Chemical Weapons Destruction: Issues Affecting Program Cost, Schedule, and Performance
NSIAD-93-50
Published: Jan 21, 1993. Publicly Released: Feb 22, 1993.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of the Army's Chemical Munitions Stockpile Disposal Program, focusing on: (1) operational difficulties at the Army's prototype disposal facility; and (2) problems in obtaining environmental permits to construct and operate disposal facilities.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should require that computation of destruction rates for the third and fourth campaigns reflect the criteria set out in the operational verification test plan. |
Closed – Implemented
The Army's response dated October 12, 1993, indicates that throughput rates would be computed in accordance with the OVT directive. GAO's subsequent followup review indicates compliance.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should revise program cost and schedule estimates to reflect actual experience gained from operational verification testing. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD has designated the Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program as a major acquisition and will issue a baseline cost and schedule estimate in December 1995. Actual experience at Johnston will be one of the factors considered.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should extend Johnston Island operational verification tests to include 24-hour-a-day operations to provide information on what might be encountered during planned 24-hour-a-day destruction operations. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD reports that extending testing to achieve 24-hour operations is not economically feasible because it would involve modification of the environmental operating permits.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should defer future equipment acquisitions until the results of 24 hour equipment verification tests are completed and analyzed. |
Closed – Not Implemented
Future equipment acquisitions have been tied to 6 months of successful follow-on full-rate production. The earliest future equipment acquisitions can be awarded is February 1995.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should require that the oversight contractor publishes all future assessment reports in a timely manner. |
Closed – Implemented
The Army's response, dated October 12, 1993, indicates that the oversight contractor was directed to submit future oversight reports in a more timely manner. GAO's review of subsequent oversight reports indicates that all reports were submitted within the 90-day window as required by OVT test plans.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should establish clearly defined work priorities for state permit reviewers to follow in those states having other hazardous waste permit applications in process for Department of Defense programs. |
Closed – Implemented
The Army has agreed to establish more definitive work requirements and schedules for state permit writers. However, the Army cannot dictate work priorities to the states. The Army response, dated October 12, 1993, indicates that working groups have been established by the states, EPA regions, and the Army. The Army's action is also partially attributed to the National Research Council's recommendations concerning the oversight of operational verification testing.
|
| Department of the Army | The Secretary of the Army should require that program officials submit requests for authorization to begin construction projects and requests for permit modifications early enough to allow time for orderly processing, including full public review and comment. |
Closed – Not Implemented
DOD has gone as far as it can in emphasizing the importance of the stockpile destruction program. Final permit priorities are set by the states.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Army facilitiesChemical warfareChemical weaponsCost analysisFacility constructionHazardous substancesLicensesLife cycle costsProperty disposalWaste disposalWeaponsChemical weapons disposal