oversight

Chemical Weapons Stockpile: Changes Needed in the Management of the Emergency Preparedness Program

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-06-11.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                  United States General Accounting Office

GAO               Report to Congressional Committees




June 1997
                  CHEMICAL WEAPONS
                  STOCKPILE
                  Changes Needed in the
                  Management of the
                  Emergency
                  Preparedness Program




GAO/NSIAD-97-91
      United States
GAO   General Accounting Office
      Washington, D.C. 20548

      National Security and
      International Affairs Division

      B-276238

      June 11, 1997

      The Honorable Ted Stevens
      Chairman
      The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
      Ranking Minority Member
      Subcommittee on Defense
      Committee on Appropriations
      United States Senate

      The Honorable Floyd D. Spence
      Chairman
      The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums
      Ranking Minority Member
      Committee on National Security
      House of Representatives

      The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
      Chairman
      The Honorable John P. Murtha
      Ranking Minority Member
      Subcommittee on National Security
      Committee on Appropriations
      House of Representatives

      In July 1996, we reported that 8 years after the Chemical Stockpile
      Emergency Preparedness Program’s (CSEPP) inception, Alabama
      communities near Anniston Army Depot were not fully prepared to
      respond to a chemical stockpile emergency because they lacked critical
      items.1 Given the lack of progress in Alabama’s CSEPP and prior CSEPP
      management weaknesses we have reported on, we conducted a follow-up
      review to (1) assess CSEPP’s progress in enhancing emergency
      preparedness in all 10 states participating in the program and (2) identify
      opportunities to improve program management. We conducted this review
      under our basic legislative responsibilities and are addressing it to you
      because of your oversight responsibilities for chemical weapons disposal
      programs. Our scope and methodology are described in appendix I.




      1
      Chemical Weapons Stockpile: Emergency Preparedness in Alabama Is Hampered by Management
      Weaknesses (GAO/NSIAD-96-150, July 23, 1996).



      Page 1                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
             B-276238




             In November 1985, the Congress directed the Department of Defense (DOD)
Background   (through the Army) to destroy the U.S. stockpile of lethal chemical agents
             and munitions and directed that the disposal program provide for the
             maximum protection of the environment, the public, and the personnel
             involved in disposing of the munitions.2 In 1988, the Army established
             CSEPP to help communities near the chemical stockpile storage sites
             enhance existing emergency management and response capabilities in the
             unlikely event of a chemical stockpile accident. Another focus of CSEPP is
             to enhance the emergency preparedness of the eight Army installations
             where the chemical stockpile munitions are stored. (See app. II for the
             locations of the chemical stockpile storage sites.)

             The Army is responsible for determining the overall direction for CSEPP.
             Under a memorandum of understanding with the Army, the Federal
             Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides technical assistance and
             distributes Army funds to states through cooperative agreements.3
             Program funds flow from the Army to FEMA headquarters, through FEMA
             regional offices, and to the states.4 Annual allocations to the states are
             based on the states’ current concept of operations and progress in
             implementing approved and funded CSEPP initiatives and on the results of
             annual negotiations. (See app. III for data on funds allocated to the various
             CSEPP entities in fiscal years 1988-96.) On the basis of approved activities
             and projects, states provide funds to counties as their subgrantees. States
             and counties, in accordance with state and local laws, have primary
             responsibility for developing and implementing programs to enable
             communities to respond to a chemical stockpile emergency.

             In 1993 and 1994, the Army and FEMA issued CSEPP benchmarks and
             planning guidance that identify funding priorities and items critical to
             respond to a chemical stockpile emergency.5 In February 1994, in response
             to congressional guidance, the Army and FEMA signed a restructuring
             agreement to establish the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team to coordinate and
             implement public affairs, exercises, training, communications, and other
             activities for the program. The Joint Army/FEMA Team is managed by

             2
              Public Law 99-145, section 1412.
             3
              The funds provided to the states are covered by FEMA’s Uniform Administrative Requirements for
             Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments (44 CFR, part 13) and the Office
             of Management and Budget Circular A-128.
             4
              Section 1521 (c) (3) 50 U.S.C. provides that the Secretary of Defense may make grants to state and
             local governments, either directly or through FEMA.
             5
              Planning Guidance for the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program, the Army and
             FEMA (May 17, 1996).



             Page 2                                            GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                   B-276238




                   Army’s Project Manager for Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness
                   and consists of 14 Army officials and 6 FEMA officials. The team’s
                   objectives are to create an environment for teamwork and build a working
                   partnership.

                   In the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 104-201, section
                   1076), the Congress directed the Secretary of the Army to submit a report
                   on his assessment of the implementation and success of the site-specific
                   integrated process teams. As envisioned by the Army, the integrated
                   process teams will (1) identify issues, develop solutions, and integrate
                   program plans and budget submissions among CSEPP jurisdictions and
                   (2) include officials from the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team, appropriate
                   FEMA region, participating states and counties, and local Army chemical
                   storage command. According to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for
                   Research, Development, and Acquisition, the joint Army and FEMA report
                   was scheduled to be issued by the end of May 1997.6 On May 30, 1997, the
                   Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Logistics, and Environment)
                   informed the Congress that the Secretary’s report would be delayed until
                   July 15, 1997.


                   Although it has taken longer than it should, CSEPP officials expect that
Results in Brief   most critical items will be in place by the end of 1998. After 9 years and
                   funding of $431.4 million, states and local communities surrounding the
                   chemical stockpile storage sites still lack some items critical to responding
                   to a chemical stockpile emergency (see table 1).




                   6
                   Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition letter to the Chairman,
                   House Committee on National Security (Mar. 31, 1997).



                   Page 3                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                           B-276238




Table 1: Availability of Five Critical CSEPP-Funded Items in the States We Visited
                                                   Integrated          Personal               Personnel
                                                   communications protective                  decontamination    Siren       Tone alert
CSEPP entity                                       system              equipment              equipment          system      radios
Alabama and counties                                Partial                  Partial          Partial            Yes         No
Arkansas and counties                               Yes                      No               Yes                Yes         No
Colorado and county                                 Yes                      No               No                 No          No
Maryland and counties                               Yes                      No               Partial            Partial     No
Oregon and counties                                 Partial                  Partial          No                 No          No
Utah and counties                                   Partial                  Yes              Yes                Yes         Partial
Washington and county                               Yes                      No               No                 Yes         No
                                           Note: As of March 1, 1997.

                                           Source: Based on data provided by the Army’s Project Manager for CSEPP and state and county
                                           emergency management agencies.



                                           As we have reported since 1992, CSEPP’s slow progress has been due
                                           largely to long-standing management weaknesses, including disagreement
                                           between the Army and FEMA over their respective roles and
                                           responsibilities.7 The FEMA Inspector General, Members of Congress, and
                                           state and local officials have also expressed concern about these
                                           management weaknesses. Moreover, the Congress has expressed concern
                                           that states and communities lack critical CSEPP items and that program
                                           costs continue to increase.8

                                           Although the Army and FEMA have taken actions in response to this
                                           criticism, opportunities still exist to improve program management.
                                           Specifically, disagreements between Army and FEMA officials on their
                                           respective roles and responsibilities continue to hamper program
                                           effectiveness. For example, the Army is still working to respond to the
                                           requirement of the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act to report on
                                           the integrated process teams because FEMA questions the efficiency of the
                                           Army’s involvement. As a result of this and other differences, the Army
                                           and FEMA have not reached agreement on a long-term management
                                           structure for the program. In his March 1997 letter to the Chairman of the
                                           House Committee on National Security, the Assistant Secretary of the
                                           Army (Research, Development, and Acquisition) said that, if the Army and
                                           FEMA were unsuccessful in reaching an agreement on the long-term


                                           7
                                            See list of related GAO products at the end of this report.
                                           8
                                            Program costs have remained level since the Joint Army/FEMA Team developed the CSEPP life-cycle
                                           cost estimate in 1995.



                                           Page 4                                              GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                            B-276238




                            management structure for CSEPP and integrated process teams, the Army
                            would assume full control and responsibility for the program. Until the
                            Army and FEMA leadership take steps to delineate their agencies’ roles and
                            responsibilities and reach agreement on a long-term management
                            structure for CSEPP, the future effectiveness of CSEPP is at risk.


                            Nine years after CSEPP’s inception and funding of $431.4 million, states and
Progress in Enhancing       local communities still lack items critical to responding to a chemical
State and Local             stockpile emergency, including integrated communication systems,
Emergency                   personal protective equipment, personal decontamination equipment,
                            sheltering-in-place enhancements, and alert and notification systems.
Preparedness Has            Program officials expect that nearly all these items will be funded and/or
Been Slow                   operational by the end of 1998, but that may be optimistic unless
                            management weaknesses and differences at the Army and FEMA level are
                            corrected and states and counties take prompt actions to implement the
                            projects.


Almost $431.4 Million Has   Through fiscal year 1996, almost $431.4 million has been allocated to the
Been Allocated to CSEPP     program (see table 2). As of December 1996, approximately $152.5 million
                            had been allocated to Army organizations, installations, and contracts.
                            According to Army officials, some of these expenditures were for
                            computer equipment and software provided to state and local emergency
                            management agencies and emergency preparedness projects at Army
                            installations. Approximately $43.2 million was allocated to FEMA
                            headquarters, regional offices, and contracts. According to FEMA, the
                            agency’s contracts support the entire CSEPP community and include the
                            development of program guidance, training courses, and computer
                            software. Participating states and counties have received $220.8 million.
                            The Army has allocated $1.1 million to other organizations and has not
                            allocated $13.8 million.




                            Page 5                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                        B-276238




Table 2: Allocation of CSEPP Funds in
Fiscal Years 1988-96                    Dollars in thousands
                                        Entity/activity                                                           Amount       Percent
                                        Army organizations, installations, and contracts                       $152,509.2         35.4
                                        FEMA headquarters, regional offices, and contractsa                       43,234.4        10.0
                                        States and counties                                                     220,779.0         51.2
                                        Other organizations                                                        1,093.1         0.3
                                        Not allocated                                                             13,766.4         3.2
                                        Total                                                                  $431,382.1         100b
                                        Note: As of December 1996.
                                        a
                                         Includes $14.7 million (3.4 percent) allocated to FEMA headquarters and regions and
                                        $28.6 million (6.6 percent) allocated for contracts.
                                        b
                                        Percents do not total 100 due to rounding.

                                        Source: Based on data provided by the Army’s Project Manager for CSEPP.



