Detailed Information on the
Chemical Demilitarization Assessment

Focus on maintaining the schedule and efficiency goals.

Manage the program according to the milestones DOD recently developed for each site.

Track the actual destruction versus the planned destruction for Former Production Facilities (FPF) to meet the Chemical Weapons 100% destruction deadline of April 29, 2007.

Expedite disposal of Secondary Waste.

Investigate the ton container (TC) stockpile condition for high mercury concentrations and large chemical agent heels to reduce impacts on processing time.

Incentivize the contractor to meet the extended Chemical Weapons Convention 100% destruction milestones with high safety and environmental standards, complete closure sooned, and collaboratively reduce program risk.

Track progress towards 100% destruction of the chemical weapons stockpile.

Approve a destruction process and proceed with planning efforts for the Pueblo, CO and Blue Grass, KY sites and work with the community groups at all sites to ensure that safety concerns are met.

Record the Reportable Injury Rate (RIR) at each site and compare it to program goals for safety.

Track the progress towards the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) 45% destruction milestone of the chemical weapons stockpile

Demonstrate that funding is used in accordance with the annual obligation plan, and achieve obligation and disbursement goals for each budget activity

Track the planned cost expenditures to achieve the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) 45% destruction milestone against actuals.

Track the actual destruction tonnage against the planned tonnage to achieve the Chemical Weapons Convention 45% destruction milestone.

Reduce the risk to the public from continued storage of the chemical weapons stockpile.

Maintain an effective Integrated Risk Management Program that stresses early risk identification, mitigation planning, and aggressive execution.

Set up procedures to take advantage of lessons learned between chemical weapons destruction sites and the systems contractors.

Measure: Number of chemical exposures

Explanation:This metric measures the number of times employees have been exposed to chemical agents (based on the definition in the Acquisition Program Baseline). Zero exposures is the most ambitious goal possible.

Measure: Number of chemical releases

Explanation:This metric measures releases of chemical agent in the environment (based on the definition in the Acquisition Program Baseline).

Measure: Percentage of treaty-declared Category 1 chemical weapons destroyed

Explanation:This metric measures the percentage of Chemical Weapons Convention-declared Category 1 chemical weapons destroyed. The targets are based on a destruction plan in accordance with the Acquisition Program Baseline approved in April 2006.

Measure: Tons of chemical agent destroyed

Explanation:This metric measures the annual US tons of chemical agent destroyed against plan. The targets are based on a destruction plan in accordance with the Acquisition Program Baseline approved in April 2006. Chemical weapons are destroyed in campaigns by munition type; therefore, the destruction schedules used to calculate these targets include munition changeover periods, when no chemical agent is being destroyed, and ramp-up periods, when the destruction rate increases to full production capacity. Because of this, exceeding the target in one year may shift changeover or ramp-up periods from one year to another against the plan, and therefore affect the ability to meet future year annual targets.

Measure: Program-wide recordable incidence rate (RIR)

Explanation:One of the key tenets of the US Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) mission is protecting the workforce. The RIR metric measures the number of recordable incidents per 100 full-time employees (200,000 hours worked) against the most recent (2005) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) second quartile (median) RIR for similar industry (chemical manufacturing). Incidents are defined as occupational injuries or illnesses, as described in Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Regulations, 29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1904. The BLS rate is updated each year.

Measure: Actual cost per US ton of agent destroyed against planned

Explanation:The US Army Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) tracks the annual program cost per US ton of agent destroyed against planned. The targets are based on a destruction plan in accordance with the Acquisition Program Baseline approved in April 2006. The targets vary significantly based on munition type, controlled ramp-up, and amount of non-processing time (e.g., testing and maintenance). Because the cost per ton is based on the type of weapon being destroyed (the accessibility of the agent and agent fill amount vary),

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the program is to destroy all inventories of U.S. chemical warfare materiel as quickly as possible while ensuring maximum protection to the public, workforce and environment as required under the Chemical Weapons Convention, of which the U.S. is a signatory.

