Environment: DOD's New Environmental Security Strategy Faces Barriers
(Letter Report, 09/30/94, GAO/NSIAD-94-142).
According to Defense Department (DOD) officials, the United States today
confronts a wide range of threats to environmental security, including
ozone depletion, environmental terrorism, risks to public health and the
environment from military activities, and a variety of contaminants at
DOD installations. DOD's revised strategy for protecting the environment
calls for creating environmental partnerships, matching environmental
and economic opportunities, expediting cleanup at all DOD sites,
preventing pollution rather than controlling pollution, and targeting
technology to meet U.S. environmental needs. This report provides
information on the new strategy and the changes made to DOD's
organization structure for environmental management. GAO also reviews
portions of the administrative operations and controls over funding of
the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment).
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-94-142
TITLE: Environment: DOD's New Environmental Security Strategy
Faces Barriers
DATE: 09/30/94
SUBJECT: Environmental policies
Travel costs
Mission budgeting
Defense cost control
Budget cuts
Environmental monitoring
Federal agency reorganization
Pollution control
Congressional/executive relations
Defense budgets
IDENTIFIER: EPA National Priorities List
DOD Environmental Security Strategy
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO *
* report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, *
* headings, and bullets are preserved. Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are *
* identified by double and single lines. The numbers on the right end *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the page *
* numbers of the printed product. *
* *
* No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although figure *
* captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but may not resemble *
* those in the printed version. *
* *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015, *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time. *
**************************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
September 1994
ENVIRONMENT - DOD'S NEW
ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY STRATEGY
FACES BARRIERS
GAO/NSIAD-94-142
Environmental Security Faces Barriers
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
BRAC - Base Realignment and Closure
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act
DLA - Defense Logistics Agency
DOD - Department of Defense
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
NPL - National Priorities List
OSD - Office of the Secretary of Defense
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-256282
September 30, 1994
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Chairman
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
As requested, we are providing information on the Department of
Defense's (DOD) environmental strategy and the changes made to DOD's
organizational structure for environmental management. In addition,
the Appropriations Committee, in Senate Report 102-408 on the
Department of Defense Appropriation Bill, 1993, expressed concerns
about spending and accountability by the former Office of the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment). The Committee report
asked us to review portions of the Office's administrative operations
and controls over funding. We briefed the Senate Subcommittee staff
on overall results in July 1993 and agreed to provide a final report
on the above issues.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
DOD has developed a new strategy to address long-standing
environmental concerns. In May 1993, DOD abolished the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment) position and created a
higher level Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Security).\1
It organized the office of environmental security to focus on
specific missions, including cleanup, compliance, conservation,
pollution prevention, and environmental technology. However, the
recently expanded office of environmental security must overcome
several long-standing barriers to be successful. Barriers include
(1) limited cooperation between DOD and other agencies, (2)
constraints in implementing environmental regulations, and (3)
inconsistent environmental funding methods.
Senate Report 102-408 directed DOD to (1) realign and justify the
operating and administrative funding for the office of environmental
security separately in future budget submissions and (2) reduce and
hold the operating and administrative budget to $366,000 and limit
travel costs to $27,000 in fiscal year 1993.
DOD did not separately budget for its environmental management
activity. While the portion of the Defense Support Activity's fiscal
year 1994 budget devoted to environmental management is separately
identified, the Office of the Secretary of Defense's (OSD) share is
consolidated within a central account for many offices and is not
separately identified in its budget justification. Instead, DOD
officials stated, they can provide reasonably accurate estimates of
operating costs on request.
Office of environmental security officials stated that the former
environmental office had provided incorrect data to the Senate
Committee on Appropriations on the office's total cost, so the
restriction was based on a fraction of the office's actual cost. The
office agreed to reduce the budget request by $366,000. Because the
total projected operating and administrative budget request had been
$3.3 million, rather than the $732,000 reported to the Congress, the
budget request was cut to $2.9 million rather than $366,000. The
travel cost of $90,000 was expected to exceed the report limit by
$63,000. The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Security) subsequently met with Committee staff and reached agreement
on the limits.
--------------------
\1 We will refer to this office as the office of environmental
security in the remainder of this report.
DOD STRATEGY FOR GREATER
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Today, the United States is faced with a broad array of global,
regional, and/or national threats to environmental security,
according to DOD officials.\2 These threats include ozone depletion,
environmental terrorism, risks to public health and the environment
from DOD activities, and a broad range of contaminants at DOD
installations. DOD's revised strategy for protecting the environment
has objectives that focus on cleanup, compliance, conservation,
pollution prevention, and technology. Specifically, the revised
strategy calls for the following:
creating environmental partnerships,
matching environmental and economic opportunities,
expediting cleanup at all DOD sites,
preventing pollution rather than controlling pollution, and
targeting technology to meet U.S. environmental needs.
