Environmental Contamination
Uncertainties Continue to Affect the Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup Gao ID: GAO-02-836T June 26, 2002During World War I, the U.S. Army operated a large research facility to develop and test chemical weapons and explosives in the area that became the Spring Valley neighborhood in Washington, D.C. Buried ordnance, discovered there in 1993, led to the designation by the Department of Defense (DOD) of 61 acres as a formerly used defense site. Through fiscal year 2001, DOD had spent over $50 million to identify and remove hazards at the site. The government entities involved have identified and removed a large number of hazards, but the number remaining is unknown. The health risks influencing cleanup activities at Spring Valley are the possibility of injury or death from exploding or leaking ordnance and containers of chemical warfare agents and potential long-term health problems from exposure to arsenic-contaminated soil. As of April 2002, the U.S. Army estimated that the remaining cleanup activities would cost $7.1 million and take 5 years, but these estimates are unreliable. This testimony summarized a June report (See GAO-02-556).
GAO-02-836T, Environmental Contamination: Uncertainties Continue to Affect the Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-836T
entitled 'Environmental Contamination: Uncertainties Continue to Affect
the Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup' which was released on June
26, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m., EDT:
Wednesday, June 26, 2002:
Environmental Contamination:
Uncertainties Continue to Affect the Progress of the Spring Valley
Cleanup:
Statement of David G. Wood:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
GAO-02-836T:
Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our work on the
Spring Valley cleanup. As you know, during World War I, the U.S. Army
operated a large research facility to develop and test chemical weapons
and explosives at a portion of American University and in other areas
that became the Spring Valley neighborhood in Washington, D.C. During
the 1950s, and again in the 1980s, American University and others raised
concerns about buried munitions in the Spring Valley neighborhood. The
Army concluded in 1986 and again in 1996 that it had not found evidence
of large-scale burial of hazards remaining at Spring Valley. However,
subsequent investigations discovered ordnance in large burial pits and
widespread arsenic-contaminated soil. This experience raised questions
about the adequacy of the Army‘s process for assessing cleanup needs at
sites formerly used for defense purposes, and we currently have work
with a nationwide scope underway on that issue, which will result in a
report later this summer.[Footnote 1] At the Spring Valley site, the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) is still locating buried
munitions and discovering elevated levels of arsenic in the soil on
more properties.
My testimony is based on our report that you are releasing today.
[Footnote 2] At your request, and as agreed with your offices, the
report provides information on the (1) specific roles and
responsibilities of the government entities involved at the Spring
Valley site, as authorized by statute, regulation, or guidance, and as
actually carried out, (2) progress the government entities have made
toward identifying and removing hazards at the site, (3) health risks
government entities have determined are associated with the hazards at
the site and the impact of these risks on cleanup decisions, and (4)
estimated cost and schedule of the remaining cleanup. In addition, you
asked us to provide a list of sites in the District of Columbia where
hazards resulting from federal activities have been found. That list,
which we compiled from information provided by the Corps, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the District of Columbia‘s
Department of Health, is included in our report. These three agencies
are the primary government entities involved in the Spring Valley
cleanup.
In summary:
* The principal government entities involved at the Spring Valley site
are carrying out their roles and responsibilities in cleaning up the
site primarily under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program
(environmental restoration program), which was established by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986. Under the
environmental restoration program, Defense is authorized to identify,
investigate, and clean up environmental contamination at formerly
used defense sites (FUDS). The Corps is responsible for these activities
at Spring Valley. Defense is required under the environmental
restoration program to consult with EPA, which has its own authority
to act at the site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (sometimes referred to as
’Superfund“). Under the program, Defense‘s activities must also be
consistent with a statutory provision that addresses, among other
things, participation by the affected states”in this case, the District
of Columbia. Under the Corps‘ program guidance for FUDS, the District of
Columbia has a role in defining the cleanup levels at the Spring Valley
site. In carrying out their roles, the government entities have, over
time, formed an active partnership to make cleanup decisions. For
example, the Corps leads the effort to identify hazards, but in many
cases it uses the recommendations of the District of Columbia and EPA
to look for hazards buried at certain sites. While the entities have
not agreed on all cleanup decisions, officials acknowledge that, by
having formed a partnership, a means exists to foster communication and
collaboration, and officials of all three entities stated that the
partnership is operating effectively. Continued progress at the site
will depend, in part, on the effectiveness of this partnership over the
duration of the cleanup period.
