co 

 EP 75-1-4 

31 October 2003 

 

EXPLOSIVES 

RECURRING REVIEWS ON 

ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVES (OE) 

RESPONSE ACTIONS 

ENGINEER PAMPHLET 

“Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.”
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

AVAILABILITY 

Electronic copies of this and other U.S. Army Corps of Engineers publications are available on 

the Internet at http://www.usace.army.mil/inet/usace-docs/. This site is the only repository for 

all official USACE engineer regulations, circulars, manuals, and other documents originating 

from HQUSACE. Publications are provided in portable document format (PDF). 
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EP 75-1-4 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CEMP-RA Washington, DC 20314-1000 

Pamphlet 

No. 75-1-4 31 October 2003 

Explosives 

RECURRING REVIEWS ON 

ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVES (OE) 

RESPONSE ACTIONS 

1. Purpose. This pamphlet provides U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) personnel with 

procedural guidance for performing Recurring Reviews for ordnance and explosives (OE) 

response actions. 

2. Applicability. This pamphlet applies to all Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(HQUSACE) elements and all USACE commands having responsibility for performing OE 

response activities. 

3. Distribution Statement. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 

4. References. 

a. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) 

of 1980, PL 96-510, 94 Stat 2767, 42 USC 9601. 

b. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, PL 99-499, 100 Stat 

1613, amending CERCLA, 42 USC 9601 et seq., and miscellaneous other sections. 

c. 40 CFR Part 300, EPA National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency 

Plan. 

d. Defense Environmental Restoration Program, PL 99-499, Section 211, 100 Stat 1719, 

10 USC 2701 et seq. 

e. Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988, Public Law (PL) 100-526, 102 Stat. 2632. 

f. Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990, PL 101-510, 104 Stat. 1808. 

g. Army Regulation (AR) 25-400-2, Army Records Information Management System

(ARIMS). 

h. AR 335-15, Management Information Control System. 

Printed on Recycled Paper

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EP 75-1-4 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

CEMP-RA Washington, DC 20314-1000 

Pamphlet 31 October 2003 

No. 75-1-4 

Explosives 

RECURRING REVIEWS ON 

ORDNANCE AND EXPLOSIVES (OE) 

RESPONSE ACTIONS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paragraph Page

CHAPTER 1. OVERVIEW OF RECURRING REVIEWS 

 Introduction..................................................................................1-1 1-1 

OE Recurring Review Regulatory Authorities ...........................1-2 1-1 

Purpose of the Recurring Review ................................................1-3 1-2 

Sites Requiring a Recurring Review............................................1-4 1-3 

Frequency of Recurring Reviews ................................................1-5 1-4 

Funding ........................................................................................1-6 1-5 

 Notification ..................................................................................1-7 1-5 

CHAPTER 2. DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECURRING REVIEW PLAN 

 Introduction .................................................................................2-1 2-1 

Timing for Preparation of the Recurring Review Plan ................2-2 2-1 

Parties Responsible for Preparation of the 

Recurring Review Plan.........................................................2-3 2-1 

Preparation of the Recurring Review Plan ..................................2-4 2-2 

Approval of the Recurring Review Plan......................................2-5 2-4 

Modification of the Recurring Review Plan ................................2-6 2-5 

 Project Files ................................................................................2-7 2-5 

CHAPTER 3. EXECUTING THE RECURRING REVIEW

 Introduction..................................................................................3-1 3-1 

Establish Project Delivery Team to Conduct 

the Recurring Review...........................................................3-2 3-1 

 Community Involvement .............................................................3-3 3-1 

Review Existing Documentation .................................................3-4 3-3 

Identify/Review New Information and Current Site Conditions.3-5 3-3 

Prepare Preliminary Site Analysis and Work Plan ......................3-6 3-5 

i 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Paragraph Page

CHAPTER 3. EXECUTING THE RECURRING REVIEW (cont.) 

 Conduct Site Visit........................................................................3-7 3-7 

 Prepare Recurring Review Report ...............................................3-8 3-8 

 Environmental Records Management..........................................3-9 3-8 

CHAPTER 4. APPROVING AND TERMINATING THE RECURRING REVIEW 

 Introduction..................................................................................4-1 4-1 

 Review and Approval of the Recurring Review Report ..............4-2 4-1 

 Termination of Recurring Reviews .............................................4-3 4-2 

APPENDIX A—RECURRING REVIEW REPORT TEMPLATE ........................................... A-1 

GLOSSARY ....................................................................................................................Glossary-1 

TABLES 

Table 2.1 Sample Format for the Recurring Review Plan ......................................................... 2-2 

Table 2.2 Examples of Existing Documentation to be Listed in the Recurring Review Plan ... 2-3 

Table 3.1 Preliminary Site Analysis Worksheet ........................................................................ 3-6 

Table 3.2 Sample Format for Recurring Review Report ........................................................... 3-9 

Table 4.1 Sample Format to Track Recurring Review Reporting ............................................. 4-4 

FIGURES 

Figure 3-1 Recurring Review Process ......................................................................................... 3-2

Figure 4-1 Review and Approval Process for the Recurring Review Report ............................. 4-3 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

CHAPTER 1 

OVERVIEW OF RECURRING REVIEWS 

1-1. Introduction. This Engineer Pamphlet (EP) presents procedures for developing and 

implementing Recurring Review requirements for ordnance and explosives (OE) response 

actions. The purpose of Recurring Reviews for OE response actions is to determine if a response 

action continues to minimize explosives safety risks and continues to be protective of human 

health, safety, and the environment. Recurring Reviews are conducted under the Long Term

Management phase once a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) achieves Response Complete. 

Recurring Review satisfies the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) five-year review requirement. 

a. Responsibility for executing an OE Recurring Review depends on whether the site is a 

FUDS or an active or transferring installation. 

(1) FUDS. OE Recurring Reviews at FUDS are the subject of this pamphlet. OE 

Recurring Reviews at sites that were formerly under the jurisdiction of the Department of 

Defense (DOD), but which subsequently have been transferred out of DOD control (i.e., FUDS) 

are conducted under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program-FUDS (DERP-FUDS). 

Authority for executing OE response actions at FUDS has been delegated to the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) by DOD through Headquarters, Department of the Army

(HQDA). It is the responsibility of the USACE district, which serves as the Project Manager 

(PM), to execute OE Recurring Reviews for FUDS. 

(2) Active or Transferring Installations. OE response actions at active installations are 

conducted under the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). OE response actions at transferring 

installations are conducted under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program. While 

this pamphlet does not directly apply to active or transferring installations, the procedures 

described in this pamphlet may be helpful for conducting Recurring Reviews at active or 

transferring installations, depending on the installation's requirements. The USACE may or may 

not be involved in OE response actions at active or transferring installations. 

b. OE Response actions may be planned, managed, and executed using either the removal 

or remedial process. Further information on this topic will be published at a later date in the 

proposed Engineer Regulation (ER) 200-3-1, Formerly Used Defense Sites Program Guidance. 

If further assistance is needed with regards to this issue, contact the OE Mandatory Center of 

Expertise (OE MCX) (hereinafter referred to as the OE CX). 

1-2. OE Recurring Review Regulatory Authorities. 

a. Major Subordinate Commands (MSC), district commands, OE Design Centers, and the 

OE CX will comply with all applicable statutes and regulations. The determination of the 

1-1 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

governing statutes and regulations for any specific OE project will be made by the District 

Office of Counsel in consultation with counsel supporting the OE CX for FUDS, or the 

appropriate legal representative of the sponsoring agency for work performed by USACE under 

a different program or authority (e.g., BRAC, IRP, or Work for Others). All USACE elements 

will comply with DOD and Department of the Army (DA) safety and health regulations and 

procedures. 

b. CERCLA. The CERCLA was enacted by Congress in 1980 and subsequently amended 

by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) [Public Law 96-510, 

94 Stat. 2767, 42 United States Code (U.S.C.) 9601 and 9621, as amended by SARA, Public 

Law 99-499, 100 Stat 1613, (together referred to as "CERCLA")]. CERCLA requires the review 

of response actions no less than every five years to assure that human health and the environment 

are being protected. 

(1) NCP. The National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 

which was first promulgated in 1973 under the Clean Water Act and last substantially amended 

in February 1994, recognized DOD as the removal response authority for incidents involving 

munitions. The NCP presents a procedural and organizational framework for preparing and 

conducting response actions as described in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 300. It 

also provides that remedial actions that do not allow unlimited use and unrestricted exposure 

must be reviewed no less than every five years following initiation of the on-site field work 

phase to implement the selected response action or more frequently if required by the decision 

document. 

c. DERP. The Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) was established by 

Congress in 1986 under Chapter 160 of SARA. As stated in 10 U.S.C. 2701, DERP directed the 

Secretary of Defense to "carry out a program of environmental restoration" at facilities under the 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense. DERP includes the FUDS program and the IRP and 

provides for Recurring Reviews on FUDS OE sites. 

d. BRAC. The Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-526, 102 

Stat. 2623) and the Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-510, 

104 Stat. 1808), 10 U.S.C. 2687, provide for a recurring, systematic review and evaluation of all 

closing installations operated by the U.S. Armed Forces. 

