Chemical Weapons: Better Management Tools Needed to Guide DOD's Stockpile Destruction Program
Released: 2003-10-30T00:00:00

Letter

Most Sites Will Miss Schedule Milestones due to Program’s Inability to Anticipate and Influence Issues

Despite several revisions to schedule milestones since the program’s inception, the Chem-Demil Program still is unable to meet these milestones because of unanticipated delays. Most incineration sites have missed important milestones established in 2001. Delays at Anniston, Umatilla, and Pine Bluff have already resulted in their missing the 2001 schedule milestones to begin chemical agent destruction operations (operations phase). Johnston Atoll has missed its schedule milestone for shutting down the facility (closure phase). Although Tooele has not missed any milestones since the 2001 schedule was issued, the site has undergone substantial delays in destroying its stockpile primarily because of a safety-related incident in July 2002. If additional delays occur at the Tooele site, it could also exceed its next milestone as well. Table 1 shows the status of the incineration sites that will miss 2001 schedule milestones.

Many of the recent delays at the incineration sites have resulted from operations incidents, from environmental permitting problems, community protection concerns, and funding issues—a trend that we identified in previous reports on the program. Among the events that have caused delays at incineration sites since 2001 are the following:

Incidents during operations. At Tooele, a chemical incident involving a plant worker who came into contact with a nerve agent while performing routine maintenance led to the suspension of agent destruction operations from July 2002 to March 2003. An investigation attributed the incident to inadequate or poorly followed worker safety procedures, and a corrective action plan, including an improved safety plan, was instituted before operations resumed. Since operations restarted in March 2003, Tooele has experienced several temporary shutdowns.

Environmental permitting. Several environmental permitting issues have delayed the start of agent destruction operations at sites at Umatilla and Anniston. At Umatilla, the delays stemmed from several unanticipated engineering changes related to reprogramming software and design changes that required permit modifications and to a shutdown by state regulators because furnaces were producing an unanticipated high amount of heavy metals during surrogate agent testing. At Anniston, delays occurred because state environmental regulators did not accept test results for one of the furnaces because the subcontractor did not follow state permit-specified protocols.

Community protection. Concerns about emergency preparedness for local communities have led to additional delays at Anniston. These concerns included the inadequacy of protection plans for area schools and for special needs residents (e.g., elderly and disabled individuals) who would have difficulty in an evacuation. Although we reported on this issue in July 1996 and again in August 2001, and a senior DOD official identified it as a key concern in September 2001, the Army had difficulty satisfactorily resolving the issue with key state stakeholders. As a result, operations did not begin until August 2003.

Funding. Delays at Pine Bluff and Johnston Atoll occurred because DOD redirected fiscal year 2002 destruction program funds to acquire $40.5 million worth of additional emergency protection equipment for Anniston. To cover this unfunded budget expense, the Army reduced Pine Bluff’s budget by $14.9 million and Johnston Atoll’s budget by $25.1 million, leading to systemization and closure milestone slippages, respectively, at these sites. Program officials told us that the total cost of this schedule slip would ultimately be $116 million due to the extended period before closure. The program is likely to face unfunded requirements as programwide funding requests continue to exceed budgeted amounts. As of October 2003, according to preliminary estimates from FEMA, unfunded CSEPP requirements for all sites are expected to amount to $39.4 million and $49.0 million for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, respectively.

Unlike the incineration sites, the two bulk-agent only sites, Aberdeen and Newport, have experienced delays but have not breeched their schedule milestones. In 2002, DOD approved using an alternative technology (neutralization), instead of incineration, at these two sites. This technology is expected to accelerate the rate of destruction at these two sites. The Army estimated that this process would reduce the scheduled end of operations at both sites by 5 years, from 2008 to 2003 at Aberdeen and from 2009 to 2004 at Newport. However, Aberdeen has encountered unanticipated problems with the removal of residual agent from bulk containers and has extended its planned completion date by 6 months, from October 2003 to March 2004. In addition, Newport has faced construction delays and community resistance to offsite treatment of waste byproducts. As a result of these delays, Newport has extended its planned start date for agent operations by 5 months, from October 2003 to February 2004.

At two sites, Pueblo, Colorado, and Blue Grass, Kentucky, no milestones were set in the 2001 schedule because DOD had not yet selected a destruction technology. DOD has now selected a destruction technology for these sites, but it made decisions several months later than estimated. More importantly, DOD has set initial schedule milestones for these two sites that go beyond the extended April 2012 CWC deadline. According to DOD officials, these milestones are preliminary and will be reevaluated once contractors finish initial facility designs.

The Chem-Demil Program has faced continued delays with the program largely because DOD and the Army have not yet developed a risk management approach to proactively anticipate and address potential problems that could adversely affect program schedules, costs, and safety. Such an approach could also leverage knowledge of potential problems gained at other sites. Instead, according to a DOD official, the program has used a crisis management approach, which has forced it to react to, rather than control, issues. The program had drafted a plan in June 2000 that was intended to address these issues. However, according to a program official, this plan was never approved or implemented because of a change in management in 2001.

