Chemical and Biological Defense
DOD Needs to Continue to Collect and Provide Information on Tests and on Potentially Exposed Personnel Gao ID: GAO-04-410 May 14, 2004In the 1962-74 time period, the Department of Defense (DOD) conducted a classified chemical and biological warfare test program--Project 112--that might have exposed service members and civilian personnel to chemical or biological agents. In 2000 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began obtaining information from DOD about the program. Concerned that veterans and others might have health problems from exposure during Project 112 and similar DOD tests, Congress required DOD in the 2003 Defense Authorization Act to identify Project 112 tests and personnel potentially expose--service members and the number of civilian personnel--and other chemical and biological tests that might have exposed service members. GAO was required by the act and subsequent guidance from the congressional requesters to evaluate (1) DOD's process to identify the Project 112 tests and the service members and the number of civilian personnel potentially exposed, (2) DOD's progress in identifying similar tests outside Project 112, and (3) VA's progress in notifying DOD identified veterans.
DOD appears to have accurately identified all major chemical and biological tests associated with Project 112. DOD identified 134 planned tests of which 50 were conducted. Of the 50 tests, 19 were ship-based and 31 were landbased. GAO found no evidence of any other Project 112 tests. DOD performed a reasonable investigation of service members potentially exposed to agents in the tests. However, GAO believes that there likely are service members and civilian personnel potentially exposed to agents who have not been identified for various reasons. First, DOD was unable to identify any service members for 21 land-based tests because it was unable to find the needed records. Second, although DOD addressed the basic mandate requirement regarding civilian personnel by estimating that 350 had been potentially exposed, it did not specifically search for individual civilian personnel exposures or foreign national exposures. DOD limited its investigation of specific exposures to identifying military veterans who might be eligible for medical services from VA. Third, DOD did not pursue all possible sources of information during its investigation, and additional identifications continue. DOD recently identified 51, and VA, 172 more military personnel. GAO identified 167 additional service members and civilian personnel who might have been exposed, plus additional sources of information. DOD has not determined the feasibility of continuing its efforts to identify additional potentially exposed service members or civilian personnel. In February 2004, following GAO inquiries, another DOD office began preparing a plan to identify tests outside Project 112 that might have exposed service members. Since World War II, DOD has conducted hundreds of classified tests within the 48 contiguous states. Although not required by the act, DOD also plans to identify service members and civilian personnel who were potentially exposed by these tests. However, that office has not yet completed its plan for doing this. As of March 2004, VA had notified 3,397,, or 58 percent, of the 5,842 service members whom DOD reported in June 2003, including 751 whom VA determined to be deceased. VA is still processing over 2,400 cases but is having difficulty making these notifications owing to the absence of key needed information such as military service numbers. VA is developing a plan to resolve these more difficult cases and expects to complete its notification process by September 1, 2005. To date, VA has granted 10 of 316 benefit claims related to Project 112. Recent changes to VA's eligibility requirements could increase the number of Project 112-related medical visits. DOD has not designated an office to act as a single point of contact for collecting and providing information regarding the results of its investigations of DOD chemical and biological tests conducted inside or outside of Project 112.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-410, Chemical and Biological Defense: DOD Needs to Continue to Collect and Provide Information on Tests and on Potentially Exposed Personnel
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-410
entitled 'Chemical and Biological Defense: DOD Needs to Continue to
Collect and Provide Information on Tests and on Potentially Exposed
Personnel' which was released on May 14, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
May 2004:
CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE:
DOD Needs to Continue to Collect and Provide Information on Tests and
on Potentially Exposed Personnel:
GAO-04-410:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-410, a report to Senate and House Committees on
Armed Services
Why GAO Did This Study:
In the 1962-74 time period, the Department of Defense (DOD) conducted a
classified chemical and biological warfare test program”Project 112”
that might have exposed service members and civilian personnel to
chemical or biological agents. In 2000 the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) began obtaining information from DOD about the program.
Concerned that veterans and others might have health problems from
exposure during Project 112 and similar DOD tests, Congress required
DOD in the 2003 Defense Authorization Act to identify Project 112 tests
and personnel potentially exposed”service members and the number of
civilian personnel”and other chemical and biological tests that might
have exposed service members. GAO was required by the act and
subsequent guidance from the congressional requesters to evaluate (1)
DOD‘s process to identify the Project 112 tests and the service members
and the number of civilian personnel potentially exposed, (2) DOD‘s
progress in identifying similar tests outside Project 112, and (3) VA‘s
progress in notifying DOD-identified veterans.
What GAO Found:
DOD appears to have accurately identified all major chemical and
biological tests associated with Project 112. DOD identified 134
planned tests of which 50 were conducted. Of the 50 tests, 19 were ship-
based and 31 were land-based. GAO found no evidence of any other
Project 112 tests. DOD performed a reasonable investigation of service
members potentially exposed to agents in the tests. However, GAO
believes that there likely are service members and civilian personnel
potentially exposed to agents who have not been identified for various
reasons. First, DOD was unable to identify any service members for 21
land-based tests because it was unable to find the needed records.
Second, although DOD addressed the basic mandate requirement regarding
civilian personnel by estimating that 350 had been potentially exposed,
it did not specifically search for individual civilian personnel
exposures or foreign national exposures. DOD limited its investigation
of specific exposures to identifying military veterans who might be
eligible for medical services from VA. Third, DOD did not pursue all
possible sources of information during its investigation, and
additional identifications continue. DOD recently identified 51, and
VA, 172 more military personnel. GAO identified 167 additional service
members and civilian personnel who might have been exposed, plus
additional sources of information. DOD has not determined the
feasibility of continuing its efforts to identify additional
potentially exposed service members or civilian personnel.
In February 2004, following GAO inquiries, another DOD office began
preparing a plan to identify tests outside Project 112 that might have
exposed service members. Since World War II, DOD has conducted hundreds
of classified tests within the 48 contiguous states. Although not
required by the act, DOD also plans to identify service members and
civilian personnel who were potentially exposed by these tests.
However, that office has not yet completed its plan for doing this.
As of March 2004, VA had notified 3,397,, or 58 percent, of the 5,842
service members whom DOD reported in June 2003, including 751 whom VA
determined to be deceased. VA is still processing over 2,400 cases but
is having difficulty making these notifications owing to the absence of
key needed information such as military service numbers. VA is
developing a plan to resolve these more difficult cases and expects to
complete its notification process by September 1, 2005. To date, VA has
granted 10 of 316 benefit claims related to Project 112. Recent changes
to VA‘s eligibility requirements could increase the number of Project
112-related medical visits.
DOD has not designated an office to act as a single point of contact
for collecting and providing information regarding the results of its
investigations of DOD chemical and biological tests conducted inside or
outside of Project 112.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making three recommendations to enhance DOD‘s responsiveness to
the legislative requirement. DOD concurred with all of our
recommendations and agreed to implement them.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-410.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Raymond J. Decker at
deckerrj@gao.gov or (202) 512-6020.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DOD Accurately Identified Project 112 Tests, Performed a Reasonable
Investigation for Service Members, and Estimated Civilian Personnel
Potentially Exposed:
DOD Plans to Investigate Tests outside Project 112:
VA Notified the Majority of Service Members Identified by DOD:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Project 112 Tests Reported as Conducted:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Table:
Table 1: Summary of DOD Project 112 Submissions to VA as of June 30,
2003:
Figures:
Figure 1: Dispensing Chemical Simulants during a Land-Based Test:
Figure 2: DOD Methodology for Identifying Project 112 Tests:
Figure 3: Results of DOD's Investigation of Service Members and Others
Potentially Exposed during Project 112 Tests:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
OSD: Office of the Secretary of Defense:
[End of section]
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 14, 2004:
The Honorable John W. Warner:
Chairman:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
During the 1962-74 time period, the Department of Defense (DOD)
conducted a classified chemical and biological warfare test program,
called Project 112, that might have exposed U.S. service members and
others--including DOD civilian personnel, DOD contractors, and foreign
nationals--to chemical or biological agents[Footnote 1] employed in
these tests. As a result of questions raised by Members of Congress and
veterans, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began working with
DOD in September 2000 to obtain information about the test program and
possible military participants. Subsequently, concerned that veterans
and other individuals might have experienced health problems as a
result of being exposed while participating in Project 112 and other
classified chemical and biological tests, Congress required DOD,
through the Defense Authorization Act for 2003,[Footnote 2] to develop
and implement a plan (1) to identify the Project 112 tests and the
service members and the number of civilian personnel[Footnote 3] who
were potentially exposed by the tests and (2) to work with veterans and
veterans' service organizations to identify other chemical and
biological projects or tests that may have exposed service members to
chemical or biological agents. The act also mandated that we evaluate
DOD's efforts to identify the tests and potential service members and
number of civilian personnel exposed, as well as VA's progress in
notifying potentially exposed service members.[Footnote 4] Thus, our
objectives for this review were to (1) evaluate the effectiveness of
DOD's process for identifying chemical and biological tests conducted
under Project 112 and the service members and number of civilian
personnel who might have been exposed to agents employed under these
tests, (2) determine DOD's progress in identifying projects or tests
conducted outside of Project 112 that might have exposed service
members to chemical or biological agents, and (3) review VA's progress
in notifying service members whom DOD determined might have been
exposed.