1-3. Purpose of the Recurring Review. The purpose of Recurring Reviews for OE response 

actions is to determine if a response action continues to minimize explosives safety risks and 

continues to be protective of human health, safety, and the environment. Recurring Reviews also 

provide an opportunity to assess the applicability of new technology for addressing previous 

technical impracticability determinations. 

a. The scope of the review will be site-specific and will depend upon the response 

objectives and the specific responses implemented. The review will evaluate appropriate site1-2 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

specific factors that may impact the continued effectiveness of the response. These factors may 

include changes in physical conditions at the site, changes in public accessibility and land use, 

and the applicability of new technology for addressing a previous technical impracticability 

determination. The review will also evaluate the maintenance and enforcement of Land Use 

Controls (LUCs). Further detail regarding the scope of the review is provided in Chapters 2 and 

3 of this EP. 

b. The Recurring Review will answer three general questions: 

(1) Is the response functioning as intended?

(2) Are any assumptions used at the time of response selection still valid? 

(3) Does new information indicate that the previously selected response no longer 

minimizes explosives safety risks or is no longer protective of human health, safety, and the 

environment considering the best available technology?

c. Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) will be developed during the Recurring Review 

planning process as described in Engineer Manual (EM) 200-1-2, Technical Project Planning 

(TPP) Process. 

1-4. Sites Requiring a Recurring Review. 

a. The decision document for an OE response action conducted on a non-National 

Priorities List (NPL) site under the remedial process will identify if a Recurring Review is 

required for a site. All sites where an OE response action is implemented require Recurring 

Reviews. EP 1110-1-18 provides additional information on the Action Memorandum, which 

documents the response decision for an OE response action conducted under the non-time 

critical removal action (NTCRA) process. The Action Memorandum will be the decision 

document at some sites. 

b. Sites where the decision document identifies a determination of No DOD Action 

Indicated (NDAI) because there is no evidence of OE, do not require Recurring Reviews unless a 

risk is identified at a later date. If a risk is identified at a later date, USACE will address the risk 

in accordance with EP 1110-1-18. Sites with an NDAI determination based on other conditions 

such as low risk, technical impracticability, etc., do require Recurring Reviews. 

c. Sites that require a Recurring Review for an OE response action may also require a fiveyear review for Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) hazards. The OE and 

HTRW reviews should be coordinated. 

1-3 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

1-5. Frequency of Recurring Reviews. 

a. The Project Delivery Team (PDT), in coordination with stakeholders and regulators, 

will determine the frequency for conducting Recurring Reviews at a site and the duration for 

continuing Recurring Reviews. 

(1) If a Recurring Review is required at a site, it will be conducted no less than every five 

years following initiation of the on-site field work phase to implement the selected response 

action. 

(2) The review cycle may be more frequent than every five years, if necessary, depending 

on site-specific conditions and design considerations. For example, soil erosion, wave processes, 

or other factors may create environmental conditions which alter the potential for exposure to 

OE items (e.g., exposing previously buried items or increasing the accessibility to a property 

containing OE items) that may suggest that it is appropriate/necessary to conduct a Recurring 

Review more frequently than every five years. 

(3) Recurring Reviews may be necessary for up to 30 years depending on site conditions, 

however sound design considerations will be used in making this determination. Thirty years is 

a suggested duration of Recurring Reviews used for government planning purposes. Factors to 

consider in assessing termination of Recurring Reviews are further discussed in paragraph 4-3. 

b. The proposed frequency and duration of Recurring Reviews at a site will be 

documented in the Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) report or Remedial 

Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) report. The decision document will document whether a 

Recurring Review will be conducted but it will not specify the frequency or duration of 

Recurring Reviews at a site. 

c. The time frame for Recurring Review efforts will be tracked in the Formerly Used 

Defense Sites Management Information System (FUDSMIS) by the district PM. 

d. Should a problem with an implemented OE response be identified or an incident occur 

between scheduled Recurring Reviews, a request for a Recurring Review may be submitted to 

the FUDS Manager at the USACE district office to have the OE response action reviewed. 

Depending on the nature of the issue, the USACE district office may generate a Recurring 

Review Report or use a less formal documentation method. 

e. Subsequent reviews will be conducted no later than five years, or more frequently if 

specified, from the signature date on the previous Recurring Review Report. 

1-4 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

1-6. Funding. 

a. FUDS. 

(1) The Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) will fund Recurring Review 

activities for FUDS projects. Funding for Recurring Reviews is subject to approval of the 

district's annual OE Work Plan. The active sites program imposes a 10-year funding limit on 

Recurring Reviews, while the FUDS program does not currently identify such a limit. 

(2) It is the responsibility of the USACE district, which serves as the PM, to program

funding requirements for Recurring Reviews, input and track milestones in the FUDSMIS, input 

information to the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS), and develop 

and implement Recurring Review plans for OE response activities. Funding requirements should 

include adequate funding for all offices associated with the Recurring Review as well as 

adequate funding for personnel from other offices to participate in the Recurring Review, as 

necessary. Effective Recurring Review efforts require the commitment of Federal, state, local, 

and individual resources. Additional detail regarding developing programming cost estimates 

can be found in EM 1110-1-4009, OE Response. 

b. Active or Transferring Installations. 

(1) The installation/Installation Management Agency (IMA) is responsible for updating the 

Restoration Cost-to-Complete System (RCTCS) to ensure that the necessary funds are included 

to conduct Recurring Reviews. The installation/IMA is responsible for updating the Army

Environmental Database-Restoration (AEDB-R) to ensure required funds identified in the 

RCTCS are programmed to conduct Recurring Reviews. The installation/MACOM needs to 

program funds in at least two quarters prior to the trigger date of the first response action that 

requires a recurring review. This advance programming of funds is necessary to ensure that the 

review is completed within the specified time. The active sites program imposes a 10-year 

funding limitation on Recurring Reviews; however, there is no corresponding limitation imposed 

for the active or transferring installations. 

(2) BRAC installation reviews will be funded out of the BRAC account. 

1-7. Notification. Stakeholders and regulators will be involved in the preparation of the 

Recurring Review Plan, which is the first step in the Recurring Review process. The PM will 

then notify stakeholders and regulators at the time a Recurring Review is being initiated in order 

to seek their involvement. Another broad notification will also be made when a Recurring 

Review is completed. The PM will notify stakeholders of the need for the Recurring Review by 

hosting an open meeting in the local community and through other standard communication 

techniques, such as notices in local newspaper, press releases and/or direct mailings, as required. 

Chapter 3 and EP 1110-3-8, Public Participation in the Defense Environmental Restoration 

Program (DERP) for Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) provides further information 

1-5 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

1-6 

regarding stakeholder and regulator involvement in the Recurring Review process and details on 

notification requirements and procedures. 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

CHAPTER 2 

DEVELOPMENT OF THE RECURRING REVIEW PLAN 

2-1. Introduction. A Recurring Review Plan will be developed prior to initiating Recurring 

Reviews on a site. This chapter discusses when the Recurring Review Plan is to be prepared; 

who is responsible for preparing the plan; procedures for preparing the plan; approval procedures 

for the plan; and how the plan may be modified. 

2-2. Timing for Preparation of the Recurring Review Plan. 

a. Current Projects. The draft Recurring Review Plan is prepared during the EE/CA or 

RI/FS phase, as applicable, of an OE response action. The draft plan is contained as an appendix 

in the EE/CA or RI/FS Report, as applicable, and will reflect the recommended response action 

alternatives contained in the report. The decision document will document the requirements for 

the Recurring Review, the review cycle, and the proposed funding for the Recurring Review. 

b. Executed Projects. A Recurring Review Plan will be developed for OE projects that 

have already been executed and which have no Recurring Review Plan in place. The district 

PMs are responsible for reviewing all of their projects and determining the need for development 

of a Recurring Review Plan, with the District Commander providing overall approval. 

2-3. Parties Responsible for Preparation of the Recurring Review Plan. 

a. Recurring Review Plans will be developed with the full involvement of the PDT and in 

coordination with stakeholders, including Federal, state and local regulators. ER 1110-1-8153, 

OE Response, provides further details regarding organizational responsibilities throughout the 

OE response action process. 

b. District PM. The district PM is responsible for preparation of the Recurring Review 

Plan. The district PM leads the PDT and is responsible for overall coordination of PDT 

members.

c. PDT. The PDT, under the direction of the district PM, will be fully involved in the 

preparation of the Recurring Review Plan. The PDT members include the district PM; other 

representatives from the district, as required; the OE Design Center; an OE Safety Specialist; the 

OE CX, as required; the HTRW MCX and/or HTRW Design Center, as required; Federal land 

managers; the prime contractor PM; the Native American Tribal Government point of contact, if 

applicable; representatives from other Federal and state agencies; and other key technical and 

non-technical individuals, as appropriate. 

2-1 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

2-4. Preparation of the Recurring Review Plan. 

a. A typical Recurring Review will include a review of existing documentation, 

identification and review of new information, a site visit, and preparation of the Recurring 

Review Report. 

b. The Recurring Review Plan will include a site description; details regarding the 

frequency of the Recurring Review, the documents to be reviewed, and the methodologies to be 

used during the site visit; and a discussion on termination of Recurring Reviews at the site. 

Table 2.1 provides a sample format for the Recurring Review Plan. The plan will include any 

information that will be useful in conducting the Recurring Reviews. 