The delays and schedule extensions have contributed directly to program cost growth, according to program officials. As a result, DOD’s total program cost estimate grew from $15 billion to $24 billion between 1998 and 2001. (See fig. 1.) Because of delays encountered since the 2001 revisions, the Army is now in the process of developing new milestones that will extend beyond those adopted in 2001. According to an Army official, the program will use events that have occurred since 2001 in presenting new cost estimates to DOD for preparation of the fiscal year 2005 budget submission. Program officials told us that they estimate new costs had increased by $1.4 billion as of October 2003, and this estimate is likely to rise further as additional factors are considered.

Schedule Delays Jeopardize Ability of Program to Meet CWC Deadlines

Although the United States met the first two chemical weapons treaty deadlines, the continuing delays jeopardize its ability to meet the final two deadlines. (See table 2.) Since reaching the 2002 deadline to destroy 20 percent of the stockpile in July 2001, the Chem-Demil Program has been able to destroy only an additional 3 percent of the stockpile. In order to meet the April 2004 CWC deadline to destroy 45 percent of the stockpile, the program would have to eliminate an additional 22 percent of the stockpile within the next 6 months. Because the program will likely not be able to achieve this rate of destruction, the United States has asked for an extension of the 2004 deadline.

According to current destruction schedules, the United States will not meet the 2007 deadline to eliminate 100 percent of the stockpile. As a result, the United States will likely have to ask for an extension of the 2007 deadline to complete the destruction of the entire stockpile. The CWC allows extensions of up to 5 years beyond the 2007 deadline. Unless the program fixes the problems that are causing schedule delays, the United States also risks not meeting this deadline, if extended to 2012.

Long-standing Management and Organizational Weaknesses Hamper Program Progress

Despite recent efforts to improve the management and streamline the organization of the Chem-Demil Program, the program continues to falter because several long-standing leadership, organizational, and strategic planning weaknesses remain unresolved. The lack of sustained leadership has undercut decision-making authority and obscured accountability. The program’s complex structure, with many lines of authority, has left roles and responsibilities unclear. Finally, the program lacks an overarching, comprehensive strategy to guide and integrate its activities and monitor performance.

Leadership Shifts Affect Continuity in Decision Making

The Chem-Demil Program’s lack of sustained leadership above the program level is underscored by the multiple shifts in oversight responsibilities that have occurred three times between DOD and the Army during the past two decades. The most recent change took place in 2001 when oversight responsibility for the program shifted back to DOD’s Office of the Secretary of Defense. Table 3 summarizes the changes.

These shifts in oversight responsibilities affected the continuity of program decision making and obscured accountability. As a different office assumed major decision authority, the program’s emphasis shifted and initiatives that had been started were often not completed. For example, when the Army had oversight responsibility for the program, it established a memorandum of understanding with FEMA to clarify each of their roles and responsibilities related to CSEPP. However, after DOD assumed the program’s oversight responsibilities in 2001, DOD did not follow the protocols for coordination that had been established in the memorandum, according to FEMA and DOD officials. As a result, DOD provided funds for emergency preparedness items without having adequate plans for distribution, which delayed the process. This shift in oversight responsibilities from the Army to DOD also left state and local community officials and other stakeholders uncertain as to the credibility of federal officials. According to FEMA and Army officials, coordination between the two agencies has improved in the last few months and efforts are being made to repair relationships with community and state stakeholders.

Similar problems have also occurred within the Army as program leadership has changed. Three different officials at the Assistant Secretary level have held senior leadership positions since December 2001. In addition, five officials have served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army (Chem-Demil) during that time. From April 2002 to February 2003, the program manager’s position remained vacant for nearly 1 year, before being filled. However, after only 4 months, the program manager resigned and the Army named a replacement.

Frequent shifts in key leadership positions have led to several instances where the lack of continuity affected decision making and obscured accountability. For example, in June 2002, a program official promised to support future funding requests for emergency preparedness equipment from one community, but his successor did not fulfill this promise. Other communities viewed the agreement with one community as an opportunity to substantially expand their own funding requests. The lack of sustained leadership makes it unclear who is accountable when program commitments are made and not fulfilled. Moreover, when key leaders do not remain in their positions to develop the needed long-term perspective on program issues and effectively implement program initiatives, it is difficult to maintain program progress and ensure accountability for leadership actions.

Program Management Structure Remains Complex

As our 2003 report documents, the Army recently reorganized the program. But this change in management structure has not streamlined the program’s complex organization nor clarified roles and responsibilities. The establishment of the Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) in January 2003 has left the Director reporting to two different senior Army organizations, which is one more than under the previous structure. This divided reporting approach is still not fully developed, but has the potential to adversely affect program coordination and accountability. The reorganization has also divided the responsibility for various program phases between two offices within CMA. One organization, the Program Manager for the Elimination of Chemical Weapons, will manage the first three phases (design, construction, and systemization) for each site, and a newly created organization, the Director of Operations, will manage the final two phases (operations and closure). This reorganization changes the cradle-to-grave management approach that was used to manage sites in the past and has blurred responsibilities for officials who previously provided support in areas such as quality assurance and safety. Moreover, the reorganization did not address two program components—Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives (ACWA) program and community-related CSEPP. DOD will continue to manage ACWA separately from the Army, as congressionally directed. In addition, the Army will continue to manage CSEPP jointly with FEMA.

Program Lacks Strategy and Implementation Plan

While DOD and the Army have issued numerous policies and guidance documents for the Chem-Demil Program, they have not developed an overarching, comprehensive strategy or an implementation plan to guide the program and monitor its progress. This is contrary to the principals that leading organizations embrace to effectively implement and manage programs. Some key aspects of an approach typically used to effectively manage programs include promulgating a comprehensive strategy that includes a clearly stated mission, long-term goals, and methods to accomplish these goals. An implementation plan that includes annual performance goals, measurable performance indicators, and evaluation and corrective action plans is also important. According to DOD and Army officials, the Chem-Demil Program has relied primarily on guidance and planning documents related to the acquisition process. However, in response to our recent recommendation that they prepare such a strategy and plan, DOD stated that it is in the initial stages of doing so and estimates completion in fiscal year 2004.

Emergency Preparedness Program Is Improving, but Costs Are Rising

Since our 2001 report, the Army and FEMA have assisted state and local communities to become better prepared to respond to chemical emergencies. Based on the states’ self-assessments and FEMA’s reviews, all 10 states with chemical storage sites located within them or nearby are now considered close to being fully prepared to respond to a chemical emergency. This is a marked improvement from the status we reported in 2001 when 3 states reported that they were far from being prepared. Now, 6 of the 10 states are reporting that their status is fully prepared and the remaining 4 are close to being fully prepared. However, these statuses are subject to change because the states and communities themselves can revise or expand their agreed-upon emergency preparedness needs. They can make these changes because the “maximum protection” concept that governs CSEPP is open to interpretation. As a result, they can appear to be less prepared than before. For example, Oregon certified that it was fully prepared, but now has requested additional emergency equipment. This request has changed Oregon’s self-reported preparedness status from fully prepared to incomplete.

Despite these accomplishments, CSEPP costs continue to rise because, according to Army and FEMA officials, state and local communities may add to their emergency requirements beyond approved requests. Army and FEMA officials explain that the states often identify and expand their requirements, especially as destruction facilities move closer to the start of the operations phase. For example, the states of Colorado, Alabama, and Oregon have all requested funds for infrastructure, including roads and bridges. In June 2002, Oregon certified that its community readiness was adequate and recommended permit approval to allow test burns at Umatilla. Since that time, Oregon has asked for additional emergency preparedness support that exceeds its CSEPP budget. This request follows a pattern of substantially increasing funding requests at the start of the operations phase, as occurred at Anniston in 2001 when it received $40.5 million for additional CSEPP items. Programwide, new requirements continue to exceed approved CSEPP funding levels. FEMA has little control over the additional funding requests made by the states. As of October 2003, FEMA had identified $39.4 and $49.0 million in unfunded requirements for fiscal years 2004 and 2005, respectively. (See table 4.)

In our August 2001 report, we recommended that the Army and FEMA (1) provide technical assistance, guidance, and leadership to the three states (Alabama, Indiana, and Kentucky) with long-standing emergency preparedness issues to resolve their concerns; (2) provide all states and their communities with training and assistance in preparing budget and life-cycle cost estimates and provide guidance and plans on reentry; and (3) establish specific measures of compliance with the benchmarks to more evenly assess performance and to correctly identify requirements. The Army is continuing to provide assistance to CSEPP states and communities as requested by FEMA. FEMA now participates more often in local community CSEPP activities and sponsors an annual CSEPP conference in an effort to improve its working relationships. FEMA has also provided software to simplify development of CSEPP financial reporting documents and has published a Reentry and Recovery Workbook. The workbook fills a void in state and local guidance for emergency responders to follow in the event of a chemical emergency. Lastly, FEMA expanded its capability assessment readiness tool to assist local communities in quantifying benchmark scores.

Agencies’ Actions to Implement Prior GAO Recommendations

We recommended in our September 2003 report that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, in conjunction with the Secretary of the Army, to (1) develop an overall strategy and implementation plan for the chemical demilitarization program and (2) implement a risk management approach that anticipates and influences internal and external factors that could adversely impact program performance. DOD concurred with our recommendations. It said that it was in the initial stages of developing an overall strategy and implementation plan and estimated that it would be completed in fiscal year 2004. It also said that CMA will review the progress of an evaluation of several components of its risk management approach within 120 days and then that DOD would evaluate the results and determine any appropriate action. In our 2001 report, we recommended that the Army and FEMA make improvements to the program, and they have implemented those recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you or members of the Subcommittee may have.

For future questions regarding this testimony, please contact me at (202) 512-4300. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include Donald Snyder, Rodell Anderson, Bonita Oden, John Buehler, Nancy Benco, and Mike Zola.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.