We assessed the reliability of DOD and VA data by interviewing agency
officials knowledgeable about the data and by reviewing existing
information about the data and the systems that produced them. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to answer our
objectives.
To evaluate the effectiveness of DOD's identification process for
Project 112 tests and potentially exposed service members and civilian
personnel, we visited repositories of DOD test records, analyzed test
reports, and selected a representative sample of conducted tests for
more detailed analyses. In addition, we reviewed other available
documents and interviewed DOD officials and scientists, including those
involved in developing and conducting Project 112 tests. We
systematically corroborated the information we developed independently
from various sources before assessing whether DOD's Project 112
identification methodology was effective. To determine DOD's progress
in identifying chemical and biological tests or projects outside
Project 112, we interviewed DOD officials concerning DOD's process for
assigning responsibilities for such legislative mandates and its
current oversight of such DOD testing. To review VA's progress in
notifying potentially exposed service members, we gathered and analyzed
statistics concerning VA notifications and its identifications of
deceased service members and interviewed VA officials about the process
and likely impact on future medical treatment. For a more complete
discussion of our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
We performed our review from March 2003 through May 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government audit standards.
Results in Brief:
We believe that DOD accurately identified all tests associated with
Project 112.[Footnote 5] We also believe that although DOD performed a
reasonable investigation of service members potentially exposed to
agents employed in these tests, in view of the fact that many records
were unavailable owing to the passage of time, DOD likely has not
identified all potentially exposed military or civilian personnel. From
October 2000 through June 2003, DOD identified 134 planned chemical and
biological tests associated with Project 112, of which 50 were
conducted. Of the 50 tests that were conducted, 19 were Shipboard
Hazard and Defense, or ship-based tests, [Footnote 6] and 31 were land-
based. These tests were conducted primarily on or near U.S. territory,
although some tests were in Canada, Panama, and the United Kingdom.
DOD's methodology for identifying planned and conducted tests under
Project 112 appears sound, and we found no evidence of additional
Project 112 tests, planned or conducted. With regard to the
identification of personnel potentially exposed during testing, DOD
reported in its final report to Congress on June 30, 2003, that it had
determined that 5,842 service members had been potentially exposed to
chemical or biological agents. Because of its extensive comparison of
test and other documents in conjunction with other actions, we believe
that DOD's methodology and efforts to identify potentially exposed
military personnel as required by the mandate appear sound.
Furthermore, DOD addressed another mandate requirement by estimating
that 350 civilian personnel might have been exposed but did not focus
on civilian personnel during its investigation. Nevertheless, we
believe that it is likely that service members and civilian personnel
who participated in these tests have not been identified for the
following reasons:
* DOD had limited success in identifying service members exposed to
land-based tests because it was unable to locate the needed records.
DOD identified no service members who were potentially exposed during
21 of the 31 land-based tests, and in the remaining 10 land-based
tests, fewer than the total known to have participated were identified.
Approximately 94 percent of the identified service members were from
the 19 ship-based tests that comprised about one-third of all the tests
conducted.
* DOD did not specifically search for civilian personnel--DOD civilian
employees, DOD contractors, or foreign government participants--in its
investigation. The department's rationale for not including such
individuals was that it believed the scope of its investigation was
limited to military veterans who might be eligible for medical benefits
from VA. However, the act requires DOD to report the number of civilian
personnel potentially exposed, and following our inquiries, DOD
reported that an additional 350 civilian personnel (250 identified in
records and 100 more estimated) might have been exposed.
* DOD did not exhaust all possible sources of information during its
investigation, and additional potentially exposed personnel continue to
be identified. On January 20, 2004, DOD reported 51 additional
potentially exposed service members to VA. Furthermore, through our
research we identified and reported to DOD a total of 167 additional
potentially exposed personnel--39 service members, 125 civilian DOD
employees, and 3 contractors--who participated in the tests. In
addition, 172 other veterans, not identified by DOD, who reported a
Project 112 connection, have contacted VA. We also identified and
reported several possible new sources of additional Project 112
exposure information.
Since issuance of its final report in June 2003, DOD has curtailed its
efforts to identify service members and civilian personnel who were
potentially exposed. However, DOD has continued to respond to inquiries
from VA and individual service members concerning issues such as test
participation. At the time we concluded our review, DOD had not
determined the feasibility of continuing its efforts to identify
additional potentially exposed service members or civilian personnel.
Although the Defense Authorization Act for 2003 requires DOD to work
with veterans and veterans' service organizations to identify projects
or tests outside Project 112 that might have exposed members of the
armed forces to chemical or biological agents, DOD has not yet begun
this investigation. As a result of our review questions about DOD's
progress in responding to this requirement, in February 2004 an office
under the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology, and Logistics[Footnote 7] began preparing a plan to fulfill
this mandated requirement, but has not yet determined such essential
plan elements as the scope, reporting requirements, milestones, and
responsibilities for those involved in completing the effort. This is
an entirely different DOD office from the one that investigated the
Project 112 tests, and coordination between these investigations has
only recently begun. Although not required by the act, DOD plans to
attempt to identify service member and civilian personnel who were
potentially exposed by these tests. We determined that since World War
II DOD conducted hundreds of other classified tests within the 48
contiguous states outside the scope of Project 112.
As of March 2004, VA had sent notification letters to 58 percent of the
5,842 veterans identified by DOD, of which 751 were determined to be
deceased. VA is still processing over 2,400 cases, but it is having
difficulty making further notifications owing to the absence of key
information such as military service numbers. VA is planning to resolve
these more difficult cases and expects to complete its notification
process by September 1, 2005. To date, VA has granted 10 of 316 benefit
claims related to Project 112. The passage of Public Law 108-
170,[Footnote 8] title 1, on December 6, 2003, changed the eligibility
requirements for medical services, which in turn could increase the
number of medical visits associated with Project 112 tests.
DOD has not designated what office will serve as the primary point of
contact for providing information relating to tests in and outside
Project 112. The DOD office that is involved in identifying tests
outside Project 112 had not begun its work and DOD has designated no
entity, including the Project 112 investigative office, to provide
information about tests outside Project 112. This situation could
result in DOD's having no single point of contact for providing
information--including the additional identification of personnel
potentially exposed--to VA, individuals, and other interested parties,
such as foreign countries.
We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the
appropriate DOD office(s) to (1) determine the feasibility of
addressing unresolved issues associated with Project 112, such as
identifying and contacting potentially exposed service members and
civilian personnel; (2) finalize and implement a plan for identifying
DOD projects and tests conducted outside Project 112 that might have
exposed service members to chemical or biological agents; and (3)
designate a single point of contact to provide information relating to
tests and potential exposures in and outside of Project 112 to VA,
individuals, and other interested parties such as foreign countries, as
appropriate. The report contains no recommendations for VA.
In commenting on this report, both DOD and VA concurred with our
findings. DOD concurred with our recommendations and established dates
for their implementation. Both DOD and VA also provided suggested
technical changes and updated information, which we incorporated in the
final report where appropriate.
Background:
Project 112 encompassed a series of classified operational chemical and
biological warfare tests from 1962 through 1974 that DOD initiated
under the auspices of the Army's Deseret Test Center, Fort Douglas,
Utah. The project was so named because in 1962 it was the 112th project
of 150 delineated by the then Secretary of Defense and involved the
classified testing of chemical and biological agents. Annually, the
armed services and the commanders in chief of the combatant commands
submitted their testing requirements to Deseret Test Center where they
were discussed at annual planning conferences and, when possible,
incorporated in the test program for the following year.
Project 112 included both ship-based and land-based tests. Ship-based
tests were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of protective
measures against chemical and biological agents, and risks to U.S.
forces. Land-based tests were generally conducted to learn how chemical
or biological warfare agents behaved in different environmental
conditions, e.g., frigid or tropical climates. The ship-based tests
involved service members from the Navy and Army and to a lesser extent
personnel from the Marine Corps and Air Force. According to a Project
112 chief scientist we interviewed, test teams consisted largely of
military and civilian personnel from DOD's Dugway Proving Ground, Utah,
with an Army, Air Force, or Naval officer as test director. Ship-based
tests were conducted in the open waters of the North Atlantic and
Pacific Oceans and near the Marshall Islands, the Islands of Hawaii,
Baker Island (a U.S. possession located 1,650 miles southwest of Hawaii
in the Pacific Ocean), Puerto Rico, and the California coast. Land-
based tests took place in the states of Alaska, Florida, Georgia,
Hawaii, Maryland, and Utah, as well as in Panama, Canada, and the
United Kingdom. These land-based tests sometimes included foreign
personnel observers--both military and civilian.
