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 programProject 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 exposedservice members and the number of 
civilian personneland 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) 
DODs process to identify the Project 112 tests and the service members 
and the number of civilian personnel potentially exposed, (2) DODs 
progress in identifying similar tests outside Project 112, and (3) VAs 
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 VAs 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 DODs 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: