EP 200-1-18
30 September 2011
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS OF MILITARY
MUNITIONS RESPONSE PROJECTS
ENGINEER PAMPHLET
AVAILABILITY
Electronic copies of this and other U.S. Army Corps of Engineers publications are
available on the Internet at http://140.194.76.129/publications/. 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).
CEMP-RA
DEPARTMENT
OF THE ARMY
U.S.
Army Corps ofEngineers
Washington, DC
20314-1000
EP 200-1-18
Pamphlet
30 September 2011
No. 200-1-18
Environmental Quality
FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS OF MILITARY
MUNITIONS RESPONSE PROJECTS
1.
Purpose. This engineer pamphlet (EP) provides U.S. Army Corps
of
Engineers (USACE)
personnel with procedural guidance for performing Five-Year Reviews for projects under the
Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP).
2.
Applicability. This pamphlet applies to all Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps
of
Engineers
(HQUSACE) elements and all USACE commands having responsibility for performing
military munitions response activities.
3.
Distribution Statement. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
4.
References. References are provided in Appendix A.
5.
Explanation
of
Abbreviations and Terms. Acronyms and special terms used in this
pamphlet are explained in the glossary.
FOR THE COMMANDER:
2 Appendices
(See Table
of
Contents)
C onel, Corps
of
Engineers
hief
of
Staff
This pamphlet supersedes EP 75-1-4, dated
31
October 2003.
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY EP 200-1-18
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
CEMP-RA Washington, DC 20314-1000
Pamphlet
No. 200-1-18 30 September 2011
Environmental Quality
FIVE-YEAR REVIEWS OF MILITARY
MUNITIONS RESPONSE PROJECTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph Page
Chapter 1. Overview of Five-Year Reviews
Introduction ........................................................................................ 1-1 1-1
Regulatory Authorities ........................................................................ 1-2 1-1
Purpose of the Five-Year Review ....................................................... 1-3 1-2
Sites Requiring a Five-Year Review ................................................... 1-4 1-2
Frequency of Five-Year Reviews ....................................................... 1-5 1-3
Funding ............................................................................................... 1-6 1-4
Notification ......................................................................................... 1-7 1-4
Chapter 2. Planning the Five-Year Review
Introduction................................................................................... ...... 2-1 2-1
Timing for Preparation of the Five-Year Review ............................... 2-2 2-1
Parties Responsible for Preparation of the Five-Year Review ........... 2-3 2-1
Five-Year Review Planning Components ........................................... 2-4 2-1
Chapter 3. Executing the Five-Year Review
Introduction ......................................................................................... 3-1 3-1
Establishing PDT to Conduct the Five-Year Review ......................... 3-2 3-1
Community Involvement .................................................................... 3-3 3-1
Review of Existing Documentation .................................................... 3-4 3-3
Identify/Review New Information and Current Site Conditions ........ 3-5 3-3
Preliminary Site Analysis ................................................................... 3-6 3-4
Conduct Site Visit ............................................................................... 3-7 3-6
Prepare Five-Year Review Report ...................................................... 3-8 3-7
Environmental Records Management ................................................. 3-9 3-7
Chapter 4. Approving and Terminating the Five-Year Report
Introduction ......................................................................................... 4-1 4-1
Review and Approval of the Five-Year Report .................................. 4-2 4-1
Termination of Five-Year Reviews ................................................ 4-3 4-2
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
ii
Page
TABLES
Table 2.1 Examples of Existing Documentation to be Reviewed in Preparation
for the Five-Year Review................................................................................. 2-2
Table 3.1 Preliminary Site Analysis Worksheet.............................................................. 3-5
Table 4.1 Sample Format to Track Five-Year Review Reporting................................... 4-4
FIGURES
Figure 3-1 Five-Year Review Process............................................................................... 3-2
Figure 4-1 Review and Approval Process for the Five-Year Review Report................... 4-3
APPENDICES
Appendix A References......................................................................................................A-1
Appendix B Five-Year Review Report Template...............................................................B-1
Glossary..................................................................................................................
...Glossary-1
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
1-1
CHAPTER 1
Overview of Five-Year Reviews
1-1. Introduction
. This EP presents procedures for developing and implementing Five-Year
Review requirements for military munitions response projects. The purpose of Five-Year
Reviews is to determine if a response action continues to minimize explosive safety hazards
and continues to be protective of human health, safety, and the environment. Five-Year
Reviews are typically conducted under the Long Term Management phase once a project
achieves Response Complete or Remedy In Place. In situations where the Remedial Action-
Construction or Remedial Action-Operation phases are expected to exceed five years, the
review may be required during those phases. Five-Year Reviews are a requirement under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
a. Responsibility for executing Five-Year Reviews for a military munitions response
action depends on whether the site is a Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) or an active or
transferring installation.
(1) FUDS. For FUDS, as defined in ER 200-3-1, Five-Year Reviews are conducted
under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). Authority for executing
military munitions 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 Five-Year Reviews for military munitions response actions at FUDS.
(2) Active or Transferring Installations. Military munitions response actions at active
installations are conducted under the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP).