In August 2000, following occasional veteran and congressional contacts
concerning veterans' involvement in Project 112 tests, VA's Acting
Secretary wrote to the Secretary of Defense requesting information on
ship-based testing conducted by DOD. In October 2000 DOD assigned
responsibility for this action to its Deployment Health Support
Directorate. DOD committed to obtaining information about three tests-
-Autumn Gold, Copper Head, and Shady Grove (see app. II)--such as
dates, locations, chemical or biological agents used, and names of
military personnel aboard the ships during the testing. DOD
investigators, representing only a small element of the Directorate,
discovered and provided information on these as well as on the
remaining Project 112 tests, planned or conducted, despite having a
number of difficulties to overcome with respect to the availability of
test records. The available records were stored in multiple locations,
not easily searchable, and still largely classified because of
operational concerns.
When the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act was passed, it
expanded the requirements beyond what DOD envisioned when it began its
investigation. The act required DOD to provide VA with the information
developed concerning Project 112 tests VA for its use in notifying
service members who might have been exposed. The act also required DOD
to submit to Congress reports, which were to include the test names,
test objectives, chemical or biological agents involved, number of
service members and civilian personnel potentially affected by each
test, and other information. The act also required us to review and
report to Congress on DOD's test and personnel identification efforts,
its procedures for providing VA with information and VA's notification
efforts. As mandated by the act, DOD concluded its investigation of
Project 112 with a report to Congress on June 30, 2003. In addition,
the act required DOD to work with veterans and veterans' service
organizations to identify other DOD projects or tests that might have
similarly exposed service members. While this second investigation had
not started when we began our work, an office under the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
is now preparing a plan for doing so. This second investigation is
being envisioned as completely separate from and is being conducted by
a different office from the one that investigated Project 112.
DOD Accurately Identified Project 112 Tests, Performed a Reasonable
Investigation for Service Members, and Estimated Civilian Personnel
Potentially Exposed:
The Defense Authorization Act for 2003 required DOD to identify Project
112 tests, as well as the service members and the number of civilians
who might have been exposed to agents employed in these tests. A small
office of the Deployment Health Support Directorate that reports to the
Under Secretary for Health Affairs conducted this investigation. We
believe that DOD accurately identified the tests associated with
Project 112 and, given the unavailability of many records due to the
passage of time, performed a reasonable investigation of service
members who were potentially exposed to the agents employed in these
tests. DOD identified 134 planned Project 112 tests of which 50 were
conducted--either on land or on ships. Some tests were conducted on or
near U.S. territory, although some were in foreign countries. We found
no evidence of any additional Project 112 tests. Because of its
extensive comparison of test documents and ship personnel rosters, in
conjunction with other actions, we believe that DOD used a sound
methodology to identify 5,842 service members who were potentially
exposed to agents employed in these tests. DOD addressed another
mandate requirement with respect to reporting the number of civilian
personnel who might have been exposed to agents by these tests by
including in its final report an estimate that 350 DOD civilian
personnel were potentially exposed. For several reasons, we believe it
is likely that both service members and civilian personnel remain
unidentified. First, DOD had limited success in identifying service
members exposed to land-based tests because it was unable to find much
of the needed documentation. Second, DOD did not specifically search
for civilian personnel--DOD employees, contractors, and foreign
government participants--in its investigation because it considered
civilian personnel beyond the scope of its investigation. Third, DOD
did not identify all possible sources of information such as additional
Project 112 repositories, and substantial numbers of potentially
exposed personnel continue to be identified. We identified 167
additional potentially exposed personnel mostly associated with land-
based tests.[Footnote 9] DOD identified an additional 51 and VA, an
additional 172. Nevertheless, DOD has not determined the feasibility of
continuing its efforts to identify additional potentially exposed
service members or civilian personnel.
Identification of Project 112 Tests:
As required by the legislative mandate, DOD accurately identified the
134 planned tests associated with Project 112, of which 50 were
conducted. DOD believes that the systematic approach it used to
identify these tests provides a high degree of assurance that it has
captured all of the Project 112 tests, and we agree. We did not find
any evidence of additional Project 112 tests, planned or conducted,
during our review.
Of the 50 Project 112 tests that DOD conducted, 19 were ship-based and
31 were land-based. (See fig. 1 for an example of land-based testing.)
According to information provided to VA, the ship-based tests occurred,
among other places, in the Pacific Ocean off the Hawaiian Islands and
off the coast of San Diego, California; in the Atlantic Ocean off
Newfoundland; in the Pacific off the Marshall Islands; and off Vieques
Island, Puerto Rico. The land-based tests were conducted in Alaska,
Utah, Canada, the Panama Canal Zone, and the United Kingdom. The tests
were conducted from December 1962 through May 1974. (See app. II for a
summary of the 50 conducted tests.):
Figure 1: Dispensing Chemical Simulants during a Land-Based
Test:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In the absence of distinct overall program documents, DOD relied on a
myriad of documents from various sources to identify Project 112 tests.
As shown in figure 2, DOD (1) determined the repositories of potential
test records, (2) performed electronic and physical searches of the
documents contained at each repository to identify applicable
documents, (3) reviewed each document to determine its relevance to
Project 112, and (4) interviewed selected scientists and test
participants. In addition, DOD conducted outreach programs to veterans
and veterans'groups and corroborated the evidence obtained from the
various sources.
Figure 2: DOD Methodology for Identifying Project 112 Tests:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Repositories of Project 112 test records included but were not limited
to Dugway Proving Ground, Utah; Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland; and
the Navy's Surface Warfare Center located at Dahlgren, Virginia. Using
this approach, according to DOD officials, DOD located documents that
addressed tests planned and conducted for each of the years during
which Project 112 tests were being performed. In particular, DOD
officials noted the corroboration of evidence from the annual and
semiannual reports from the Deseret Test Center, Utah, the organization
responsible for the tests; the planning documents for each of the
tests; and the final test reports. This enabled them to close the
"information gaps," thus providing a high level of assurance that
virtually all of the tests were identified. The annual reports, for
example, typically discussed not only the plans for the coming year but
also included information on the tests that had been conducted during
the previous year. DOD supplemented the evidence it gathered from
documents and discussions with former managers of the Deseret Test
Center.
We did not identify any additional Project 112 tests in our review of
DOD documents and our discussions with DOD and former officials and
managers of the Deseret Test Center. It appears that DOD used a
reasonable approach for identifying the locations of records and source
documents, particularly since some of the Project 112 tests were
conducted more than 40 years ago and the record-keeping systems were
much less sophisticated than today's.
DOD's determination of whether Project 112 tests were conducted was
complicated by the fact that a number of tests were postponed, had name
changes, or were combined with other tests. DOD essentially used an
iterative approach to track each test from its first mention in a test
document until its final resolution--conducted or canceled.
Determinations were made on a case-by-case basis whenever possible, on
the basis of the evidence that was gathered for each test. The
existence of a final test report was considered to be sufficient
evidence that a test had been conducted; DOD obtained final test
reports for each of the 50 tests that it concluded were conducted. DOD
located specific documentation for 62 of the 84 tests it determined
were canceled. The determination that the remaining 22 tests had been
canceled was based on a combination of factors. The moratorium on
biological tests that was issued on November 25, 1969, for example, was
the partial basis for the determination that eight tests were canceled.
Other cancellation determinations were based on (1) the decommissioning
of the fleet used for the ship-based tests, (2) test requirements
canceled or met by other tests, and (3) the Deseret Test Center's
closure. We agree with DOD's conclusions regarding tests that were
conducted or canceled.
DOD developed unclassified fact sheets that described each conducted
Project 112 test, which was provided to VA, and made available on the
DOD Web site. These fact sheets provide available information
concerning the test objectives, dates, and locations as well as the
names of participating units or ships. The fact sheets also provide
information concerning the agents used and current information
concerning the medical implications of exposure.
Potentially Exposed Service Members and Civilian Personnel Remain
Unidentified:
Although the methodology to identify potentially exposed service
members appears to be sound, we believe that the service members that
DOD identified and the number of civilian personnel it estimated do not
represent all of the service members and civilian personnel who might
have been exposed for the following reasons:
* DOD had limited success in identifying service members exposed to
land-based tests because it was unable to find much of the needed
documentation.
* DOD did not specifically search for individual civilian personnel--
DOD employees, DOD contractors, or foreign government participants--in
its investigation because it considered such personnel outside its
scope.
* DOD did not exhaust all possible sources of pertinent information,
and additional potentially exposed personnel continue to be identified.
Nevertheless, DOD has not evaluated the feasibility of addressing
unresolved Project 112 issues, such as identifying additional
potentially exposed service members, civilian employees, contractors,
and foreign nationals who participated in the tests. DOD has also not
determined what office has responsibility for reporting new information
to VA, individuals, or other interested parties, such as foreign
countries, as appropriate.
In its last report to Congress on June 30, 2003, DOD identified 5,842
service members who had been potentially exposed during Project 112
tests; some during more than one test. DOD reported an additional 51
potentially exposed service members to VA on January 20, 2004. Owing to
the absence of important documentation, DOD had limited success in
identifying service members exposed to land-based tests. DOD did not
identify any potentially exposed service members in 21 of the 31 land-
based tests and limited numbers in the remainder. Ship-based tests
commonly had 1,000 or more participants. Land-based tests, according to
a former Deseret Test Center scientist, generally involved fewer than
200 participants. Because of the aforementioned reasons, almost all
those identified---94 percent--were from ship-based tests that
comprised about one-third of the total number of tests conducted. Also,
fewer service members were identified for some land-based tests than
the number known to have participated. For example, in Elk Hunt I, a
land-based test that involved personnel from at least seven Army units
of various sizes, DOD identified only six service members.