                                        The Army’s current life-cycle cost estimate for CSEPP is $1.03 billion, an
                                        800-percent increase of the initial estimate of $114 million in 1988.
                                        According to Army officials, the initial CSEPP estimate was made before the
                                        Army had fully defined the program’s scope, requirements, and time
                                        frames, and the current estimate has not increased since the CSEPP Joint
                                        Army/FEMA Team developed the $1.03 billion life-cycle cost estimate in
                                        1995. Management weaknesses, including the lack of adequate financial
                                        data and internal controls, have contributed to the growth in costs.


States and Local                        State and local emergency management officials repeatedly expressed
Communities Lack Critical               concern to us about their communities’ lack of readiness to respond to a
CSEPP Items                             chemical stockpile emergency. In 1993 and 1994, the Army and FEMA issued
                                        benchmarks and program guidance that identified items critical to respond
                                        to a chemical stockpile emergency, such as automated information
                                        systems, emergency operations centers, integrated communication
                                        systems, personal protective equipment, personnel decontamination
                                        equipment, sheltering-in-place enhancements, and alert and notification
                                        systems. Table 3 shows the status of CSEPP items in each of the 10 states
                                        participating in the program.




                                        Page 6                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                         B-276238




Table 3: Availability of Critical CSEPP-Funded Items (as of Mar. 1, 1997)
                      Alabama Arkansas Colorado Illinois       Indiana Kentucky Maryland Oregon
                      and         and     and       and        and        and   and      and     Utah and Washington
Item                  counties counties county      counties counties counties counties counties counties and county
Automated         Partial    Partial   Partial       Partial      Partial     Partial   Partial    Partial     Partial        Partial
information
systema
Emergency         Yes        Yes       Yes           Yes          Partial     Yes       Partial    Partial     Yes            Partial
operations
center
Integrated        Partialb   Yes       Yes           Partial      Yes         Partial   Yes        Partial     Partial        Yes
communications
system
Personal          Partial    No        No            No           Partial     No        No         Partial     Yes            No
protective
equipmentc
Personnel         Partial    Yes       No            No           No          No        Partial    No          Yes            No
decontamination
equipment
Sheltering-       No         Yes       No            NR           No          NR        Yes        Nod         NR             NR
in-place
enhancements
Sirens            Yes        Yes       No            NR           Yes         Yes       Partial    No          Yes            Yes
system
Tone alert        No         No        No            NR           No          Partial   No         No          Partial        No
radios
                                         Note: Yes means that the CSEPP-funded item is fully operational and meets standards.

                                         Partial means that the CSEPP-funded item is partially operational because additional
                                         requirements are anticipated and/or the current system or equipment do not meet CSEPP
                                         standards.

                                         No means that the state and counties do not have the required CSEPP item.

                                         NR means that the state and counties do not have a requirement for the CSEPP item.
                                         a
                                            Federal Emergency Management Information System.
                                         b
                                             The system was fully funded in 1996.
                                         c
                                            The equipment has been funded since 1995.
                                         d
                                             The enhancements were funded in 1996.

                                         Source: Based on data provided by the Army’s Project Manager for CSEPP and state and county
                                         emergency management agencies.



                                         In our survey of CSEPP participants, all 10 states and 37 of 40 counties
                                         participating in the program said that their emergency response




                                         Page 7                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                             B-276238




                             capabilities had increased since the implementation of CSEPP. Officials of
                             three counties said that their emergency response capabilities had not
                             changed. Most communities near the chemical stockpile sites had little
                             capability to respond to a chemical emergency when the program began in
                             1988. For example, emergency management officials from both the state of
                             Oregon and Lonoke County, Arkansas, said that CSEPP has made good
                             progress, considering that they had very little capability before the
                             program was implemented. According to a Lonoke County official, the
                             county would have only a few radios without CSEPP’s assistance, and it is
                             better able now to respond to all types of emergencies. Appendix IV
                             discusses the status and funding of specific CSEPP projects.

                             According to FEMA, most CSEPP states and local communities have the
                             operational capability to respond to a chemical stockpile emergency even
                             though all CSEPP items have not been procured or installed. We did not
                             assess whether states and local communities have operational capability
                             to respond to a chemical incident. Our conclusion that states and local
                             communities lack critical items is based on CSEPP benchmarks and
                             guidance and data from the Army, FEMA, states, and local communities. We
                             continue to believe that using benchmarks and program guidance is the
                             appropriate measure for assessing whether program goals are being met.


Program Officials Expect     By the end of 1998, according to federal, state, and county officials, states
That CSEPP Will Transition   and local communities will have nearly all of the critical CSEPP items
to a Maintenance Phase       funded and/or available and the program will transition from procurement
                             into a maintenance phase. At that time, most of the program’s
After 1998                   expenditures are expected to be for operations and maintenance activities
                             rather than construction or procurement of major capital items. The
                             transition to a maintenance phase will require less contract management,
                             training, and federal oversight of state and local daily operations.
                             According to Army CSEPP officials, the programs in Arkansas, Illinois,
                             Indiana, and Utah have already transitioned into the maintenance phase.
                             Local communities in Alabama, Colorado, and Oregon, however, will still
                             lack some critical CSEPP items after 1998.

                             The CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team is in the process of negotiating standard
                             baseline operating costs with each of the 10 states participating in the
                             program. The negotiated funding will cover (1) agreed-upon recurring
                             fixed-costs (for example, salaries, office supplies, and telephones) plus an
                             inflation factor and (2) variable operating costs (for example, training and
                             exercises) that are recognized costs but the level of funding is subject to



                             Page 8                                GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
B-276238




annual fluctuation. Other funding will be for short-term projects and
one-time procurement requirements. Procurement funds are used to
purchase major capital items such as communication systems or
decontamination equipment. According to Army officials, inadequate
actions by states and counties have caused several of the major projects to
lag and the accumulation of procurement funds in state accounts.

For fiscal years 1997-2004, the Army expects to need another
$598.6 million to operate the program. It estimates that 66.4 percent of the
funding allocated to the states will be operations and maintenance funds
and 33.6 percent will be procurement funds (see fig. 1). Only Alabama is
estimated to receive more procurement funds, mostly for costly
sheltering-in-place projects, than operations and maintenance funds.9
Other states such as Illinois, Indiana, and Maryland are expected to
receive very little procurement funds compared with their estimated
operations and maintenance funding.




9
 Sheltering-in-place enhancements can be as simple as taping doors and windows or as elaborate as
installing pressurized air filtration systems in schools, hospitals, jails, community centers, and public
buildings. In 1996, the Calhoun County Emergency Management Agency in Alabama estimated that the
county would require about $67.6 million for sheltering-in-place enhancements to 55 facilities located
near the stockpile storage site.



Page 9                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                    B-276238




Figure 1: Estimated Allocation of
CSEPP Funds for Fiscal Years        100000    Dollars in thousands
1997-2004
                                     90000

                                     80000

                                     70000

                                     60000

                                     50000

                                     40000

                                     30000

                                     20000

                                     10000

                                         0




                                                                                                                                   ton
                                                   a



                                                            as



                                                                      o



                                                                                is



                                                                                           a



                                                                                                    y



                                                                                                              d



                                                                                                                   on



                                                                                                                        ah
                                              am




                                                                                      ian



                                                                                                    ck
                                                                      ad




                                                                                                           an
                                                                                no
                                                        ns




                                                                                                                        Ut
                                                                                                                  eg




                                                                                                                              ing
                                                                                               ntu
                                                                   lor




                                                                                                          ryl
                                              ab




                                                                                     Ind
                                                                            Illi
                                                       ka




                                                                                                                  Or
                                                                                                         Ma




                                                                                                                              sh
                                                                 Co
                                             Al




                                                                                               Ke
                                                       Ar




                                                                                                                             Wa
                                         CSEPP state


                                                            Procurement funds

                                                            Operations and maintenance funds



                                    Note: Future allocations are based on the estimated funding required to maintain an acceptable
                                    level of emergency preparedness. Within DOD’s budget constraints, the required funding will vary
                                    by CSEPP jurisdiction.

                                    Source: Based on CSEPP’s life-cycle cost data provided by the Army’s Project Manager for
                                    CSEPP.



                                    The Army, FEMA, and the states and counties have been frustrated in
CSEPP Has a History                 attempts to implement CSEPP. As we and FEMA’s Inspector General have
of Management                       reported, problems have stemmed from management weaknesses in the
Weaknesses and                      program and disagreements over respective roles and responsibilities.

Concerns Still Remain
Prior Reports Discuss               The Army has been slow in achieving its main objective of helping
Management Weaknesses               communities to enhance their emergency management capabilities
                                    because the program’s (1) management roles and responsibilities are
                                    fragmented between Army and FEMA offices and are not well defined,




                                    Page 10                                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
B-276238




(2) planning guidance is imprecise, (3) the budget process lacks
coordination and communications, and (4) financial data and internal
controls are inadequate. Army and FEMA officials have differed and
continue to differ on various aspects of program management, and
consequently, CSEPP’s effectiveness and efficiency continue to suffer.

In 1993, we testified that the Army had made little progress in achieving its
main objective of helping communities prepare for emergencies involving
chemical agent release.10 The lack of progress was partly because of
management weaknesses at the federal level, including fragmented
authorities and responsibilities and weak financial controls, that led to
missed program milestones and delays in issuing program guidance. In
1994, we reported that the Army’s management approach had not been
effective and that communities near the chemical stockpile sites were not
prepared to respond to a chemical stockpile emergency.11

In 1995, we reported that program officials lacked accurate financial
information to identify how funds were spent and ensure that program
goals were achieved.12 Because of inadequate financial data and internal
controls, Army and FEMA could not provide reliable information on actual
expenditures. Army and FEMA officials still do not have accurate financial
information to identify how funds are spent. Specifically, records on
expenditure data are limited; allocation data differ among federal, state,
and local agencies; and states and counties maintain large unexpended
balances of funds. According to Army and FEMA officials, the Office of
Management and Budget’s Circular A-102 limits the Army in requesting
expenditure data from the states.

In July 1996, we reported that Alabama communities near the Anniston
Army Depot were not prepared to respond to a chemical emergency
because they lacked critical items. Although the communities had been
allocated $46 million, they had not spent $30.5 million because federal,
state, and local officials had not reached agreement on specific
requirements for four projects. We concluded that the lack of progress was
the result of management weaknesses at the Army and FEMA levels and
inadequate action by state and local agencies.

