United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

August 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

Status of Defense

Initiatives for Cleanup,

Compliance, and

Technology

G O A

years

1921 - 1996

GAO/NSIAD-96-155

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-271818 

August 2, 1996

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable John Glenn

Ranking Minority Member

Subcommittee on Readiness

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

This report responds to your letters of January 1996, which requested

specific data regarding Department of Defense (DOD) environmental

cleanup, compliance, and technology development activities. As requested

by your offices, this letter provides information and analyses on related

DOD initiatives, and appendix I presents additional detail regarding these

areas and overseas cleanup.

Background DOD is responsible for managing and caring for thousands of military

installations and defense sites throughout the United States and overseas.

Its operations are subject to the same environmental, safety, and health

laws and regulations as private industry, as well as additional

requirements for federal facilities. The day-to-day operations and activities

of a typical military installation generally mirror those of a small city. As a

result, DOD installations face most of the same environmental problems

confronting our nation’s industrial and commercial sectors.

To achieve its environmental mission, DOD organized its $5 billion

environmental program into five elements: cleanup, compliance,

conservation, pollution prevention, and technology.1

 This report addresses

three of these elements:

• cleanup (remediation), which includes identification, investigation, and

cleanup of contamination from hazardous substances and waste on active

and formerly used DOD land (cleanup has been funded primarily through

centralized accounts for defense environmental restoration and for BRAC);

• compliance with environmental laws and regulations of federal, state, and

local jurisdictions; and

1

Also contained is funding for Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) efforts involving environmental

restoration, compliance, and planning at closing installations.

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
B-271818 

• technology, under which DOD invests in research, development,

demonstration, and validation of new technologies to support the other

elements of its program.

Results in Brief Recent DOD initiatives affecting environmental cleanup include efforts to

focus funding on actual cleanup versus study and oversight, better target

the funds through the use of risk determination in priority setting, and

devolve the budget process to the military services. DOD has reported a

reduction in the amount of funds obligated for study and oversight of

cleanup activities and an increase in funds for actual cleanup activities. It

has also begun to use relative risk determinations—that is, whether a site

is categorized as high, medium, or low relative risk—in its cleanup

planning process. DOD plans to devolve management of cleanup funding

from a centralized environmental restoration account controlled by the

Office of the Secretary of Defense to four processes and proposed

accounts: three for the individual military departments and one for

DOD-wide functions. Funding for the single account for fiscal year 1996 is

currently estimated at $1.4 billion.

Regarding compliance initiatives, your Committee expressed concern that

DOD’s report to Congress on environmental compliance activities does not

provide data adequate to distinguish among categories and track the basis

for DOD’s budget request. Also, we testified2

 that DOD lacks the data it needs

to manage its environmental compliance program. Although DOD has

required the services to use an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

system that classifies projects by type of activity, it was unable to provide

data on spending by EPA classification. DOD approved plans, dated

March 14, 1996, to improve its information for fiscal year 1998. We

expressed concerns about the impact of definitions in those plans on

priority setting, and DOD officials stated that they will act on these

concerns. Detailed budget instructions for fiscal year 1998 are expected to

be approved in the summer of 1996. DOD’s current estimate for fiscal year

1996 compliance funding is $2.2 billion.

With regard to environmental technology, your Committee expressed

concern about DOD’s strategy to identify and meet environmental

technology needs and requested that DOD recommend ways to restructure

environmental technology activities. DOD did not submit a separate

recommendation. In commenting on our draft report, DOD officials stated

2

Environmental Protection: Issues Facing the Energy and Defense Environmental Management

Programs (GAO/T-RCED/NSIAD-96-127, Mar. 21, 1996).

Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
B-271818 

that a written response is not required and restructuring efforts are

reflected in the fiscal year 1997 budget submission. Also, by late summer

1996, DOD plans to implement an on-line strategic environmental

technology plan that will show specific service requirements and match

ongoing and planned initiatives. DOD’s current estimate for fiscal year 1996

funding in environmental technology is $216 million.

Recent Cleanup

Initiatives

Your offices asked for an overview of DOD’s effort to (1) increase the

proportion of funds devoted to actual cleanup activities versus study and

oversight and (2) incorporate assessments of relative risk in planning and

budgeting for environmental restoration activities. DOD has also proposed

to devolve management of the DOD-wide environmental restoration

account to four separate accounts for the military departments and

defense agencies.