DOD did not specifically search for civilian personnel in its
investigation--such as DOD civilian employees, DOD contractors, or
foreign nationals--because it believed that the scope of its
investigation was limited to military veterans who might be eligible
for medical benefits from VA. DOD addressed the basic mandate
requirement with respect to identifying the number of civilian
personnel by including in its final report an estimate that 350 DOD
civilian and contractor personnel were potentially exposed. However,
during the course of its investigation, DOD did not focus on DOD
civilian personnel. In April 2003, when we inquired about the progress
DOD had made in determining the number of DOD civilians who might have
been exposed, DOD had not performed any work to make this
determination. Subsequently, DOD identified 250 DOD civilians using the
records it had gathered in its investigation of service members. Since
it had not reviewed any civilian records, it increased the
aforementioned number by 100 to cover additional civilian participants
who might not have been included in the records that had been gathered.
Although not required by the legislative mandate, we noted during the
course of our review that DOD had not disseminated information
concerning civilian personnel or attempted to notify them about the
investigation into the Project 112 tests. A records-holding area at
Dugway Proving Ground contained 1,300 boxes with approximately 9
million historical records, but it is unclear how many of these relate
to Project 112. Our examination of the records contained in 12 of the
boxes that we believed might be useful resulted in the identification
of the names of 128 civilians (DOD employees and contractors) who might
have been exposed during Project 112 testing.
The problems DOD experienced in making the identifications of service
members appear to have been largely due to the lack of available
documentation, given that some of these tests were conducted more than
40 years ago and given the unsophisticated records systems that existed
at that time. DOD officials indicated that there was no requirement for
DOD during the Project 112 test period to document Project 112 test
participants, service members, or any others who might have been
exposed to agents employed in these tests, and it did not do so. The
test plans and reports, for example, include quantitative data on
personnel and equipment support requirements but do not identify the
names of test conductors or participants. Absent this information, DOD
had the rather complex task of collecting information from various
sources, even informal test notes, to make these identifications. DOD's
methodology used the information contained in the fact sheets for each
test, such as the names of the ships or units involved, and then
searched available documentation for service members who might have
been involved. For ship-based tests, for example, DOD obtained archived
rosters of participating ships for the appropriate time frames, along
with messages regarding ship personnel changes. DOD analyzed this
information to determine the personnel who likely participated in the
ship-based tests.
According to DOD officials, the identification of land-based test
participants was more difficult and, for many tests, even impossible.
DOD took several steps to identify these participants including (1)
requesting personnel rosters of participating units, (2) conducting key
word searches of computer databases, and (3) performing general
searches of boxes containing test records. For example, DOD reviewed
the contents of a number of classified and unclassified boxes of test
data at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah seeking participant data. In
addition, DOD contacted service members who had sought assistance from
VA and former employees of the Deseret Test Center. (See fig. 3.):
Figure 3: Figure 3: Results of DOD's Investigation of Service Members
and Others Potentially Exposed during Project 112 Tests:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Despite some success, DOD encountered a number of difficulties in
locating information concerning participants in land-based tests.
According to DOD, a number of commonly available military records were
not useful in its investigation. For example, unit history records
typically did not include useful information because units
participating in these tests were platoon sized or smaller and unit
history records are generally not recorded for units of this
size.[Footnote 10] Also, most test participants traveled to the test
locations from their home unit. However, the documents needed to
identify individuals who traveled to the test sites, such as travel
orders and vouchers, were not retained. For some tests, DOD was able to
locate participant names and, in other cases, it could not. Ultimately,
DOD electronically provided to VA with the names of service members who
were deemed likely participants in either ship-based or land-based
tests. These included the 5,842 service members that DOD reported to
Congress in June 2003 and 51 that were reported to VA in January 2004.
Since issuance of its final report in June 2003, DOD has sharply
curtailed its efforts to identify service members and civilian
personnel who were potentially exposed. However, the DOD has continued
to respond to inquiries from VA and individual service members
concerning issues such as test participation. At the time we concluded
our review, DOD had not determined the feasibility of continuing its
efforts to identify additional potentially exposed service members or
civilian personnel.
Additional Potentially Exposed Personnel and Source Material
Identified:
During our review, both we and VA discovered additional service
members, previously unidentified by DOD, who had been potentially
exposed during Project 112 tests. We identified and reported to DOD a
total of 167 additional personnel potentially exposed--39 service
members, 125 civilian DOD employees, and 3 contractors, as well as
several possible new sources of additional Project 112 exposure
information. VA identified an additional 172 service members. DOD is
currently processing these additional service member identifications.
We also learned of additional potential sources of information
including films taken of all land-based tests and other repositories of
possible Project 112 documentation.
* Unidentified service members: In a records-holding area at Dugway
Proving Ground containing 1,300 boxes with approximately 9 million
historical records, including Project 112-related test records, our
examination of the records contained in 12 of the boxes uncovered
approximately 39 additional potentially exposed service members' names
not identified on DOD's list. Since we examined only a few dozen
records, it is very likely that more service members potentially
exposed to Project 112 testing could be identified from this records-
holding area. According to Dugway officials, in July 2003 a contract
was negotiated to scan and digitize the 9 million records being held
there. Once this process is completed, access to the records will be
greatly facilitated.
* Unidentified civilian participants in Project 112 tests: Our
examination of the test records in 12 of the 1,300 boxes of historical
records at the Dugway records-holding area also enabled us to identify
civilian personnel not previously identified by DOD. We identified 125
civilian DOD employees and 3 contractors who had participated in land-
based Project 112 tests, such as the 1967 Green Mist test on the Big
Island of Hawaii and the 1965 West Side II test in Canada for which DOD
identified no service members. According to a former scientist
responsible for conducting the tests, Dugway Proving Ground furnished
over half of the personnel, mostly civilians, who remain unidentified.
This official also stated that the civilians employed at Deseret Test
Center and Dugway Proving Ground were exposed to 100 times more agents
than the military personnel who participated.
* VA-reported unidentified service members: Since VA began notifying
DOD-identified service members potentially exposed during Project 112
tests, other veterans have contacted VA directly indicating connections
to the tests. These veterans learned of the VA interest mainly by word-
of-mouth according to VA officials. As of January 2, 2004, 172
veterans, in addition to those identified by DOD, have themselves
reported a Project 112 connection directly to VA.
* Project 112 films as test documentation: According to Dugway
officials, films were made of every land-based Project 112 test; and
most tests involved multiple phases or trials. As these trials were
conducted, an Army photography and film team recorded the test
activities, and a total of 109 films were made. These films, which were
done in what is now an obsolete format, are being converted to a format
that can now be viewed. As of January 2004, about 25 percent of the
films hadbeen converted. These films might be useful in identifying
participating units as well as service members and civilian personnel.
The films might show, for example, ships or helicopters that
participated in the tests and were not previously identified.
* Other record-holding repositories identified: During the course of
our interview process, we were informed of additional locations
containing possible Project 112-related documents that were not
included in DOD's investigation. Two such locations are the Army Corps
of Engineers, St. Louis, Missouri, and the National Personnel Records
Center, also in St. Louis. However, investigating these repositories
would likely be difficult and costly because these records might be
voluminous, unorganized, and general in nature. In addition, these
records might not be easily searchable by topics related to Project
112.
DOD Plans to Investigate Tests outside Project 112:
The Defense Authorization Act for 2003 mandated DOD to work with
veterans and veterans' service organizations to identify DOD projects
or tests conducted outside Project 112 that might have exposed service
members to chemical or biological agents. DOD has not yet begun its
investigation to identify such projects or tests. However, the Office
of the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical and
Biological Defense (Chemical and Biological Defense Office)[Footnote
11] began preparing a plan for doing so after our inquiry about the
investigation's status. According to DOD officials, the office plans to
identify the primary projects and tests conducted, attempt to identify
service members and civilian personnel who might have been exposed to
agents during the tests, and provide VA or other interested
organizations with this information. Our current review and prior work
from the mid-1990s have shown that extensive chemical and biological
tests and projects were conducted during the Project 112 1962-74 time
period and that much greater numbers of service members and civilian
personnel than DOD has reported for Project 112 were potentially
exposed.
DOD Has Not Begun Investigating Other Projects or Tests:
While DOD has aggressively investigated the Project 112 tests, it has
not yet begun its investigation of projects or tests outside Project
112 as also mandated by the 2003 act. On the basis of an internal DOD
agreement in November 2002, the identification of tests and projects
outside Project 112 became the responsibility of the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics
because this organization has overall responsibility within DOD for
chemical and biological defense. Subsequent to our inquiries, in
February 2004, DOD's Chemical and Biological Defense Office began
preparing a plan for accomplishing this mandated requirement.