10
 Chemical Weapons Storage: Communities Are Not Prepared to Respond to Emergency
(GAO/T-NSIAD-93-18, July 16, 1993).
11
 Chemical Weapon Stockpile: Army’s Emergency Preparedness Program Has Been Slow to Achieve
Results (GAO/NSIAD-94-91, Feb. 22, 1994).
12
 Chemical Weapons: Army’s Emergency Preparedness Program Has Financial Management
Weaknesses (GAO/NSIAD-95-94, Mar. 15, 1995).



Page 11                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                             B-276238




Management Weaknesses        In February 1993, the FEMA Inspector General reported that CSEPP’s
Cited by the FEMA            reporting system did not provide timely, accurate, or consistent data and
Inspector General            did not satisfy the management needs of either FEMA or the Army.13
                             Specifically, FEMA officials could not accurately account for how CSEPP
                             funds were spent and Army officials lacked accurate data to determine
                             whether funds were spent effectively.


Concerns Expressed by        Several states and counties said that they were frustrated with the Army’s
State and County Officials   and FEMA’s joint management of CSEPP and needed greater discretion in the
                             use of program funds (see table 4). However, Army officials expressed
                             concern over providing the states greater discretion in the use of CSEPP
                             funds because of past indiscretions. In 1995, we reported some of the
                             indiscretions noted by the Army. For example, Arkansas reprogrammed
                             $413,000 in unobligated funds to construct office space, and Washington
                             reprogrammed $100,000 allocated for telecommunication equipment to
                             design an emergency operations center without FEMA headquarters’
                             approval.




                             13
                               Audit of FEMA’s Management of the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program, FEMA
                             Inspector General (Feb. 1993).



                             Page 12                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                            B-276238




Table 4: Selected States’ and Counties’ Comments About the Army and FEMA Management of CSEPP
Organization                  Comment
Alabama Emergency            If CSEPP was effectively managed, the program would be much farther along than it is now.
Management Agency
Clay County Emergency        CSEPP lacks federal leadership and guidance.
Management Agency,
Alabama
Etowah County Emergency      Substantive changes in the program’s management, direction, and budget process are needed to make
Management Agency,           CSEPP effective.
Alabama
Arkansas Office of           Federal agencies lack sensitivity to state and local requirements and micromanage the budget process.
Emergency Services
Jefferson County Office of   Federal agencies need to improve CSEPP’s lines of communications and coordination.
Emergency Services,
Arkansas
Colorado Office of           Federal agencies spend too much effort micromanaging and reevaluating every aspect of the state’s
Emergency Management         program.
Kentucky Disaster and        Recent changes in CSEPP guidance, lines of communications, and responsibilities have hampered the
Emergency Services           progress of the program.
Maryland Emergency           Inadequate and partial funding of CSEPP projects detracts from the state’s ability to respond to a
Management Agency            chemical stockpile emergency.
Baltimore County Office of   If program priorities and guidance were firmly established, CSEPP would be more effective and less
Emergency Preparedness,      costly.
Maryland
Harford County Division of   The Army and FEMA roles and responsibilities are not clear, and they often dictate to state and local
Emergency Operations,        governments.
Maryland
Oregon Emergency             CSEPP lacks good communications, clear priorities, and timely decisions.
Management Agency
Morrow County Emergency      The Army and FEMA roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined.
Management, Oregon
Utah Department of Public    Federal micromanagement of CSEPP compromises the state’s ability to plan, direct, implement, and
Safety                       evaluate the program.
Washington Military          Federal agencies lack clear direction, roles, and responsibilities.
Department
Benton County Emergency      Federal agencies micromanage the program and make decisions with little or no coordination with the
Management, Washington       county.
                                            Note: Based on our prior work and recent visits to 7 of the 10 states and several of their counties,
                                            we believe that these comments are valid and are based on justified concerns about the Army
                                            and FEMA management of the program.



                                            As discussed later in this report, our work shows that the Army and FEMA
                                            have management problems and disagreements that have adversely
                                            affected CSEPP’s effectiveness.




                                            Page 13                                            GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                         B-276238




                         Although Army and FEMA officials have acted in response to criticism and
Efforts to Improve       improved program management, the effectiveness of these actions has
Program Management       been limited by continued disagreements between Army and FEMA
Have Been Frustrated     officials. Specifically, the lack of agreement prevented the Secretary of the
                         Army from timely compliance with the statutory requirement to report on
by Continued             the implementation and success of CSEPP integrated process teams. Two
Disagreements            important steps taken to improve the management of the program were to
                         establish the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team and implement the integrated
                         process teams. However, based on FEMA’s stated positions, we believe that
                         the agency does not fully support the Joint Army/FEMA Team or
                         site-specific integrated process teams. Because of these and other
                         differences regarding their roles and responsibilities, Army and FEMA
                         officials have not agreed to a long-term management arrangement for
                         CSEPP.



Disagreements Over the   In 1993, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported that CSEPP’s
Implementation of the    cost growth and program delays were unacceptable, and indicated that
CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA    there were problems with the program’s management structure.14 In
                         addition, the Committee concluded that the Army and FEMA maintained a
Team                     top-heavy bureaucratic organization to manage the program. The
                         Committee directed the Army to (1) assume full management
                         responsibility for the execution of CSEPP, (2) directly receive and review
                         states’ budget requests for program funds, (3) tighten program controls
                         and ensure timely improvements in local capabilities to respond to a
                         chemical stockpile emergency, (4) streamline CSEPP’s management
                         structure, (5) reevaluate FEMA’s role in CSEPP, (6) establish milestones for
                         critical CSEPP projects, and (7) establish strict financial controls to ensure
                         accountability over program funds. Although the Army established the
                         CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team in response to this direction, the team has not
                         functioned as the Army intended. Specifically, CSEPP’s management
                         structure was not streamlined, and the Army and FEMA continue to share
                         responsibility for executing CSEPP, receiving and reviewing states’ budget
                         requests, and implementing financial controls over program funds.

                         According to the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team’s charter, dated January 6,
                         1995, the joint team was intended to (1) establish a focal point for
                         accountability of the program, (2) coordinate and integrate on- and
                         off-post activities, and (3) create an environment for teamwork. However,
                         according to DOD officials, the team has not functioned as intended.
                         According to FEMA officials, the establishment of the joint team has posed

                         14
                           Senate Report No. 103-158, at 368-369 (1993).



                         Page 14                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                           B-276238




                           several management challenges to FEMA, including the differentiation
                           between the roles and responsibilities of the team and FEMA’s regional
                           offices. FEMA officials have proposed that the Army eliminate the joint
                           team and associated staffing.

                           In August 1996, the Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization
                           reported that, in some situations, FEMA’s implementation of the charter had
                           inhibited the progress of CSEPP.15 According to the Program Manager,
                           pressure from FEMA headquarters’ officials to have the agency’s joint team
                           members spend more of their duty time at FEMA headquarters’ and less
                           with the joint team had impeded their integration with Army’s members.
                           The Program Manager concluded that communications with the CSEPP
                           participants and coordination with the Army had been adversely affected.
                           In response, FEMA’s Deputy Associate Director for Preparedness, Training,
                           and Exercises agreed that the program was not functioning as effectively
                           as it should and that respective roles, responsibilities, and working
                           relationships needed to be clarified.


Disagreements Over the     In the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 104-201, section
Implementation of CSEPP    1076), the Congress directed the Secretary of the Army to submit a report,
Integrated Process Teams   within 120 days of the law’s enactment, that assessed the implementation
                           and success of the site-specific integrated process teams. The act further
                           states that if the Army and FEMA were unsuccessful in implementing the
                           integrated process teams within each of the participating states within
                           120 days, the Secretary of the Army shall (1) assume full control and
                           responsibility for the program by eliminating the role of the FEMA Director
                           as a joint manager; (2) clearly define the goals of the program;
                           (3) establish fiscal constraints for the program; and (4) agree with each of
                           the participating states regarding program requirements, implementation
                           schedules, training and exercise requirements, and funding to include
                           direct grants for program support.

                           In January 1997, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research,
                           Development, and Acquisition, reported that the Army was unable to
                           provide the report on January 28, 1997, as required, because of delays in
                           scheduling required training and the subsequent establishment of
                           site-specific integrated process teams.16 The Army views these teams as a

                           15
                            The Army’s Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization letter to FEMA’s Deputy Associate
                           Director for Preparedness, Training, and Exercises (Aug. 20, 1996).
                           16
                            Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition letter to the Chairman,
                           Senate Committee on Armed Services (Jan. 30, 1997).



                           Page 15                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
B-276238




mechanism for identifying issues, developing solutions, and integrating
program plans and budget submissions among CSEPP jurisdictions at each
stockpile location. The teams will make recommendations to Army and
FEMA officials for consideration and determine solutions to site-specific
issues. The Assistant Secretary’s letter included an interim status of the
formation of the site-specific integrated process teams, concluding that the
training and formation of the teams were nearing completion. He also
reported that FEMA headquarters had some concerns over the efficiency of
the integrated process teams. In contrast, the FEMA regions were
supporting the teams.

In March 1997, the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Research,
Development, and Acquisition, reported to the Chairman of the House
Committee on National Security that the Army was unable to provide the
report, as required, because Army and FEMA officials had not reached
agreement on the long-term management structure for CSEPP and on the
implementation of integrated process teams at the management and
working levels. While training and implementation of the working-level
integrated process teams had been completed, he said that it was
necessary to further delay the submission of the report on the
implementation and success of the teams until May 30, 1997.17 The
Assistant Secretary concluded that, if the Army and FEMA were
unsuccessful in reaching an agreement on the long-term management
structure for CSEPP and integrated process teams, the Army would assume
full control and responsibility for the program. According to FEMA’s
comments on a draft of this report, FEMA officials disagree with Army’s
conclusions in the letters complying with the legislative reporting
requirement.

Several state and local officials we visited were pleased with the initial
results of the teams. However, others expressed concern that the teams
may be good in theory but only add another layer of bureaucracy to the
program. For example, officials in Oregon and Kentucky expressed
concern over which agency or integrated process team would be
responsible for making final decisions.

Although FEMA has participated in CSEPP’s integrated process teams, its
concept for site-specific integrated process teams differs from the Army’s
concept, and the agency has not signed the Army’s proposed
memorandum implementing the integrated process teams. Specifically,

17
  On May 30, 1997, the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Installations, Logistics, and Environment)
informed the Congress that the report would be delayed until July 15, 1997.