Military munitions response actions at transferring installations are conducted under the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program. Five-year reviews will be conducted in
accordance with customer requirements; however, the procedures described in this pamphlet
may be helpful for conducting Five-Year Reviews at active or transferring installations.
b. Military munitions response actions are planned, managed, and executed using the
CERCLA remedial process. Further information on this topic is provided in EP 200-1-19,
Military Munitions Response Process. For FUDS, Engineer Regulation (ER) 200-3-1,
Formerly Used Defense Sites Program Guidance, provides additional guidance. If further
assistance is needed with regards to this issue, contact the Environmental and Munitions
Center of Expertise (EM CX).
1-2. Regulatory Authorities
. For FUDS, the determination of the governing statutes and
regulations for any specific military munitions project will be made by the District Office of
Counsel in consultation with counsel supporting the EM CX. For work performed by
USACE under a different program or authority (e.g., BRAC, active installation, or other
clients), the appropriate legal representative of the sponsoring agency will be lead counsel
and will determine the governing statutes and regulations for the specific project. Statutes
and regulations applicable to military munitions response actions are provided in Appendix
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
1-2
A. When conducting site visits for purposes of Five-Year Reviews, all USACE elements
will comply with DoD, Department of the Army (DA) and USACE safety and health
regulations and procedures.
1-3. Purpose of the Five-Year Review
. The purpose of Five-Year Reviews for military
munitions response actions is to determine if a response action continues to minimize
explosive safety hazards and be protective of human health, safety, and the environment.
Five-Year 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
site-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 Five-Year Review will answer three general questions:
(1) Is the remedy functioning as intended by the Decision Documents?
(2) Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels and remedial action
objectives used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
(3) Has any other information come to light that could call into question the
protectiveness of the remedy?
c. As described in Engineer Manual (EM) 200-1-2, the Technical Project Planning
(TPP) Process may be used to assess Five-Year Review Objectives.
1-4. Sites Requiring a Five-Year Review
.
a. The Decision Document for a military munitions response action conducted under
the remedial process will identify if a Five-Year Review is required for a site.
b. Sites where the Decision Document identifies a determination of No DoD Action
Indicated (NDAI) because there is no evidence of military munitions do not require Five-
Year 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 200-1-19.
c. Sites that require a Five-Year Review for a military munitions response action may
also require a five-year review for Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW)
hazards. The military munitions and HTRW reviews should be coordinated, and where
practical reported in one document.
d. Statutory Review. CERCLA requires statutory five-year reviews if both of the
following conditions are true:
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
1-3
(1) Upon Completion of the remedial action, hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants will remain on site at levels that would not allow unlimited use and unrestricted
exposure; and
(2) The Decision Document for the site was signed on or after October 17, 1986 [the
effective date of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)] and
the remedial action was selected under CERCLA §121.
e. Policy Review. Five-Year Reviews generally should be conducted as a matter of
policy for the following types of actions:
(1) A pre- or post-SARA remedial action that, upon completion, will not leave
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants on site above levels that allow for
unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, but requires five years or more to complete; or
(2) A pre-SARA remedial action that leaves hazardous substances, pollutants, or
contaminants on site above levels that allow for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure.
1-5. Frequency of Five-Year Reviews
. If a Five-Year Review is required at a site, it will be
conducted at least every five years from the trigger date discussed below in subparagraphs a.
and b. Subsequent reviews will be conducted every five years or sooner, if specified, from
the date on the previous Five-Year Review Report.
a. FUDS. By policy, the trigger date is initiation of the on-site fieldwork phase to
implement the selected response action. The time frame for Five-Year Review efforts will
be tracked in the Formerly Used Defense Sites Management Information System
(FUDSMIS) by the district PM.
b. Active or Transferring Installations. By policy, for active Army installations, the
trigger date is the signature date of the Decision Document.
c. Five-Year Reviews may be necessary indefinitely depending on site conditions and
ability to meet unlimited use/unrestricted exposure conditions. Thirty years is a suggested
duration of Five-Year Reviews used for government planning purposes. Factors to consider
in assessing termination of Five-Year Reviews are discussed in Section 4-3.
d. Should a problem with an implemented military munitions response be identified or
an incident occur between scheduled Five-Year Reviews, a request for a Five-Year Review
to be completed ahead of schedule may be submitted to the district PM. For example, soil
erosion, wave processes, or other factors may create environmental conditions which alter
the potential for exposure (e.g., exposing previously buried items or increasing the
accessibility to a property containing military munitions) that may suggest that it is necessary
to conduct a Five-Year Review more frequently than every five years. Depending on the
nature of the issue, the USACE district office may generate a Five-Year Review Report or
use a less formal documentation method.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
1-4
1-6. Funding.
a. FUDS
(1) The Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) will fund Five-Year
Review activities for FUDS projects. Funding for Five-Year Reviews is subject to approval
of the district's annual Work Plan. For cost estimating and environmental liability purposes,
Five-Year Reviews will be costed through a 30-year time frame.
(2) It is the responsibility of the USACE district, which serves as the PM, to program
funding requirements for Five-Year Reviews, input and track milestones in the FUDSMIS,
input information to the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS), and
develop and implement the Five-Year Review for military munitions response activities.
Funding requirements should include adequate funding for all offices associated with the
Five-Year Review as well as adequate funding for personnel from other USACE offices to
participate in the Five-Year Review, as necessary. Effective Five-Year 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,
Engineering and Design: Military Munitions Response Actions.
b. Active or Transferring Installations. DERP will fund Five-Year reviews on active
installations. BRAC installation reviews will be funded out of the BRAC account.
1-7. Notification
. The PM District will notify stakeholders and regulators at the time the
Five-Year Review is being initiated in order to seek their involvement. Another broad
notification will also be made when a Five-Year Review is completed. Chapter 3 and EP
200-1-19, Public Participation During Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) Actions provide further information regarding
stakeholder and regulator involvement in the Five-Year Review process and details on
notification requirements and procedures.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
2-1
CHAPTER 2
Planning the Five-Year Review
2-1. Introduction
. Planning for a Five-Year Review will be conducted prior to initiating
Five-Year Reviews on a site. This chapter discusses when planning should be initiated,
who is responsible for planning the Five-Year Review, and the components of the planning
process.
2-2. Timing for Preparation of the Five-Year Review
. Planning should begin at least twelve
months prior to the Five-Year Review due date, which is defined in Section 1-5.
2-3. Parties Responsible for Preparation of the Five-Year Review
.
a. Five-Year Reviews will be developed with the full involvement of the Project
Delivery Team (PDT). ER 1110-1-8153, Military Munitions Support Services, provides
further details regarding organizational responsibilities throughout the military munitions
response action process.
b. PM District. The PM District is responsible for Five-Year Review planning. The
PM District leads the PDT and is responsible for overall coordination of PDT members.
c. PDT. The PDT, under the direction of the PM District, will be involved in the
planning of the Five-Year Review. The PDT members include the District PM; other
representatives from the district ( i.e., the District Real Estate Division, Public Affairs Office,
District Office of Counsel, etc.), as required; the MM Design Center or MM Remedial
Action District; an Ordnance and Explosives (OE) Safety Specialist; the EM CX, as required;
and the contractor lead, if a contractor is utilized. The PDT may also be drawn from
stakeholders or other state and federal agencies, as appropriate. Team members shall be
chosen for their skills and abilities to successfully execute a quality project. Ideally, team
members should not have been directly involved with the initial
investigation/design/remediation, allowing an independent assessment.
2-4. Five-Year Review Planning Components
.
a. Review of Existing Documentation. Identify existing documentation that will be
reviewed during the Five-Year Review. This 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 2.1
provides examples of the types of documents that normally will be reviewed.
b. Stakeholder Notification. Identify key stakeholders, provide their contact
information, and provide suggested avenues for notification based on what was successful in
the Environmental Engineering/Cost Analysis (EE/CA) or Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Study (RI/FS) process.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
2-2
Table 2.1
Examples of Existing Documentation to be Reviewed
in Preparation for the Five-Year Review
Document Examples
___ Statement of Work
___
Work Plans
___ Inventory Project Report
___ Archives Search Reports
___ 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 Five-Year Review Report at the
site, if applicable
___ Current DoD Risk Prioritization Results
c. Identification/Review of 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 Five-Year Review and will identify
the current site conditions.
d. Preliminary Site Analysis and Site Visit. The PDT will conduct 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 also plan 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.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
3-1
CHAPTER 3
Executing the Five-Year Review
3-1. Introduction
.
a. This chapter discusses the execution requirements for the PDT involved in Five-
Year 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
Five-Year Review Report. Figure 3-1 illustrates the Five-Year Review process.
b. Project Management for Five-Year 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 Five-Year Review
. Successful performance of a Five-
Year Review requires establishment of an interdisciplinary PDT. Members of the PDT are
listed in Section 2-3 of this EP.
3-3. Community Involvement
.
a. The PM District 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.
b. The PDT should 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 Five-Year Review and to obtain their input. In any
case, the method of notification 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. Notifications will include the following: a brief site history; notice that a Five-
Year Review will be conducted; how the community can contribute; how the community will
be notified that the review is completed; and how the Five-Year Review Report will be made
available when completed.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
3-2
STAKEHOLDER AND REGULATOR PARTICIPATION
ESTABLISH PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM AND
BEGIN COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES
REVIEW EXISTING DOCUMENTATION
IDENTIFY/REVIEW
NEW INFORMATION AND
CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS
CONDUCT PRELIMINARY SITE ANALYSIS
CONDUCT SITE VISIT
PREPARE FIVE-YEAR REVIEW REPORT
Figure 3-1. Five-Year Review Process
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
3-3
3-4. Review of Existing Documentation.
a. The PDT will review existing documentation for the site. At a minimum, the team
will review the documents listed in Table 2.1 and the Five-Year Review Report from the
previous review, if applicable. The PDT must review the Decision Document, and all
planned activities should be in accordance with the Decision Document.