Officials of the Chemical and Biological Defense Office stated that
they plan to identify major chemical and biological tests and projects
conducted outside the scope of Project 112 since World War II and will
attempt to locate repositories of information concerning these tests
and projects. Using these and other sources of information, they plan
to identify service members and civilian personnel who might have been
exposed to the agents employed in these tests. These officials
indicated that they plan to coordinate with the Deployment Health
Support Directorate, the DOD office that investigated Project 112, and
use the experience gained during the Project 112 investigation to
facilitate their own efforts. As information concerning these tests and
projects is developed, DOD plans to provide VA and to other interested
organizations with this information, as appropriate. DOD anticipates
that it might take up to 5 years to complete the investigation of tests
outside Project 112.
However, this approach does not provide a single DOD focal point for
providing VA, individuals, and other interested parties with
information related to chemical and biological testing. Responsibility
for completing the investigation of Project 112 tests remains with the
Deployment Health Directorate, which reports to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Health Affairs. Responsibility for investigations of tests
outside the scope of Project 112 now resides with the Office of the
Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical and
Biological Defense, which ultimately reports to the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. Under this
arrangement, no one office has overall responsibility for providing
oversight and coordination for these investigations. Also, neither
office is currently designated to serve as the primary point of contact
for administering the identification and reporting of additional
potentially exposed service members and DOD civilian personnel. This
situation could result in DOD's having no single official point of
contact for providing VA, individuals, and other interested parties,
such as foreign countries, as appropriate, with information, including
the additional identification of personnel potentially exposed.
Hundreds of Classified Tests outside Project 112 Were Conducted with
Thousands of Potentially Exposed Personnel:
While there is no database that contains information concerning the
biological and chemical tests that have been conducted, we determined
that hundreds of such classified tests and research projects were
conducted outside Project 112 while it was ongoing. In addition,
information from various sources shows that personnel from all services
were involved in chemical and biological testing.
We learned during this review that hundreds of chemical and biological
tests similar to those conducted under Project 112 were conducted
during the same time period. A former Deseret Test Center scientist
estimated that the number of chemical and biological tests conducted at
just one location--Dugway Proving Ground, Utah--was over 100, or more
than double the number of tests conducted under Project 112 during the
same time period. According to an Army study, some of these tests
reflected the same objectives as Project 112.[Footnote 12] This study
listed 31 biological field tests performed at various military
installations including Dugway Proving Ground, Utah; Ft. Bragg, North
Carolina; Fort Detrick, Maryland; and Edwards Air Force Base,
California.[Footnote 13] The study did not quantify the number of test
participants nor did it identify them.
In addition, we reported in 1993 and 1994 that hundreds of
radiological, chemical, and biological tests were conducted in which
hundreds of thousands of people were used as test subjects. [Footnote
14] We also reported that the Army Chemical Corps conducted a
classified medical research program for developing incapacitating
agents. This program involved testing nerve agents, nerve agent
antidotes, psycho chemicals, and irritants. The chemicals were given to
volunteer service members at Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland; Dugway Proving
Ground, Utah; and Forts Benning, Bragg, and McClellan. In total, Army
documents identified 7,120 Army and Air Force personnel who
participated in these tests.[Footnote 15] Further, GAO concluded that
precise information on the scope and the magnitude of tests involving
human subjects was not available, and the exact number of human
subjects might never be known.
VA Notified the Majority of Service Members Identified by DOD:
Of the 5,842 Project 112 service members identified by DOD in its final
report on June 30, 2003, VA sent notification letters to the majority-
-3,397--from May, 2002 through March, 2004. However, 751 of these
veterans were determined to be deceased, and notification efforts
regarding the remaining potentially exposed veterans--over 2,400--are
ongoing. These numbers do not include recent additional identifications
of potentially exposed service members by DOD, VA, or us during our
review. VA is having difficulty making the remaining more than 2,400
notifications largely because of incomplete data. VA officials said
that the information provided by DOD concerning service members was in
many cases missing key data, such as service numbers. To resolve these
more difficult cases, VA is developing a plan involving the use of
Social Security, the National Personnel Records Center, and other
databases to obtain additional needed information. VA plans to complete
its notification of the remaining service members by September 1, 2005.
As of March 31, 2004, VA had granted 10 of 316 claims for benefits
directly related to Project 112 tests. However, recent changes to the
eligibility requirements for medical services could increase the number
of medical visits.
As of March 2004, VA had identified the addresses of and mailed at
least one outreach letter to 3,397--or 58 percent--of the 5,842 Project
112 veterans identified in DOD's June 2003 final report. To accomplish
this, VA matched the list of potentially exposed service members from
DOD against its own database to find a Social Security number. If no
Social Security number was located, VA matched the available service
member's information to the information contained in the National
Personnel Records Center. Once VA received a Social Security number, it
used the services of the Internal Revenue Service and credit bureaus to
locate the veteran's current address, or if applicable, the date of
death. According to VA, many additional veterans alerted by word of
mouth have in turn contacted VA through the use of toll-free numbers,
submission of benefit claims, and calls or visits to health-care
facilities. In addition, VA has sponsored a number of outreach efforts
to veterans and veterans' groups, including establishing a Web site
containing Project 112 information and issuing press releases.
According to VA officials, VA received 2,217 Project 112-related calls
since the May 2002 activation of its toll-free helpline.
VA's notification efforts are ongoing but have slowed recently owing to
difficulties in obtaining Social Security numbers and addresses for the
potentially exposed service members who have not yet been notified. As
of March 2004, more than 2,400 service members--or more than 40
percent--remain to be processed. VA officials said that the information
provided by DOD concerning service members was in many cases missing
key data, such as service numbers. While it is still possible to locate
service members without this information, VA officials said that it is
difficult to do so. To complete these more difficult cases, VA is
developing a plan involving the use of Social Security, the National
Personnel Records Center, and other databases to obtain additional
needed information. VA plans to complete its notification of the
remaining service members that DOD identified by September 1, 2005.
The VA notification letters, or "outreach letters," include the name of
the specific test(s) in which DOD indicated that the service member was
a participant and information on the type of agent employed in the
test. In addition, a copy of a DOD fact sheet concerning each test that
the service member participated in was enclosed with each letter. These
fact sheets provided available information concerning the objectives,
dates, and locations of the tests, as well as the participating units
or ships. In addition, the fact sheet provided information concerning
the agents used, as well as current information concerning the medical
implications of exposure to them.
As of March 2004, VA had received 316 claims for benefits related to
Project 112 tests. Of the 316 claims, 88 are pending, 168 have been
denied, 50 have been granted for a condition not connected to Project
112, and 10 were granted for a condition connected to Project 112.
VA does not anticipate significant increases in approved claims as a
result of notifying service members who were potentially exposed during
Project 112 testing. Notably, the requirement of eligibility has
traditionally been that the illness or injury was service connected.
Consequently, only 10 notified service members had met this service-
connected requirement for Project 112-related exposures as of January
2004. However, the passage of Public Law 108-170 on December 6, 2003,
allows service members who participated in Project 112 tests to be
eligible for hospital care, medical services and nursing home care from
the VA for any illness until December 31, 2005--without having to
establish that their illness was connected to Project 112 testing.
Nevertheless, VA officials still do not anticipate any significant
increase in the number of medical visits.
Conclusions:
DOD has made a reasonable effort to identify Project 112 tests and the
service members who might have been exposed to chemical or biological
agents during these tests. However, DOD has not exhausted the
possibilities for identifying additional service members and, although
not required by the mandate, individual DOD civilian employees, DOD
contractors, and foreign government participants. Additional
identifications will likely result if DOD continues this investigation.
DOD is also only in the preliminary planning stages of a mandated
second investigation identifying tests outside Project 112 that might
have exposed service members. DOD officials have stated their intention
to include the identification of both service members and civilian
personnel in its second investigation. The completion of both DOD
investigations would mean the review of all reasonably available
documentary evidence in an attempt to identify those service members
and civilian personnel who might have been exposed to chemical and
biological agents. However, DOD has not designated a single official
focal point for providing information from the investigations to VA,
individuals, and other interested parties. Furthermore, VA is having
difficulty notifying more than 1,700 of the 5,842 identified service
members and recently formulated a plan for dealing with this problem. A
single DOD focal point could be helpful not only for DOD's coordination
with VA but also for VA's efforts to continue service member
notifications. Without a committed effort to identify and notify all
potentially exposed personnel, some participants, especially civilian
personnel, might not be aware of their potential exposure to chemical
and biological agents or be able to use this information to seek
medical assistance, if needed.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct that the following
three actions be taken by the appropriate office(s):
* determine the feasibility of addressing unresolved issues associated
with Project 112 and the appropriateness of and responsibility for
reporting new information, such as the identification of additional
potentially exposed service members, civilian employees, contractors,
and foreign nationals who participated in the tests;
* finalize and implement a plan for identifying DOD projects and tests
conducted outside Project 112 that might have exposed service members
to chemical or biological agents and ensure that the plan addresses the
scope, reporting requirements, milestones, and responsibilities for
those involved in completing this effort; and:
* designate a single point of contact for providing VA, individuals,
and other interested parties such as foreign governments, as
appropriate, with information related to tests and potential exposures
in and outside Project 112.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
DOD concurred with our report findings and recommendations and agreed
to implement our recommendations. In commenting on our report, DOD
acknowledged our recognition of its investigation of Project 112 tests
and agreed to address the unresolved issues with these tests as well as
investigate the chemical and biological testing programs conducted
since World War II. While we did not make recommendations to VA, the
department concurred with our report findings. Both DOD and VA also:
provided suggested technical changes and updated information, which we
incorporated in the final report where appropriate. DOD's comments are
shown in appendix III, and VA's comments are provided in appendix IV.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of the Army; the
Secretary of the Navy; the Secretary of the Air Force; the Commandant
of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management and Budget.