* The government entities have identified and removed a large number of
hazards, but the extent to which hazards remain is unknown. The
hazards identified include buried ordnance; chemical warfare agents in
glass containers; and arsenic-contaminated soil. Beginning in 1986, the
U.S. Army searched records and reviewed photographs to identify
locations where ordnance and chemicals might have been buried and
concluded that there was no evidence of large-scale burials at the site.
However, following the discovery of buried ordnance by a utility
contractor in 1993, the U.S. Army identified and removed 141 pieces of
ordnance, 43 of which were suspected chemical munitions (but most were
destroyed before being tested). After the ensuing investigation of the
site, the Corps concluded in 1996 that it was unlikely to discover
additional hazards at the site. Since then, however, the Corps has found
and removed 667 pieces of ordnance, 25 of which were chemical
munitions, and 101 bottles of chemicals. Moreover, the Corps has
discovered arsenic in the soil throughout the site that exceeds
naturally occurring levels. As of April 2002, the Corps had identified
and removed 5,623 cubic yards of arsenic-contaminated soil from three
properties. The Corps has extensive work remaining to search for any
additional hazards at the site, and, if found, remove them.
* The primary health risks influencing cleanup activities currently at
Spring Valley are the possibility of injury or death from exploding or
leaking ordnance and containers of chemical warfare agents and
potential long-term health problems from exposure to arsenic-
contaminated soil, according to the government entities involved.
Because of the immediacy of the risks, ordnance and containers are to
be removed as soon as possible after they are found. Efforts to
determine the health risks posed by the arsenic contamination at the
site are ongoing. Exposure to arsenic has been generally linked to
cancers and other health conditions. A recent descriptive
epidemiological study by the District of Columbia concluded that Spring
Valley residents showed no increased incidence of certain cancers,
while exposure testing by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services)
found no evidence of significant exposure to arsenic in the individuals
tested. However, these studies, according to some residents, were not
sufficiently broad, and additional studies to assess whether residents
have actually been exposed to arsenic are ongoing. Over the past year,
the partners have been in the process of reaching agreement on a single
level of arsenic that may remain in the soil throughout the site and
that is protective of human health and the environment.
* As of April 2002, the U.S. Army estimated that the remaining cleanup
activities at Spring Valley would cost $71.7 million and take 5 years to
complete, but the reliability of these estimates is uncertain. Many
factors”such as the discovery of additional hazards or changes in
annual funding levels”make it inherently challenging to estimate the
costs and schedule for cleaning up the site. Since fiscal year 1997, the
Corps has continually needed to increase the scope of the remaining
cleanup, as more information about the hazards at the site became
known. As a result, the Corps increased the total estimated cost for the
Spring Valley cleanup six-fold, from about $21 million in fiscal year
1997 to about $125 million as of April 2002. On the other hand, the
Corps has reduced its estimate of the time it will take to complete the
cleanup since fiscal year 2000 (the first year the Corps made public
this estimate) by increasing considerably the amount of annual funding
it plans to devote to the site. It is unclear at this time how long the
Corps will be able to accommodate the increasing funding needs at Spring
Valley because funding the cleanup activities at the site is currently
adversely affecting the pace and progress of cleanups at other formerly
used defense sites (according to Corps‘ data, approximately 2,800 such
sites have been found to require remediation). Consequently, any
significant increases in the cost of completing the Spring Valley
cleanup, or decreases in the amount of available annual funding, would
likely require the Corps to extend the completion date further into the
future.
Background:
During World War I, at a portion of American University and in other
areas that became the Spring Valley neighborhood in Washington, D.C.,
the U.S. Army operated a large research facility to develop and test
chemical weapons and explosives. After World War I, the majority of the
site was returned to private ownership and was developed for
residential and other uses. The site now includes, in addition to
American University, about 1,200 private residences, Sibley Hospital,
27 embassy properties, and several commercial properties.