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) or discarded military munitions
(DMM) are suspected or were located, if applicable, and document the basis for this
determination.
(3) Identify and review the basis for the selection of the response action (e.g., land use,
property ownership, site accessibility).
(4) If a determination of technical impracticability was made for the site, determine
whether new technology is now available that could address the remaining explosives safety
hazard at the site.
3-5. Identify/Review New Information and Current Site Conditions
.
a. The PDT will identify readily available site information that has become available
since implementation of the response action, decision document, or since the last Five-Year
Review. New information will also be gathered through interviews with persons
knowledgeable about the site 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);
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
3-4
(5) Fire;
(6) Frost heave;
(7) Storm damage (e.g., uprooted trees);
(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) Military munitions incidents;
(11) Status of Land Use Controls;
(12) Changes in stakeholder interest or concerns;
(13) New technology or techniques that have become available, are economical, and
may be applicable to the site;
(14)
Changes in surface water; and
(15)
Volcano and/or Earth quake.
d. For sites where land use controls were implemented, the PDT will review all aspects
described in project documents (i.e., the decision document, remedial/removal design
documents, Land Use Control Plan/Institutional Control Plan, etc.) 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.
e. 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 military munitions response
action have been incorporated into those documents.
3-6. Preliminary Site Analysis
. The PDT will conduct 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. The
worksheet provided as Table 3.1 will be used to facilitate the preliminary site analysis and
will be included as an appendix to the report.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
3-5
Table 3.1
Preliminary Site Analysis Worksheet
PRELIMINARY SITE ANALYSIS WORKSHEET
Review the Decision Document.
Does the Decision Document outline
specific Five-Year Review
Requirements?
What changes have occurred that may
affect prior decisions concerning the
site?
Physical Changes:
General Site Conditions:
Accessibility to Public:
Land Use (on and off site):
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?
Fencing, signs, and other security measures:
Indications of implementation/enforcement:
Type of monitoring (self-reporting, drive
by, etc.):
Frequency of monitoring:
Responsible party/agency and contact:
Reporting up to date and verified by lead
agency:
Specific requirements of decision document
met:
What additional information is needed
to develop a conclusion regarding the
continued protectiveness of the
response?
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
3-6
PRELIMINARY SITE ANALYSIS WORKSHEET (Continued)
Recommendations for follow-up action.
List documents/site records/resources
used, summarize interviews.
Re-read the Decision Document to
verify consistency with what is planned
for that the Preliminary Site Analysis.
3-7. Conduct Site Visit. The PDT will conduct a site visit in order 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 implemented as part of the military munitions
response action. To facilitate the site visit, the PDT will develop a site-specific checklist of
required tasks based on Table 3.1 and the content requirements of the Five-Year Review
Report which is outlined in Appendix B.
a. Site Evaluation.
(1) The site evaluation will include visual evaluation of the items listed in Section 3-5c.
Site evaluations shall include photo or video documentation of current site conditions.
(2) Sites that are no longer owned or controlled by DOD require a right of entry prior
to conducting a site visit. The District Real Estate Division will obtain rights of entry. The
PM District should contact the District Real Estate Division 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 200-1-19.
(3) The site visit will be conducted in accordance with all explosive safety
requirements as outlined in Army and USACE 385 series documents and in accordance with
all applicable occupational safety requirements.
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. Actions should be coordinated
with the District Public Affairs Officer (PAO).
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
3-7
3-8. Prepare Five-Year Review Report.
a. General. The PDT will prepare a Five-Year Review Report to document the
information collected and evaluated, and present the findings of the evaluation of the
continued protectiveness of the military munitions response action. The report will
document whether the response action 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 Five-Year Review Report is a flexible document tailored to the scope of the
Five-Year 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 Five-Year 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) Appendix B provides a summary of the contents for a Five-Year Review Report.
(3) The report checklist and report template included in Appendix B provide further
details regarding the contents of each section of the Five-Year Review Report. At a
minimum, the report will include the information described in Appendix B.
3-9. Environmental Records Management
.
a. Project records resulting from the Five-Year Review process will be retained in
accordance with Army Regulation (AR) 25-400-2, Army Records Information Management
System (ARIMS) as permanent records. The PM District should also refer to EP 200-1-19 to
determine the appropriate documents for inclusion in the Administrative Record.
b. For FUDS, Five-Year Review reports and other supporting documentation is to be
uploaded by the PM to the FUDS Record Management Database. All others will be
managed according to customer requirements.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
3-8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
4-1
CHAPTER 4
Approving and Terminating the Five-Year Review
4-1. Introduction
. This chapter discusses the process for review and approval of the draft
and final Five-Year Review Report, as well as termination of Five-Year Reviews at a site.
4-2. Review and Approval of the Five-Year Review Report
. The district will prepare a draft
and final Five-Year Review Report as described in the following sections.
a. Draft Five-Year Review Report.
(1) The PDT will prepare a draft Five-Year Review Report. The district will provide a
copy to the EM CX for review. The Office of Counsel for the District conducting the Five-
Year Review will review and provide comments on the draft Five-Year 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.