Creating environmental partnerships with federal agencies, states,
industry, the public, and the Congress is a key component in the
environmental security strategy. One such partnership was recently
initiated between DOD and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
According to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Security), in an effort to break regulatory gridlock and accelerate
base closings, DOD and EPA conducted several regional conferences to
improve communication and help resolve issues affecting base
closures. Also, DOD recently reestablished an interagency
Environmental Response Task Force that will monitor the Base
Realignment and Closure process and formulate interagency solutions
to barriers.
In matching environmental opportunities and economic opportunities,
the President believes that protecting the environment and helping
the economy to grow go hand in hand, according to the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security). One way to do this is
with the process the Congress created in 1992 to identify and prepare
clean parcels of land for quick return to the community. The
Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act of 1992 requires
DOD to identify all clean parcels on the Base Realignment and Closure
installations that are in regulatory concurrence. The identification
of clean parcels requires early and close coordination among DOD
installations, regulators, and the public. To further expedite the
process, DOD has asked the military departments to try to accelerate
the 18-month schedule for identifying uncontaminated parcels.
Expediting cleanup at all DOD sites is also an important objective,
according to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Security). DOD is engaged in the cleanup of hazardous waste sites at
over 1,700 installations of which 92 are listed by EPA on the
National Priorities List (NPL). DOD believes that one way to
accelerate cleanups is to work closely with regulatory agencies to
match cleanup goals to future land use plans. DOD believes that
early land use discussions tie in well with its strategy to empower
people at the local level so they have the confidence to take
acceptable management risks, use innovative technologies, and cut
through the bureaucracy.
DOD considers pollution prevention to be perhaps the most important
pillar in its environmental program. According to the Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), pollution prevention
is "preventive medicine for the environment," because it reduces
future liabilities and reduces costs. As such, the office of
environmental security has identified several pollution prevention
concepts that need to be addressed. For example, DOD believes it
needs to consider environmental costs and benefits as early in the
design process as possible, including the life-cycle costs from
concept development all the way to demilitarization and disposal.
Also, DOD believes it needs to include environmental issues in the
decision-making process and hold program managers accountable for the
environmental impact of their actions. DOD believes that by
evaluating hazardous and environmentally damaging materials such as
ozone-depleting substances, while evaluating energy and raw material
use at the concept development and design phases, it is making
decisions at the best time to reduce or eliminate environmental
problems at the source.
Targeting technology focuses on three areas: (1) developing a
priority-setting system for environmental technology to better target
research and development to high payback areas; (2) using the
Strategic Environmental Research and Development Program structure
more effectively, by applying funds to real environmental needs; and
(3) aggressively strengthening partnerships with regulators, states,
and the public to get support for testing and fielding innovative
technologies.
--------------------
\2 Outlined in a statement of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security) before the Senate Committee on Armed
Services, Subcommittee on Military Readiness and Defense
Infrastructure, June 9, 1993.
LONG-STANDING BARRIERS TO
SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF
DOD'S ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY
STRATEGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
To successfully implement its environmental security strategy, DOD
will have to overcome several long-standing barriers, which include
(1) limited coordination or cooperation among DOD and other agencies,
(2) constraints in implementing environmental regulations, and (3)
inconsistent environmental funding methods.
LIMITED COORDINATION WITHIN
DOD AND WITH OTHER AGENCIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
In our past and ongoing work, we have found that DOD does not fully
coordinate its work to prevent conflicts or duplicative efforts.
Among issues arising in our ongoing work involving low-level
radiation contamination is that no formal mechanism exists in DOD to
ensure the coordination of low-level waste technology. For example,
a Defense Nuclear Agency official stated that technology uses are
generally known to the low-level radiation research community, and
attributed this knowledge to the specialized nature of the community.
In discussing the issue, environmental security officials stated that
the newly created Assistant Deputy Under Secretary positions for
Technology and Cleanup under the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security) should help substantially to resolve this
coordination problem.