Page 16                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                            B-276238




                            FEMA does not want the Army involved in off-post CSEPP activities and
                            wants to eliminate the Army from site-specific integrated process teams.
                            FEMA’s desire to eliminate the Army from site-specific integrated process
                            teams is inconsistent with the tenets of the process and does not recognize
                            the Army’s position that they should work as partners.


Army and FEMA Officials     In September 1996, FEMA’s Deputy Associate Director for Preparedness,
Disagree on FEMA’s Future   Training, and Exercises reported that the Army and FEMA had very
Role                        different management styles and philosophies and that the current
                            approach was not working.18 She concluded that attempts to combine
                            Army and FEMA approaches in developing off-post preparedness
                            capabilities have resulted in delays and conflicting messages to
                            participating states. Additional FEMA correspondence indicates that the
                            agency continues to want to manage all off-post activities with little or no
                            Army involvement.

                            In October 1996, the Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization
                            agreed that Army’s and FEMA’s management styles were different and
                            added that relationships were strained and leadership was less effective
                            than desired.19 The Program Manager reported that maintaining the
                            current management structure would continue regional and state
                            confusion over the program’s leadership and prolong the program’s
                            problems. He concluded that FEMA’s participation in CSEPP was preferred
                            but suggested that FEMA’s role and personnel involved in the program be
                            reduced. (See app. V.) He rejected options to eliminate either the Army’s
                            or FEMA’s role in the program.

                            The Program Manager also provided FEMA with a draft memorandum
                            reorganizing CSEPP. The memorandum identifies the Army Project Manager
                            for CSEPP as the primary program decision-making authority and the
                            site-specific integrated process teams as the primary means of carrying out
                            the program. FEMA officials said they had not agreed to the reorganization
                            because of questions over the integrated process teams and FEMA’s future
                            role in the program. Because of these and other differences regarding their
                            roles and responsibilities, the Army and FEMA have not agreed to a
                            management arrangement for CSEPP after September 1997.



                            18
                             FEMA’s Deputy Associate Director for Preparedness, Training, and Exercises letter to the Army’s
                            Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization (Sept. 20, 1996).
                            19
                             The Army’s Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization letter to FEMA’s Deputy Associate
                            Director for Preparedness, Training, and Exercises (Oct. 9, 1996).



                            Page 17                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                     B-276238




                     We believe that the future effectiveness of CSEPP is at risk given the
Conclusions and      continuing disagreements between Army and FEMA officials and that
Recommendations      high-level management attention is needed to clearly define CSEPP
                     management roles and responsibilities. Therefore, we recommend that the
                     Secretary of the Army and the Director of FEMA work together to complete
                     the mandated assessment of the implementation and success of integrated
                     process teams by July 15, 1997. We also recommend that, as part of this
                     assessment, the Secretary and the Director reach agreement on a
                     long-term management structure for CSEPP that clearly defines the roles
                     and responsibilities of Army and FEMA personnel. Should the Secretary and
                     the Director be unable to complete their assessment and issue a report
                     that includes a plan for revising CSEPP’s management structure, we
                     recommend that the Secretary of the Army implement the requirements of
                     the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act to (1) assume full control and
                     responsibility for the program and eliminate the role of the FEMA Director
                     as a joint manager; (2) clearly define the goals of the program;
                     (3) establish fiscal constraints for the program; and (4) agree with each of
                     the participating states regarding program requirements, implementation
                     schedules, training and exercise requirements, and funding to include
                     direct grants for program support.


                     We received written comments on a draft of this report from both DOD and
Agency Comments      FEMA, and they are presented in their entirety in appendixes VI and VII,
and Our Evaluation   respectively. DOD concurred with the report and its recommendations.
                     FEMA generally concurred with the recommendations but strongly
                     disagreed with our conclusions. Our evaluation of FEMA’s overall response
                     is presented below and our specific comments are presented in
                     appendix VII. We also added information to the report to more fully reflect
                     FEMA’s position. DOD and FEMA also provided technical corrections and
                     clarifications and, where appropriate, we incorporated them in the report
                     as well.

                     FEMA disagreed with our assessment that the program is at risk because of
                     its ongoing differences with the Army. FEMA noted that it has been working
                     closely with the Army to clarify roles, responsibilities, and working
                     relationships and resolve the differences as soon as possible. While we
                     agree that FEMA and the Army have been discussing this issue, it continues
                     to go unresolved after more than a year of discussions. Our concern is not
                     whether the Army’s or FEMA’s approach to resolving the management issue
                     is the more appropriate; we are concerned that CSEPP’s implementation is
                     being delayed because this issue has not been resolved. As a consequence,



                     Page 18                              GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
B-276238




the program’s goal of providing communities with items critical to
responding to a chemical stockpile emergency remains to be achieved
after 9 years and funding of $431.4 million.


We prepared this report under our basic legislative responsibilities. We are
providing it to you because of your oversight responsibilities for chemical
weapons disposal programs. We are also sending copies of this report to
the Secretaries of Defense and the Army, the Directors of the Office of
Management and Budget and FEMA, 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 VIII.




David R. Warren, Director
Defense Management Issues




Page 19                              GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Contents



Letter                                                                                          1


Appendix I                                                                                     24

Objectives, Scope,
and Methodology
Appendix II                                                                                    26

Chemical Stockpile
Locations in the
Continental United
States
Appendix III                                                                                   27

Funds Allocated to
CSEPP Entities in
Fiscal Years 1988-96
Appendix IV                                                                                    28
                       The Final Automated Information System Continues to                     28
Acquisition and          Experience Problems
Installation of        Most Emergency Operation Centers Are Fully Operational                  30
                       Most CSEPP Communication Systems Are Fully Operational                  31
Essential CSEPP        Personal Protective Equipment Purchases Are Scheduled for               32
Projects Are Behind      Completion in 1997 and 1998
Schedule               Personnel Decontamination Equipment Purchases Are Scheduled             33
                         for Completion in 1997
                       Additional Sheltering-in-Place Projects Are Anticipated                 34
                       Most Alert and Notification Systems Are Scheduled for                   35
                         Completion in 1997 and 1998




                       Page 20                          GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                        Contents




Appendix V                                                                                         38

Army’s Proposed
Full-Time Equivalent
Positions for FEMA in
Support of CSEPP
Appendix VI                                                                                        39

Comments From the
Department of
Defense
Appendix VII                                                                                       41

Comments From the
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Appendix VIII                                                                                      60

Major Contributors to
This Report
Related GAO Products                                                                               64


Tables                  Table 1: Availability of Five Critical CSEPP-Funded Items in the            4
                          States We Visited
                        Table 2: Allocation of CSEPP Funds in Fiscal Years 1988-96                  6
                        Table 3: Availability of Critical CSEPP-Funded Items                        7
                        Table 4: Selected States’ and Counties’ Comments About the                 13
                          Army and FEMA Management of CSEPP
                        Table IV.1: Status of CSEPP Automated Information Systems, by              30
                          Location
                        Table IV.2: Status of CSEPP Communication Systems, by                      32
                          Location
                        Table IV.3: Status and Funding of CSEPP Personal Protective                33
                          Equipment, by Location




                        Page 21                             GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
         Contents




         Table IV.4: Status and Funding of Personnel Decontamination                34
           Equipment, by Location
         Table IV.5: Status and Funding of CSEPP Pressurization Projects,           35
           by Location
         Table IV.6: Status and Funding of Outdoor Siren Systems, by                36
           Location
         Table IV.7: Status and Funding of Indoor Alert Radio Projects, by          37
           Location

Figure   Figure 1: Estimated Allocation of CSEPP Funds for Fiscal Years             10
           1997-2004




         Abbreviations

         CSEPP      Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program
         DOD        Department of Defense
         FEMA       Federal Emergency Management Agency
         FEMIS      Federal Emergency Management Information System


         Page 22                             GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Page 23   GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology


              In July 1996, we reported that 8 years after the Chemical Stockpile
              Emergency Preparedness Program’s (CSEPP) inception, Alabama
              communities near Anniston Army Depot were not fully prepared to
              respond to a chemical stockpile emergency because they lacked critical
              items. Given the lack of progress in Alabama’s CSEPP and prior CSEPP
              management weaknesses we have reported on, we conducted a follow-up
              review to (1) assess CSEPP’s progress in enhancing emergency
              preparedness in all 10 states participating in the program and (2) identify
              opportunities to improve program management.

              To assess CSEPP’s progress in enhancing emergency preparedness in the
              states participating in the program, we examined a variety of Army,
              Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state, and county
              planning and funding documents and reconciled data among the Army,
              FEMA, and state and county emergency management agencies. We
              interviewed and obtained and analyzed data on the status of CSEPP projects
              from officials of the Army Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization
              and the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team located at Edgewood, Maryland, and
              from officials of the Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; the Anniston
              Army Depot, Alabama; the Pine Bluff Arsenal, Arkansas; the Pueblo Depot
              Activity, Colorado; the Tooele Army Depot, Utah; and the Umatilla Depot
              Activity, Oregon. We also met with officials from FEMA headquarters and
              regional offices in Atlanta, Georgia, and Bothell, Washington. Although we
              met with officials from the Army installations where the chemical
              stockpile munitions are stored, we did not try to assess the status of the
              installations’ emergency preparedness programs.

              To observe emergency preparedness operations and facilities, we visited
              Alabama and its Calhoun and Talladega counties, Arkansas and its
              Jefferson and Grant counties, Colorado and its Pueblo county, Maryland
              and its Harford and Baltimore counties, Oregon and its Morrow and
              Umatilla counties, Utah and its Tooele and Salt Lake counties, and
              Washington and its Benton county. We also interviewed and obtained data
              on the status and costs of CSEPP projects from emergency management
              officials in Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. In addition, we sent
              questionnaires to the 10 state and 40 county program directors at the end
              of 1995 to obtain data on the status of their emergency preparedness
              programs and on their views of the Army’s and FEMA’s joint management of
              the program. All state and county program directors responded to our
              questionnaire. We updated portions of the questionnaire responses
              through interviews and data collection instruments in October 1996
              through February 1997. For those critical projects not yet completed, we



              Page 24                              GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology




did not attempt to determine their impact on emergency preparedness and
risk to the local population, but we identified and analyzed the reasons for
the delay in their implementation.