Study and oversight obligations have significantly decreased since 1993,

when they were $1 billion, or 62 percent of DOD’s total $1.6-billion costs. By

fiscal year 1995, costs of studies and oversight had fallen to $585 million,

or about 39 percent of the $1.5-billion total. For fiscal year 1997, DOD

projects a further decline to 26 percent for studies and oversight versus

74 percent for cleanup activities. In commenting on this report, DOD

officials stated that some level of study will need to continue. Studies are

required by the National Contingency Plan3

 and are also needed to

characterize sites, determine whether remediation is needed, and identify

contaminants, if any.

We obtained data from the defense components in February and

March 1996 that shows DOD has conducted relative risk assessments on

about 70 percent of the 10,361 operational and formerly used defense sites

that may require future cleanup.4

 Over half of these sites have been

identified as high relative risk without any further ranking within the

category. Efforts to rank cleanup sites across geographic and

organizational boundaries are still in their infancy.

3

The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan establishes EPA policy and

key response steps for implementing the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and

Liability Act (CERCLA).

4

In commenting on this report, officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense stated that they could

not verify the service data because they could not independently recreate it as of the dates involved.

DOD’s report to Congress for fiscal year 1995 states that, as of September 30, 1995, 56 percent of

12,570 sites at active and former facilities had received relative risk ratings. In addition, 10,019 sites

required no further cleanup.

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
B-271818 

DOD plans to devolve budgeting for environmental cleanup from the

centralized departmental process used since 1984 into separate service

and defense agency budget processes. Congress had established a

centralized account in 1984 to facilitate oversight and to ensure

management attention to environmental restoration. DOD is now proposing

legislation to Congress that would remove the single account for

restoration funds, which is funded for fiscal year 1996 at $1.4 billion, and

create in its place four accounts with otherwise similar provisions. In its

March 1996 report to Congress on devolvement, DOD stated this is another

step to make the program as efficient as possible by putting responsibility,

accountability, and funding together. DOD policy guidance and reporting

requirements for the fiscal year 1997 Defense Budget, dated July 1995,

provided the military services with the specific funding categories to be

used and the types of activities to include in each category.

Environmental

Compliance Initiatives

DOD environmental compliance initiatives aim to improve the adequacy of

data available to manage this program. Your Committee’s report on the

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 in July 1995 stated

that DOD’s report to Congress on environmental compliance activities does

not distinguish among categories sufficiently to track the basis for DOD’s

budget request. Our March 1996 testimony also noted that DOD lacks the

data it needs to manage its environmental compliance program,

particularly when compared to the data used to manage cleanup activities.

For example, Congress receives annual reports with installation-level data

on planned and actual expenditures for cleanup, but DOD does not have

comparable expenditure data on compliance activities. (In commenting on

this report, DOD officials stated there is no requirement for including actual

expenditure data in the annual DOD environmental quality report.) DOD has

required the services to use an EPA system that classifies whether projects

address current or near-term noncompliance with environmental laws and

regulations or are only indirectly related to compliance time lines.

However, DOD was unable to provide data on planned or actual

expenditures by EPA classification.

In 1994, the Office of the Secretary of Defense established a working group

that developed plans to ensure that detailed compliance data can be

obtained as needed. DOD approved the plans to improve data and oversight

for fiscal year 1998 by such actions as setting goals and measuring

progress. Detailed budget instructions are expected by summer 1996. As

we stated in testimony before joint subcommittees of the House

Committee on National Security, we agree with DOD’s approach to

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
B-271818 

developing these plans. However, we are concerned that the class

definitions are a significant departure from DOD’s past definitions and do

not conform to EPA definitions. As a result, the number of projects within

the high priority category may expand without decisionmakers being able

to distinguish among different types. DOD officials stated that they will act

to ensure that the priorities are not diluted as they proceed and that, at a

meeting subsequent to our testimony, EPA officials stated that DOD’s

definitions were acceptable.

An April 30, 1996, EPA memorandum to DOD stated that the Agency

accepted DOD’s definitions for the DOD environmental quality report to

Congress. However, it also cited DOD’s agreement to separately provide EPA

with computer disks of project-level data and to supplement the project

listings with the detailed project data needed to support EPA’s automated

system. The additional detail agreed to by DOD will allow EPA to

recategorize DOD projects according to EPA definitions for governmentwide

comparability.

Environmental

Technology Initiatives

According to DOD, technological innovation is the key to more efficiently

and effectively meeting the environmental restoration challenge it faces.