In 1993, buried ordnance was discovered in Spring Valley, leading to its
designation by the Department of Defense (Defense) as a FUDS currently
comprising 661 acres. FUDS are properties that were formerly owned,
leased, possessed, or operated by Defense or its components, and are now
owned by private parties or other governmental entities. These
properties, located throughout the United States and its territories,
may contain hazardous, toxic, and radioactive wastes; unexploded
ordnance; and/or unsafe buildings. Such hazards can contribute to
deaths and serious illness or pose a threat to the environment.
According to the U.S. Army, Spring Valley is the only FUDS where
chemical agents were tested in what became a well-established
residential neighborhood at the heart of a large metropolitan area.
To fund the environmental restoration program, the Superfund Amendments
and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) established the Defense
Environmental Restoration Account. During the 5 most recent fiscal
years (1997-2001), annual program funding for FUDS cleanups has
decreased from about $255.9 million to about $231 million, with program
funding estimated to decrease further to about $212.1 million by fiscal
year 2003. By the end of fiscal year 2001, the Corps had identified
4,649 potential cleanup projects on 2,825 properties requiring
environmental response actions. Through fiscal year 2001 (the latest
figure available), the Corps had spent about $53.4 million on cleanup
activities at Spring Valley.
The Government Entities‘ Roles at Spring Valley:
The principal government entities involved at the Spring Valley site are
carrying out their roles and responsibilities under the Defense
Environmental Restoration Program (environmental restoration program).
The program was established by SARA, which amended the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
(CERCLA). Under the environmental restoration program, Defense is
authorized to identify, investigate, and clean up environmental
contamination at FUDS. Defense is required to consult with EPA in
carrying out the environmental restoration program; EPA, in turn, has
established written guidance under CERCLA for its activities at FUDS.
Defense is also required to carry out activities under the environmental
restoration program consistent with a statutory provision that
addresses, among other things, participation by the affected states”in
this case, the District of Columbia.[Footnote 3] Under the Corps‘
program guidance, the District of Columbia has a role in defining the
cleanup levels at the Spring Valley site. According to a District of
Columbia Department of Health official, the department assesses the
human health risks associated with any exposure to remaining hazards at
Spring Valley.[Footnote 4]
In carrying out their roles, these government entities have, over time,
formed an active partnership to make important cleanup decisions. Under
the partnership approach, each entity participates in the cleanup at
Spring Valley. The Corps, with extensive experience in ordnance
removal, is carrying out the physical cleanup. Other activities include
the following:
* Identification of hazards: Defense consults with EPA and the
District of Columbia on cleanup decisions at specified points in the
environmental restoration process. EPA has provided assistance in
identifying possible buried hazards by using photographic
interpretation of aerial maps and providing technical expertise with
regard to the presence of hazards in soil, water, and air.
* Assessing human health risks: According to the District of Columbia‘s
Department of Health, the department assesses the human health risks
associated with any exposure to remaining hazards at Spring Valley. In
addition, the District of Columbia, together with the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), has been investigating whether
residents have actually been exposed to arsenic in the soil.[Footnote
5]
* Selecting a cleanup level: The entities are currently finalizing
decisions on a cleanup level for arsenic that will determine how much
contamination can be left in the soil throughout the site without
endangering human health and the environment.
While the entities have not agreed on all cleanup decisions, officials
of all three entities state that the partnership has been working
effectively in the recent past. Continued progress at the site will
depend, in part, on the effectiveness of this partnership over the
duration of the cleanup.
Hazards Identified and Removed from Spring Valley:
Although the U.S. Army twice concluded that it had not found any
evidence of large-scale burials of hazards remaining at Spring Valley,
an accidental discovery of buried ordnance and subsequent investigations
have led to the discovery of additional munitions and chemical
contamination. In March 1986, American University was preparing to begin
the largest construction project in its history. At the request of
American University, the U.S. Army reviewed historical documents and
available aerial photographs of the site taken during the World War I
era to determine whether chemical munitions might have been buried on
campus. Based on the results of its review, in October 1986, the U.S.