(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 Five-Year 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.
b. Final Five-Year Review Report.
(1)
The final report for FUDS five-year review must contain a signed determination by the
District Commander stating that the response continues to minimize the explosives safety hazard
and is protective of human health, safety, and the environment. If the response does not continue
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
4-2
to minimize the explosives safety hazard and is not protective of human health, safety, and the
environment, the report should make a recommendation whether reopening the remedy is
required.
(2) The district will provide copies of the final report to appropriate stakeholders,
regulators, and the EM CX. The final Five-Year Review Report, along with the
responsiveness summary, will be included in the project files for the site, including the
information repository. For FUDS, Five-Year Review reports and other supporting
documentation is to be uploaded by the PM to the FUDS Record Management Database.
(3) The final report will be coordinated with the appropriate regulator(s) by the PM
district.
c. Figure 4-1 illustrates the military munitions review and approval process. Table 4.1
may be used by the PM District to track and document reporting activities for the Five-Year
Review.
4-3. Termination of Five-Year Reviews
.
a. Further Five-Year Reviews may be terminated at a site when the PM, with the
advice of the PDT, stakeholders, and regulators, determines that the site meets unlimited
use/unrestricted exposure requirements and the site is stable. A site may be considered stable
if the following criteria have been met over the previous five years:
(1) there are no issues at the site that result in a change in the effectiveness of the
response actions, which remain protective of human health and the environment;
(2) there has been no erosion at the site that significantly impacts the response action;
(3) there have been no military munitions incidents at the site; and
(4) there have been no significant changes in land use for the site, etc.
b. The final Five-Year Review Report generated for the last Five-Year Review at a site
will state that no further Five-Year Reviews will be conducted at the site. The report will
also provide a discussion regarding the justification for termination of the Five-Year
Reviews.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
4-3
Figure 4-1. Review and Approval Process for the Five-Year Review Report
Review:
EM CX and District
Office of Counsel
Review:
Stakeholders &
Regulators
DRAFT
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
REPORT
(1)
RESPONSIVENESS
SUMMARY
FINAL
FIVE-YEAR REVIEW
REPORT
(Decision Document)
Approval:
District Commander
(FUDS)/Installation
Commander or
MACOM (active or
transferring)
Coordination:
(
2
)
Authorized
regulator(s)
(1) The PDT will prepare the draft Five-Year Review Report and provide a copy to EM CX and the
District Office of Counsel for review and comment. The PM District will subsequently provide a
copy to stakeholders and regulators for review.
(2)
The PM District will coordinate with the appropriate regulator(s)
.
PROJECT FILES
(Including
Information
Repository)
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
4-4
Table 4.1
Sample Format to Track Five-Year Review Reporting
Draft Five-Year 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
Five-Year Review
Report
and Findings
Name of Newspaper(s):
_______________________________
_______________________________
_______________________________
Publication Date(s):
______________________________
______________________________
______________________________
Public Meeting
Yes ________ No________
Date held: ___________________________________
Location ____________________________________
Final Five-Year 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 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
A-1
APPENDIX A
References
10 USC 2701 et seq.
Defense Environmental Restoration Program.
10 USC 2687 et seq.
Base Closures and Realignments
42 USC 9601 et seq.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980.
PL 101-510
Defense Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1990.
PL 100-526
Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988.
40 CFR Part 300
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan.
AR 25-400-2
Army Records Information Management System(ARIMS).
ER 5-1-11
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Business Process.
ER 200-3-1
Environmental Quality- Formerly Used Defense Sites Program Policy.
ER 385-1-92
Safety and Occupational Health Requirements for Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive
Waste (HTRW) Activities
ER 385-1-95
Safety and Health Requirements for Munitions and Explosives of Concern (MEC)
Operations.
ER 1110-1-8153
Military Munitions Support Services.
EP 200-1-19
Military Munitions Response Process.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
A-2
EP 200-3-1
Public Participation Requirements for Defense Environmental Restoration Program.
EM 200-1-2
Technical Project Planning Process.
EM 385-1-1
Safety and Occupational Health Requirements Manual
EM 385-1-97
Explosives Safety and Health Requirements Manual
EM 1110-1-4009
Engineering and Design: Military Munitions Response Actions.
EPA 540-R-01-007, OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P
Comprehensive Five-Year Review Guidance
http://www.epa.gov/superfund/accomp/5year/guidance.pdf
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-1
APPENDIX B
Five-Year Review Report Template
B-1. Introduction. This appendix provides a checklist and report template for Five-Year
Review Reports, based on Appendix E of EPA’s Comprehensive Five-Year Review
Guidance (EPA 540-R-01-007/OSWER No. 9355.7-03B-P). The checklist appears first,
followed by the report template. The Five-Year Review Report is a flexible document
tailored to the scope of the Five-Year Review for the site. 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 Five-Year Review Report. At a minimum, the report will include all applicable
information described in the checklist and template. Table B-1 is a checklist that may be
used to verify that all appropriate information has been included in the Five-Year Review
Report. Depending on site-specific circumstances, some items may not be applicable.
a. The suggested format for Five-Year 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.