DOD also needs to improve cooperation with other agencies. Our work
involving DOD and the Department of Interior,\3 for example,
indicates that DOD should strive to be more cooperative in the
implementation of resource management plans. Under the Military
Lands Withdrawal Act of 1986, more than 7 million acres of land is
removed from public use until the year 2001; until then, the land is
to be devoted to the military services for training purposes. The
law requires DOD and the Department of Interior to consult and agree
on plans to manage resources on these lands. This necessitates close
cooperation between agencies. However, we found that DOD and
Interior are not fully cooperating to implement resource management
plans. In discussing this issue, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security) officials stated that they are working
aggressively with Interior officials to resolve this problem. For
example, the military presence on the land significantly affects
Interior's Bureau of Land Management strategy for resource
management. Bureau officials said they were less aggressive in
planning and implementing projects to enhance protection and use of
site resources because nonmilitary uses such as recreation, grazing,
and mining were often restricted by the military. Military officials
may not want to share authority with the Bureau or support additional
Bureau activities because of concerns that the Bureau's plans could
restrict future military training activities.
Limited cooperation also exists between the Air Force and the
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service. The Fish and Wildlife Service
manages two national wildlife refuges that have airspace under
military control where the Air Force conducts flight training
operations. To conduct the training exercises, the Air Force at
times has to build roads, targets, and other facilities on the
refuges. In describing their working relationship with the Air
Force, Fish and Wildlife Service officials told us that the military
was generally uncooperative in resource management. For example, at
Nellis Air Force Base, they pointed to instances in which the Air
Force constructed military roads, targets, and facilities on the
refuge without informing the refuge manager. They also said that the
Air Force had engaged in bombing exercises outside of approved areas,
which damaged a rainwater catchment for bighorn sheep. The Air Force
also did not consult with Fish and Wildlife Service managers before
using the refuge to store tank targets contaminated by depleted
uranium.
In discussing this issue, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense
(Environmental Security) officials stated that they met with the Fish
and Wildlife Service Director and are working toward a better
relationship. Office of environmental security officials also stated
that recent initiatives have emphasized improvements in
military/civilian cooperation in the development of environmental
partnerships. For example, under a grant to identify and explore
opportunities, senior representatives of environmental organizations
visited Navy installations in Georgia and Florida during March 1994.
--------------------
\3 Natural Resources: Defense and Interior Can Better Manage Land
Withdrawn for Military Use (GAO/NSIAD-94-87, Apr. 26, 1994).
ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS
CONSTRAINTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
DOD is subject to federal and state environmental laws and
regulations. According to DOD officials, the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as
amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act, cleanup
procedures are numerous, time-consuming, costly, complex, and
exacting, and call for joint decision making by DOD, EPA, and state
officials. Therefore, the result of cleaning up the most severely
contaminated military installations in compliance with CERCLA is that
cleanups are costly and time consuming.
In our report on the cleanup of high-priority military
installations,\4 we found that the CERCLA process and its
requirements hamper and slow DOD's remediation efforts and increase
cleanup costs. This has occurred for two reasons. First, DOD must
extensively study thousands of sites, regardless of the extent of
contamination. Second, it must address issues, such as liability,
that involve a great deal of legal and administrative effort that may
not otherwise be required. The imposition of the entire detailed
CERCLA process to the minor sites on DOD installations wastes
valuable resources where cleanup of even relatively few high-priority
sites could strain resources and force difficult choices.
EPA's system for identifying high-priority sites--those on the
NPL--has led to a large number of individual sites on installations
with that designation. EPA usually included only the four to six
worst sites on an installation, which may have hundreds of sites on
it, in determining whether an installation should be placed on the
NPL. However, when the time comes to do the required CERCLA work,
all of the sites on an installation are usually given the NPL status,
regardless of the threat posed by the individual sites to human
health and the environment.
Some individual sites on non-NPL installations are worse than some of
the individual sites on installations already the on the NPL. As a
result, seriously contaminated sites on non-NPL installations are
allowed to worsen while less seriously contaminated sites on the NPL
installations receive priority access to DOD and EPA resources. DOD
will not be able to optimally apply its cleanup efforts to the worst
sites until it and EPA evaluate those currently on the NPL and
determine which should be designated as high priority.
--------------------
\4 Environmental Cleanup: Too Many High Priority Sites Impede DOD's
Program (GAO/NSIAD-94-133, Apr. 21, 1994).
INCONSISTENT ENVIRONMENTAL
FUNDING METHODS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
In our report on environmental construction projects,\5 we found that
the services' processes for identifying, classifying, and funding
environmental projects vary. Currently, these projects and other
environmental projects receive funding through a total of 34 separate
accounts among the military services and 3 centrally managed DOD
accounts. We concluded that more consistent funding processes would
help ensure that environmental compliance costs and needs are
properly identified and prioritized so that DOD and the Congress have
appropriate oversight for making trade-offs in funding decisions and
to help prevent funding inequities.
This barrier was also acknowledged by the Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Environmental Security) in her June 1993 testimony. In the
testimony, she expressed concerns over the multitude of DOD and
military services accounts available for environmental funding and
the difficulty this presents in measuring progress toward addressing
environmental concerns. As a result, DOD established the
Environmental Budgeting Task Force to develop consistent methods for
planning, programming, and budgeting environmental funds.
--------------------
\5 Environmental Compliance: Guidance Needed in Programming Defense
Construction Projects (GAO/NSIAD-94-22, Nov. 26, 1993).
ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES FOCUS ON
A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
OSD elevated environmental issues from the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense level in May
1993. The office of environmental security was created to emphasize
environmental security technology, cleanup, compliance, conservation,
and pollution prevention. It has five offices at the Assistant
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense level to cover these areas. The
new office is responsible for ensuring that (1) DOD protects the
environment in its operations and (2) uses its environmental
stewardship to promote economic growth, while creating strong
environmental partnerships with the public and private sector. The
revised organization of the office of environmental security is shown
in figure 1. Appendix I provides a brief description of the offices'
responsibilities.
Figure 1: Fiscal Year 1993
Organizational Chart of the
Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense (Environmental
Security)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Security/Management Support (DUSD(ES)/MS).
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security) (DUSD(ES).
Principal Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Security) (PADUSD(ES)).
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental
Security/International Activities (DUSD(ES)/IA).
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security
Technology) (ADUSD(ET)).
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security/Outreach
(DUSD(ES)/OR).
Armed Forces Pest Management Board (AFPMB).
DOD Explosives Safety Board (DDESB).
COMMITTEE DIRECTIVES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
The Senate Appropriations Committee report directed DOD to (1)
realign and justify its operating and administrative funding for the
office of environmental security separately in future budget
submissions and (2) reduce and hold the operating and administrative
budget to $366,000 and limit travel costs to $27,000 in fiscal year
1993. The Committee later agreed with DOD that higher levels were
necessary. In its fiscal year 1994 operations and maintenance budget
submission, DOD justified a portion of the total operating and
administrative costs for the office of environmental security.
FUTURE BUDGETS WILL NOT BE
FULLY REALIGNED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
The operating and administrative budget for the office of
environmental security consists of two separate accounts, one for OSD
and the other for the Defense Support Activity. However, the
Appropriations Committee could not determine from DOD's fiscal year
1993 operations and maintenance budget submission the office's total
operating and administrative budget estimates. In the fiscal year
1994 budget request, DOD realigned and justified the Defense Support
Activity portion of the office of environmental security's budget;
DOD has not done the same for OSD.
As of October 1993, a total of 76 full-time personnel were assigned
to the office of environmental security, 36 from OSD and 40 from the
Defense Support Activity. Since staff of the office of environmental
security are assigned from OSD and Defense Support Activity, all
operating and administrative costs, such as salaries, travel, and
supplies are charged to the respective accounts of OSD and the
Defense Support Activity.
Prior to DOD's fiscal year 1994 budget submission, Defense Support
Activity's portion of the former office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense (Environment) costs were captured in a single
line item within a consolidated Defense Support Activity account,
along with 10 other Defense Support Activities. In fiscal year 1993,
the Defense Support Activity was expected to spend approximately $1.8
million on operating and administrative activities to support the
office of environmental security.
In its partial compliance with the Appropriations Committee's
directives, DOD separated and detailed the fiscal year 1994
operations and maintenance budget estimates for the Defense Support
Activities, including budget estimates for the office of
environmental security. According to DOD officials, details of the
Defense Support Activity account in the fiscal year 1994 budget
submission could be separated because the Defense Support Activity
has its own operations and maintenance account and maintains separate
accounts for 11 Defense Support Activities. However, Defense Support
Activity officials told us DOD is reconsidering its decision to
separately justify the Defense Support Activity account in future
budget submissions because providing such detailed information may be
inefficient.
OSD's portion of the office of environmental security was not broken
out in OSD's fiscal year 1994 budget submission. Typically, in DOD's
budget submission, DOD requests funding for all of the offices and
suboffices within OSD. Once DOD's budget is approved, OSD manages
funding through a central account. Administrative costs incurred by
OSD staff assigned to the office of environmental security are
included in OSD's central account. DOD officials told us that in
order to separately detail OSD's share of the costs for the office of
environmental security, DOD would have to prepare detailed budget
estimates for all 35 OSD component offices.
According to OSD officials, providing separate details of costs for
component offices of OSD would not be cost-effective and would likely
require additional personnel. OSD officials said, however, that upon
request, DOD's Washington Headquarters Services, which administers
the operations and maintenance funds for OSD, can provide detailed
cost estimates for OSD's portion of the office of environmental
security.
