail in FEMA regions’ and states’ reports varied greatly, making

comparisons and analysis difficult. In addition, state reports contained

limited expenditure data and were in different formats. Also, the agency

does not provide the reports to the Army in a timely manner. For example,

the 1994 third-quarter report was not provided until September 16, 1994.

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

According to FEMA officials, they are dependent upon the cooperation and

compliance by the states to meet these requirements.

Twenty-Four Percent of

CSEPP Funds Are Not

Expended

At the end of fiscal year 1994, states and the Army held more than

$67 million in unexpended funds, or 24 percent of all funds appropriated to

the program. States had a balance of more than $58 million in program

funds allocated to them in fiscal years 1989 to 1994 but not yet expended.

Various factors contribute to the balances such as delays in getting

program funds to the states or premature allocation of funds. In addition,

it is statutory in some states that they have the funds before they begin the

procurement process. The Army also held almost $9 million in prior-year

funds that was not allocated to Army commands or FEMA. Army officials

were, for the most part, unaware of the funds’ existence until we

mentioned them.

We reviewed FEMA’s financial reports showing expenditure data by state

for fiscal years 1989 to 1994. As of October 31, 1994, states had more than

$58 million in program funds allocated to them but not spent. Almost half

of the unexpended balance comes from fiscal year 1994 allocations. Table

5 shows unexpended funds by state.

Table 5: Unexpended Funds by State

Dollars in thousands

State Amount Percent

Alabama $17,860 31

Arkansas 3,173 5

Colorado 2,134 4

Illinois 759 1

Indiana 4,269 7

Kentucky 4,393 8

Maryland 7,814 13

Oregon 7,241 12

Utah 3,800 7

Washington 6,827 12

Total $58,270 100

Note: Funds were allocated in fiscal years 1989 to 1994. According to FEMA officials, the majority

of these unexpended funds are in the procurement process at the state level.

Source: FEMA.

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

We asked FEMA officials to identify allocated but not obligated funds by

state.6

 Because their regional offices provided incomplete data for only

eight states, we cannot report the total obligated but not spent. However,

individual examples from several states include the following:

• In Kentucky’s $4.4 million unexpended balance, $3.4 million is obligated

for a contract signed in July 1994 to produce tone-alert radios.

• In Oregon’s unexpended balance, $1.7 million is obligated for a microwave

communication system and another $1.7 million is obligated for an

emergency operation and information center for Umatilla County.

• In Washington’s unexpended balance, $2.4 million is obligated for a

communication system.

Factors contributing to the unexpended balances are delays in providing

funds to the states and premature allocation of funds. For example, in

fiscal years 1992 and 1993, funds were not allocated to some states and

counties until the second or third quarters of the fiscal years because of

delays at various levels in the process. This reduced the time available for

states and counties to obligate the funds and accomplish tasks before the

end of the fiscal year.

Part of the unexpended balances results from carried-over funding for

tone-alert radios. For example, almost $5.2 million of the funds were

provided to Alabama in fiscal year 1993 for tone-alert radios and not spent

because the state and county had not finished studying where to place the

radios. In July 1994, FEMA officials estimated the radio study would be

completed during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1995, 2 years after the

funds were released to the state. As of December 1994, the study had not

started. In addition, the policy on the type of radio to use changed, which

contributed to the delay. FEMA and Alabama officials told us that the funds

may have been prematurely allocated.

The Army has expressed its concern to FEMA over these unexpended funds.

In July 1994, the Army asked the agency to (1) enforce its requirement that

states identify unexpended funds in a timely manner and (2) reallocate

them for critical unmet needs. Despite these measures, more than

$67 million (24 percent) of program funds appropriated since 1989 remain

unexpended.

6

Obligated funds are funds designated for orders placed, contracts awarded, services rendered, or

other similar transactions.