b. Use both the checklist and report template as guides for the types of information
that should appear in the different sections of the Five-Year 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.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-2
Table B-1
Content Checklist for
Five-Year Reports for Military Munitions Response Actions
Project Name: _____________________________________________________
Project Location: _____________________________________________________
Preparer’s Name and Title: _____________________________________________________
Date of Preparation: _____________________________________________________
Reviewer’s Name and Title: _____________________________________________________
Date of Review: _____________________________________________________
Type of Review: _____________________________________________________
Y N N/A
Title page with signature and date __________ __________ __________
Table of Contents
List of tables
__________ __________ __________
List of figures
__________ __________ __________
List of acronyms
__________ __________ __________
List of appendices
__________ __________ __________
Executive Summary
Five-year Review Summary
__________ __________ __________
Introduction
Site name, location and FUDS number
__________ __________ __________
Date of the Five-Year Review
__________ __________ __________
Purpose of the Five-Year Review
__________ __________ __________
Review number (e.g., first, second, etc.)
__________ __________ __________
– trigger date
__________ __________ __________
– date of the previous review
__________ __________ __________
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-3
Table B-1, continued
Content Checklist for
Five-Year Reports for Military Munitions Response Actions
Y N N/A
If review covers only a portion of the site,
define what areas are covered in the Five-Year
Review and summarize the status of other
areas
__________
__________
__________
List of Project Deliver 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 military munitions 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.)
__________
__________
__________
Response Action
– Regulatory actions
__________ __________ __________
– Response action objectives
__________ __________ __________
– Response action selection
__________ __________ __________
– Response action description
__________ __________ __________
– Response implementation (e.g., status,
history)
__________
__________
__________
Background
Physical characteristics of the site (e.g., size,
topography, and geology)
__________
__________
__________
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-4
Table B-1, continued
Content Checklist for
Five-Year Reports for Military Munitions Response Actions
Y N N/A
Land use history (e.g., former, current, and
future land us(s) of the site and surrounding
areas)
__________
__________
__________
Site investigations
__________ __________ __________
Remedial Actions
Remedy Selection
__________ __________ __________
Remedy Implementation
__________ __________ __________
Systems operations/operations and
maintenance (if applicable)
__________
__________
__________
Progress Since Last Review (as applicable)
Protectiveness Statements from last review
__________ __________ __________
Status of recommendations and follow-up
actions from last review
__________ __________ __________
Results of implemented actions (whether
they have achieved the intended purpose)
__________
__________
__________
Status of any prior issues
__________ __________ __________
Five-Year 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 Five-Year Review
__________
__________
__________
Community Notification and Involvement
__________ __________ __________
–Community notification (prior and post
review)
__________
__________
__________
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-5
Table B-1, continued
Content Checklist for
Five-Year Reports for Military Munitions Response Actions
Y N N/A
– 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 Regulatory 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 visits that illustrate current site
conditions, information provided by
stakeholders and regulators, incident
reports, etc.)
___________
__________
___________
–If a determination of Technical
Impracticability was made for the site,
discuss whether new technology is now
available that could address the remaining
explosives safety hazard at the site
___________
___________
___________
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-6
Table B-1, continued
Content Checklist for
Five-Year Reports for Military Munitions Response Actions
Y N N/A
Progress Since Last Five-Year 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 observations and conclusions
___________ ___________ ___________
– Maps, drawings, tables and photos (as
necessary)
___________
___________
___________
Technical Assessment
Answer Question 1: Is the remedy
functioning as intended by the decision
documents?
___________
___________
___________
Answer Question 2: Are the exposure
assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels,
and remedial action objectives used at the
time of the remedy selection still valid?
___________
___________
___________
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-7
Table B-1, continued
Content Checklist for
Five-Year Reports for Military Munitions Response Actions
Y N N/A
Answer Question 3: Has any other
information come to light that could call
into question the protectiveness of the
remedy?
___________
___________
___________
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 Military Munitions response action
based on the information gathered during
the Five-Year 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 the explosives safety
hazard and continues to be protective of
human health, safety and the environment)
___________
___________
___________
Recommendations/Follow-up Actions
___________ ___________ ___________
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-8
Table B-1, continued
Content Checklist for
Five-Year Reports for Military Munitions Response Actions
Y N N/A
–
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
–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
Five-Year Reviews will be conducted at the
site, provide a discussion of the
justification for termination and
documenting agreement among the PDT,
stakeholders and regulators
___________
__________
___________
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-9
Five-Year Review Report
(First, Second, etc.) Five-Year Review Report
for
Site Name
FUDS Number if applicable
City
County, State
Month, Year
PREPARED BY:
Lead Agency
Name and
Location
Approved by: ________________________________________ Date: _____________
[Name]
[Title]
[Affiliation]
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-10
Five-Year Review Report
Site Name
FUDS Number
City
County, State
The following Table of Contents notes typical major divisions and subheadings for Five-Year
Review reports. Subheadings can be included as appropriate for a given review report. This is
only a general example.