Army concluded that no further action was needed. However, in January
1993, a utility contractor accidentally uncovered buried ordnance at
another location in the Spring Valley site. The U.S. Army immediately
responded and, by February 1993, had removed 141 pieces of ordnance, 43
of which were suspected chemical munitions (but most were destroyed
before being tested).
Immediately following this removal, the Corps began to investigate the
site. To focus its investigation, the Corps identified 53 locations
with the greatest potential for hazards. During the investigation, the
Corps conducted subsurface (geophysical) soil surveys with metal
detectors to identify buried ordnance and analyzed soil samples to
identify chemical contamination. The Corps‘ soil surveys led the Corps
to identify and remove one piece of ordnance containing a suspected
chemical agent, 10 expended pieces of ordnance, an empty bomb nose
cone, and several fragments of ordnance scrap. Concurrently with the
Corps‘ investigation, another piece of ordnance was found by a builder
during construction activities, and two pieces of ordnance were
anonymously left for the Corps to find. Based on the results of soil
sampling and the ensuing risk assessment, the Corps concluded that no
remedial action was needed. Following this investigation, in June 1995,
the U.S. Army determined that no further action was required at the
Spring Valley site, except for an area that contained concrete shell
pits, or bunkers, referred to as the Spaulding/Captain Rankin Area,
which was then still under investigation. Subsequent sampling and a
risk assessment indicated that no remedial action was necessary, and in
June 1996, the Corps recommended that no further action be taken at
this area as well.
In 1997, the District of Columbia raised a number of concerns about how
the Corps had completed its investigation. In response, the Corps
reviewed its work at the site and concluded that it had incorrectly
located one of the potentially hazardous locations it had previously
investigated, which should have been situated on a property owned by
the Republic of Korea (South Korea) on Glenbrook Road. In February
1998, the Corps surveyed the soil on the South Korean property and
identified two potential burial pits. By March 2000, the Corps had
completed the removal of 288 pieces of ordnance, 14 of which were
chemical munitions; 175 glass bottles, 77 of which contained various
chemicals, including mustard and lewisite; and 39 cylinders and 9 metal
drums. Subsequent soil sampling conducted by EPA led the Corps to
remove arsenic-contaminated soil from these properties. By May 2001,
the Corps had removed about 4,560 cubic yards of arsenic-contaminated
soil from the South Korean property and the adjacent property. As of
April 2002, the Corps had not yet removed contaminated soil from the
third property, which is the American University President‘s residence.
After the discovery of hazards on the Glenbrook Road properties, in
January 2000, at the request of the District of Columbia, the Corps
expanded its arsenic investigation to include about 60 nearby residences
and the southern portion of the American University campus. Sampling at
these locations indicated that the Corps needed to remove arsenic-
contaminated soil from the American University Child Development Center
and other locations on the American University campus, and 11
residential properties. As of April 2002, the Corps had removed about
1,063 cubic yards of contaminated soil from American University.
At a public meeting in February 2001, community members urged testing
the entire Spring Valley neighborhood for arsenic. The Corps began to
test all 1,483 properties within the Spring Valley site for arsenic in
May 2001. As of April 2002, the Corps had identified about 160
properties that will require some degree of cleanup, with 7 identified
for priority removals of arsenic-contaminated soil because they present
relatively higher risks of exposure. Recently, the District of
Columbia‘s Department of Health has urged the Corps to consider
including nine additional properties on the list. In addition, the
Corps has sampled for additional chemicals at selected locations as a
result of information it has about what type of research activities
might have occurred at the locations in the past. The results of the
sampling are currently under review, but preliminary results have not
identified any additional chemicals of concern, according to the Corps.