To identify opportunities to improve program management, we discussed
the actions the Army has taken and further actions that should be taken to
improve the program with Army, FEMA, state, and local officials. We also
discussed the impact of the Army’s actions and reviewed planning
documents, progress reports, memoranda, and correspondence. We
discussed the CSEPP benchmarks and guidance with federal, state, and
local officials to determine how this guidance was applied in implementing
the program. Furthermore, we compared planning and operational data for
CSEPP projects with the benchmarks and guidance and determined whether
the projects complied with program requirements and time frames. To
assess the effectiveness of the federal, state, and county management, we
reviewed the Army’s and FEMA’s management structure and guidance and
compared them with state and local requirements and concerns. We also
documented and analyzed the magnitude and impact of state and county
emergency management agencies’ involvement in the funding process,
federal feedback on the budget process, partial funding of projects, and
slow disbursements of funds.

The Department of Defense (DOD) and FEMA provided written comments on
a draft of this report and they are presented in their entirety in appendixes
VI and VII, respectively. DOD agreed with the recommendations in our draft
report. FEMA generally concurred with the recommendations but strongly
disagreed with our conclusions. Our evaluation of FEMA’s specific points is
presented in appendix VII. DOD and FEMA also provided technical
clarifications and, where appropriate, we incorporated them in the report.

Our review was conducted from August 1996 to March 1997 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.




Page 25                              GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix II

Chemical Stockpile Locations in the
Continental United States



      Umatilla Army Depot
        Activity, Oregon




                                                                                                        Newport Chemical
                                                                                                         Activity, Indiana




                                                                                                                                 Aberdeen Proving
                                                                                                                                 Ground, Maryland




                                                                                                                              Blue Grass Army
                                                                                                                              Depot, Kentucky
  Tooele Army
   Depot, Utah




                                                                                                                        Anniston Army
                          Pueblo Depot                                                                                  Depot, Alabama
                         Activity, Colorado




                                                                                       Pine Bluff
                                                                                    Arsenal, Arkansas

             States participating in the Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program.




                                                  Source: Based on data provided by the Army’s Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization.




                                                  Page 26                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix III

Funds Allocated to CSEPP Entities in Fiscal
Years 1988-96


Dollars in thousands
Entity                                                                                                           Amount         Percent
Army headquarters and commands                                                                                  $27,846.2               6.5
Army installations                                                                                               36,070.1               8.4
Army major contracts (over $100,000)a                                                                            88,195.0              20.4
Other Army contractsa                                                                                               398.3               0.1
FEMA headquarters and regions                                                                                    14,667.0               3.4
                 a
FEMA contracts                                                                                                   28,567.4               6.6
Alabama and counties                                                                                             54,808.6              12.7
Arkansas and counties                                                                                            22,030.5               5.1
Colorado and county                                                                                              14,670.6               3.4
Illinois and counties                                                                                             3,877.1               0.9
Indiana and counties                                                                                             14,336.7               3.3
Kentucky and counties                                                                                            21,194.6               4.9
Maryland and counties                                                                                            19,382.5               4.5
Oregon and counties                                                                                              25,303.0               5.9
Utah and counties                                                                                                27,991.2               6.5
Washington and county                                                                                            17,184.2               4.0
Other entities                                                                                                    1,093.1               0.3
Not allocated                                                                                                    13,766.4               3.2
Total                                                                                                         $431,382.5              100.0
                                        a
                                         According to the Army and FEMA, these contracts support the entire CSEPP community and
                                        include direct support to Army installations; the development of program guidance, training
                                        courses, and computer programs; and the procurement of personal protective equipment and
                                        computer hardware and software.

                                        Source: The Army’s Project Manager for CSEPP.




                                        Page 27                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix IV

Acquisition and Installation of Essential
CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule

                      Implementation of projects needed to respond to a chemical stockpile
                      emergency is behind schedule. States and local communities still lack
                      items critical to responding to a chemical stockpile emergency, including
                      integrated communication systems, personnel protective equipment,
                      personnel decontamination equipment, sheltering-in-place enhancements,
                      and alert and notification systems.


                      In 1994, officials estimated that the installation of the final CSEPP
The Final Automated   automated information system would be completed by July 1995. The
Information System    CSEPP automated information system—computer equipment and

Continues to          software—is required to support planning and managing emergency
                      response activities. The process of determining appropriate protective
Experience Problems   actions is too complex and time-consuming to perform manually during a
                      chemical stockpile emergency. Computer equipment and software are
                      considered essential in helping local officials to plan for the appropriate
                      protective actions. In 1993, the Army and FEMA started to develop a
                      standard automated information system, called the Federal Emergency
                      Management Information System (FEMIS), with the specifications of
                      software requirements by the CSEPP community. The Army started testing
                      FEMIS in September 1994, and since then, the system has undergone eight
                      tests, culminating in the government acceptance test in Alabama. Although
                      the Army spent $14.7 million on FEMIS,1 the system still has problems.

                      During the period September 9 through 20, 1996, the Army tested FEMIS at
                      the Anniston CSEPP site, and the system met most performance measures.
                      The test plan identified 75 measures of performance. Of these, 59 were
                      satisfied, 5 failed, and 11 were not tested. According to personnel
                      participating in the test, however, the system was slow and cumbersome.
                      In addition, the reliability, availability, and maintainability parameters for
                      FEMIS had not been established and were not evaluated as in a traditional
                      operational test. The test was structured to determine the level of
                      confidence that the reliability, availability, and maintainability of the
                      system is progressing. Test results indicated that FEMIS was available for
                      61 percent of the training and test period. The predominant reason for the
                      system’s unavailability was its inability to update data from one CSEPP
                      location to another, which occurred when power at a CSEPP site either
                      surged or was interrupted. For example, during the test, the Alabama
                      emergency operations center was struck by lightning. Other sites
                      experienced interruptions in telephone connections when the local
                      telephone company was making repairs and when nearby construction

                      1
                       Funding is through fiscal year 1996.



                      Page 28                                 GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix IV
Acquisition and Installation of Essential
CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule




workers cut a telephone cable. Hardware and software maintenance was
outside the scope of the test and was not evaluated.

Because of the system’s technical problems and requirement for
supplemental personnel, Army and FEMA officials decided in 1996 that
FEMIS was the preferred but optional system. As a result, the system may
not be adopted by all participating states and counties (see table IV.1).
Until FEMIS is operational, CSEPP states and counties are using interim
automated information systems—computer equipment and software—to
support planning and managing emergency response activities. These
interim systems include the Army’s Emergency Management Information
System (designed to be used by Army installations where the chemical
stockpile weapons are stored) and Integrated Baseline System (designed
to be used by the off-post communities).




Page 29                                     GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                         Appendix IV
                                         Acquisition and Installation of Essential
                                         CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule




Table IV.1: Status of CSEPP Automated Information Systems, by Location
Location                                  Status
Alabama and counties                     The state and counties are now using the on-post Emergency Management Information
                                         System. The state and counties may decide to field FEMIS.
Arkansas and counties                    At the beginning of 1997, the state and counties installed the Emergency Management
                                         Information System. Final selection of the automated information system will be based on
                                         the results of FEMIS’ government acceptance test.
Colorado and county                      Pueblo County is now using the Emergency Management Information System. The state
                                         and county may select either the Emergency Management Information System or FEMIS
                                         depending on the results of the government acceptance test of FEMIS. Full
                                         implementation at Pueblo County depends on CSEPP’s providing adequate support for
                                         the system and network management. Negotiations with FEMA for contract support are
                                         continuing.
Illinois and counties                    The state and counties are now using the Emergency Management Information System.
                                         The state has requested $100,000 for computer equipment and work stations. Final
                                         selection of the automated information system will be based on the results of FEMIS’
                                         government acceptance test.
Indiana and counties                     The state and counties are currently using the Emergency Management Information
                                         System. Final selection of the automated information system will be based on the results
                                         of FEMIS’ government acceptance test.
Kentucky and counties                    The state and county will be using the Emergency Management Information System and
                                         plan to switch to FEMIS.
Maryland and counties                    The state and counties are now using a variety of over-the-counter software, including
                                         the Emergency Information System and SoftRisk, and have detached copies of the
                                         Emergency Management Information System. The state and counties are not connected
                                         to the automated information system at Aberdeen Proving Ground, but funding was
                                         provided for the connection for the state and Harford County in fiscal year 1997. Final
                                         selection of the automated information system will be based on the results of FEMIS’
                                         government acceptance test and correction of faults.
Oregon and counties                      The state and counties are currently using the Integrated Baseline System, but plan to
                                         switch to FEMIS.
Utah and counties                        The state and counties are using FEMIS, but the system is not fully operational. Tooele
                                         County is using portions of the Emergency Management Information System to
                                         communicate with the Tooele Army Depot for the daily work plans and hazard
                                         assessments. The county decided to use the Emergency Management Information
                                         System and not FEMIS.
Washington and county                    Equipment has been purchased, installed, and configured for the installation of FEMIS.
                                         At the discretion of the Army, the installation of FEMIS software is expected in mid-May
                                         1997.



                                         In 1993, the Army and FEMA agreed that each Army installation and
Most Emergency                           immediate response zone county should have a functioning emergency
Operation Centers Are                    operations center where responsible officials can gather to direct and
Fully Operational                        coordinate emergency operations, speak with other jurisdictions and
                                         emergency response officials in the field, and formulate protective action
                                         decisions.



                                         Page 30                                     GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                    Appendix IV
                    Acquisition and Installation of Essential
                    CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule




                    Benton County, Washington; Harford County, Maryland; Vermillion
                    County, Indiana; the state of Colorado; and Morrow and Umatilla counties,
                    Oregon; are constructing or trying to upgrade their emergency operation
                    centers. At an estimated cost of $1.5 million, Benton County’s center is
                    scheduled to be completed by August 1997. Construction of a new
                    operations center in Harford County, Maryland, is scheduled to be
                    completed in mid-May 1997. In Indiana, Vermillion County is trying to
                    upgrade its emergency operations center to better support the CSEPP
                    automated information system. Vermillion County has set aside $140,000
                    for the project but received a contractual bid of $197,000 for the project.
                    The county is requesting $57,000 in CSEPP funds to pay for the funding
                    shortfall. In fiscal year 1996, Colorado requested $20,000 to determine the
                    requirements for a state-operated emergency operations center, but the
                    request was denied.2 The state requested funding again in fiscal year 1997.