List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................... B-11
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................... B-12
Five-Year Review Summary Form ................................................................................ B-13
Introduction .................................................................................................................... B-15
Site Chronology ............................................................................................................. B-16
Background .................................................................................................................... B-16
Remedial Actions ........................................................................................................... B-17
Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review .................................................................... B-17
Five-Year Review Process ............................................................................................. B-17
Technical Assessment .................................................................................................... B-19
Issues .............................................................................................................................. B-19
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions .................................................................... B-20
Protectiveness Statements .............................................................................................. B-20
Next Review ................................................................................................................... B-21
List of Tables
List of Figures
List of Appendices
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-11
List of Acronyms
You should include a list of acronyms used in the report.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-12
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 Five-Year Review Report.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-13
Sample Format for Five-Year Review Summary Form
SITE IDENTIFICATION
Site Name:
FUDS Number (if applicable):
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/Munitions
Response Sites? __
YES __NO
If yes, list the areas included in this Five-Year Review and
specify the type
:
________________________________________
________________________________________
________________________________________
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 (five years after triggering date) : ___ / ___ / ______
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-14
Sample Format for Five-Year Review Summary Form, cont’d
Issues:
Summarize issues.
Recommendations and Follow-up Actions:
Summarize recommendations and follow-up actions.
Protectiveness Statement(s):
Other Comments:
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-15
Five-Year 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 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
Five-Year Reviews for other areas of the entire site.
1.0 Introduction
The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has conducted a Five-Year Review
for the military munitions 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 Five-Year Review for a military munitions response action is to determine
whether the response action at a site continues to minimize the explosives safety hazard 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 [USACE District] conducted the Five-Year 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.
The Five-Year Review was conducted from [start date] to [finish date] and is the [number of
review, i.e., first, second, etc.] Five-Year Review for this site. On-site fieldwork for the
selected response action at this site began on [date]. The previous review was conducted in
[year of previous review].
If the Five-Year Review does not include an entire site, also provide a brief synopsis of the
status of response actions and/or Five-Year Reviews for other areas.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-16
2.0 Site Chronology
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 Five-Year Reviews
3.0 Background
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.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-17
4.0 Remedial Actions
Discuss initial plans, implementation history, and current status of the remedy. Explain events
identified in the chronology, and generally include discussions of remedy selection, remedy
implementation, remedy performance, and system operations/O&M. Present – accurately,
adequately, and concisely – relevant site activities from the signing of the ROD to the present.
You should delineate all remedial measures; for instance, include monitoring, fencing, and
institutional controls. Discuss any changes to or problems with remedial components. Include
the following:
5.0 Progress Since the Last Five-Year Review
Progress since the last review should be discussed when follow-up actions which impact
protectiveness were noted in the previous Five-Year Review report. Include the following:
– 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 5.1 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 5.1: Actions Taken Since the Last Five-Year Review
Issues from
Previous
Review
Recommendations
Follow up Actions
Party
Responsible
Milestone
Date
Action Taken and
Outcome
Date of
Action
Affects
Protectiveness
(Yes/No)
6.0 Five-Year Review Process
Describe activities performed during the Five-Year 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
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-18
– Outline of components and schedule for the Five-Year 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 Five-Year
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 the remaining explosives safety
hazard at the site.
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
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-19
– Site visit scope and procedures
– Site visit observations and conclusions
– Maps, drawings, tables and photos (as necessary)
7.0 Technical Assessment
Provide an analysis of the current protectiveness of the military munitions response action based
on the information gathered during the Five-Year Review. In the analysis, provide the answers
to the three questions that the Five-Year Review is intended to address:
Is the remedy functioning as intended by the decision documents?
Are the exposure assumptions, toxicity data, cleanup levels, and remedial action
objectives used at the time of the remedy selection still valid?
Has any other information come to light that could call into question the protectiveness
of the remedy?
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 military munitions response action based on
the information gathered during the Five-Year Review.
Explain the conclusions of your review, based on the information presented in the previous
section.
8.0 Issues
Detail issues related to current site operations, conditions, or activities, noting which issue, if
any, currently prevent the remedy from being protective.
9.0 Recommendations and Follow-up Actions
Specify the required and suggested improvements to current site operations, activities, remedy,
or conditions. Note the parties responsible for actions, milestone dates, and which agencies
have oversight authority. At a minimum, address all issues that currently affect current and/or
future protectiveness. Table 9.1 illustrates one way to include the necessary information.
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-20
Table 9.1 Conclusions/Recommendations
Issue Recommendations
Follow up Actions
Party
Responsible for
Implementation
Party
Responsible
for Oversight
Milestone Date Affects
Protectiveness
(Yes/No)
10.0 Protectiveness Statements
Develop a protectiveness statement for each sector included in the Five-Year Review. This will
be a statement as to whether the response continues to minimize the explosives safety hazard 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 Five-Year 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.
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
explosives safety hazard and protective of human health, safety and the environment upon
completion, and in the interim [insert time frame], 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 property/MRS is operating or completed:
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-21
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].
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.”