To facilitate the development and deployment of better, less costly, and

more efficient environmental technologies, DOD developed a strategy

designed to foster technologies with such benefits as the highest payback.

DOD’s strategy is based on systematically identifying needs, and

developing, demonstrating, and validating prioritized technologies. Once

needs and related projects have been reviewed across the military

services, high-priority projects are funded through service, DOD-wide, or

other multiagency environmental programs.

Congressional direction resulted in DOD initiatives to develop a research

plan and a supporting requirements database. The 1992 Defense

Authorization Act required the Director of Defense Research and

Engineering to develop a strategic investment plan for environmental

quality research and development. A DOD panel of engineers published a

Tri-Service Environmental Quality Research and Development Strategic

Plan in January 1993 and an updated version in October 1994. The

strategic plan matches various technology projects against specific service

requirements. The next version of the Strategic Plan, expected in late

summer 1996, will be automated. In response to 1994 direction by the

House Committee on Armed Services, the Deputy Under Secretary for

Environmental Security issued the Environmental Technology

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
B-271818 

Requirements Strategy in March 1995 that will create a requirements

database. This document identifies prioritized service technology needs by

category. For example, a high-priority Navy requirement in the compliance

category is Hazardous Waste Management Ashore. According to DOD

officials, this requirements document will likely be issued biannually.

We identified work in two high-priority requirements areas where several

projects were underway or planned. Although projects were funded from

various sources and managed by different programs or services, program

and project officials were generally aware of other projects in the two

areas. Officials explained that differences in the projects generally related

to how the technology was applied. For example, the Environmental

Security Technology Certification Program is funding a Navy project to

demonstrate the feasibility of using plasma arc technology to eliminate

hazardous waste on a Navy installation. The Navy is also funding a project

to study the feasibility of using plasma arc technology to eliminate

hazardous waste material aboard ships.

Scope and

Methodology

The information presented in this report is drawn from our recent

testimony and from our review of DOD’s environmental cleanup,

compliance, and technology issues.

We obtained cleanup and compliance budget data from and interviewed

officials in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for

Environmental Security. The data came from the fiscal years 1995, 1996,

and 1997 budget submissions and other budgetary sources. The fiscal year

1997 budget submission was in draft at the time the data was provided,

and some parts are being updated. Data for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 is

estimated. We compared the data provided with other original summary

sources for comparable periods when available. We also discussed

compliance definitions with EPA officials.

We discussed environmental technology programs and projects with

officials in the Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for

Environmental Security, the Director of Research and Engineering, and

the services. We selected two specific technology areas and analyzed data

on similar projects in those technology areas. We also visited the National

Defense Center for Environmental Excellence in Johnstown,

Pennsylvania, which was conducting work in the technology areas we

reviewed.

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
B-271818 

The information in appendix I is our analysis of data reported by DOD. We

compared data to other sources where possible, but did not trace the data

to individual transactions. We did not, for example, perform detailed

examinations at installations to identify the types of expenditures that DOD

reported as being spent for cleanup. As requested, we provided detailed

data on (1) defense environmental restoration account expenditures for

actual cleanup versus study and oversight; (2) cleanup funding by category

of priority, with additional data for medium and low relative risk, and

unranked sites; (3) overseas cleanup; (4) environmental compliance

expenditures by selected categories; and (5) environmental technology

development programs.

We performed our work from February through April 1996 in accordance

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Agency Comments We received official oral comments from DOD officials, who generally

concurred with our data. Technical changes and updated data were

incorporated in this report where appropriate.

DOD did not fully concur with our observations regarding the impact of

DOD’s definitions of compliance classes not conforming to EPA’s definitions

and stated that at an April 19, 1996, meeting, EPA officials accepted DOD’s

definitions. As we noted in the report, DOD must also provide EPA with

additional details that will allow EPA to recategorize DOD projects

according to EPA definitions for governmentwide comparability. We will

consider questions involving the impact of DOD’s revised definitions as part

of ongoing work for congressional requesters.

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further

distribution of this report until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we

will send copies to appropriate congressional committees; the Secretary of

Defense; the Administrator, EPA; and the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget. We will provide copies of this report to other

interested parties upon request.

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
B-271818 

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.

David R. Warren

Director, Defense Management Issues

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.1:

GAO Areas Addressed by Requested Work

Defense Environmental Restoration 

Account (DERA) funding for cleanup 

versus study and oversight

DERA funding by relative risk

Overseas cleanup 

Environmental compliance 

Environmental technology 

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.2:

GAO Cleanup Versus Study and Oversight

Actual cleanup costs and percentages 

increased while study and oversight 

costs decreased.

Salaries, program overhead, travel, and 

administrative costs are not easily 

broken out by the defense components.

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.3:

GAO Cleanup Versus Study and Oversight:

Funding by Fiscal Year

a

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

$1,639

$1,965

$1,482 $1,413

Cleanup

Study

Oversight

1993 1994 1995 1996

630 934 898 911

761 793 386 319

248 238 198 183

Dollars in millions

aIncludes potentially responsible party funding from DOD.

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.4:

GAO Cleanup Versus Study and Oversight: 

Percentage of Funding 

38.5%

46.4%

15.1%

Fiscal year 1993

60.6%

26.1%

13.4%

Fiscal year 1995

73.6%

15.1%

11.4%

Fiscal year 1997

Cleanup Study Oversight

Note 1: Calculations of cleanup include potentially responsible party funding.

Note 2: Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.5:

GAO DERA Funding by Relative Risk 

DOD dollars and projects for 1995 were 

affected by rescission action.

Services reported in February 1996 that 

10,000 sites required cleanup, with 

7,450 evaluated as having a relative 

risk (4,000 of the 7,450 sites were 

assessed as high relative risk). 

Funding for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 

focused on high relative risk. 

Note: In commenting on a draft of this report, officials of the Office of the Secretary of Defense

(OSD) stated that the number of sites, provided by the services, cannot be verified by OSD.

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.6:

GAO DERA Funding by Relative Risk: 

Categorization 

Percentage of projects unfunded were 

29.8% of high relative risk projects, 

84.1% of medium relative risk projects, 

and 89.3% of low relative risk projects.

A consistent methodology was used to 

categorize sites, but there was no 

general ranking across organizations or 

geographic boundaries.

Most funded lower relative risk projects 

are associated with facility agreements.

Note: In commenting on a draft of this report, OSD officials stated that the project percentages,

provided by the services, cannot be verified by OSD.

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.7:

GAO DERA Funding by Relative Risk: 

Focus on High Relative Risk 

 

Dollars in millions

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

$925.7

$43.3

$63.6 $169.1

$160.8

$50.3

Fiscal year 1996

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA AAAA

AAAA

AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA AAA

AAA

$878.6

$44.1$34.9 $185.2

$132.1

$58.1

Fiscal year 1997

AAA AAA AAA AAA

High Medium Low Not evaluated Program management Other

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.8:

GAO DERA Funding by Relative Risk: 

Funded Sites by Category

2,755

1,174

High

252

1,332

Medium

205

1,704

Low

511

2,428

Not evaluated

Sites funded Nonfunded sites

Note 1: 10,361 total sites as of March 1, 1996.

Note 2: In commenting on a draft of this report, OSD officials stated that the distribution of sites,

provided by the services, cannot be verified by OSD.

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.9:

GAO DERA Funding by Relative Risk: Medium and 

Low Relative Risk Sites for Fiscal Year 1997

 

Dollars in millions 

$37.5

$6.6

Medium-risk sites

$31.5

$3.4

Low-risk sites

With agreements Without agreements

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.10:

GAO Overseas Cleanup

Reported overseas cleanup used mostly 

Operations & Maintenance funds 

(97 percent).

About $102 million was obligated in 4 

years.

Obligations are primarily for actual 

cleanup rather than study or oversight.

Most overseas funding was for Army 

sites.

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.11:

GAO Overseas Cleanup: 

Funding by Fiscal Year by Component 

Study Cleanup Oversight Total

1993 $4,657 $29,462 $171 $34,290

1994 7,445 14,867 376 22,688

1995 3,943 18,659 636 23,237

1996 3,925 17,369 1,169 22,462

Total $19,970 $80,357 $2,352 $102,678

Dollars in thousands

 

Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.12:

GAO Overseas Cleanup: Combined Funding by 

Defense Component (fiscal years 1993-96) 

 

a

(69 %)

(2 %)

(20 %)

(9 %) (0 %)

Dollars in thousands

Army

Navy Marine Corps

Air Force

DLA

$71,147

$9,029 $179

$20,249

$2,074

aDefense Logistics Agency.

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.13:

GAO Overseas Cleanup: Number of Sites/Projects 

Funded by Defense Component by Fiscal Year

1993 1994 1995 1996

Army 68 63 50 69

Navy & 

Marine Corps 

3 12 15 11

Air Force 21 35 18 20

Defense 

Logistics

Agency

1 2 2 1

 

Note: Due to multiple year funding, some sites/projects are listed in more than 1 fiscal year.