Table 2.1 

Sample Format for the Recurring Review Plan 

Section Title 

Cover Sheet

Table of Contents 

1 Introduction

2 Site Description

3 Schedule for Recurring Review 

4 Review of Existing Documentation 

5 Stakeholder Notification

6 Identification/Review of New Information and Current Site 

Conditions 

7 Preliminary Site Analysis and Work Plan 

8 Site Visit

9 Recurring Review Report 

10 Termination of Recurring Review 

(1) Introduction. Provide a brief introduction including the site location, response actions 

and the objective of the Recurring Review. 

(2) Site Description. Provide a site description including a description of site history, 

previous investigations, and a more detailed description of response actions that have been or 

will be implemented. Sufficient detail will be included in this section so that it provides a full 

2-2 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

understanding of the site’s background, keeping in mind that the reader may not have any 

previous familiarity with the site. 

(3) Schedule for Recurring Review. Discuss the frequency of Recurring Reviews for the 

site. 

(4) Review of Existing Documentation. Identify existing documentation that will be 

reviewed during the Recurring Review. These will include all final reports and decision 

documents. The location of the reports, preferably electronic copies posted to the Internet [e.g., 

the Project Information Retrieval System (PIRS)], must be identified. Table 2.2 provides 

examples of the types of documents that normally will be reviewed. 

Table 2.2 

Examples of Existing Documentation to be Listed in the Recurring Review Plan 

Document Examples 

___ Statement of Work 

___ Work Plans 

___ Archives Search Report 

___ EE/CA or RI/FS Report 

___ Institutional Analysis 

___ Decision Document 

___ Institutional Control Plan 

___ Explosives Safety Submissions 

___ Site-Specific Response Report 

___ Responsiveness Summaries 

___ HTRW documents, if applicable 

___ Real estate records 

___ Newspaper records 

___ Accident reports 

___ Incident reports 

___ Operation and Maintenance records 

___ Previously conducted Recurring Review Report at the site, 

if applicable 

___ Current DOD Risk Prioritization Results 

(5) Stakeholder Notification. Identify key stakeholders, provide their contact information, 

and provide suggested avenues for notification based on what was successful in the EE/CA or 

RI/FS process. 

2-3 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

(6) Identification/Review of New Information and Current Site Conditions. The Recurring 

Review Plan will include a description of the procedures that will be used to identify new 

information and current site conditions. The PDT will identify readily available information 

regarding the site that has become available since implementation of the response action or since 

the last Recurring Review and will identify the current site conditions. 

(7) Preliminary Site Analysis and Work Plan. The PDT will prepare a preliminary site 

analysis based upon the review of existing and new information. This analysis will identify any 

additional information that is required in order to prepare the final site analysis. The PDT will 

prepare a work plan to identify procedures to be used in collecting the additional information 

identified during the preliminary site analysis. 

(8) Site Visit. Describe the scope of the site visit, investigative or community relations 

activities that will be undertaken during the visit, and any methodologies to be utilized in 

connection with the visit. 

(9) Recurring Review Report. The PDT will prepare a Recurring Review Report to 

document the information collected and evaluated, and present the findings of the evaluation of 

the continued protectiveness of the OE response action. The report will document whether the 

response action that was implemented continues to minimize explosives safety risks and is still 

protective of human health, safety, and the environment and/or recommend follow-up actions, as 

warranted. 

(10) Termination of the Recurring Review. The PDT, in coordination with stakeholders 

and regulators, will determine the duration for continuing the Recurring Reviews at a site. The 

PDT will develop a strategy and rationale to clearly demonstrate when Recurring Reviews would 

be terminated. Further information on the termination of Recurring Reviews is discussed in 

paragraph 4-3 of this EP. 

2-5. Approval of the Recurring Review Plan. 

a. The draft Recurring Review Plan is an appendix in the EE/CA or RI/FS Report, as 

applicable. Therefore, approval of the draft Recurring Review Plan will be in conjunction with 

approval of the EE/CA or RI/FS (as documented in the signed decision document) and in 

accordance with ER 1110-1-8153 and EP 1110-1-18. 

b. The draft Recurring Review Plan will be updated, as necessary, during the design of the 

response action and at the completion of the response action. 

c. The Recurring Review Plan will be finalized after completion of the response action. 

2-4 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

2-5 

2-6. Modification of the Recurring Review Plan. 

a. The draft Recurring Review Plan may require modification during the design of the 

response action or at the completion of the response action and post response action phases as 

new information becomes available. 

b. These changes will be coordinated with stakeholders and regulators through 

appropriate channels, depending on the phase of the project when the modification is made. For 

example, if it is determined during the design phase that a change to the Recurring Review Plan 

is necessary, the changes may be coordinated with stakeholders and regulators in conjunction 

with coordination of the Work Plan for the response action. 

c. Modifications to the Recurring Review Plan are the responsibility of the district PM. 

The District Commander is the designated approval authority to approve the modified Recurring 

Review Plan. 

2-7. Project Files. The Recurring Review Plan and any modifications will be included in the 

Project Files for the site. 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

CHAPTER 3 

EXECUTING THE RECURRING REVIEW

3-1. Introduction. 

a. This chapter discusses the execution requirements for the PDT involved in Recurring 

Reviews, including: establishing a PDT; reviewing existing documentation; notifying 

stakeholders; identifying and reviewing new information and current site conditions; preparing a 

preliminary site analysis and work plan; conducting a site visit; and preparing the Recurring 

Review Report. Figure 3-1 illustrates the Recurring Review process. 

b. Project Management for Recurring Reviews will be implemented in accordance with 

ER 5-1-11, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Business Process. 

3-2. Establish PDT to Conduct the Recurring Review. Successful performance of a Recurring 

Review requires establishment of an interdisciplinary PDT. The district will form a team that 

includes staff with necessary OE and environmental expertise, the district Division of Real 

Estate, and the district Public Affairs Office. 

a. If possible, personnel already familiar with the site and the response action will be 

considered for the PDT conducting the Recurring Review. 

b. The district Division of Real Estate representative will obtain rights of entry, if required 

(see EP 1110-1-18 for additional information on access agreements for OE response actions). 

The District Chief of Real Estate and/or the HQUSACE Director of Real Estate should be 

consulted for additional information and project-specific issues. The district PM should allow 

ample time to obtain the appropriate access agreements by coordinating with the district Division 

of Real Estate representative very early in the process. 

3-3. Community Involvement. 

a. The PM will review the Community Relations Plan and update the plan as appropriate, 

determine stakeholder information requirements, and ensure appropriate involvement of the 

various stakeholder groups. The district Public Affairs Office may be consulted as needed. 

b. The PM will establish an information repository at a location near the project site (e.g., 

public library) in order to provide the community with access to project information. 

c. The PDT will schedule an open meeting in the local community for initial coordination 

with stakeholders, including regulators, and any local community leaders to discuss activities 

being planned for the Recurring Review and to obtain their input. The method of notification 

3-1 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

ESTABLISH PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM and

BEGIN COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES

REVIEW EXISTING DOCUMENTATION

IDENTIFY/REVIEW

NEW INFORMATION AND 

CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS

PREPARE PRELIMINARY SITE ANALYSIS

AND WORK PLAN

CONDUCT SITE VISIT

PREPARE RECURRING REVIEW REPORT

ST

A

K

E

H

O

LDER A

N

D RE

G

U

L

A

T

OR 

P

ARTICIPATIO

N

Figure 3-1. Recurring Review Process 

3-2 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

will depend on the characteristics of the site and the local community, but may include notices in 

local newspapers, press releases and/or direct mailings. The notification regarding the open 

meeting will include the following: a brief site history; notice that a Recurring Review will be 

conducted; how the community can contribute; and how the Recurring Review Report will be 

made available for review and comment when completed. 

d. The PDT will also disseminate questionnaires or surveys to identify community-wide 

interest and concerns. Under the Privacy Act (PA), the Paper Reduction Act (PRA), and in 

accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 335-15, Management Information Control (MIC) 

System, and Office of the Chief of Engineers (OCE) Supplement 1 to AR 385-15, information 

collection via questionnaires, surveys or interviews that involve 10 or more members of the 

public within a 12 month period must have prior review and approval by the USACE 

Management Information Control Officer (MICO)/PA Clearance Officer, HQDA, and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) before being implemented. 

3-4. Review Existing Documentation. 

a. The PDT will review existing documentation for the site. At a minimum, the team will 

review the documents listed in the Recurring Review Plan and the Recurring Review Report 

from the previous review, if applicable. 

b. Through this review, the PDT will become familiar with the site history and the 

implemented response action. The review will accomplish the following objectives: 

(1) Determine what actions were completed at the site. 

(2) Determine where unexploded ordnance (UXO) items are suspected or were located, if 

applicable, and document the basis for this determination. 

(3) Identify and evaluate the basis for selection of the response action (e.g., land use, site 

accessibility, etc.). 

(4) Determine if there is an immediate threat to human health, safety or environment that 

requires further response. 

(5) If a determination of technical impracticability was made for the site, determine 

whether new technology is now available that could address remaining explosives safety risks at 

the site. 

3-5. Identify/Review New Information and Current Site Conditions. 