FUNDING LIMITS ELIMINATED
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
In preparation for the Appropriations Committee's review of DOD's
fiscal year 1993 operations and maintenance budget request, the
former Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
(Environment) provided the Committee with an inaccurate estimate of
the costs of the environmental office. The cost estimate provided
for the office was $732,000 for fiscal year 1993. The Appropriations
Committee based its final funding decision on the inaccurate DOD
estimate, and directed the office to reduce and hold its 1993
operating and administrative costs to $366,000 and travel to $27,000.
The operating and administrative costs for the office of
environmental security were projected to be about $3 million--about
$2.3 million more than indicated in data given to the Appropriations
Committee.
According to a Defense Support Activity official, there was confusion
regarding the Committee's directives to cut operating and
administrative costs by $366,000 and to hold the costs to $366,000.
The $366,000 would have equaled about 12 percent of the actual amount
required for activities in fiscal year 1993. Although they did not
contact the Committee for clarification, they tried to partially
comply with the directives by reducing the Defense Support Activity
operating and administrative budget by $366,000. DOD also did not
limit its travel expenses to the Committee's directed $27,000.
During fiscal year 1993, the environmental office was projected to
spend about $90,000 on travel. In December 1993, officials of the
office of environmental security and Committee staff met to discuss
this matter, and the Committee agreed to eliminate the funding
directive because it was based on inaccurate, unrealistic cost data.
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD generally concurred with
our findings. DOD stated that its environmental security operations
have undergone significant changes during the last year affecting the
internal operating budget, business practices, and administrative
operations. These changes are founded on careful internal strategic
planning based on, among other things, the National Performance
Review, Defense Performance Review, and Bottom Up Review. This
planning resulted in DOD's focus on the five major environmental
issues: cleanup, compliance, conservation and installations,
pollution prevention, and technology.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
To examine the efforts to reorganize and implement a new
environmental program within the office of environmental security, we
reviewed planning documents and interviewed officials of the Deputy
Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Defense
Logistics Agency (DLA), Defense Support Activity, and Washington
Headquarters Services.
To provide information on compliance with funding controls imposed by
the Appropriations Committee on the office of environmental security,
we analyzed data from DOD's fiscal year 1993-1994 operations and
maintenance budget documents and interviewed officials of the DLA,
OSD, the Defense Support Activity, and Washington Headquarters
Services. We obtained and reviewed fiscal year 1993 budget documents
from OSD, the Defense Support Activity, and DLA to identify the total
cost of operations and maintenance activities for the office of
environmental security in that year. We discussed the funding
directives with OSD, DLA, the Defense Support Activity, and
Washington Headquarters Services officials to determine efforts made
to comply with the Senate Appropriations Committee instructions.
The Committee report asked us to conduct a thorough audit and
management evaluation of the Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary
of Defense (Environment) to ensure compliance with the (1)
realignment of funding used to carry out environmental functions, (2)
reduction of $366,000 in the operations and administrative budget,
and (3) elimination of inappropriate programs to the environmental
mission. We briefed the staff of the Senate Subcommittee on Defense
on our results in July 1993. We agreed to provide a final report on
DOD's environmental strategy, changes made to DOD's organizational
structure for environmental management, and controls over funding.
We conducted our work from April 1993 to March 1994 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
We will send copies of this report to the Chairmen, House Committee
on Government Operations; Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs;
House and Senate Committees on Armed Services; House Subcommittee on
Defense, Committee on Appropriations; Senate Committee on
Appropriations; the Secretary of Defense; the Administrator, EPA; and
the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also send
copies to other interested parties upon request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report
were Uldis Adamsons, Leah B. Cates, Jacob W. Sprouse, and Barbara
L. Wooten.
Donna M. Heivilin, Director
Defense Management and NASA Issues
RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICES
=========================================================== Appendix I
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environmental Security
Technology): Identifies requirements, sets priorities, delivers
technology and research products, and oversees provision of education
and training to the Department of Defense (DOD) personnel.
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Cleanup): Carries out a
program of environmental restoration of facilities under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary, largely by guiding DOD cleanup
efforts, including cleanup and remediation of such contamination as
asbestos, lead-based paint, and radon at DOD installations.
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Compliance): Works to
achieve and sustain full compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements for all environmental security functions.
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Conservation and
Installations): Provides planning, management, protection,
preservation, conservation (including energy), and impact analysis
regarding the air, land, and water resources for which DOD is steward
or for which it is a user, including DOD construction, installation
maintenance and repair, and installations operations and management.
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Pollution Prevention):
Develops policy, establishes requirements, and monitors source
reduction and other practices that reduce or eliminate the creation
of pollutants.