                    According to local officials in Oregon, the Morrow County emergency
                    operations center does not meet CSEPP requirements. In fiscal year 1992,
                    the Army and FEMA provided Morrow County $315,000 to renovate an
                    existing building for the county’s emergency operations center. The
                    Morrow County Emergency Management Director said that his center has
                    limited capacity, lacking adequate space for CSEPP equipment, and should
                    be expanded.3 In Umatilla County, construction of the new CSEPP
                    emergency operations center is scheduled to be completed in
                    February 1998.


                    In 1992, the Army and FEMA determined that every CSEPP jurisdiction
Most CSEPP          should have a functioning communications system connecting the Army
Communication       installation, state emergency management agency, and immediate
Systems Are Fully   response zone counties. The system should provide direct, reliable, and
                    redundant communications capabilities to interagency and intra-agency
Operational         emergency response workers. Currently, 5 of the 10 CSEPP states have fully
                    operational CSEPP communication systems. The communication systems in
                    Alabama, Kentucky, and Oregon do not meet program standards, and
                    Illinois and Utah are upgrading their communication systems. (See
                    table IV.2.)




                    2
                     The Pueblo County Emergency Operations Center has been operational since 1992.
                    3
                     The center includes office space and a holding cell for the county sheriff.



                    Page 31                                             GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                        Appendix IV
                                        Acquisition and Installation of Essential
                                        CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule




Table IV.2: Status of CSEPP Communication Systems, by Location
Location                                 Status
Alabama and counties                    The primary CSEPP communications system is not operational, but is fully funded. The
                                        county project manager expects to begin operational testing in August 1997 and begin
                                        operations in March 1998.
Arkansas and counties                   The CSEPP communications system is operational.
Colorado and county                     The CSEPP communications system is operational.
Illinois and counties                   The state is upgrading its CSEPP communications system.
Indiana and counties                    The CSEPP communications system is operational.
Kentucky and counties                   The funded elements of the communications system are operational. The state wants to
                                        expand the current system and requested additional funds in fiscal year 1997. Funding
                                        was deferred, pending completion of a cost-sharing agreement between the state and
                                        Madison County.
Maryland and counties                   The CSEPP communications system is operational.
Oregon and counties                     Oregon is experiencing contractual and technical problems in implementing the CSEPP
                                        communications system, and the system is not fully operational. These problems are
                                        considered significant, and the completion date of the system is not known. The project
                                        is managed by the state of Oregon.
Utah and counties                       According to county officials, the CSEPP communications system is not fully operational.
                                        Two new microwave links are required to provide proper communications coverage
                                        linking the state and counties. Partial funding was approved, but a second allocation is
                                        needed to purchase and install the equipment. Tooele County also needs to replace two
                                        obsolete microwave links that provide voice and data communications and siren
                                        activation capabilities. Army officials said that the current CSEPP communications
                                        system in Utah was operational without these upgrades.
Washington and county                   The CSEPP communications system is operational.



                                        Personal protective equipment has been considered a critical response
Personal Protective                     requirement for several years. In July 1994, the Argonne National
Equipment Purchases                     Laboratory concluded there was a potential for the aerosol deposition of
Are Scheduled for                       agents off post from a chemical stockpile accident.4 The deposition
                                        creates the requirement for personal protective equipment, which includes
Completion in 1997                      portable respirators, protective suits, gloves, boots, and hoods. Because of
and 1998                                their assigned traffic, decontamination, health, and other critical response
                                        duties at the periphery of the chemical plume, local emergency workers
                                        may find themselves in danger of contamination from an unexpected shift
                                        in the plume. Although the states received funding for the equipment in
                                        1995 or before, only communities in Utah have the required personal
                                        protective equipment. Other CSEPP jurisdictions are now determining
                                        requirements or acquiring the equipment. These projects are scheduled to
                                        be completed in 1997 and 1998. (See table IV.3.)

                                        4
                                         Potential for Surface Contamination by Deposition of Chemical Agent Following Accidental Release
                                        at an Army Storage Depot, Argonne National Laboratory (July 1994).



                                        Page 32                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                           Appendix IV
                                           Acquisition and Installation of Essential
                                           CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule




Table IV.3: Status and Funding of CSEPP Personal Protective Equipment, by Location
Location                     Status                                                                                         Fundinga
Alabama and counties        The project is not completed. According to state officials, only a portion of the requirement   $850,000
                            has been funded. Talladega County has received government-furnished equipment, and
                            Calhoun County is now acquiring the equipment. Procurement of additional equipment will
                            be based on a needs assessment, scheduled to be completed in late 1997.
Arkansas and counties       The project is not completed. The equipment was funded in September 1995 and will be             720,000
                            purchased based on recommendations of the Arkansas integrated process team.
Colorado and county         The project is not completed. The equipment was funded in fiscal year 1995 and part of           760,000
                            the equipment is scheduled to be purchased in early 1997. Issues regarding the remaining
                            equipment are being negotiated by Army and FEMA officials.
Illinois and counties       The project is not completed. The equipment was funded in fiscal year 1995 and is                200,000
                            scheduled for delivery in mid-1997.
Indiana and counties        The project is not completed. The equipment was funded in fiscal year 1995, 400 suits            400,000
                            have been received, and the protective masks are scheduled for delivery in July 1997.
Kentucky and counties       The project is not completed. The equipment was funded in fiscal year 1995. It will be           400,000
                            purchased based on the state’s needs assessment, to be completed in October 1997.
Maryland and counties       The project is not completed. Equipment was funded in fiscal year 1995, but the funds           1,240,000
                            were retained at the state pending completion of a federal, state, and county team’s review
                            and selection of equipment. However, this effort was placed on hold, pending the results
                            of the Maryland integrated process team’s examination of all aspects of CSEPP in the state.
Oregon and counties         The project is not completed. The equipment was funded in fiscal year 1995 and 277               420,000
                            protective masks were received in January 1997. Federal, state, and local officials
                            disagree over which protective suit to purchase and whether an additional person is
                            needed to support and care for the personal protective equipment.
Utah and counties           The project is completed. The equipment was funded in fiscal year 1993 and received in           648,000
                            December 1996.
Washington and county       The project is not completed. The equipment was funded in 1995, but no procurement               445,000
                            action will be taken, pending the completion of negotiations over monitoring requirements
                            and the appropriate type of equipment.
                                           a
                                            Allocated funds for fiscal years 1988-96.




                                           The most urgent decontamination priority during a chemical stockpile
Personnel                                  emergency is the cleansing of people contaminated with chemical agents.
Decontamination                            The decontamination process helps to minimize the effects on people’s
Equipment Purchases                        health and to prevent the spread of agents to other people. Communities in
                                           Arkansas and Utah have operational decontamination units. The remaining
Are Scheduled for                          locations have received funding for personnel decontamination units and
Completion in 1997                         are conducting need assessments, acquiring the equipment, or requesting
                                           additional equipment to move the units. The decontamination projects are
                                           scheduled to be completed in 1997. (See table IV.4.)




                                           Page 33                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                           Appendix IV
                                           Acquisition and Installation of Essential
                                           CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule




Table IV.4: Status and Funding of Personnel Decontamination Equipment, by Location
Location                     Status                                                                                                 Fundinga
Alabama and counties        The project is not completed. Four decontamination units were funded in fiscal year 1995                $216,000
                            and delivered to Calhoun County in February 1996. The Alabama Department of Public
                            Health has purchased and delivered small decontamination units to each of the nine
                            hospitals in the area. According to Alabama Emergency Management Agency officials,
                            there is an unmet requirement for more than 10 additional decontamination units.
Arkansas and counties       The project is completed.                                                                                517,000
Colorado and county         The project is not completed. Four decontamination units were funded in fiscal year 1995                 240,000
                            and are scheduled for delivery in 1997.
Illinois and counties       The project is not completed. Eight decontamination units were funded in fiscal year 1995.                 64,000
                            Federal and state officials are negotiating design requirements.
Indiana and counties        The project is not completed. Four decontamination units were funded in fiscal year 1995                   44,000
                            and are scheduled for delivery in December 1997.
Kentucky and counties       The project is not completed. Kentucky’s needs assessment was completed in October                       250,000
                            1996. Five decontamination units were funded in fiscal year 1995 to cover basic
                            requirements, and the units are scheduled for delivery by September 1997.
Maryland and counties       The project is not completed. Equipment was funded in fiscal year 1995, but the funds                      35,684
                            were retained at the state, pending completion of a federal, state, and county team’s
                            review and selection of equipment.b
Oregon and counties         The project is not completed. Four decontamination units were funded in fiscal year 1995.                200,000
                            Federal and county officials are negotiating the type of decontamination units to purchase.
Utah and counties           The project is completed. Four decontamination units were purchased.                                     291,000
Washington and county       The project is not completed. The initial proposal covers the equipment costs for the main               152,000
                            traffic control points and a reception center and includes four small decontamination
                            trailers and equipment for the construction of decontamination stations.
                                           a
                                           Allocated funds for fiscal years 1988-96.
                                           b
                                            This effort was placed on hold pending the results of the Maryland integrated process team’s
                                           review of all aspects of CSEPP in the state. As a result of this review, CSEPP requirements have
                                           been reduced. Inflatable decontamination tents and some equipment were purchased in 1997 to
                                           augment Harford County’s existing decontamination capabilities.




                                           Program documents state that people closest to most stockpile storage
Additional                                 sites will not have time to evacuate and will remain in place during a
Sheltering-in-Place                        chemical stockpile release. Sheltering-in-place enhancements can be as
Projects Are                               simple as taping doors and windows or as elaborate as installing
                                           pressurized air filtration systems in schools, hospitals, jails, community
Anticipated                                centers, and public buildings. Pressurization systems draw outside air into
                                           the shelter through a filter that removes the chemical agent. The pressure
                                           from this filtered air increases to the point that the contaminated air from
                                           the outside cannot leak into the facility. Pressurized air-filtration systems
                                           have been completed in Arkansas and Maryland and are scheduled for




                                           Page 34                                          GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                           Appendix IV
                                           Acquisition and Installation of Essential
                                           CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule




                                           completion in Alabama, Colorado, Indiana, and Oregon. Communities in
                                           Illinois, Kentucky, Utah, and Washington are located too far from the
                                           chemical stockpile sites to require pressurized air-filtration systems for
                                           their facilities. (See table IV.5.)