3-3 

a. The PDT will identify readily available information regarding the site that has become

available since implementation of the response action or since the last Recurring Review. New 

information will also be gathered through interviews with persons knowledgeable about the site 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

including stakeholders such as property owners, local agencies, local community members, and 

regulators. 

b. Information may be gathered telephonically, through news articles or releases, public 

records, local authorities, stakeholder input, etc. PDT members will document all efforts to 

identify new information including a description of all sources that were searched, contact 

information for all people or agencies contacted, and a summary of all telephone 

conversations/interviews. 

c. The PDT will gather information pertaining to the following areas: 

(1) Development at the site or in the vicinity of the site; 

(2) Erosion; 

(3) Recreational or other activities at the site or in the vicinity of the site; 

(4) Coastal processes (e.g., wave action); 

(5) Fire; 

(6) Frost heave; 

(7) Storm damage (uprooted trees, etc.); 

(8) Changes in land use at the site and in the vicinity of the site, both actual and potential; 

(9) Changes in accessibility to the site; 

(10) OE incidents; 

(11) Status of Land Use Controls; 

• For sites where land use controls were implemented, the PDT will review all aspects 

described in the Institutional Control Plan and contact all agencies responsible for 

implementing, maintaining and/or enforcing the land use controls. Land use controls 

may include legal, physical, or educational mechanisms that limit the access or use of a 

property, or warn of the hazard in order to protect property users and the public. The 

PDT will make an evaluation as to whether the implemented land use controls are 

operating as intended. 

• For active installations, the PDT will also review the installation's master plan and 

related documents to ensure any land use controls required in the OE response action 

have been incorporated into those documents. 

3-4 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

(12) Changes in stakeholder interest or concerns; and 

(13) New technology or techniques that have become available and economical and may be 

applicable to the site. 

3-6. Prepare Preliminary Site Analysis and Work Plan. 

a. Preliminary Site Analysis. The PDT will prepare a preliminary site analysis based 

upon a review of existing and new information. This preliminary site analysis will include a 

preliminary evaluation of the continued protectiveness of the response action. This analysis will 

identify any additional information that is required in order to prepare the final site analysis (i.e., 

additional information required to make the final determination regarding continued 

protectiveness of the response action). The worksheet provided as Table 3.1 may be used to 

facilitate the preliminary site analysis. 

b. Develop Work Plan. 

(1) The PDT will prepare a work plan to identify procedures to be used in collecting the 

additional information identified during the preliminary site analysis. A typical work plan will 

include the following: 

(a) Summary of the preliminary site analysis emphasizing what additional information is 

needed; 

(b) Procedures to be used to collect the additional information; 

(c) Safety precautions appropriate for the site specific conditions (see subparagraph (3) 

below); and 

(d) Schedule. 

(2) The PM will have the responsibility of an inter-disciplinary review of the work plan. 

(3) Safety Precautions. Safety is a primary consideration when conducting a site visit at a 

property that potentially contains OE hazards. The team conducting the site visit will include an 

OE Safety Specialist. 

(a) The Work Plan will state that the site visit will be executed using anomaly avoidance 

techniques (i.e., the site visit participants will avoid any potential UXO items). 

3-5 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Table 3.1 

Preliminary Site Analysis Worksheet 

PRELIMINARY SITE ANALYSIS WORKSHEET 

What changes have occurred that 

may affect prior decisions 

concerning the site? 

Physical Changes: 

Accessibility to Public: 

Land Use: 

Technology Changes: 

Other: 

How do these changes affect 

previous decisions for this site? 

What is the status of any Land 

Use Controls implemented at the 

site? 

What additional information is 

needed to develop a conclusion 

regarding the continued 

protectiveness of the response? 

Recommendations for follow-up 

action. 

List documents, resources used. 

3-6 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

(b) The Work Plan will describe procedures to be followed if OE is found at a site. 

The local point of contact (POC) designated in the Work Plan will be notified. On a FUDS site, 

this is normally the local law enforcement agency, which in turn will notify the appropriate 

military Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) unit. For active installations, the Work Plan will 

normally identify the Range Control Officer, the Facility Engineer, or post headquarters, as the 

local POC. The Work Plan will also identify all other appropriate POCs to be notified. 

Additional information on Safety Considerations is discussed in EP 1110-1-18, Chapter 20 and 

EP 385-1-95a, Basic Safety Concepts and Considerations for Ordnance and Explosives 

Operations. The initial notification will be made in the most timely manner (e.g., via telephone). 

(c) If ordnance is found during the site visit, extreme caution must be exercised. Personnel 

conducting the Recurring Review will not touch, move, or jar an apparent OE item in any way, 

regardless of its apparent condition. Markings such as “practice bomb,” “dummy,” or “inert” 

will not be interpreted to mean the item is not hazardous. Practice bombs can have explosive 

charges that are used to spot the point of impact or the item may be mismarked. If items are 

found with green band markings, which indicate the item may contain chemical fillers, then 

personnel will leave the area immediately. A full description of the items will be provided to the 

local POC designated in the Work Plan, including a photograph or video, an estimate of the 

diameter and length, and any visible markings or other identifiers. 

3-7. Conduct Site Visit. The PDT will conduct a site visit to visually confirm and document the 

current physical condition of the site and surrounding area, and the current condition or status of 

any land use controls included in the OE response action. The PDT may also conduct 

stakeholder outreach programs and interviews, as applicable, in conjunction with the site visit. 

a. Site Evaluation. 

(1) The site evaluation will include visual evaluation of the items listed in paragraph 3-5c. 

(2) Sites that are no longer owned or controlled by DOD require a right of entry prior to 

conducting a site visit. The district Division of Real Estate will obtain rights of entry. The 

district PM should contact the district Division of Real Estate early in the review process due to 

the time required to obtain the necessary rights of entry. Additional information on acquisition 

of rights of entry is discussed in EP 1110-1-18. 

b. Stakeholder Outreach. The PDT may schedule public information forums, media days, 

or other outreach initiatives to solicit further input regarding the site. 

c. Interviews. The PDT may conduct interviews with stakeholders and regulators (face to 

face discussions with property owners, local authorities, other stakeholders, etc.) to supplement 

the interviews conducted over the telephone. Under the Paper Reduction Act and in accordance 

with AR 335-15 and OCE Supplement 1 to AR 385-15, information collection via 

questionnaires, surveys or interviews that involve 10 or more members of the public within a 12 

3-7 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

month period must have prior review and approval by the USACE MICO Clearance Officer, 

HQDA, and OMB before being implemented. 

3-8. Prepare Recurring Review Report. 

a. General. The PDT will prepare a Recurring Review Report to document the 

information collected and evaluated, and present the findings of the evaluation of the continued 

protectiveness of the OE response action. The report will document whether the response action 

that was implemented continues to minimize explosive safety risks and is still protective of

human health, safety, and the environment and/or recommend follow-up actions that may be 

warranted. 

b. Contents of the Report. 

(1) The Recurring Review Report is a flexible document tailored to the scope of the 

Recurring Review for the site. The report will be written with the assumption that the reader is 

not familiar with the site. Historical site information (e.g., site history, site description, response 

action descriptions, etc.) can be taken directly from existing site documents. The report will 

include a description of the Recurring Review process and the evaluation considerations used to 

assess the protectiveness of the response. The report will be brief, with supporting information 

provided as appendices. 

(2) Table 3.2 provides a summary of the contents for a Recurring Review Report. 

(3) The report checklist and report template included in Appendix A provide further details 

regarding the contents of each section of the Recurring Review Report. At a minimum, the 

report will include the information described in Appendix A. 

3-9. Environmental Records Management. 

a. Project records resulting from the recurring review process will be retained in 

accordance with AR 25-400-2, Army Records Information Management System (ARIMS) as 

permanent records. PMs should also refer to EP 1110-3-8 to determine the appropriate 

documents for inclusion in the Administrative Record. 

3-8 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

3-9 

Table 3.2 

Sample Format for Recurring Review Report 

Section Title 

Title Page with Signature and Date 

Signed Concurrence Memorandum (if applicable) 

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary 

• Recurring Review Summary 

1 Introduction 

2 Site Chronology and Description 

• Chronology of site history 

• Background information 

− Physical characteristics 

− Land use history 

− Previous investigations 

• Response action 

− Objectives, selection, description, implementation 

3 Recurring Review Process 

• Administrative Components 

• Community Notification and Involvement 

• Summary of information gathered and relied upon: 

• Existing information/documentation 

• New information 

• Interviews 

• Site Visit 

• Progress Since Last Recurring Review 

4 Final Site Analysis 

5 Conclusions/Recommendations 

• Response Deficiencies 

• Conclusions 

• Recommendations/Follow-up actions 

• Responsibility Matrix 

• Next Review 

Appendices 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

CHAPTER 4 

APPROVING AND TERMINATING THE RECURRING REVIEW

4-1. Introduction. This chapter discusses the process for review and approval of the draft and 

final Recurring Review Report, as well as termination of Recurring Reviews at a site. 

4-2. Review and Approval of the Recurring Review Report. The district will prepare a draft 

and final Recurring Review Report as described in the following sections. 

a. Draft Recurring Review Report. 

(1) The district will prepare a draft Recurring Review Report. The district will provide a 

copy to the OE CX for review. The Office of Counsel for the District conducting the Recurring 

Review will review and provide comments on the draft Recurring Review Report generated by 

the PDT before it is released outside of the USACE. Following the approval of the District 

Office of Counsel, the district will provide a copy to stakeholders and regulators for review and 

comment. A copy of the report will also be placed in the information repository established for 

the Recurring Review for public review and comment. 

(2) The district may hold a public meeting or availability session during the public 

comment period. 

(3) The district will publish a notice in a major local newspaper of general circulation 

including the following information: 

(a) Notification that the draft report has been completed and placed in the information 

repository; 

(b) Location of the information repository for public review; 

(c) Summary of the findings and conclusions of the Recurring Review; 

(d) An announcement of a formal 30-day (minimum) public comment period for 

submission of written comments; and 

(e) Location and time for a public meeting, if applicable. 

(4) Upon completion of the public comment period, a responsiveness summary is prepared 

that discusses any significant public comments received on the report and the actions taken to 

address those comments. The responsiveness summary becomes part of the project files. 

4-1 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

b. Final Recurring Review Report. 

(1) The district will incorporate the comments received during the public comment period 

into the final Recurring Review Report. 

(2) The final report must contain a signed determination by the District Commander 

(FUDS)/Installation Commander or MACOM Commander (active and transferring sites) stating 

that the response continues/does not continue to minimize explosives safety risks and is/is not 

protective of human health, safety, and the environment. The district will seek concurrence from

the appropriate regulator(s) for the determination. 

(3) The district will provide copies of the final report to appropriate stakeholders, 

regulators, and the OE CX. The final Recurring Review Report, along with the responsiveness 

summary, will be included in the project files for the site, including the information repository 

that was established during the Recurring Review. 

c. Figure 4-1 illustrates the OE review and approval process. Table 4.1 may be used by 

the PM to track and document reporting activities for the Recurring Review. 

4-3. Termination of Recurring Reviews. 

a. Further Recurring Reviews may be terminated at a site when the PDT, stakeholders, 

and regulators reach agreement that the site is stable based on the results of previous Recurring 

Reviews and response actions that have been conducted at the site. Evaluation of the stability of 

a site will depend on site-specific characteristics. A site may be considered stable if: 

(1) there are no issues at the site that result in a change in the effectiveness of the response 

actions; 

(2) there has been no erosion at the site that significantly impacts the response action; 

(3) there have been no OE incidents at the site; and 

(4) there have been no significant changes in land use for the site, etc. 

b. USACE recognizes that there may be sites requiring Recurring Reviews over an 

indefinite period of time due to unique site conditions. 

c. The final Recurring Review Report generated for the last Recurring Review at a site 

will state that no further Recurring Reviews will be conducted at the site. The report will also 

provide a discussion regarding the justification for termination of the Recurring Reviews and 

documenting agreement among the PDT, stakeholders, and regulators. 

4-2 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

DRAFT

RECURRING REVIEW

REPORT (1)

RESPONSIVENESS

SUMMARY (2)

FINAL

RECURRING REVIEW

REPORT (3)

(Decision Document)

PROJECT FILES

(including Information

Repository)

Review:

OE MCX

(1) The district will prepare the draft Recurring Review Report and provide a copy to stakeholders and regulators for

review and comment. A copy of the report will be placed in the Information Repository for review and comment. 

The district will also provide a copy to the OE MCX for review. (2) Upon completion of the public comment period, a responsiveness summary is prepared that discusses any

significant public comments received on the report and the actions taken to address those comments. The

responsiveness summary becomes part of the project files. (3) The district will incorporate the comments received during the public comment period into the final Recurring

Review Report. The final Recurring Review Report will be included in the project files for the site. (4) The final report must contain a signed determination by the district commander (FUDS)/installation commander

or MACOM commander (active or transferring) stating that the response is or is not protective of human health, 

safety, and the environment. The district will seek concurrence from the appropriate regulator(s) for the

determination.

Review:

Stakeholders &

Regulators

Approval: (4)

Disrict Commander

(FUDS)/Installation

Commander or

MACOM (active or

transferring)

Concurrence: (4)

Authorized

regulator(s)

Figure 4-1. Review and Approval Process for the Recurring Review Report 

4-3 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

4-4 

Table 4.1 

Sample Format to Track Recurring Review Reporting 

RECURRING REVIEW REPORTING 

Draft Recurring Review 

Report 

Federal ____________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

State _________________Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

Tribal ____________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

Information 

Repository _________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

Other ____________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

Other ____________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

Public Notice of 

Recurring Review Report 

and Findings 

Name of Newspaper(s): Publication Date(s): 

________________________________ ____________________ 

________________________________ ____________________ 

________________________________ ____________________ 

Public Meeting Yes ________ No ________ 

Date held: ___________________________________ 

Location ___________________________________ 

Final Recurring Review 

Report 

Date Signed: ______________________ 

Federal ____________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

State _________________Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

Tribal ____________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

Information 

Repository _________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

Other ____________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 

Other ____________________ Date Sent: _______ Comments: ______ 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

APPENDIX A 

RECURRING REVIEW REPORT TEMPLATE 

A-1. Introduction. This appendix provides a checklist and report template for Recurring Review 

Reports. The checklist appears first, followed by the report template. Each report should take 

into account site-specific circumstances, and the report format and content should be modified 

accordingly. For example, there may be site-specific questions that are not specifically 

addressed in the checklist /template presented in this appendix but that should be included in the 

Recurring Review Report. At a minimum, the report will include all applicable information 

described in the checklist and template. 

a. Table A-1 is a checklist that may be used to verify that all appropriate information has 

been included in the Recurring Review Report. Depending on site-specific circumstances, some

items may not be applicable. 

b. The suggested format for Recurring Review Reports is presented in the report template, 

which also provides additional detail on the content of each section. The template provides 

details on the content of each section, boilerplate text, example tables, and protectiveness 

statements. Suggested boilerplate text is presented in text boxes. Within the boilerplate section, 

text enclosed in brackets (“[ ]”) should be added as appropriate, and italicized text denotes 

discussions that the reviewer should add. 

c. Use both the checklist and report template as guides for the types of information that 

should appear in the different sections of the Recurring Review Report. Also include 

information that is relevant to the site and needed to ensure that the rationale behind the 

protectiveness determination is adequately documented. 

A-1 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Table A-1 

Content Checklist for 

Recurring Review Reports for OE Response Actions 

Project Name: 

Project Location: 

Preparer’s Name and Title: 

Date of Preparation: 

Reviewer’s Name and Title: 

Date of Review: 

Y N N/A

Title page with signature and date 

Signed concurrence memorandum (if applicable) 

Table of Contents 

• List of tables 

• List of figures 

• List of acronyms 

• List of appendices 

Executive Summary 

• Recurring Review Summary 

Introduction

• Site name, location and FUDS number 

• Date of the Recurring Review 

• Purpose of the Recurring Review 

• Review number (e.g., first, second, etc.) 

− date that the on-site field work for the selected 

response action began (i.e., “trigger date”) 

− date of the previous review (if applicable) 

A-2 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Y N N/A

Introduction (continued)

• If review covers only a portion of the site, define 

what areas are covered in the Recurring Review and 

summarize the status of other areas 

• List of Project Delivery Team Members 

− Organizations providing analyses in support of 

the review (e.g., the contractor supporting the 

lead agency) 

− Other review participants or support agencies 

Site Chronology and Description 

• Chronological list of site history, including all 

important site events such as the date of initial 

discovery of problem and milestone dates for the OE 

response action at the site (e.g., list of documents 

created during the removal or remedial response 

process such as the EE/CA or RI/FS report, decision 

documents, etc.).) 

• Physical characteristics of the site (e.g., size, 

topography, and geology) 

• Land use history (e.g., former, current, and future 

land use(s) of the site and surrounding areas) 

• Site investigations 

• Response action 

− Regulatory actions

− Response action objectives 

− Response selection

− Response description

− Response implementation (e.g., status, history) 

A-3 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Y N N/A

Recurring Review Process 

• Administrative Components 

− Notification of potentially interested parties of

initiation of review process 

− Identification of PDT members 

− Outline of components and schedule for the 

Recurring Review 

• Community Notification and Involvement 

− Community notification (prior and post review) 

− Other community involvement activities (e.g., 

notices, fact sheets, etc., as appropriate) 

− Stakeholder and Regulator Input 

o Summary of actions taken to provide 

information to and solicit input from

stakeholders and regulators (e.g., public notices, 

direct mailings, meetings, interviews, etc.). 

o Regulator and stakeholder concerns 

o A copy of significant stakeholder 

correspondence, minutes from public meetings, 

interview forms, etc. should be included as an 

appendix. 

• Summary of Information Gathered and Relied Upon 

− Existing information/documentation review 

(summary of existing documentation that was 

reviewed, information gathered during the site visit, 

and information gathered from stakeholders and 

regulators) 

− New information (e.g., photographs from the site 

visit that illustrate current site conditions, 

information provided by stakeholders and 

regulators, incident reports, etc.) 

A-4 

Recurring Review Process (continued) 

Y N N/A
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

− If a determination of Technical Impracticability 

was made for the site, discuss whether new 

technology is now available that could address 

remaining explosives safety risks at the site 

• Progress Since Last Recurring Review (if applicable) 

− Protectiveness statements from last review 

− Status of recommendations and follow-up actions 

from last review 

− Results of implemented actions, including 

whether they achieved the intended effect 

− Status of any other prior issues 

• Interviews

− Interview date(s) and location(s) 

− Interview participants (name, title, and other 

contact information) 

− Interview documentation 

− Interview summary 

• Site Visit Findings 

− Date of Site Visit 

− Site Visit participants 

− Site visit scope and procedures 

− Site visit observations and conclusions 

− Maps, drawings, tables and photos (as necessary) 

A-5 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Y N N/A

Final Site Analysis 

• Answer Question 1: Is the response functioning 

as intended? 

• Answer Question 2: Are any assumptions used 

at the time of response selection still valid? 

• Answer Question 3: Does new information 

indicate that the previously selected response is 

no longer protective of human health, safety, 

and the environment considering the best 

available technology?

• In answering these questions, include: 

− Description of whether the response action 

continues to meet the response objectives. 

− Description of any changes noted at the site 

and what impact they have on the 

protectiveness of the response (e.g., physical 

changes, changes in land use at the site or 

adjacent properties, changes in public 

accessibility, technology changes, etc.) 

− Analysis of the current protectiveness of the 

OE response action based on the information 

gathered during the Recurring Review. 

Conclusions/Recommendations 

• Response Deficiencies 

• Conclusions

− Protectiveness statement for each sector or 

area of the site, as appropriate (i.e., 

statement as to whether the response 

continues to minimize explosives safety 

risks and continues to be protective of 

human health, safety and the environment) 

A-6 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Y N N/A

Conclusions/Recommendations (continued)

• Recommendations/Follow-up Actions 

− If it is determined that the response is not currently 

protective or risk-related concerns are identified, 

include recommendations for follow-up actions to 

address the deficiencies. The report should indicate 

that the follow-up actions were identified and 

developed by the PDT in conjunction with 

stakeholders and regulators. 

• Responsibility Matrix 

− Recommended follow-up actions 

− Parties responsible for further action (i.e., for 

developing, implementing, and overseeing the 

actions) 

− Target dates (i.e., schedule for completion of actions 

related to resolution of issues) 

• Next Review 

− Expected date of next review 

− Proposed changes to the scope of subsequent reviews 

− If the PDT has determined that no further Recurring 

Reviews will be conducted at the site, provide a 

discussion of the justification for termination and 

documenting agreement among the PDT, stakeholders 

and regulators. 

A-7 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Recurring Review Report 

(First, Second, etc.) Recurring Review Report

for 

Site Name

FUDS Number 

City 

County, State 

Month, Year 

PREPARED BY: 

Lead Agency 

Name and 

Location 

Approved by: Date:

___________________________________________ _____________________________________ 

[Name] 

[Title] 

[Affiliation]

A-8 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Signed Concurrence Memorandum 

If concurrence was obtained from the appropriate regulators, include a signed concurrence 

memorandum. 

A-9 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Recurring Review Report 

Site Name

FUDS Number 

City 

County, State 

The following Table of Contents notes typical major divisions and subheadings for Recurring 

Review reports. Subheadings can be included as appropriate for a given review report. This is 

only a general example.

Table of Contents 

Page

List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................ A-11 

Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... A-12 

Recurring Review Summary ...................................................................................................... A-13 

1.0 Introduction......................................................................................................................... A-15 

2.0 Site Chronology and Description........................................................................................ A-16

3.0 Recurring Review Process.................................................................................................. A-17 

4.0 Final Site Analysis.............................................................................................................. A-19 

5.0 Conclusions/Recommendations.......................................................................................... A-19 

List of Tables 

List of Figures 

List of Appendices 

A-10 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

List of Acronyms

You should include a list of acronyms used in the report. 

A-11 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Executive Summary

You should include an Executive Summary at the beginning of the report. The Executive 

Summary should be brief, and should include a reiteration of the protectiveness statements 

included in Section 5.0 (Conclusions/Recommendations) of the Recurring Review Report.

A-12 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Sample Format for Recurring Review Summary

SITE IDENTIFICATION

Site name:

FUDS Number: 

City: County: State:

SITE STATUS

Selected Response Action Description:

Response Action Status (choose all that apply): ___ Under Construction ___ Complete

Initiation Date of On-site Field Work for Response Action Implementation: ___ / ___ / ______ 

Completion Date for Response Action Implementation: ___ / ___ / ______ 

Does the site include multiple Sectors/Areas? __YES __NO 

If yes, list the areas included in this Recurring Review: 

________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

________________________________________ 

Has site been put into reuse? __ YES __ NO

REVIEW STATUS

Lead agency: _________________________________

Author/District PM name: 

Author/District PM title: Author affiliation:

Review period:** ___ / ___ / ______ to ___ / ___ / ______ 

Review number: __1 (first) __ 2 (second) __ 3 (third) __ Other (specify) __________

Date(s) of site visit: ___ / ___ / ______ 

Triggering date: ___ / ___ / ______ 

Due date for initiation of this Recurring Review: ___ / ___ / ______

A-13 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Sample Format for Recurring Review Summary, cont’d.

Summary of Findings and Final Site Analysis:

Summarize findings and Final Site Analysis (see Chapters 3 and 4)

Conclusions/Recommendations and Follow-up Actions:

Summarize conclusions/recommendations and follow-up actions (see Chapter 5). 

Protectiveness Statement(s): 

Other Comments:

A-14 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Recurring Review Report 

1.0 Introduction 

Provide a synopsis of “who, what, where, when, and why.” Detail the following: 

• The site name, location and FUDS number (include site location figure); 

• The purpose of the review; 

• Who conducted the review, when, and for what site or portion of the site; 

• Whether it is the first review or a subsequent review at the site, including the date that 

the on-site field work for the selected response action began (i.e., “trigger date”) and the 

date of the previous review (if applicable); 

• A brief status of areas of a site not addressed in the current review and/or the status of 

Recurring Reviews for other areas of the entire site.

 

1.0 Introduction 

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has conducted a Recurring Review for 

the Ordnance and Explosives (OE) Response Action at [site name] [FUDS number] in [city, 

county, state]. The site location is illustrated in Figure 1.1. The [name of the areas of the site 

included in the review] is the subject of this review. The location(s) of the area(s) included in 

this review are illustrated in Figure 1.2. 

The purpose of a Recurring Review for an OE response action is to determine whether the 

response action at a site continues to minimize explosives safety risks and continues to be 

protective of human health, safety, and the environment. The methods, findings, and 

conclusions of the review are documented in this report. 

The Recurring Review was conducted from [start date] to [finish date] and is the [number of 

review, i.e., first, second, etc.] Recurring Review for this site. On-site field work for the 

selected response action at this site began on [date]. The previous review was conducted in 

[year of previous review]. 

The [USACE District] conducted the Recurring Review. The members of the Project Delivery 

Team (PDT) that conducted the review, including their titles and contact information, are 

provided in Table 1.1. 

If the Recurring Review does not include an entire site, also provide a brief synopsis of the 

status of response actions and/or Recurring Reviews for other areas.

A-15 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

2.0 Site Chronology and Description 

List all important site events and relevant dates in the site chronology, such as those shown in 

Table 2.1. The identified events are illustrative, not comprehensive. 

Table 2.1: Chronology of Site Events 

Event Date

Preliminary Assessment of Eligibility 

Site Inspection (incl. work plans and reports) 

Archives Search Report 

Time Critical Removal Actions 

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis 

(EE/CA) or Remedial Investigation/Feasibility 

Study (RI/FS) 

Decision Document 

Explosives Safety Submissions 

Response Implementation 

Site-specific Response Report 

Previous Recurring Reviews 

Describe the fundamental aspects of the site, including: 

• Physical characteristics of the site (e.g., size, topography, and geology);

• Land use history (e.g., former, current, and future land use(s) of the site and surrounding 

areas); 

• Summary of site investigation history and findings; and 

• Description of the selected response action, including response action objectives, 

response selection, response implementation, and basis for taking response. You should 

delineate all response measures, for instance, include land use controls. Discuss any 

changes to or previously identified problems with the response. 

This information can be taken directly from existing site documents. 

A-16 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

3.0 Recurring Review Process 

Describe activities performed during the Recurring Review process and provide a summary of 

findings when appropriate. Include the following information: 

• Administrative Components 

− Notification of potentially interested parties of initiation of review process 

− Identification of PDT members 

− Outline of components and schedule for the Recurring Review 

• Community Notification and Involvement 

− Community notification (prior and post review)

− Other community involvement activities (e.g., notices, fact sheets, etc., as 

appropriate)

− Stakeholder and Regulator Input 

o Summary of actions taken to provide information to and solicit input from 

stakeholders and regulators (e.g., public notices, direct mailings, meetings, 

interviews, etc.). 

o Regulator and stakeholder concerns 

o Include a copy of significant stakeholder correspondence, minutes from public 

meetings, interview forms, etc. as an appendix to the report. 

• Summary of Information Gathered and Relied Upon 

− Existing information/documentation review 

o Provide a list of the existing documentation that was reviewed and the 

location of this information; 

o Describe existing information gathered during the site visit and information 

gathered from stakeholders and regulators. 

− New information 

o Include a description of new information that is not already included in the 

project files but which is necessary to support the findings of the Recurring 

Review. This may include photographs from the site visit that illustrate 

current site conditions, information provided by stakeholders and 

regulators, and incident reports. 

o Include this new information as an appendix to the report. 

− If a determination of Technical Impracticability was made for the site, discuss 

whether new technology is now available that could address remaining explosives 

safety risks at the site. 

A-17 

• Progress Since the Last Recurring Review 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

− Protectiveness statements from the last review; 

− Status of recommendations and follow-up actions from last review; 

− Results of implemented actions, including whether they achieved the intended effect; 

and 

− Status of any other prior issues 

Table 3.1 below presents one approach for providing information on the 

recommendations and follow-up actions stated in the past review and subsequent actions. 