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

States Have Reallocated

Funds

Without FEMA headquarters’ approval or knowledge, at least two states

reprogrammed funds from their allocated purposes. In Arkansas, $325,000

originally allocated for decontamination equipment and almost $88,000 in

unobligated funds were reprogrammed to construct CSEPP state office

space. The redistribution did not comply with FEMA policy that the state

obtain prior written approval from agency headquarters. In Washington,

almost $100,000 in fiscal year 1990 procurement funds originally allocated

for telecommunication equipment was reprogrammed to design a new

emergency operations center for the state. In this case, Washington

received approval from its FEMA regional office. Until we brought these

cases to their attention, Army and FEMA officials at the national level were

not aware of them.

Changes at FEMA

Could Adversely

Affect Already

Limited Financial

Controls

FEMA is changing the process it uses to budget and distribute CSEPP funds to

states. These changes could adversely affect already limited controls over

CSEPP funding and raise concerns regarding the appropriateness of FEMA

continuing to administer CSEPP funds. In fiscal year 1995, one of FEMA’s

priorities is to reform the comprehensive cooperative agreement process,

beginning by eliminating program-designated funding and replacing it with

functionally designated funding across all programs. Under this proposed

process, CSEPP funds may lose their identity if funds for many programs are

awarded to the states by functional categories. If CSEPP is included, it will

further reduce program managers’ already limited ability to relate

expenditures to specific program objectives. Agency officials do not

expect CSEPP to be included in the new combined funding process and said

that a decision on the program’s status under the new process is expected

by March 1995.

Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of the Army (1) consolidate financial as

well as programmatic functions at the new joint CSEPP office in the

Chemical and Biological Defense Command and (2) strengthen the new

office’s procedures for financial reporting and accountability, including

requiring regions, states, and counties to report financial data consistent

with the format used to award allocations.

We recommend that the Director of FEMA remove CSEPP from the agency’s

comprehensive cooperative agreements umbrella and administer the

program separately, not commingled with other agency programs.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
B-258694 

Scope and

Methodology

We developed information for this report by reviewing documents and

interviewing officials from the Army and FEMA and from four states and

numerous counties associated with Anniston, Alabama; Pine Bluff,

Arkansas; Tooele, Utah; and Umatilla, Oregon, installations. Because of

weaknesses in CSEPP’s financial management and reporting, we were

unable to develop a complete picture of the purposes for which program

funds were expended. However, through visits to the storage sites, states,

and counties, we were able to document and analyze a portion of the

$94.9 million allocated to five states. In some cases, because expenditure

data were not available, we obtained and used allocation data. (Appendix

IV lists the organizations and sites we contacted.) We did not verify the

financial data provided to us by the various entities and did not assess

whether the expenditures enhanced community preparedness.

We performed our work between October 1993 and December 1994 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As

requested, we did not obtain official agency comments on a draft of this

report. However, we discussed our findings with Army and FEMA officials

and have included their views where appropriate.

Unless you publicly announce this report’s contents earlier, we plan no

further distribution until 30 days from its issue date. At that time, we will

send copies to the Chairmen of the Senate Committee on Armed Services

and the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations, the Secretary of

Defense, the Director of FEMA, the Director of the Office of Management

and Budget, and other interested parties. We will make copies available to

others upon request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any questions.

Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix V.