Table IV.5: Status and Funding of CSEPP Pressurization Projects, by Location
Location                     Status                                                                                         Fundinga
Alabama and counties        The pressurization projects are not completed. In fiscal years 1995 and 1996, the state        $7,400,000
                            received funding for pressurization of 37 facilities in Calhoun County. The projects are
                            scheduled to be completed by June 1999. State and county officials believe that additional
                            projects will be funded in the future.
Arkansas and counties       The pressurization project is completed.                                                         140,175
Colorado and county         The pressurization projects are not completed. Two projects in the immediate response            200,000
                            zone were funded in fiscal year 1995 and are tentatively schedule to be completed in late
                            1997. According to Army officials, the lack of adequate action by the county has delayed
                            this project.
Illinois and counties       There is no requirement.
Indiana and counties        The pressurization projects are not completed. Vermillion County plans to protect the             87,500
                            county jail. Funding has not been spent, pending the results of a technical review of the
                            project. County officials expect that additional funding will be needed to complete the
                            project.
Kentucky and counties       There is no requirement.
Maryland and counties       The pressurization projects are near completion. Pressurization equipment was installed in      1,016,100
                            four Harford County schools in fiscal year 1996 and completed and tested in January
                            1997. As a result of additional FEMA guidance in January 1997, the county and its
                            contractors are considering additional changes to the pressurization projects. County
                            officials estimate that additional costs of $300,000 and delays of 6 months may be realized.
Oregon and counties         The pressurization projects are not completed. In fiscal years 1994 and 1995, the state         2,800,398
                            received funding for the pressurization of 14 facilities in Morrow and Umatilla counties.
                            Morrow County projects are scheduled to be completed in 1997. Umatilla County has
                            requested additional funding to complete its projects.
Utah and counties           There is no requirement.
Washington and county       There is no requirement.
                                           a
                                            Allocated funds for fiscal years 1988-96.




                                           During the initial minutes of a chemical stockpile emergency, sirens and
Most Alert and                             tone alert radios should instruct government officials, emergency response
Notification Systems                       workers, and residents on what protective actions to take. Outdoor sirens
Are Scheduled for                          with voice message capability can alert the population of the emergency
                                           and provide instructional messages about appropriate protective actions.
Completion in 1997                         Tone alert radios are placed in homes, schools, hospitals, jails, nursing
and 1998                                   homes, and businesses to provide alert signals and instructional messages.




                                           Page 35                                      GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                           Appendix IV
                                           Acquisition and Installation of Essential
                                           CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule




                                           Initially, CSEPP officials planned to have alert and notification equipment
                                           installed and tested by October 1992. In 1994, we reported that program
                                           officials anticipated that sirens would be installed at all eight storage sites
                                           by January 1995 and that tone alert radios would be installed at six sites by
                                           October 1995.

                                           Communities in 6 of the 10 CSEPP states have operational siren systems.
                                           Communities in Illinois are located too far from the Newport Chemical
                                           Activity, Indiana, to require a system. The remaining siren systems are
                                           schedules to be completed in 1997 and 1998. (See table IV.6.)


Table IV.6: Status and Funding of Outdoor Siren Systems, by Location
Location                     Status                                                                                       Fundinga
Alabama and counties        The siren system is operational. The first installment is completed, but county officials    $2,417,602
                            anticipate that the county will need additional sirens.
Arkansas and counties       The siren system is operational.                                                              1,312,368
Colorado and county         The siren system is not completed. Federal funding was allocated in 1994 for sirens. A         475,000
                            sound propagation study was completed in February 1996, and funds for the siren system
                            are scheduled to be committed in late 1997.
Illinois and counties       There is no requirement for sirens.
Indiana and counties        The siren system is operational.                                                              1,061,288
Kentucky and counties       The siren system is operational.                                                               873,244
Maryland and counties       The siren system is not fully operational. The contract was awarded in April 1996, and        1,294,700
                            installation and testing were completed in December 1996 and January 1997, respectively.
                            As a result of problems encountered during the initial test, the final 60-day test and
                            prove-out period has been delayed, and the state will not take possession of the system
                            until the period is successfully completed.
Oregon and counties         Forty-two sirens were installed, but the system is not operational. The project is managed    1,373,758
                            by the state of Oregon.
Utah and counties           The siren system is operational.                                                              1,755,771
Washington and county       The siren system is operational. Testing of the siren system was completed in February        1,687,406
                            1997.
                                           a
                                            Allocated funds for fiscal years 1988-96.



                                           In general, homes and buildings in communities near the chemical
                                           stockpile sites do not have tone alert radios. The exception is Kentucky,
                                           where 5,000 radios have been installed and additional radios are scheduled
                                           to be installed in 1997 and 1998. Most of the remaining indoor alert radio
                                           projects are scheduled to be completed in 1997 and 1998. (See table IV.7.)




                                           Page 36                                       GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                                            Appendix IV
                                            Acquisition and Installation of Essential
                                            CSEPP Projects Are Behind Schedule




Table IV.7: Status and Funding of Indoor Alert Radio Projects, by Location
Location                     Status                                                                                                    Fundinga
Alabama and counties         The project is not completed. The radios are scheduled to be installed in December 1998,                $4,002,850
                             pending completion of the demographics survey in April 1998.
Arkansas and counties        The project is not completed. The radios are scheduled to be installed in October 1997.                  2,043,720
Colorado and countyb         The project is not completed. Funds for the tone alert radios and infrastructure were                       600,000
                             allocated in fiscal year 1995 and are scheduled to be committed by late 1997.
Illinois and counties        There is no requirement for tone alert radios.
Indiana and counties         The project is not completed. The state estimates that the project will cost $1,319,500 to               1,319,500
                             complete. The radios are scheduled to be installed and operational by July 1997.
Kentucky and counties        The project is partially completed. Ten thousand radios have been delivered, of which                    3,890,371
                             5,000 have been installed; the remaining 5,000 radios are scheduled to be installed in
                             mid-1997. Additional radios are scheduled to be purchased and installed by March 1998.
Maryland and counties        The project is not completed. Requirements for tone alert radios will not be addressed until                650,000
                             the Maryland integrated process team completes its review of all aspects of CSEPP in the
                             state. According to Harford County officials, it is possible that few or no tone alert radios
                             will be needed.
Oregon and countiesb         The project is not completed. Procurement of the radios is deferred, pending completion of               3,713,300
                             a review of alternatives to tone alert radios. The review is scheduled to be completed in
                             1997.
Utah and counties            The project is not completed. Installation of tone alert radios in households is in progress                574,570
                             and scheduled to be completed in mid-1997. The procurement of enhanced radios with
                             printing capabilities for special need populations and facilities is in progress and
                             scheduled to be completed at the end of 1997.
Washington and countyb       The project is not completed.                                                                               100,000
                                            a
                                             Allocated funds for fiscal years 1988-96.
                                            b
                                             In an effort to reduce the cost of each tone alert radio through economies of scale, Colorado,
                                            Oregon, and Washington are attempting to combine their purchases.




                                            Page 37                                           GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix V

Army’s Proposed Full-Time Equivalent
Positions for FEMA in Support of CSEPP


                                                                                                     Full-time
              Position                                           Location                           equivalent
              CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team action                  Edgewood, Maryland                             6
              officers
              Clerical and administrative support                Edgewood, Maryland                             2
              Information technology support                     Olney, Maryland                    As needed
              Emergency Management Institute                     Emmittsburg, Maryland                          1
              Exercise support                                   Washington, D.C.                               2
              Public affairs support                             Washington, D.C.                               1
              Financial and administrative support               Washington, D.C.                               2
              Planning and federal preparedness                  Washington, D.C.                               1
              coordination
              Clerical and administrative support                Washington, D.C.                               1
              Action officers, FEMA Region III                   Philadelphia, Pennsylvania                     3
              Action officers, FEMA Region IV                    Atlanta, Georgia                               4
              Action officers, FEMA Region V                     Chicago, Illinois                              3
              Action officers, FEMA Region VII                   Kansas City, Missouri                          3
              Action officers, FEMA Region VIII                  Denver, Colorado                               4
              Action officers, FEMA Region X                     Seattle, Washington                            4
              Total                                                                                            37
              Source: Based on correspondence from the Army’s Program Manager for Chemical
              Demilitarization to FEMA’s Deputy Associate Director for Preparedness, Training, and Exercises
              (Aug. 20, 1996).




              Page 38                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VI

Comments From the Department of Defense




              Page 39     GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                Appendix VI
                Comments From the Department of Defense




Now on p. 18.




Now on p. 18.




Now on p. 18.




                Page 40                                   GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VII

Comments From the Federal Emergency
Management Agency

Note: GAO comments
supplementing those in the
report text appear at the
end of this appendix.




See comment 1.




                             Page 41   GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VII
Comments From the Federal Emergency
Management Agency




Page 42                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                 Appendix VII
                 Comments From the Federal Emergency
                 Management Agency




See comment 1.




                 Page 43                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                 Appendix VII
                 Comments From the Federal Emergency
                 Management Agency




See comment 1.




                 Page 44                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                 Appendix VII
                 Comments From the Federal Emergency
                 Management Agency




Now on p. 4.




See comment 2.




Now on p. 4.




See comment 3.




                 Page 45                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                 Appendix VII
                 Comments From the Federal Emergency
                 Management Agency




Now on p. 4.


See comment 4.




                 Page 46                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                 Appendix VII
                 Comments From the Federal Emergency
                 Management Agency




Now on p. 5.




See comment 5.




Now on p. 7.



See comment 6.




                 Page 47                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                 Appendix VII
                 Comments From the Federal Emergency
                 Management Agency




Now on p. 8.



See comment 7.




Now on p. 11.




See comment 8.




                 Page 48                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VII
Comments From the Federal Emergency
Management Agency




Page 49                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                 Appendix VII
                 Comments From the Federal Emergency
                 Management Agency




Now on p. 12.




See comment 9.




                 Page 50                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                  Appendix VII
                  Comments From the Federal Emergency
                  Management Agency




Now on p. 13.




See comment 10.




Now on p. 14.




See comment 11.




                  Page 51                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                  Appendix VII
                  Comments From the Federal Emergency
                  Management Agency




Now on p. 14.



See comment 12.




                  Page 52                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VII
Comments From the Federal Emergency
Management Agency




Page 53                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                  Appendix VII
                  Comments From the Federal Emergency
                  Management Agency




See comment 13.




                  Page 54                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
                  Appendix VII
                  Comments From the Federal Emergency
                  Management Agency




See comment 14.




                  Page 55                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
               Appendix VII
               Comments From the Federal Emergency
               Management Agency




               The following are GAO’s comments on the letter from the Director, FEMA,
               dated April 22, 1997.