The accompanying text should also discuss why any recommendations and follow-up 

actions have not been implemented if that is the case, and whether implemented actions 

achieved desired results.

Table 3.1: Actions Taken Since the Last Recurring Review

Issues from 

Previous Review 

Recommendations/ 

Follow-up Actions 

Party

Responsible 

Milestone 

Date 

Action Taken and 

Outcome 

Date of 

Action 

• Interviews 

− Provide a summary of interviews conducted to obtain new information about the site 

including: 

o Interview date(s) and location(s)

o Interview participants (name, title, and other contact information)

o Interview documentation 

o Interview summary 

− Include a detailed description of each interview in an appendix. 

• Site Visit Findings 

− Date of Site Visit 

− Site Visit participants 

− Site visit scope and procedures 

− Site visit observations and conclusions 

A-18 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

− Maps, drawings, tables and photos (as necessary)

4.0 Final Site Analysis 

Provide an analysis of the current protectiveness of the OE response action based on the 

information gathered during the Recurring Review. In the analysis, provide the answers to the 

three questions that the Recurring Review is intended to address: 

• Is the response functioning as intended? 

• Are any assumptions used at the time of response selection still valid? 

• Does new information indicate that the previously selected response no longer minimizes 

explosives safety risks and/or is no longer protective of human health, safety, and the 

environment considering the best available technology? 

Provide the information that presents the basis for each answer as a framework for your 

protectiveness determination(s): 

• Description of whether the response action continues to meet the response objectives. 

• Description of any changes noted at the site and what impact they have on the 

protectiveness of the response (e.g., physical changes, changes in land use at the site or 

adjacent properties, changes in public accessibility, technology changes, etc.).

• Analysis of the current protectiveness of the OE response action based on the 

information gathered during the Recurring Review. 

Explain the conclusions of your review, based on the information presented in the previous 

section. 

5.0 Conclusions/Recommendations 

Develop a protectiveness statement for each sector included in the Recurring Review. This will 

be a statement as to whether the response continues to minimize explosives safety risks and 

continues to be protective of human health, safety and the environment. 

Explain and provide supporting rationale of the protectiveness determination. This will include 

a description of any response deficiencies that were noted during the Recurring Review. 

Address all issues that affect current and/or future protectiveness. 

If it is determined that the response is not currently protective or risk-related concerns are 

identified, include recommendations for follow-up actions to address the deficiencies. These 

follow-up actions will be identified and developed by the PDT in conjunction with stakeholders 

and regulators. Develop a responsibility matrix that identifies the parties responsible for 

implementing and overseeing actions, milestone dates, etc.. Table 5.1 illustrates one way to 

include the necessary information. 

A-19 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Table 5.1: Conclusions/Recommendations 

 Issue

Recommendations and

Follow-up Actions 

Party

Responsible for 

Implementation 

Party

Responsible for 

Oversight 

Milestone 

Date 

Document the year of the next Recurring Review for the site and any proposed changes to the 

scope. If the PDT has determined that no further Recurring Reviews will be conducted at the 

site, provide a discussion of the justification for termination and document agreement among the 

PDT, stakeholders and regulators.

Suggested protectiveness statements are provided below. 

A. Response action is under construction: 

Protective or will be protective: 

“The response action at [area X of site X] is expected to be effective in minimizing explosive 

safety risks and protective of human health, safety and the environment upon completion, and in 

the interim, conditions that could result in unacceptable risks are being controlled.” 

Not protective: 

“The response action at [area X of site X] is not protective because of the following issues 

[describe the issue(s)]. The following actions need to be taken [describe the actions needed to 

ensure protectiveness].” 

Protectiveness deferred: 

“A protectiveness determination of the response at [area X of site X] cannot be made at this time 

until further information is obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the 

following actions [describe the actions]. It is expected that these actions will take 

approximately [insert time frame] to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will 

be made.” 

B. Response action at the OU is operating or completed: 

Protective: 

“The response action at [area X of site X] continues to minimize explosives safety risks and 

continues to be protective of human health, safety and the environment.” 

Not protective:

“The response action at [area X of site X] is not continuing to minimize explosives safety risks 

and is not continuing to be protective of human health, safety and the environment because of 

the following issue(s) [describe the issue(s)]. The following actions need to be taken [describe 

the actions needed to ensure protectiveness]. 

A-20 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

A-21 

Protectiveness deferred: 

“A protectiveness determination of the response at [area X of site X] cannot be made at this time 

until further information is obtained. Further information will be obtained by taking the 

following actions [describe the actions]. It is expected that these actions will take 

approximately [insert time frame] to complete, at which time a protectiveness determination will 

be made.”

 

Appendices 

• Site maps (if not included in the body of the report) 

• List of documents reviewed and their location 

• New information obtained during the Recurring Review that is not currently a part of the 

project files 

• Interview forms 

• Photos Documenting Site Conditions 

• Copies of significant stakeholder correspondence, community outreach materials, 

minutes from public meetings, interview forms, etc.

• Comments received from stakeholders 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

GLOSSARY 

Section I 

Acronyms 

AR..................Army Regulation 

ARIMS...........Army Records Information Management System

BRAC.............Base Realignment and Closure 

CEFMS ..........Corps of Engineers Financial Management System

CERCLA........Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

CFR................Code of Federal Regulations 

CRP................Community Relations Plan 

DA..................Department of the Army

DERA.............Defense Environmental Restoration Account 

DERP .............Defense Environmental Restoration Program

DOD...............Department of Defense 

DOE ...............Department of Energy 

DQO...............Data Quality Objective 

DSERTS.........Defense Site Environmental Restoration System

EE/CA............Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis 

EM..................Engineer Manual 

EOD ...............Explosive Ordnance Disposal 

EP...................Engineer Pamphlet 

ER ..................Engineer Regulation 

FUDS .............Formerly Used Defense Sites 

FUDSMIS ......Formerly Used Defense Sites Management Information System

HQDA............Headquarters, Department of the Army

HQUSACE.....Headquarters, United States Army Corps of Engineers 

HTRW............Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste 

IRP .................Installation Restoration Program

LUC................Land Use Control 

MACOM........Major Command 

MCX ..............Mandatory Center of Expertise 

MIC................Management Information Control 

MICO.............Management Information Control Officer 

MSC...............Major Subordinate Command 

NCP................National Contingency Plan 

NDAI..............No DOD Action Indicated 

NPL................National Priorities List 

OCE................Office of the Chief of Engineers 

OE ..................Ordnance and Explosives 

OE CX............Ordnance and Explosives Center of Expertise 

OE MCX........Ordnance and Explosives Mandatory Center of Expertise 

Glossary-1 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

OMB ..............Office of Management and Budget 

PA ..................Privacy Act 

PDT................Project Delivery Team

PIRS...............Project Information Retrieval System

PL...................Public Law 

POC................Point of Contact 

PMP................Project Management Plan 

PM..................Project Manager 

PRA................Paper Reduction Act 

RCTCS...........Restoration Cost-to-Complete System

RI/FS..............Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study 

SARA.............Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 

TPP.................Technical Project Planning 

USACE ..........United States Army Corps of Engineers 

USAESCH .....United States Army Engineering and Support Center, Huntsville 

USC................United States Code 

UXO...............Unexploded Ordnance 

Section II 

Terms 

Action Memorandum 

Approves time-critical removal action and also concludes the engineering evaluation/cost 

analysis. Provides a concise, written record of the decision to select an appropriate removal 

action. As the primary decision document, it substantiates the need for a removal action, 

identifies the proposed action, and explains the rationale for the removal action selected. (EP 

1110-1-18) 

Active Installations 

Installations under the custody and control of DOD. Includes operating installations, 

installations in a standby or layaway status, and installations awaiting closure under the Base 

Realignment and Closure (BRAC) legislation. (EP 1110-1-18) 

Administrative Record 

The body of documents that “forms the basis” for the selection of a particular response at a site. 

Documents that are included are relevant documents that were relied upon in selecting the 

response action as well as relevant documents that were considered but were ultimately rejected. 

(ER 1110-1-8153)

Glossary-2 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

Anomaly 

Any item that is seen as a subsurface irregularity after geophysical investigation. This 

irregularity should deviate from the expected subsurface ferrous and non-ferrous material at a 

site (i.e., pipes, power lines, etc.). (EP 1110-1-18) 

Anomaly Avoidance 

Techniques employed by EOD or UXO personnel at sites with known or suspected OE to avoid 

any potential surface UXO and any subsurface anomalies. This usually occurs at mixed hazard 

sites when HTRW investigations must occur prior to execution of an OE removal action. 

Intrusive anomaly investigation is not authorized during ordnance avoidance operations. (ER 

1110-1-8153) 

Archives Search Report (ASR) 

A detailed investigation to report on past OE activities conducted on an installation. The 

principal purpose of the Archives Search is to assemble historical records and available field 

data, assess potential ordnance presence, and recommend follow-up actions at a DERP-FUDS. 