Donna M. Heivilin

Director, Defense Management

 and NASA Issues

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Storage Locations in

the Continental

United States

16

Appendix II 

States and Counties

Participating in

CSEPP

17

Appendix III 

State and County

Allocations and

Expenditures

Associated With Four

CSEPP Sites

18

Anniston Army Depot, Anniston, Alabama 18

Pine Bluff Arsenal, Pine Bluff, Arkansas 18

Tooele Army Depot, Tooele, Utah 19

Umatilla Depot Activity, Umatilla, Oregon and Washington 19

Appendix IV 

Sites and Agencies

Included in Our

Review

20

Appendix V 

Major Contributors to

This Report

21

Related GAO Products 24

Tables Table 1: Funds Allocated to CSEPP Entities for Fiscal Years 1988

to 1994

3

Table 2: Funds Allocated to States for Fiscal Years 1989 to 1994 4

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Contents

Table 3: Funds Allocated to States by Category 5

Table 4: Availability of CSEPP-Funded Critical Items for Four

Storage Sites

6

Table 5: Unexpended Funds by State 9

Abbreviations

CSEPP Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Appendix I 

Storage Locations in the Continental United

States

Umatilla, Oregon,


Depot Activity

Newport, Indiana,


Army Ammunition Plant

Tooele, Utah,


Army Depot

Pueblo, Colorado,


Depot Activity

Pine Bluff, Arkansas,


Arsenal

Anniston, Alabama,


Army Depot

Lexington-Blue 


Grass, Kentucky,


Army Depot

Aberdeen, Maryland,


Proving Ground

States participating in CSEPP

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Appendix II 

States and Counties Participating in CSEPP

State County

Alabama Calhoun

Clay

Cleburne

Etowah

St. Clair

Talladega

Arkansas Arkansas

Cleveland

Dallas

Grant

Jefferson

Lincoln

Lonoke

Prairie

Pulaski

Saline

Colorado Pueblo

Illinois Edgar

Vermillion

Indiana Fountain

Parke

Vermillion

Kentucky Clark

Estill

Fayette

Garrard

Jackson

Madison

Powell

Rockcastle

Maryland Harford

Baltimore

Kent

Oregon Gilliam

Morrow

Umatilla

Utah Salt Lake

Tooele

Utah

Washington Benton

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Appendix III 

State and County Allocations and

Expenditures Associated With Four CSEPP

Sites

Anniston Army Depot,

Anniston, Alabama

Of the $31 million allocated to Alabama, over $7.8 million (25 percent)

went to Alabama’s Emergency Management Agency and other state

offices. The state received $4.2 million for automation and $3.5 million for

salaries and benefits. Ten million dollars were allocated for a

communication system. Officials estimate that a contract for

communication equipment will be let by July 1995 and that the equipment

will be manufactured and installed in 1996 or 1997.

Alabama allocated more than $21.6 million (70 percent) to six counties.

Almost $17 million was allocated to Calhoun County, one of two counties

in Anniston Army Depot’s immediate response zone. The county received

about $1.5 million to construct and equip an emergency operations center

and $1 million to test 43 alert and notification sirens for Calhoun and

Talladega counties and the depot. Talladega County, the other immediate

response county, received $3 million to operate an emergency operations

center, procure an 800-megahertz communication system and an

automation system, and pay salaries and benefits. Another $2 million was

allocated to four counties in the protective action zone for such items as

automation, office furniture, travel, and salaries and benefits.

Pine Bluff Arsenal,

Pine Bluff, Arkansas

Arkansas was allocated over $15 million, of which $10.7 million went to

the state Office of Emergency Services and other state-level units such as

the Department of Health. More than $700,000 was allocated to the Office

of Emergency Services for computer hardware, software, licenses, and

spare parts. In addition, more than $476,000 was allocated for contracts to

support planning, training, and technical aspects of the program, and more

than $400,000 was used for state office space. Much of Arkansas’s funding

went to items that benefited local communities’ preparedness. For

example, $1.2 million was allocated to purchase 58 voice-message sirens

for Jefferson and Grant Counties and the Pine Bluff Arsenal. Likewise,

almost $4 million was allocated to purchase an 800-megahertz

communication system. Of this amount, more than $3 million was used to

purchase about 500 radios.

Jefferson and Grant Counties, the two counties in the Pine Bluff Arsenal’s

immediate response zone, received $2.4 million and $400,000 in program

funding, respectively. Both counties have completed their emergency

operations centers; Jefferson County’s emergency operations center cost

$1.2 million, and Grant County’s center cost $239,000.

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Appendix III 

State and County Allocations and

Expenditures Associated With Four CSEPP

Sites

Tooele Army Depot,

Tooele, Utah

Of the $18.3 million allocated to Utah in fiscal years 1989 to 1994,

$10 million (55 percent) was allocated to its Office of Comprehensive

Emergency Management and the Departments of Health and of

Environmental Health. These funds were used for such items as

communication systems, automation equipment, training and exercises, as

well as for salaries and benefits. The state designated about $507,000 for

construction of a command post.

Of the $18.3 million allocated to Utah, $7.2 million (39 percent) was

allocated to Tooele County, the immediate response zone county for

Tooele Army Depot. More than $6 million was allocated to the county in

fiscal years 1993 and 1994. The county constructed an emergency

operations center for about $345,000, and installed 37 alert and

notification sirens for $2 million. During fiscal years 1989 and 1993, the

county used about $255,000 for automation, $105,000 for communication,

and $499,000 for salaries and benefits. More than $2.6 million was

allocated through the county in fiscal years 1993 and 1994 for 24-hour and

other emergency capabilities at the Tooele Valley Regional Medical

Center.

Umatilla Depot

Activity, Umatilla,

Oregon and

Washington

Oregon and Washington, the states associated with the Umatilla storage

site, were allocated $30.5 million in program funding. Oregon was

allocated $18.6 million, and Washington was allocated almost $12 million.

Of the funds allocated to Oregon, $11.6 million (62 percent) went to

Oregon’s Office of Emergency Management. Umatilla and Morrow

Counties, the two immediate response zone counties, were allocated

$4.7 million and $1.2 million in program funding, respectively. These

amounts do not include $162,000 jointly allocated in fiscal year 1992 to

Umatilla and Morrow Counties. Umatilla County did not receive funding

for its emergency operations center until fiscal year 1994, and construction

had not started as of December 1994. Morrow County has constructed an

emergency operations center for $345,000.

Nine million dollars (75 percent) of Washington’s program funds were

allocated to the state’s Departments of Emergency Management,

Agriculture, and Ecology. The money was allocated for such items as

communication systems, automation, and salaries and benefits. Benton

County, Washington, received $2.3 million, which included $1.7 million in

fiscal year 1993 for 22 sirens. The sirens are expected to be operational in

November 1995.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Appendix IV 

Sites and Agencies Included in Our Review

Entities that we contacted or visited during our review included the

following:

• Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Logistics, and the

Environment, Washington, D.C.;

• U.S. Army Nuclear and Chemical Agency, Springfield, Virginia;

• the Army Materiel Command, Alexandria, Virginia;

• U.S. Chemical and Biological Defense Command, Aberdeen Proving

Ground, Maryland;

• Federal Emergency Management Agency: Washington, D.C.; Region IV,

Atlanta, Georgia; Region VI, Denton, Texas; Region VIII, Denver, Colorado;

and Region X, Bothell, Washington;

• Anniston, Pine Bluff, Tooele, and Umatilla installations;

• states and counties near the Anniston, Pine Bluff, Tooele, and Umatilla

installations;

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee; and

• Argonne National Laboratory, Argonne, Illinois.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Appendix V 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

David R. Warren, Associate Director

Thomas J. Howard, Assistant Director

Denver Field Office Suzanne Macfarlane, Evaluator-in-Charge

Cynthia L. Richards, Senior Evaluator

Julia A. Dubois, Senior Evaluator

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
Related GAO Products

Chemical Weapons: Obstacles to the Army’s Plan to Destroy Obsolete U.S.

Stockpile (GAO/NSIAD-90-155, May 24, 1990).

Chemical Weapons: Stockpile Destruction Delayed at the Army’s

Prototype Disposal Facility (GAO/NSIAD-90-222, July 30, 1990).

Chemical Weapons: Stockpile Destruction Cost Growth and Schedule

Slippages Are Likely to Continue (GAO/NSIAD-92-18, Nov. 20, 1991).

Chemical Weapons Destruction: Issues Affecting Program Cost, Schedule,

and Performance (GAO/NSIAD-93-50, Jan. 21, 1993).

Chemical Weapons Storage: Communities Are Not Prepared to Respond to

Emergencies (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-91, July 16, 1993).

Chemical Weapon Stockpile: Army’s Emergency Preparedness Program

Has Been Slow to Achieve Results (GAO/NSIAD-94-91, Feb. 28, 1994).

Chemical Weapons Destruction: Advantages and Disadvantages of

Alternatives to Incineration (GAO/NSIAD-94-123, Mar. 18, 1994).

Chemical Weapons: Stability of the U.S. Stockpile (GAO/NSIAD-95-67, Dec. 22,

1994).

Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program Review (GAO/NSIAD-95-66R, Jan. 12,

1995).

(709041) Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons
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. 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 (301) 258-4097 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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 Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100
GAO/NSIAD-95-94 Chemical Weapons