               1. The issues raised here are also covered in FEMA’s detailed comments and
GAO Comments   we respond to them specifically in the agency comments and evaluation
               section of the report and the notes that follow.

               2. Our report states that state and local emergency response capability has
               increased since the implementation of CSEPP. However, as shown in
               table 3, in some cases progress has been made but, in others, much
               remains to be done to provide all 10 CSEPP states and their counties with
               the items CSEPP officials have defined as critical to emergency
               preparedness.1

               We revised the report to reflect FEMA’s position that CSEPP states and local
               communities could respond to a chemical stockpile emergency even
               though they do not have all critical CSEPP items. We also reviewed FEMA
               capability graphs and, where appropriate incorporated them in the report.
               However, we did not assess whether states and local communities have
               operational capability to respond to a chemical incident. Our conclusion
               that states and local communities lack critical items is based on CSEPP
               benchmarks and guidance and data from the Army, FEMA, states, and local
               communities, and we continue to believe this is the appropriate criteria for
               measuring progress.

               We disagree with FEMA’s position that program delays were not the result
               of disagreements between the Army and FEMA over their respective roles
               and responsibilities. Despite attempts to streamline decisionmaking for
               programmatic and budget issues, five federal offices are still involved in
               decisionmaking. State and local officials have expressed confusion over
               which office is in charge and reported that the fragmented management
               structure delayed decisionmaking. In October 1995, CSEPP state directors
               identified 27 individual issues and concerns. One concern was the lack of
               an agreement defining the roles and responsibilities of the Army and FEMA
               headquarters and the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team. This basic problem
               continues today.



               1
                Our conclusion that CSEPP states and local communities lacked critical items was based on CSEPP
               standards. Specifically, we used the 1993 CSEPP National Benchmarks and the May 17, 1996, CSEPP
               Planning Guidance as our criterion to determine whether local communities should have the
               emergency preparedness or response items. To assess the availability of those items in the CSEPP
               communities, we used data from the Army, FEMA, states, and local communities.



               Page 56                                         GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VII
Comments From the Federal Emergency
Management Agency




Moreover, both FEMA and Army officials have reported that their
disagreements over management roles and responsibilities have resulted
in program delays. For example in September 1996, the FEMA Deputy
Associate Director for Preparedness, Training, and Exercises wrote that
CSEPP was not functioning as effectively as it might and that respective
roles, responsibilities, and working relationships needed to be clarified.
Similarly, in October 1996, the Army Program Manager for Chemical
Demilitarization wrote that the Army and FEMA leadership was divided and
less effective than desired. He concluded that the management was not
focused on CSEPP and effectiveness and efficiency could be improved.

3. Since 1992, we have reported on CSEPP’s management weaknesses,
which include fragmented and unclear management roles and
responsibilities, imprecise and incomplete planning guidance, a
cumbersome budget process, and ineffective financial controls. These
weaknesses have resulted in time-consuming negotiations among federal,
state, and county officials and hampered the progress of numerous CSEPP
projects. In addition, we have reported that inadequate actions by states
and counties have also slowed the progress of several CSEPP projects. As
stated in comment 2 and our evaluation of FEMA’s comments on pages 18
and 19, our concern is not whether the Army’s or FEMA’s approach to
resolving the management issue is the more appropriate; we are
concerned that CSEPP’s implementation is being delayed because this issue
has not been resolved. As a consequence, the program’s goal of providing
communities with items critical to responding to a chemical stockpile
emergency remains to be achieved after 9 years and funding of
$431.4 million.

4. See comment 2.

5. We added information to table 2 of the report to note that $14.7 million
(3.4 percent) was allocated to FEMA headquarters and regions and
$28.6 million (6.6 percent) was allocated for FEMA’s contracts.

6. See comments 2 and 3.

7. We revised the report to show that the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team was
in the process of negotiating standard baseline operating costs with each
of the 10 states participating in the program.

8. We did not assess whether FEMA’s financial management system
complies with the Office of Management and Budget requirements.



Page 57                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VII
Comments From the Federal Emergency
Management Agency




Nonetheless, we are encouraged to see that FEMA’s CSEPP Program Office is
working with the FEMA Inspector General to improve management and
funding accountability of specific state projects.

Notwithstanding these actions, we continue to be concerned about the
adequacy of financial management data available to CSEPP managers.
Specifically, records on expenditure data are limited; allocation data differ
among FEMA, states, and counties; and states and counties continue to
maintain large unexpended fund balances. For example, data at FEMA
consist primarily of reports that identify states’ withdrawals from the
federal treasury, but not how the funds were spent. Also, as of July 1996,
participating states held $67.2 million in unexpended CSEPP funds, or
35.3 percent of the funds allocated to them. We continue to believe that
effective stewardship over the program requires managers to have
information on actual expenditures of funds.

9. We revised the report to show that the FEMA Inspector General reported
that CSEPP’s reporting system did not provide FEMA managers timely,
accurate, or consistent data or the data they need to monitor CSEPP’s
progress. In addition, the Inspector General report states that “[t]he two
financial reports in the CCA [Comprehensive Cooperative Agreement]
reporting system do not meet the financial reporting need of FEMA CSEPP
managers or the Army. They monitor allocation of funds to States and
identify surplus funds. They do not track the use of funds.”

10. Table 4 is included to support our position that state and county CSEPP
officials have expressed a sense of dissatisfaction with the Army’s and
FEMA’s management of the program.


We do not agree that table 4 should be deleted from the report as FEMA
suggested. States and local officials have primary responsibility for
developing and implementing programs to respond to a chemical stockpile
emergency. We believe it is important to include their views as part of our
analysis.

11. We revised the report to reflect FEMA’s position that it disagrees with
the Assistant Secretary’s position on integrated process teams.

12. Although FEMA has participated in CSEPP’s integrated process teams, its
concept for site-specific integrated process teams differs from the Army’s
concept, and the agency has not signed the Army’s proposed
memorandum implementing the teams. Specifically, FEMA does not want



Page 58                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VII
Comments From the Federal Emergency
Management Agency




the Army involved in off-post CSEPP activities and wants to eliminate the
Army from site-specific integrated process teams. The Assistant Secretary
of the Army for Research, Development, and Acquisition cited the lack of
agreement as a basis for requesting an extension to the legislative
requirement to report on the implementation and success of the teams.
FEMA’s desire to eliminate the Army from site-specific integrated process
teams is inconsistent with the tenets of the process and does not recognize
the Army’s position that they should work as partners. Moreover, the
example cited by FEMA illustrates the fundamental problems that exists
over roles and responsibilities and why that issue has hampered CSEPP’s
progress.

As envisioned by the Army, the integrated process teams will (1) identify
issues, develop solutions, and integrate program plans and budget
submissions among CSEPP jurisdictions and (2) include officials from the
CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team, appropriate FEMA region, participating states
and counties, and local Army chemical storage command. The teams are
designed to foster open communications with the CSEPP stakeholders and
empower the team members with decisionmaking authority. Integrated
process team literature suggests that full and open discussion does not
mean that each view must be acted on by the team.

13. We believe that the establishment of the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team
was an important step to improving the management of the program.
According to the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team’s charter, dated January 6,
1995, the joint team was intended to (1) establish a focal point for program
accountability, (2) coordinate and integrate on- and off-post activities, and
(3) create an environment for teamwork. We believe that, if effectively
implemented, the CSEPP Joint Army/FEMA Team could eliminate the
problems associated with management roles and responsibilities.

However, the team has not functioned as intended. In August 1996, the
Program Manager for Chemical Demilitarization reported that, in some
situations, FEMA’s implementation of the charter had inhibited the progress
of CSEPP. According to the Program Manager, pressure from FEMA
headquarters officials to have the agency’s joint team members spend
more of their duty time at FEMA headquarters and less with the joint team
had impeded their integration with Army members. The Program Manager
concluded that communications with the CSEPP participants and
coordination with the Army had been adversely affected.

14. See comments 2 and 3.



Page 59                               GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VIII

Major Contributors to This Report


                        Thomas J. Howard, Assistant Director
National Security and   Mark A. Little, Evaluator-in-Charge
International Affairs   Bonita J. Page, Evaluator
Division, Washington,
D.C.
                        Fredrick W. Felder, Evaluator
Atlanta Field Office    Terry D. Wyatt, Evaluator




                        Page 60                           GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VIII
Major Contributors to This Report




Page 61                             GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VIII
Major Contributors to This Report




Page 62                             GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Appendix VIII
Major Contributors to This Report




Page 63                             GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
Related GAO Products


              Chemical Weapons and Materiel: Key Factors Affecting Disposal Costs and
              Schedule (GAO/T-NSIAD-97-118, Mar. 11, 1997).

              Chemical Weapons and Materiel: Key Factors Affecting Disposal Costs and
              Schedule (GAO/NSIAD-97-18, Feb. 10, 1997).

              Chemical Weapons Stockpile: Emergency Preparedness in Alabama Is
              Hampered by Management Weaknesses (GAO/NSIAD-96-150, July 23, 1996).

              Chemical Weapons Disposal: Issues Related to DOD’s Management
              (GAO/T-NSIAD-95-185, July 13, 1995).

              Chemical Weapons: Army’s Emergency Preparedness Program Has
              Financial Management Weaknesses (GAO/NSIAD-95-94, Mar. 15, 1995).

              Chemical Stockpile Disposal Program Review (GAO/NSIAD-95-66R, Jan. 12,
              1995).

              Chemical Weapons: Stability of the U.S. Stockpile (GAO/NSIAD-95-67, Dec. 22,
              1994).

              Chemical Weapons: Issues Involving Destruction Technologies
              (GAO/T-NSIAD-94-159, Apr. 26, 1994).

              Chemical Weapons Destruction: Advantages and Disadvantages of
              Alternatives to Incineration (GAO/NSIAD-94-123, Mar. 18, 1994).

              Chemical Weapon Stockpile: Army’s Emergency Preparedness Program
              Has Been Slow to Achieve Results (GAO/NSIAD-94-91, Feb. 22, 1994).

              Chemical Weapons Storage: Communities Are Not Prepared to Respond to
              Emergencies (GAO/T-NSIAD-93-18, July 16, 1993).

              Chemical Weapons Destruction: Issues Affecting Program Cost, Schedule,
              and Performance (GAO/NSIAD-93-50, Jan. 21, 1993).




(709230)      Page 64                              GAO/NSIAD-97-91 Chemical Weapons Stockpile
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                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested