Russian Nuclear Submarines: U.S. Participation in the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation Program Needs Better Justification
GAO-04-924
Published: Sep 09, 2004. Publicly Released: Sep 09, 2004.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
Norway, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States participate in the Arctic Military Environmental Cooperation (AMEC) program, a multilateral effort that seeks to reduce the environmental impacts of Russia's military activities through technology development projects. AMEC has primarily focused on Russia's aging fleet of nuclear submarines. Section 324 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 required GAO to review AMEC, including its relationship to the Department of Defense's (DOD) Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) program. In accordance with the act, GAO (1) assessed the extent to which AMEC supports and complements the CTR program, (2) identified AMEC member countries' financial contributions to the program, (3) assessed AMEC's future program objectives, and (4) evaluated DOD's proposal to expand its technology development activities to Russia's Pacific region.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Defense | To help ensure that the United States' continued participation in AMEC supports--and is consistent with--overall U.S. assistance efforts in Russia, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of Energy and State, should determine whether AMEC's role should be expanded to include activities such as improving security around Russian nuclear submarine bases. |
Closed – Implemented
On March 14, 2008, a senior DOD official who previously oversaw U.S. participation in the Arctic Military Cooperation (AMEC) program told GAO that, prior to the program's cancellation in 2006, DOD, in consultation with DOE and State, determined that AMEC's role should not be expanded to include such activities as improving security around Russian nuclear submarine bases. Instead, DOD decided the program should be ended and ceased funding new projects in fiscal year 2006.
|
| Department of Defense | To help ensure that the United States' continued participation in AMEC supports--and is consistent with--overall U.S. assistance efforts in Russia, the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretaries of Energy and State, should ensure that AMEC's efforts are well defined, closely coordinated, and complementary with other U.S. nuclear nonproliferation programs managed by the Departments of Defense and Energy. |
Closed – Implemented
On March 14, 2008, a senior DOD official who previously oversaw U.S. participation in the Arctic Military Cooperation (AMEC) program told GAO that, prior to the program's cancellation in 2006, DOD, in consultation with DOE and State, determined that AMEC's role should not be expanded to include such activities as improving security around Russian nuclear submarine bases. Instead, DOD decided the program should be ended and ceased funding new projects in fiscal year 2006. According to a senior DOD official, the agency coordinated all AMEC efforts prior to ending the program with other U.S. agencies, such as DOE and State.
|
| Department of Defense | Regarding DOD's proposed Pacific initiative, the Secretary of Defense should assess whether technology development activities should be expanded to include submarine dismantlement in that region, and if determined it is necessary, request congressional approval for this expansion to the Pacific region. |
Closed – Implemented
On March 14, 2008, a senior DOD official who previously oversaw U.S. participation in the Arctic Military Cooperation (AMEC) program told GAO that DOD assessed whether technology development activities should be expanded to include submarine dismantlement in the Pacific region, and determined it not to be necessary. Instead, DOD ended active U.S. participation in AMEC in 2006 and has funded no new projects since fiscal year 2005.
|
| Department of Defense | Regarding DOD's proposed Pacific initiative, the Secretary of Defense should determine what form U.S. participation in such a technology development program would take, such as a bilateral effort or a multilateral organization similar to AMEC. |
Closed – Implemented
On March 14, 2008, a senior DOD official who previously oversaw U.S. participation in the Arctic Military Cooperation (AMEC) program told GAO that, with respect to the then-planned Pacific Initiative, DOD determined that it would not support the expansion of AMEC to the Pacific region. Instead, DOD ended active U.S. participation in AMEC in 2006 and has funded no new projects since fiscal year 2005.
|
| Environmental Protection Agency | Furthermore, the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency should determine, in consultation with the Secretary of the Navy, if the funds that were designated for AMEC-related activities are still needed for the purpose intended. If not, the Administrator and the Secretary should determine whether to reprogram the funds for other AMEC-related activities or to propose rescinding the funds. |
Closed – Implemented
In October 2005, EPA wrote that it agreed with our recommendation and had met with the Navy to discuss the most appropriate use of funds for the AMEC program. As a result of this meeting and a subsequent international AMEC steering committee meeting, funds designated for the AMEC Liquid Waste Project were reprogrammed to support other AMEC-related activities. EPA and the Navy met in December 2004 to discuss the transfer of funds. However, the actual transfer of funding from EPA back to the Navy did not occur until fiscal year 2006. According to EPA, the exact amount of unspent funds for this project that were available to be reprogrammed was $700,972.66 (fiscal year 2004 dollars).
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Economic analysisEnvironmental monitoringForeign governmentsForeign military assistanceInternational cooperationInternational relationsMilitary policiesNuclear armed submarinesNuclear proliferationProgram evaluationRadioactive wastesStrategic planning