Evidence: Section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-145) describes DoD responsibilities in disposing of chemical weapons.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Program is designed to eliminate all U.S. stockpiled chemical agents and munitions and meet the requirements of the Chemical Weapons Convention. The Chemical Weapons Convention sets a goal of destroying all chemical weapons by 2012. To date, the U.S. has destroyed over 35 percent of its chemical weapons stockpile.

Evidence: Section 1412 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-145) requires establishment of the program.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: There is no other U.S. government program designed to dispose of chemical weapons. Disposing of the chemical weapons stockpile is entirely a governmental function.

Evidence: There are no other U.S. government programs that address the disposal of chemical warfare material. P.L. 99-145 requires establishment of the program. The Army has been assigned the responsibility of executive agent for all of DoD.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The Chemical Demilitarization program has undergone numerous changes of its approach to disposal of the chemical weapons stockpile. These changes are based on actual experiences with the mission and lessons learned. As environmental technology improves, the program is mandated by law to incorporate it into its destruction facilities. These frequent changes have led to delays in implementation and significant cost growth. In addition, six of the eight facilities are managed as Army projects, with the remaining 2 facilities managed as projects by the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) per P.L. 105-261. This dual structure complicates program management.

Evidence: The current Chemical Materials Agency (CMA) organization structure combines the responsibility for all chemical agent storage along with the 6 chemical agent disposal facilities under the Army. Two projects are managed by OSD under Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives. Environmental restrictions inhibit implementation of the program, as it must acquire new technology. Environmental releases from the program contain less pollution than one cigarette. Life cycle costs of the program have increased from $2.1 billion in 1986 to $32.7 billion.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Chem Demil program will dispose of munitions by various processes resulting in the complete elimination of the U.S. chemical weapon stockpile. All program resources contribute to the mission. These funds are used to run destruction facilities at their full capability while ensuring maximum safety to the public.

Evidence: The FY 2006 funding for the Chem Demil mission is solely dedicated to the disposal of chemical weapons.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Chem Demil program's long-term objective is explicitly set forth in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The objective is the safe disposal of the United States' chemical weapons stockpile and other chemical warfare materials.

Evidence: Public Law 99-145 sets out performance goals that DoD must meet to destroy chemical weapons, as does the international CWC. The next CWC milestone is disposal of 45% of the chemical weapons stockpile by Dec 2007. The CWC calls for the destruction of 100% of the chemical weapons stockpile by April 2012.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Chem Demil program's long-term objective is explicitly set forth in the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC). The timelines in the CWC are very aggressive; it sets out to do something that has never been accomplished before. The toxic nature of these chemicals requirese delicate handling and careful disposal, which makes their rapid destruction difficult. The ultimate objective is the safe disposal of the United States' chemical weapons stockpile and other chemical warfare materials.

Evidence: Under the CWC, the U.S. is required to destroy 45% of the chemical weapons stockpile by Dec 2007 and 100% of the stockpile by Apr 2012.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program is required to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention timeline and specific quantitative goals in the Acquisition Program Baseline. For example, the program must achieve 45% destruction of the stockpile by Dec 2007. The program collects information on the amount of the stockpile that has been destroyed and incidences that could affect environmental or safety compliance.

Evidence: An annual plan is submitted to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons stating the quantities of chemical agent to be destroyed at each site. Agent destruction achieved is collected and is reviewed to ensure the program continues on the track for the 45% destruction deadline. If required, changes to processing are implemented to maintain progress toward meeting this destruction goal.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: There are no annual goals between CWC milestones. The stockpile destruction targets are based on the CWC milestones of 45% of the stockpile destroyed by 2007 and 100% of the stockpile destroyed by 2012. The program is required to comply with the CWC timeline. Based on this, the program develops the Acquisition Program Baseline. The program does set ambitous targets for safety and environmental compliance. The milestones for destruction of the chemical stockpile set out in the CWC are very aggressive. The original U.S. stockpile of chemical weapons consisted of 31,498 tons of chemical agents. The destruction of this stockpile by 2012 is ambitious.

Evidence: The Acquisition Program Baseline provides performance targets for acquisition unit costs and agent releases and exposures. But the actual unit cost data is not collected.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: All partners in the demilitarization effort understand and endorse Chem Demil annual and long term objectives. All Chemical Materials Agency systems contracts are on track to support achieving the 45% destruction milestone. Contracts hold partners accountable for destruction of set amounts of chemical agents. Currently all environmental permits are in place as well as emergency preparedness plans.

Evidence: The Johnston Atoll facility has completed destruction of its stockpile. The Aberdeen Proving Ground facility has completed draining and neutralizing of all the ton containers in its stockpile and cleanup of the containers is ongoing. The other sites at Anniston, Umatilla, Tooele and Pine Bluff are currently in operation and Newport is expected to begin operation in the 3QFY05. The Program's System contractors participate in the Corporate Forum, Lesson Learned program to share knowledge learned at local sites.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Independent audits are performed on a regular basis by the Army Audit Agency and other organizations, including GAO. Topics assessed include the relationship between the Army, FEMA and local governments, program accountability and financial management, alternative disposal technologies and program management. OSD and the Department of the Army conduct quarterly reviews against program goals. These assess whether the program is functioning safely and examine improvements that could be made to improve the effeciency of weapons destruction.

Evidence: Examples are the DOD IG Report, Acquisition of Chem Demil Program, DAIG Report on Chem Stockpile and Demil, AAA Audit on MCP Program, GAO-02 1031-Sustained Leadership and Key Management Tools, GAO-00-80-Improvement in Program Accountability. The Department of the Army and Office of the Secretary of Defense routinely conduct quarterly status reviews and redirect the program as required.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: Currently the Army is revising the Army Cost Estimate for Chem Demil using a risk-based assessment. This assessment will consider historical performance and potential risk factors. OSD will likely rebaseline the program based on the revised Army Cost Estimate. Budget requests include all direct and indirect costs associated with the program.

Evidence: The program has a specific start and end-state. Annual budget requests are derived from total life-cycle assessments. These are presented in a way to safely maximize destruction capability. Budget requests are based on actual operating and construction costs of chemical destruction facilities.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Chemical Management Agency (CMA) has developed and implemented a continuous, systematic, comprehensive, Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)-based strategic planning and management process. As part of the process, CMA and Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternatives program leaders have participated in seven facilitated strategic planning workshops and have prepared a CMA Strategic Plan. The plan provides information on CMA's mission, vision, values, strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, challenges, strategic goals, strategic objectives, strategies, initiatives, performance goals and planning process.

Evidence: The CMA Strategic Plan is being implemented within CMA and has been reviewed by senior management within Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD). In a cascading system of plans, the eight chemical sites have prepared and are implementing site strategic plans aligned with the overarching CMA plan. Sites also participate in lessons learned programs. Risk mitigation is on going within individual projects and a Program-wide Risk Mitigation Plan being written The site Commanders and leaders have begun regularly reporting their strategic planning progress to the CMA top management. Further, Agency directors and leaders have or are developing supporting strategic plans aligned with the CMA plans for their respective areas. OSD is awaiting the Chemical Demilitarization Strategic Plan, which is referenced in the CMA Strategic Plan.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Destruction data and operation parameters of sites are monitored in real time and corrective action is taken immediately when required. The program also holds quarterly in progress reviews which review key parameters to include cost, schedule, performance and risk against established baselines. Contractors provide monthly cost, schedule and performance reports and earned value management system information. Safety and environmental compliance is the program priority and is routinely tracked.

Evidence: Management is made aware of any deviations to the expected performance and undertakes immediate action to resolve any problems. The program reports Probability of Success monthly to the Department of the Army, quarterly to the Department of the Army and the Office of the Secretary of Defense with the Defense Acquisition Executive Summary, and annually with the Selected Acquisition Report. An Integrated Planning and Management System (IPMS) has also been implemented to provide timely and accurate information essential to the management of cost and performance for all elements of the program. Through in progress reviews, staff meetings, and other reporting media, data are processed and presented to upper levels of management, who take these opportunities to advise on improved performance. Historical data are collected in Document Control System, IPMS, and Lessons Learned databases for reference and for assistance in resolving recurring problems. The Tooele Chemical Agents Disposal Facility was stood down for a 5-day period to address environmental compliance issues. Umatilla plant was stood down for 10 days to retrain and address safety concerns.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Federal managers are held accountable through their Individual Developmental Plans, which include performance standards. Program partners are held accountable through the determination of fees in the cost plus award fee contract structure.

Evidence: Program Manager charters are in place that outline authority, responsibility and accountability for program management. Contracts are structured to create incentives for performance and System contractors participate in a Corporate Forum to review accountability for cost, schedule and performance.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Chem Demil is obligating all funds in a timely manner and spending is for the intended purposes. These funds are tracked by the Defense Finance and Accounting Service. Recent data indicates that the program is performing satisfactorily in this area.

Evidence: An Integrated Planning and Management System has been implemented to manage cost and performance data for all elements of the PM ECW program. Additional emphasis has also been placed on contractors submitting prompt billing of costs, government payments and recording of disbursement in the Defense Finance Accounting System. PM ECW has also directed Project Managers to conduct monthly reviews on obligations, costs and disbursements. Implementation of these procedures has provided a consistent and systematic approach for program funds management and has significantly minimized unliquidated obligations.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Current contract structures do not include cost effectiveness as an objective. The program's primary concern is to dispose of the chemical stockpile in a safe manner and believes that focusing on cost and schedule could compromise safety.

Evidence: All systems contracts use award fee provisions or other incentives to motivate contractor performance. Primary incentives are for: safety and security; environmental compliance, and management.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: There are no other programs to destroy the U.S. Chemical Weapons Stockpile.

Evidence:  

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Department of Defense's financial management weaknesses are well-documented. Numerous GAO reports single out DoD financial management as a high risk area.

Evidence: The program has not received an unqualified audit opinion.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Management deficiencies are routinely identified and corrective action is implemented. Currently, the Army, in coordination with the Office of the Secretary of Defense, is developing efficiency measures that will provide more realistic and meaningful results based on the goals and objectives of the program's strategic plan. DoD expects to have finished developing these measures by the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2006.

Evidence: The Chemical Demilitarization Strategic Plan and Integrated Risk Management Plan are being developed to address management deficiencies.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: "The program's primary goal of destroying the U.S. chemical weapons stockpile with maximum safety and environmental compliance have been consistently demonstrated. The U.S. is currently on track to meet the re-baselined Chemical Weapons Convention 45% destruction goal by December 2007."

Evidence: Three chemical agent destruction facilities commenced operations during the current fiscal year. The U.S. had to request an extension to the 45% destruction deadline, which unofficially extends the 100% destruction deadline to April 2012.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program continues to achieve exceptional assessments on safety performance and environmental compliance from federal and State regulators. However, the annual reports to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons show minimal progress toward annual chemical agent destruction goals.

Evidence: Anniston, AL and Umatilla, OR have received safety awards from their respective States. The Aberdeen Proving Ground facility has completed draining and neutralizing drained agent from all of the HD ton containers and cleanup of the containers is ongoing, all of which was scheduled for completion in 2004.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The funding priorities were shifted to the incineration facilities to ensure operations continued. This was due to performance inconsistencies at three of the operating sites. The Assembled Chemical Weapons Alternative Program was directed to begin redesign efforts and modify contracts to balance cost, schedule, and performance objectives. The program currently has no efficiency measures.

Evidence: The FY06 President's Budget request reflects these funding priorities.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no other U.S. programs charged with the destruction and disposal of chemical weapons.

Evidence:  

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The program has met its safety and environmental compliance goals. Recent improvements in program management have set it on track to meet the 2007 milestone of having destroyed 45% of the stockpile. The GAO, however, has noted that the program risks not meeting the Chemical Weapons Convention goals of destroying 100% of the stockpile by December 2012.

Evidence: "DODIG Report, Acquisition of Chem Demil Program, DAIG Report on Chem Stockpile and Demil, AAA Audit on MCP Program, GAO-02 1031-Sustained Leadership and Key Management Tools, GAO-00-80-Improvement in Program Accountability. OSHA data are outstanding in safety compliance area. Environmental compliance exceeds industrial standards. "