We will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition,
the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staff have any
questions regarding this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6020,
or my Assistant Director, William W. Cawood, at (202) 512-3959. Harry
E. Taylor, Jr., Harry A. Knobler, M. Jane Hunt, Rebecca Shea, and David
A. Mayfield were major contributors to this report.
Signed by:
Raymond J. Decker, Director,
Defense Capabilities and Management:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We assessed the reliability of the Department of Defense's (DOD) and
the Department of Veterans' Affairs' (VA) data by interviewing agency
officials knowledgeable about the data and by reviewing existing
information about the data and the systems that produced them. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable to answer our
objectives.
We reviewed and analyzed available reports, briefings, documents, and
records and interviewed officials at the Office of the Secretary of
Defense (OSD), Washington, D.C., including the Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and the Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Department of
Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C.; and the U.S. Army Dugway Proving
Ground, Utah.
To evaluate the effectiveness of DOD's process to identify chemical and
biological tests conducted under Project 112 and the service members
and number of civilians who might have been exposed to agents employed
under Project 112 tests, we (1) interviewed officials at the Office of
the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D.C., including the Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, and
the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Department
of Veterans Affairs, Washington, D.C.; the U.S. Army Dugway Proving
Ground, Utah; and the Deployment Health Support Directorate, Under
Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (hereafter referred to
as DOD), who were responsible for conducting DOD's investigation of
Project 112 tests. In addition, we (1) reviewed the methodology and
process that DOD used to locate, declassify, and review appropriate
sources of Project 112 data, (2) obtained and systematically analyzed
Project 112 data; (3) interviewed former employees and test
participants, and (4) corroborated the evidence from documents and
interviews.
We evaluated DOD's methodology by reviewing the work it had performed,
retracing its steps, and doing independent research and analysis to
develop the universe of Project 112 tests and identify the service
members and civilians who might have been exposed to the agents
employed under these tests. We visited the primary repository for
Project 112 records at Dugway Proving Ground, Utah. At Dugway, we
interviewed officials, performed data searches,and reviewed available
documentation. The documentation we reviewed included test plans and
reports, the Deseret Test Center's annual and semiannual reports, and
unorganized boxes of test materials in storage. In addition, we
interviewed scientists who lived in Salt Lake City, Utah, who were
former employees of the Deseret Test Center, the organization that
conducted the Project 112 tests. We reviewed the files of the DOD
investigative team, as well as the periodic and final report of its
investigation to Congress, to determine if there were "information
gaps" for the time period during which the Project 112 tests were
conducted. We developed a data collection instrument to systematically
document the tests that DOD concluded were conducted. With the use of
the data collection instrument, we collected specific, uniform
information concerning test location, dates, agents employed, and the
number of service members identified who might have been potentially
exposed. We selected a sample of tests for more detailed analysis and
included, in our data collection instrument, information on DOD's basis
for determining that the test was conducted, whether specific
participating units or ships were identified, the documents or sources
used to determine service members who might have been exposed, and the
likelihood that indirect exposures occurred. We also reviewed DOD's
outreach efforts and the extent to which DOD coordinated with other
agencies that might have useful information, including the Department
of Veterans' Affairs. We reviewed and analyzed our prior reports as
well as reports of other organizations to provide a historical and
contextual framework for evaluating DOD's efforts. In formulating our
conclusion as to whether DOD's methodology was effective, we
systematically corroborated the information we developed independently
and from various sources to make this determination.
To determine DOD's progress in identifying projects or tests conducted
outside Project 112 that might have exposed service members, we held
discussions with the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for
Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics, which oversees current chemical
and biological testing. We also contacted the OSD Office of Legislative
Affairs, as well as the DOD Office of the Inspector General, to
determine the process for assigning responsibilities for fulfilling
mandates of this type within DOD.
To determine VA's progress in notifying service members whom DOD
determined might have been exposed, we interviewed VA officials,
gathered statistics concerning their success in making the
notifications; and, in response to our data request, received
information in writing concerning pertinent issues. In particular, we
documented the number of service members whose names had been provided
to VA by DOD, and the extent to which notification letters were sent
and service members were deceased, or cases where sufficient
documentation was not available to make the notifications. In addition,
we discussed with VA officials the likely impact of service members
seeking medical treatment as a result of being potentially exposed and
the passage of Public Law 108-170, which allows service members who
were potentially exposed to these tests to receive medical treatment
from VA until December 31, 2005, without proof of service connection.
We performed our review from March 2003 through March 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government audit standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Project 112 Tests Reported as Conducted:
Table 1 below shows the 50 tests conducted, with the locations and
dates of the tests, the agents employed, participating units or
organizations, and the number of service members identified who were
potentially exposed. There are gaps in the test numbers for several
reasons, including that tests were combined with other tests,
cancelled, or had name changes.
Table 1: Summary of DOD Project 112 Submissions to VA as of June 30,
2003:
Test number and name: 63-3, Whistle Down;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Dec. 1962-Feb. 1963;
Units/Ships involved: Unidentified U.S. Army, DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: GB, VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 3, 2002.
Test number and name: 63-1, Eager Belle I (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 119;
Date of test: Jan.-Mar. 1963;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: USS George Eastman;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean;
Agent: BG;
Date of submission to VA: Jan. 31, 2002.
Test number and name: Eager Belle II (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 1,076;
Date of test: Jan, Mar., June 1963;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: USS Carpenter, USS George
Eastman; USS Granville S. Hall; USS Navarro; USS Tioga County;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean;
Agent: BG;
Date of submission to VA: Dec. 2, 2003.
Test number and name: 63-4, Big Jack A;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Feb-Mar. 1963;
Units/Ships involved: VMA 225, Marine Aircraft Group 14 (A-4);
Test location(s): Near Ft. Sherman, Panama Canal Zone;
Agent: BG, FP;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 31, 2002.
Test number and name: Big Jack B;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Feb.-Mar. 1963;
Units/Ships involved: VMA 225, Marine Aircraft Group 145 (A-4);
Test location(s): Near Ft. Sherman, Panama Canal Zone;
Agent: TOF;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 31, 2002.
Test number and name: 63-2, Autumn Gold (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 1, 536;
Date of test: May 1963;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: Marine Air Group 13, USS
Carpenter, USS Granville S. Hall, USS Hoel, USS Navarro, USS Tioga
County;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (60 mi. WSW of Oahu, Hawaii);
Agent: BG;
Date of submission to VA: Sept. 13, 2001.
Test number and name: 64-1, Errand Boy (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 95;
Date of test: Sept. 1963;
Units/Ships involved: USS George Eastman (YAG-39);
Test location(s): Near Pearl Harbor, Oahu, Hawaii;
Agent: BG, betapropriolactone;
Date of submission to VA: June 30, 2003.
Test number and name: 64-5, Night Train;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Nov. 1963-Jan. 1964;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified; (F-105, F-100, and an Army
personnel carrier);
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: BG, FP;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 64-2, Flower Drum I (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 268;
Date of test: Feb.-Apr.1964;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: USS George Eastman;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean;
Agent: GB, S02,;
Date of submission to VA: May 23, 2002.
Test number and name: 64-2, Flower Drum I (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 268;
Date of test: Feb.-Apr.1964;
Units/Ships involved: USS Granvill S. Hall;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean;
Agent: MAA;
Date of submission to VA: May 23, 2002.
Test number and name: Flower Drum II (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 5;
Date of test: Aug.-Sept. 1964;
Units/Ships involved: Navy tug ATF-105;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (off coast of Hawaii);
Agent: VX, phosphoous 32,;
Date of submission to VA: May 23, 2002.
Test number and name: Flower Drum II (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 5;
Date of test: Aug.-Sept. 1964;
Units/Ships involved: Navy covered lighter (barge),YFN-811;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (off coast of Hawaii);
Agent: BIS (2 ethyl-hexyl), hydrogen phoshite;
Date of submission to VA: May 23, 2002.
Test number and name: 64-6, Yellow Leaf;
U.S. service members identified: 184;
Date of test: Feb. 1964;
Units/Ships involved: DTC personnel, other units or ships not
identified;
Test location(s): Ft. Sherman, Panama (1964);
Agent: BG (Hawaii);
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 31, 2002.
Test number and name: 64-6, Yellow Leaf;
U.S. service members identified: 184;
Date of test: Apr.-May 1966;
Units/Ships involved: DTC personnel, other units or ships not
identified;
Test location(s): Island of Hawaii (1966);
Agent: Tiara (Panama and Hawaii);
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 31, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-14, Elk Hunt I,;
U.S. service members identified: 6;
Date of test: July-Aug. 1964;
Units/Ships involved: 171ST Infantry Brigade;
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: Elk Hunt II;
U.S. service members identified: 111;
Date of test: June-July 1965 & Oct.-Dec., 1965;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: 15TH Artillery Battalion;
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK, Edgewood Arsenal, Md.;
Agent: VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: Elk Hunt II;
U.S. service members identified: 111;
Date of test: June-July 1965 & Oct.-Dec., 1965;
Units/Ships involved: 40TH Armor Battalion;
Test location(s): Canada;
Agent: VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: Elk Hunt II;
U.S. service members identified: 111;
Date of test: June-July 1965 & Oct.-Dec., 1965;
Units/Ships involved: 4th Battalion;
Test location(s): Canada;
Agent: VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: Elk Hunt II;
U.S. service members identified: 111;
Date of test: June-July 1965 & Oct.-Dec., 1965;
Units/Ships involved: 9th Infrantry;
Test location(s): Canada;
Agent: VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: Elk Hunt II;
U.S. service members identified: 111;
Date of test: June-July 1965 & Oct.-Dec., 1965;
Units/Ships involved: 1st Battalion;
Test location(s): Canada;
Agent: VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: Elk Hunt II;
U.S. service members identified: 111;
Date of test: June-July 1965 & Oct.-Dec., 1965;
Units/Ships involved: 47th Infantry;
Test location(s): Canada;
Agent: VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: Elk Hunt II;
U.S. service members identified: 111;
Date of test: June-July 1965 & Oct.-Dec., 1965;
Units/Ships involved: 538th Ordnanace Company & Selected Personnel
Assigned to HHC;
Test location(s): Canada;
Agent: VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-1, Copper Head (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 289;
Date of test: Jan.-Feb. 1965;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: USS Power;
Test location(s): Atlantic Ocean (off coast of New-foundland);
Agent: BG, FP, betapropiolactone;
Date of submission to VA: Sept. 13, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-3, West Side I;
U.S. service members identified: 29;
Date of test: Jan.-Feb. 1965;
Units/Ships involved: F-105D (Air Force);
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: BG, FP;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 66-8, West Side II;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Jan.-Mar. 1965;
Units/Ships involved: F-105 (Air Force);
Test location(s): Central Canada;
Agent: BG, FP;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 66-8, West Side II;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Jan.-Mar. 1965;
Units/Ships involved: JHC-47 (contractor) DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Central Canada;
Agent: BG, FP;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-13, High Low (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 1,120;
Date of test: Jan.-Feb. 1965;
Units/Ships involved: USS Berkeley, USS Granville S. Hall; USS
Fechteler; USS Okanogan; USS Wexford County;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (off San Diego);
Agent: MAA;
Date of submission to VA: Mar. 31, 2002.
Test number and name: 64-4, Shady Grove (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 223;
Date of test: Jan.-Apr. 1965;
Units/Ships involved: Army light tugs 2080, 2081, 2085, 2086, and 2087;
Marine Aviation Group 13; USS Granville S. Hall;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean; Eglin AFB, FL;
Agent: BG, OU, UL;
Date of submission to VA: Sept. 13, 2001.
Test number and name: 65-4, Magic Sword (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 129;
Date of test: May 1965;
Units/Ships involved: Dugway Proving Ground (15); USS George Eastman;
Test location(s): Baker Island, Pacific Ocean;
Agent: Unaffected Aedes Aegypti (mosquitoes);
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-6, Big Tom (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 236;
Date of test: May-June 1965;
Units/Ships involved: USS Carbonero, USS Granville S. Hall; A-4, F-105,
and an aero commander;
Test location(s): Oahu, Hawaii, and surround-ing waters and airspace;
Agent: BG, FP;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-12, Devil Hole I;
U.S. service members identified: 151;
Date of test: Summer 1965;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: GB, FP;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-17, Fearless Johnny (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 261;
Date of test: Aug.-Sept.1965;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: USS George Eastman;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean;
Agent: VX, diethylphthlate;
Date of submission to VA: May 23, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-17, Fearless Johnny (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 261;
Date of test: Aug.-Sept.1965;
Units/Ships involved: USS Granville S. Hall;
Test location(s): (SW of Oahu, Hawaii);
Agent: VX, diethylphthlate;
Date of submission to VA: May 23, 2002.
Test number and name: 66-5, Purple Sage (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 310;
Date of test: Jan.-Feb. 1966;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: USS Thomas;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (off San Diego);
Agent: MAA;
Date of submission to VA: May 23, 2002.
Test number and name: 66-6, Scarlet Sage (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 356;
Date of test: Feb-Mar. 1966;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: USS Thomas;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (off coast of San Diego);
Agent: BG;
Date of submission to VA: Jan. 31, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-11, Sun Down;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Feb.-Apr. 1966;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: GB, MAA, Tiara;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 64-8, Tall Timber;
U.S. service members identified: 135;
Date of test: Apr.-June 1966;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): SW of Hilo, Hawaii;
Agent: BZ;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 65-16, Pine Ridge;
U.S. service members identified: 90;
Date of test: May-June 1966;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): SW of Hilo, Hawaii;
Agent: GB, BZ;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 66-1, Devil Hole II;
U.S. service members identified: 16;
Date of test: July-Sept. 1966;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 66-12, Half Note (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 367;
Date of test: Aug.-Sept. 1966;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: Light tug 2085 USS
Barbonero; Light tug 2080; Light tug 2081; Light tug 2086; Light tug
2087; USS George Eastman; USS Granville S. Hall;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (80 nautical mi. SSW of Oahu);
Agent: BG, E. coli, SM, FP, calcofluor;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 67-7, Red Cloud;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Nov. 1966-Feb. 1967;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: BG, E. coli, SM, TT, ZZ;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 66-10, Pin Point;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: 1966;
Units/Ships involved: U.S. Army; U.S. Air Force; U.S. Marine Corps; DTC
personnel;
Test location(s): Tropical jungle environment;
Agent: CS;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 31, 2002.
Test number and name: 68-52, Cliff Rose;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Sept. 1967-Jan. 1968;
Units/Ships involved: U.S. Army; U.S. Air Force; DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Ft. Stewart, Ga., and Panama Canal Zone;
Agent: CS2;
Date of submission to VA: Dec. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 66-4, Green Mist;
U.S. service members identified: 46;
Date of test: Mar.-Apr. 1967;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Island of Hawaii;
Agent: GB, MAA;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 67-2, Dew Point;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: June-July 1967;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified; U.S. Army DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: GB;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 68-13, (68-4), Rapid Tan;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: July-Aug. 1967;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Porton Down, England; (Phases I & III);
Agent: GA, GB, GD, VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 68-13, (68-4), Rapid Tan;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: May-June 1968; Aug.-Sept. 1968;
Units/Ships involved: DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Ralston, Canada (Phase II);
Agent: GA, GB, GD, VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 67-8, Watch Dog;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Summer 1967;
Units/Ships involved: U.S. Army, DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Near Ft. Greely, AK;
Agent: BG, E. coli, SM, TT, ZZ;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 66-2, Red Oak I;
U.S. service members identified: 24;
Date of test: Apr.-May 1967;
Units/Ships involved: U.S. Army, DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Island of Hawaii and the Panama Canal Zone;
Agent: GB;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 31, 2002.
Test number and name: 67-6, Blue Tango;
U.S. service members identified: 30;
Date of test: Jan.-Feb. 1967;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Island of Hawaii;
Agent: BG, SM, E. coli, FP;
Date of submission to VA: June 30, 2003.
Test number and name: 68-71 Folded Arrow (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 252;
Date of test: Apr.-May 1968;
Units/Ships involved: USS Carbonero, USS Granville S. Hall;
Test location(s): Oahu, Hawaii, and surrounding waters;
Agent: BG;
Date of submission to VA: June 30, 03.
Test number and name: 69-31 (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 313;
Date of test: Aug.-Sept. 1968;
Units/Ships involved: USS Herbert J. Thomas;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (off San Diego);
Agent: BG, MAA;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 69-75;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Oct.-Dec. 1968;
Units/Ships involved: F-4 aircraft (U.S. Air Force) and DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Yeehaw Junction, Fla. (vicinity);
Agent: TX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 68-50, (68-11) Speckled Start (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 127;
Date of test: Sept.-Oct. 1968;
Units/Ships involved: USS Granville S. Hall;
Test location(s): Eniwetok Atoll, Marshall Islands;
Agent: BG, PG2, uranine dye;
Date of submission to VA: May 23, 2002.
Test number and name: 69-32 (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 150;
Date of test: Apr.-June 1969;
Units/Ships involved: USS Granville S. Hall;
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (SW of Hawaii);
Agent: BG, E. coli, SM, calcofluor;
Date of submission to VA: May 23, 2002.
Test number and name: 69-10 (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: 786;
Date of test: May 1969;
Units/Ships involved: Landing Force Carib1-69/BLT 1/8, 2nd Marine Div.,
VMA-325, MAG-32, 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, USS Fort Snelling (LSD-30);
Test location(s): Vieques Islands (NR Puerto Rico);
Agent: TOF;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 69-12;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Spring 1969;
Units/Ships involved: DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Edgewood Arsenal, Md.;
Agent: GA, GB, GD, VX;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 68-53;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Apr.-Dec. 1969;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Dugway Proving Ground, Utah;
Agent: CS2;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 70-73;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: July-Dec. 1970;
Units/Ships involved: DTC personnel;
Test location(s): Dugway Proving Ground, Utah;
Agent: BG, FP;
Date of submission to VA: Oct. 9, 2002.
Test number and name: 70-11, Phase I, Subtest 3;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: June 1972-Nov. 1973;
Units/Ships involved: Units/ Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Dugway Proving Ground, Utah;
Agent: BG, FP;
Date of submission to VA: June 30, 2002.
Test number and name: 70-74;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Aug. 1972-Jan. 1973;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Dugway Proving Ground, Utah;
Agent: BG, SM;
Date of submission to VA: June 30, 2003.
Test number and name: 74-10, Phase I;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Sept.-Oct. 1973;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Dugway Proving Ground, Utah;
Agent: DMMP, BIS, trichloropropane;
Date of submission to VA: June 30, 2003.
Test number and name: 70-C (ship-based);
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Oct. 1972, Feb.-Mar. 1973;
Units/Ships involved: USNS Samuel Phillips Lee (T-AGS 31), USNS Silas
Bent (T-AGS 26);
Test location(s): Pacific Ocean (off San Diego) and Pacific Ocean
(between San Diego and Panama Canal Zone);
Agent: Passive collection of naturally occurring particles in a marine
environment;
Date of submission to VA: June 30, 2003.
Test number and name: 73-30;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: Jan.-Feb. 1973;
Units/Ships involved: Not identified;
Test location(s): Dugway Proving Ground, Utah;
Agent: BG, SM, P;
Date of submission to VA: June 30, 2003.
Test number and name: 70-11, Phase I, Subtest 4;
U.S. service members identified: [Empty];
Date of test: May 1974;
Units/Ships involved: TA-4F Aircraft (U.S. Navy);
Test location(s): Dugway Proving Ground, Utah;
Agent: BIS;
Date of submission to VA: June 30, 2002.
Sources: DOD (data): GAO (analysis).
Legend:
BG = Bacillus globigii:
BIS = (2 ethyl-hexyl) hydrogen phosphite:
BZ = Ester of benzilic acid:
CS/CS2 = Riot-Control Agent:
DEHP= Di (2 ethyl-hexyl) phthalate:
DMMP = Dimethylmethylphosphonate:
E. coli = Escherichia coli:
FP = Zinc Cadmium sulfide:
GA = Tabun Nerve Agent:
GB = Sarin Nerve Agent:
GD = Soman Nerve Agent:
MAA = Methylacetoacetate:
OU = Coxiella burnetii:
P = T-3 coliphage viruses:
PG2 = Staphylococcal Enterotoxin, Type B:
SM = Serratia marcescens:
SO2 = Sulfur Dioxide:
Tiara = luminescent gelatinous material:
TOF = trioctyl phosphate (tri [2 ethyl-hexyl] phosphate):
TT = Francisella tularensis (wet):
TX = Puccinia graminis tritici:
UL = Pasteurella tularensis:
VX = VX Nerve Agent (phosphonothioic acid):
ZZ = Francisella tularensis (dry):
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Defense:
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE:
1000 DEFENSE
PENTAGON
WASHINGTON, DC 20301-1000:
APR 30 2004:
Mr. Raymond J. Decker:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Decker,
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the General
Accounting Office (GAO) draft report, GAO-04-410, "CHEMICAL AND
BIOLOGICIAL DEFENSE: DoD Needs to Continue to Collect and Provide
Information on Tests and Potentially Exposed Personnel" dated April 1,
2004 (GAO Code 350313). DoD concurs with all three recommendations of
the draft report and will implement them as indicated in the enclosure.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
Dale Klein, Ph.D.
Assistant to the Secretary of Defense
(Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Defense Programs):
Signed by:
William Winkenwerder, Jr., MD:
Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)
Enclosure As stated:
"CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL DEFENSE: DOD NEEDS TO CONTINUE TO COLLECT AND
PROVIDE INFORMATION ON TESTS AND ON POTENTIALLY EXPOSED PERSONNEL"
Dated April 1, 2004 GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE CODE 350313/GAO-04-410:
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE COMMENTS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS:
RECOMMENDATION 1: The General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended that
the Secretary of Defense direct the appropriate office(s) to determine
the feasibility of addressing unresolved issues with Project 112, and
the appropriateness of and responsibility for reporting new
information, such as the identification of additional potentially
exposed Service members, civilian employees, contractors, and foreign
nationals who participated in the tests. (Page 25/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: The Department of Defense (DoD) concurs with the
recommendation. DoD appreciates GAO's recognition that "DoD has
aggressively investigated the Project 112 test." The Deployment Health
Support Directorate (DHSD) will continue its ongoing responsive efforts
to resolve remaining issues with Project 112. DHSD will continue to
report the identification of additional Service member participants to
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). DHSD will coordinate within
DoD to determine the appropriate reporting channels for civilian
employee, contractor and foreign national participants.
RECOMMENDATION 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the appropriate office(s) to finalize and implement a plan for
identifying DoD projects and tests conducted outside Project 112 that
may have exposed Service members to chemical or biological agents, and
ensure that the plan addresses the scope, reporting requirements,
milestones, and responsibilities for those involved in completing this
effort. (Page 25/Draft Report):
DoD RESPONSE: DoD concurs with the recommendation. The Deputy Assistant
to the Secretary of Defense for Chemical and Biological Defense (DATSD
(CBD)) will finalize a plan to implement section 709(c) of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, which calls on DoD to
work with veterans and veterans service organizations to identify
projects and tests conducted by facilities other than the Deseret Test
Center that may have exposed Service members to chemical or biological
agents. DATSD (CBD) will also be responsible for identifying those
Service members who may have been exposed. The plan will be finalized
and implementation begun by 30 September 2004.
RECOMMENDATION 3: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the appropriate office(s) to designate a single point of contact
for providing information related to tests and potential exposures in
and outside Project 112 to VA, individuals, and other interested
parties, such as foreign governments, as appropriate. (Page 25/Draft
Report):
DoD RESPONSE: DoD concurs with the recommendation. Building on its
success as the single point of contact for information relating to
Project 112, the DHSD will be the DoD single point of contact for
coordinating communications to and from involved DoD components
concerning efforts to provide relevant information on chemical and
biological testing programs conducted since World War II.
Note: Page numbers in the draft report may differ from those in this
report.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Veterans Affairs:
Note: The enclosure to this letter provided technical comments, which
we considered and incorporated in our report as appropriate.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FOR BENEFITS:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420:
APR 30 2004:
Mr. Raymond J. Decker
Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Decker:
The Department of Veteran Affairs Veteran Benefits Administration (VBA)
has reviewed draft report, Chemical and Biological Defense: DOD Needs
to Continue to Collect and Provide Information on Tests and on
Potentially Exposed Personnel (GAO-04-410). VBA concurs with the draft
report.
The enclosure provides updated information and clarification for
several sections of the report. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on your draft report.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Daniel L. Cooper:
Enclosure:
[End of section]
(350313):
FOOTNOTES
[1] In this report, the term "agent" is used to mean chemical and
biological agents, simulants (a substitute for a more-toxic agent), and
tracers.
[2] Pub. L. No. 107-314, section 709 (Dec 2, 2002).
[3] For this report, we have interpreted the act's use of "civilian
personnel" to mean DOD employees, DOD contractors, and foreign
government participants who took part in Project 112 tests.
[4] The Defense Authorization Act for 2003 mandated that we prepare two
reports: one on DOD's plan for identifying tests and a second one on
DOD's implementation of its plan. Because DOD conducted the planning
and identification simultaneously, we agreed with your office to
prepare one report. The mandate also specified Project 112 tests for
the 1963-69 period. However, because some Project 112 tests did not
conclude until 1974 and DOD reported on tests conducted from 1962
through 1974, we included the longer period in our review.
[5] The DOD organization that investigated the Project 112 tests was a
small element of the Under Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the
Deployment Health Support Directorate.
[6] DOD public documents, such as fact sheets, refer to Shipboard
Hazard and Defense tests as ship-based.
[7] Office of the Deputy Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Chemical and Biological Defense.
[8] Veterans Health Care, Capital Asset, and Business Improvement Act
of 2003.
[9] On the basis of our document search, which went beyond the records
DOD reviewed, these personnel appear to be in addition to the 350
potentially exposed civilian personnel that DOD estimated in its June
2003 report to Congress.
[10] A platoon is typically fewer than 50 service members.
[11] This office ultimately reports to the Under Secretary of Defense
for Acquisition and Technology.
[12] U.S. Army Activity in the U. S. Biological Warfare Programs (Feb.
24, 1977).
[13] More than 80 of these tests were conducted prior to Project 112,
dating as far back as 1949.
[14] GAO/NSIAD-93-89 and GAO/T-NSIAD-94-266. This work covered testing
performed by the services between 1942 and 1975.
[15] The medical research program began in 1952 and continued until
1975.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