11.0 Next Review
Document the year of the next Five-Year Review for the site and any proposed changes to the
scope. If the PDT has determined that no further Five-Year Reviews will be conducted at the
site, provide a discussion of the justification for termination and document agreement among the
PDT, stakeholders and regulators.
Appendices
Site maps (if not included in the body of the report)
List of documents reviewed and their location
New information obtained during the Five-Year 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
Site maps (if not included in the body of the report)
List of documents reviewed and their location
New information obtained during the Five-Year Review that is not currently a part of the
project files
Interview forms
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
B-22
Photos Documenting Site Conditions
Copies of significant stakeholder correspondence, community outreach materials,
minutes from public meetings, interview forms, etc.
Comments
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
Glossary-1
GLOSSARY
Section I
Acronyms
AEDB-R ............Army Environmental Database-Restoration
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
DMM.................Discarded Military Munitions
DoD ...................Department of Defense
EE/CA ...............Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis
EM.....................Engineer Manual
EM CX ..............Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise
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
IMA ...................Installation Management Agency
IRP ....................Installation Restoration Program
LUC...................Land Use Control
MACOM ...........Major Command
MC ....................Munitions Constituent
MM DC .............Military Munitions Design Center
MMRP...............Military Munitions Response Program
NCP ...................National Contingency Plan
NDAI.................No DoD Action Indicated
NPL ...................National Priorities List
OE .....................Ordnance and Explosives
PDF ...................Portable Document Format
PDT ...................Project Delivery Team
PIRS ..................Project Information Retrieval System
PL ......................Public Law
POC ...................Point of Contact
PMP...................Project Management Plan
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
Glossary-2
PM .....................Project Manager
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
Active Installations
Installations under the custody and control of DoD. This includes
operating installations,
installations in a standby or layaway status, and installations awaiting closure under the Base
Realignment and Closure (BRAC) legislation (EP 200-1-19).
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).
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 200-1-19).
Anomaly Avoidance
Techniques employed by EOD or UXO personnel at sites with known or suspected military
munitions to avoid any potential surface UXO, DMM, and any subsurface anomalies. This
usually occurs at mixed hazard sites when HTRW investigations must occur prior to execution of
a military munitions removal action. Intrusive anomaly investigation is not authorized during
ordnance avoidance operations (ER 1110-1-8153).
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 successful
information exchange with the public for military munitions 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 200-1-19).
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
Glossary-3
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).
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, Cost
Effectiveness Determination, 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.
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)
Established in 1986, 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 INPR unless the removal action is transferred to
an approved district. Only the USAESCH MM Design Center is authorized to execute any phase
of a Non-Stockpile CWM response (ER 1110-1-8153).
Discarded Military Munitions
Military munitions that have been abandoned without proper disposal or removed from storage
in a military magazine or other storage area for the purpose of disposal. The term does not
include UXO, military munitions that are being held for future use or planned disposal, or
military munitions that have been property disposed of, consistent with applicable environmental
laws and regulations (10 U.S.C. 2710(e)(2)).
Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis (EE/CA)
An EE/CA is prepared for all CERCLA 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 implement ability (EP 200-1-19).
Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)
The detection, identification, field evaluation, rendering safe, recovery, and final disposal of
unexploded ordnance or munitions (EP 200-1-19).
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
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
Glossary-4
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 200-1-19).
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 200-1-19).
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).
Long Term Management
The period of site management (including maintenance, monitoring, record keeping, 5-year
reviews, etc.) initiated after response (removal or remedial) objectives have been met (i.e., after
Response Complete).
Munitions Constituents
Any materials originating from UXO, DMM, or other military munitions, including explosive
and non-explosive materials, and emission, degradation, or breakdown elements of such
ordnance or munitions (10 U.S.C. 2710(e)(3).
National Oil and Hazardous Substance Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP)
Revised in 1994, 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 and presents a procedural and organizational framework for preparing
and conducting response actions to hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants. In
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
Glossary-5
regards to Five-Year Reviews it also provides: “If a remedial action is selected that results in
hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants remaining at the site above levels that allow
for unlimited use and unrestricted exposure, the lead agency shall review such action no less
often than every five years after initiation of the selected remedial action” (40 CFR
300.430(f)(4)(ii)).
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 Military Munitions 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).
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.
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 a military munitions Five-Year
review (EP 200-1-19).
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA)
Enacted in 1986, this CERCLA amendment establishes standards for cleanup activities, requires
federal facility compliance, and clarifies public involvement requirements (42 U.S.C. 9601).
EP 200-1-18
30 Sep 11
Glossary-6
Technical Impracticability
A decision that may occur when current technology is not available to address the UXO, DMM,
or MC risks at a site. A technical impracticability (TI) decision indicates that restoration of a site
to ARAR- or risk-based cleanup levels cannot be achieved using currently available or new and
innovative methods or technologies, based on infeasibility or unreliability. As a result, the
owner will not be required to meet these levels, but may be required to meet an alternative level
or achieve an alternative remedial goal. Furthermore, a TI decision applies only to that portion
of the contamination for which restoration to ARARs or risk-based levels is determined to be
technically impracticable from an engineering perspective.
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.
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).