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.14:

GAO Environmental Compliance 

Services could not provide data by 

Environmental Protection Agency class 

or by recurring/nonrecurring costs.

DOD plans to change budget reporting to 

include the above data.

Funding is shown by defense 

component, appropriation, and media.

Comparison of compliance, conservation, and pollution prevention funding. 

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.15:

GAO Environmental Compliance: Funding by 

Defense Component by Fiscal Year 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

$2,118

$1,976.6 $2,044.5

$2,203.9

$1,941.5

Army

Navy

Air Force

Defense agencies

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

565.7 497.8 572.2 632.8 595.8

615.9 717.4 710.8 907.7 738.9

811.9 643.2 628.3 517.9 467.5

124.5 118.2 133.2 145.5 139.3

Dollars in millions 

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.16:

GAO Environmental Compliance: Funding by 

Appropriation Account by Fiscal Year

 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

$2,118

$1,976.6 $2,044.5

$2,203.9

$1,941.5

O&M

DBOF

RDT&E

Other

MILCON

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

1,122.7 1,073.7 1,218.9 1,336.6 1,224.9

317.8 319.4 304.6 329.0 311.9

59.7 89.4 98.4 104.0 84.0

218.2 136.5 165.2 205.0 233.0

399.6 357.6 257.4 229.3 87.7

Dollars in millions 

Legend

O&M - Operations & Maintenance

DBOF - Defense Business Operations Fund

RDT&E - Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

MILCON - Military Construction

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.17:

GAO Environmental Compliance: 

Funding by Media by Fiscal Year 

 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

AAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA AAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

$2,044.7

$2,204

$1,941.5

Hazardous waste management

Solid waste management

Underground storage tanks

Air quality management

Water quality management

Laws & regulations

Assessment & planning

Education & training AAA AAA

AAA

1995 1996 1997

576.4 555.8 520.4

33.0 27.3 26.0

76.6 83.3 86.1

241.6 277.9 214.2

538.0 540.7 387.6

461.0 617.3 627.4

112.6 95.1 74.0

5.5 6.6 5.8

Dollars in millions 

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.18:

GAO Environmental Compliance: 

Funding Compared to Conservation and 

Pollution Prevention by Fiscal Year

 

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

$2,525 $2,414 $2,486 $2,622

$2,371

Compliance

Conservation

Pollution prevention

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

2,118 1,977 2,045 2,204 1,942

133 99 154 137 106

274 338 287 281 323

Dollars in millions

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.19:

GAO Environmental Technology

Environmental Technology Requirements Strategy 

document identified user needs.

Issued by Deputy Under Secretary of 

Defense/Environmental Security and lists over 

500 technology area needs.

The Director, Defense Research and Engineering, 

developed a plan to address needs (Green Book).

Plan lists ongoing and planned projects within 

needs areas.

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.20:

GAO Environmental Technology: 

DOD and Service Projects

We examined projects in two high priority 

technology areas to determine extent of 

coordination.

Plasma arc technology is being 

evaluated as a means of eliminating 

hazardous waste.

Nonchromate conversion coating 

alternatives are being evaluated to 

eliminate chromate toxic waste 

by-products.

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.21:

GAO Environmental Technology: 

DOD and Service Projects (cont.)

For both technologies:

Several projects were funded and 

conducted by different programs and 

services.

Program and project officials were 

aware of other projects in technology 

area.

Rationale for different projects was 

based on different applications.

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix I 

Additional Information on Environmental

Cleanup, Compliance, and Technology

Development

Figure I.22:

GAO Environmental Technology: 

DOD Databases

In 1994, House Committee on Armed Services 

directed DOD to create an environmental 

requirements database.

The March 1995 Environmental Technology 

Requirements Strategy was issued containing 

over 500 requirements across the 4 

environmental pillars.

The Tri-Service Environmental Quality Research 

and Development Strategic Plan (Green Book) 

was published in October 1994. DOD plans to 

implement an on-line system in summer 1996.

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
Appendix II 

Major Contributors to This Report

National Security and

International Affairs

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Brad Hathaway

Uldis Adamsons

Bruce Brown

Raymond Cooksey

George Shelton

Denver Field Office Maria Durant

Mark McClarie

(709181) Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-96-155 Environmental Protection
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