There are four general steps in an Archives Search: records search phase, site safety and health 

plan, site survey, and archives search report including risk assessment. (EP 1110-1-18) 

Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

Program governing the scheduled closing of Department of Defense sites. (Base Closure and 

Realignment Act of 1988, Public Law 100-526, 102 Stat. 2623, and the Defense Base Closure 

and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, 104 Stat. 1808) 

Community Relations Plan (CRP) 

The Community Relations Plan (CRP) serves as the framework to establish a successful 

information exchange with the public for OE response actions. The CRP follows guidelines set 

forth under CERCLA and the SARA. Each CRP must be tailored to fit the individual site and 

situation and should also accommodate any site-specific agreements between the U.S. Army and 

the EPA or state environmental agencies. The CRP is not a static document and should be 

revised to reflect the project's development/progress. (EP 1110-1-18) 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 

(CERCLA) 

CERCLA authorizes federal action to respond to the release or threatened release of hazardous 

substances into the environment or a release or threat of release of a pollutant or contaminant 

into the environment that may present an imminent or substantial danger to public health or 

welfare. (42 U.S.C. 9601) 

Glossary-3 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Data Quality Objectives (DQOs) 

Project specific statements that describe the intended data use(s), the data need requirements, and 

the means to achieve acceptable data quality for the intended use(s). 

Decision Document 

The Department of Defense has adopted the term Decision Document for the documentation of 

remedial action (RA) decisions at non-National Priorities List (NPL) FUDS Properties. The 

decision document shall address the following: Purpose, Site Risk, Remedial Alternatives, 

Public/Community Involvement, Declaration, and Approval and Signature. A Decision 

Document for sites not covered by an interagency agreement or federal facility agreement is still 

required to follow a CERCLA response. All Decision Documents will be maintained in the 

FUDS Property/Project Administrative Record file. An Action Memorandum is the decision 

document for a removal response action. 

Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) 

Established in 1984, DERP promotes and coordinates efforts for the evaluation and cleanup of 

contamination at Department of Defense installations. (10 U.S.C. 2701) 

Design Center 

A specified USACE field office assigned a singular technical mission that is permanent and 

USACE-wide in scope. The designated office is to be considered the "lead activity" in a 

specialized area where capability needs to be concentrated for maximum effectiveness, economy, 

and efficiency. The OE Design Center (in coordination with the PM) will execute all phases of

the OE response project after the approval of the inventory project report unless the removal 

action is transferred to an approved district. Only the USAESCH OE Design center is authorized 

to execute any phase of a Non-Stockpile chemical warfare material response. (ER 1110-1-8153) 

Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) 

An EE/CA is prepared for all non-time-critical removal actions as required by Section 

300.415(b)(4)(i) of the NCP. The goals of the EE/CA are to identify the extent of a hazard, to 

identify the objectives of the removal action, and to analyze the various alternatives that may be 

used to satisfy these objectives for cost, effectiveness, and implementability. (EP 1110-1-18) 

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) 

The detection, identification, field evaluation, rendering safe, recovery, and final disposal of 

unexploded ordnance or munitions. (EP 1110-1-18) 

Explosives Safety Submission (ESS) 

The document which serves as the specifications for conducting work activities at the project. 

The ESS details the scope of the project, the planned work activities, and potential hazards 

(including the maximum credible event) and the methods for their control. (EP 1110-1-18) 

Explosive Soil

Glossary-4 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

See Definition in ER 1110-1-8153. 

Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) 

FUDS includes those properties previously owned, leased, or otherwise possessed by the U.S. 

and under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense; or manufacturing facilities for which real 

property accountability rested with DOD but were operated by contractors (Government owned 

– contractor operated) and which were later legally disposed of. FUDS is a subprogram of the 

DERP. Restoration of military land was extended to formerly used sites in 1983 under Public 

Law 98-212 (DOD Appropriations Act of FY84). 

Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Activities 

HTRW activities include those activities undertaken for the Environmental Protection Agency's

Superfund program, the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), including 

Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), and Installation Restoration Program (IRP) sites at active 

DOD facilities, HTRW actions associated with Civil Works projects, and any other mission or 

non-mission work performed for others at HTRW sites. (EP 1110-1-18) 

Information Repository 

A repository, generally located at libraries or other publicly accessible locations, which contains 

documents reflecting the on-going environmental restoration activities. This may include the 

EE/CA, CRP, Restoration Advisory Board meeting minutes, public notices, public comments 

and responses to those comments, etc. (EP 1110-1-18) 

Land Use Controls (LUCs) 

Physical, legal, or administrative mechanisms that restrict the use of, or limit access to 

contaminated property in order to reduce risk to human health and the environment. Physical 

mechanisms encompass a variety of engineered remedies to contain or reduce contamination 

and/or physical barriers to limit access to property, such as fences or signs. The legal 

mechanisms are generally the same as those used for institutional controls (ICs) as discussed in 

the National Contingency Plan. ICs are a subset of LUCs and are primarily legal mechanisms

imposed to ensure the continued effectiveness of land use restrictions imposed as part of a 

remedial decision. Legal mechanisms include restrictive covenants, negative easements, 

equitable servitudes, and deed notices. Administrative mechanisms include notices, adopted 

local land use plans and ordinances, construction permitting, or other existing land use 

management systems that may be used to ensure compliance with use restrictions. (DERP 

Management Guidance) 

Glossary-5 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Mandatory Center of Expertise (MCX) 

A MCX is a USACE organization that has been approved by HQUSACE as having a unique or 

exceptional technical capability in a specialized subject area that is critical to other USACE 

commands. Specific mandatory services to be rendered by a MCX is identified on the MCX's 

homepage. These services may be reimbursable or centrally funded. The USAESCH is the OE 

MCX for the USACE. (ER 1110-1-8153) 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) 

Revised in 1990, the NCP provides the regulatory framework for responses under CERCLA. 

The NCP designates the Department of Defense as the removal response authority for ordnance 

and explosives hazards. (40 CFR 300) 

Ordnance and Explosives (OE) 

OE consists of either (1) or (2) below: 

(1) Ammunition, ammunition components, chemical or biological warfare materiel or explosives 

that have been abandoned, expelled from demolition pits or burning pads, lost, discarded, buried, 

or fired. Such ammunition, ammunition components, and explosives are no longer under 

accountable record control of any DOD organization or activity. (HQDA Policy Memorandum

“Explosives Safety Policy for Real Property Containing Conventional OE”) 

(2) Explosive Soil. See definition under “Explosive Soil." (ER 1110-1-8153) 

OE Safety Specialist 

USACE Personnel, classified as a GS-018 Safety Specialist, and who is UXO qualified. OE 

Safety Specialists perform safety, quality assurance and UXO subject matter expert functions for 

the Government. The Safety Specialist may reside in and report to the construction field office 

or may reside in the engineering/construction office within the OE Design Center. (ER 1110-1-

8153) 

Project Delivery Team (PDT) 

The PDT is a multi-disciplined project team lead by the Project Manager with responsibility for 

assuring that the project stays focused, first and foremost on the public interest, and on the 

customer’s needs and expectations and that all work is integrated and done in accordance with a 

PMP and approved business and quality management processes. The PDT focuses on the quality 

project delivery, with heavy reliance on partnering and relationship development to achieve 

better performance. The PDT shall consist of everyone necessary for successful development 

and execution of all phases of the project. The PDT will include the customer(s), the PM, 

technical experts within or outside the local USACE activity, specialists, consultants/contractors, 

stakeholders, representatives from other Federal and state agencies, and vertical members from

division and headquarters that are necessary to effectively develop and deliver the project. The 

customer is an integral part of the PDT. (ER 5-1-11) 

Glossary-6 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03

Project Information Retrieval System 

The Project Information Retrieval System (PIRS) was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Rock Island District, and the USAESCH. The purpose of PIRS is to make documents 

electronically accessible about the investigation and cleanup of sites in the DERP and the 

BRAC. See http://pirs.mvr.usace.army.mil. 

Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) 

An in depth study designed to gather the data necessary to determine the nature and extent of 

known contamination at a site, assess risk to human health and the environment, and establish 

criteria for cleaning up the site. During the FS, the RI data is analyzed and remedial alternatives 

are identified. The FS serves as the mechanism for the development, screening, and detailed 

evaluation of alternative remedial actions. 

Response Action 

Action taken to prevent or minimize the release of OE so that it does not cause substantial 

danger to present or future public health or welfare or the environment. (ER 1110-1-8153) 

Stakeholders 

Stakeholders include federal, state, and local officials, community organizations, property 

owners, and others having a personal interest or involvement, or having a monetary or 

commercial involvement in the real property which is to undergo an OE recurring review. (EP 

1110-1-18) 

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) 

Enacted in 1986, this legislation establishes standards for cleanup activities, requires federal 

facility compliance with CERCLA, and clarifies public involvement requirements. (42 U.S.C. 

9601) 

Technical Impracticability 

A decision that may occur when current technology is not available to address the OE risks at a 

site. 

Technical Project Planning (TPP) Process 

A four-phase, comprehensive and systematic planning process for designing a data collection 

program. The TPP process helps ensure that the requisite type, quality, and quantity of data are 

obtained to satisfy project objectives. The TPP process is a critical component of the USACE 

quality management system. 

Glossary-7 
EP 75-1-4 

31 Oct 03 

Glossary-8 

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) 

Military munitions that have been primed, fuzed, armed, or otherwise prepared for action, and 

have been fired, dropped, launched, projected or placed in such a manner as to constitute a 

hazard to operations, installation, personnel, or material and remain unexploded either by 

malfunction, design, or any other cause. (40 CFR 266.201)