In May 2001, at the urging of the District of Columbia and EPA, the
Corps began to investigate an additional burial pit on the property
line between the South Korean property and the adjoining residence on
Glenbrook Road. The Corps is continuing to investigate the burial pit,
and as of January 2002, had found 379 pieces of ordnance, 11 of which
contained the chemical warfare agents mustard and lewisite; fragments
of another 8 pieces of ordnance; 60 glass bottles and 3 cylinders, 24
of which contained mustard, lewisite, and acids; and 5 metal drums that
showed signs of leakage.[Footnote 6]
Concurrently with the efforts to expand the arsenic investigation, the
Corps is planning to expand its efforts to survey properties for buried
ordnance. The Corps plans to begin excavating two properties on
Sedgwick Street where surveys indicate the presence of buried metallic
objects that could possibly be pieces of ordnance. In addition, the
Corps, in conjunction with EPA and the District of Columbia, is
developing a list of properties to be geophysically surveyed for
potential buried ordnance. Site-specific information, such as the
results of a review performed by EPA‘s Environmental Photographic
Interpretation Center, will be factored into determining priorities for
surveying these additional sites. As of April 2002, the Corps had
estimated that a total of 200 properties would be surveyed for
ordnance. The government entities recognize that the extent to which
hazards remain may never be known with certainty because of the
technical limitations associated with sampling and geophysically
surveying soil.
Health Risks Associated with Hazards Found at Spring Valley:
At Spring Valley, cleanup decisions depend on the immediacy of the
safety and human health risks presented. Throughout the cleanup of the
site, identification and removal of buried ordnance have been and
continue to be the government entities‘ top priorities in terms of
human health concerns and cleanup decisions. The partners have agreed
to remove buried ordnance as soon as possible after its discovery.
Accordingly, since early in the Spring Valley cleanup effort, removal
of buried ordnance has taken priority over other tasks. The partners
also attempt to set priorities for cleaning up properties containing
elevated levels of chemicals or metals in soil on the basis of the risk
the hazards pose. Although many chemical agents were tested at Spring
Valley during World War I, of those contaminants now present at
elevated levels, arsenic is deemed to pose the greatest risk to human
health and therefore is the contaminant of most concern to the
partners.
During its remedial investigation of the site from 1993 to 1995, the
Corps used EPA‘s criteria to assess the health risks associated with
these hazards to determine whether further sampling or soil removal was
necessary. This assessment found no elevated health risk requiring
remedial action. Arsenic was not identified as a contaminant of
potential concern for the risk assessment, since, according to the
Corps, the sampling results of the arsenic level in the soil were not
significantly different from naturally occurring levels. EPA noted that
it was involved in the oversight of the cleanup and did not object to
the decision made at the time. However, since early 1999, with the
additional discovery of buried ordnance and elevated levels of arsenic-
contaminated soil at the South Korean property, the arsenic levels in
the soil have become the primary focus of soil cleanup efforts.
Arsenic exposure at certain doses in drinking water has been generally
linked to cancers and other adverse health conditions.[Footnote 7]
Based on scientific studies, the District of Columbia has identified
lung cancer, bladder cancer, and skin cancer as effects associated with
the long-term ingestion of arsenic. However, the precise extent to
which arsenic is present and residents are exposed through ingestion,
inhalation, or external contact at Spring Valley is unknown, and recent
and ongoing efforts are directed at providing this information.
* Soil sampling: Through soil sampling, the partners have attempted to
detect levels of arsenic in the soil to assist in ascertaining health
risks and to set priorities for cleanup. Recent sampling results have
registered elevated levels of arsenic in the soil at certain residences.
Consequently, the District of Columbia‘s Department of Health has
requested that additional properties be added to the priority removal
list.
* Exposure testing: After the Corps confirmed elevated arsenic soil
levels at American University‘s Child Development Center, at the
request of the District of Columbia, ATSDR conducted an exposure study
to determine the extent of arsenic exposure in children and employees
at the site. After testing hair samples, ATSDR concluded that the
children and employees had had no significant exposure to arsenic. At
the request of the District of Columbia, ATSDR is conducting another
exposure study (biomonitoring), in which it is studying the level of
arsenic present in biological samples from residents on Spring Valley
properties with the highest levels of arsenic in the soil. The
individual results from the biological samples collected during the
exposure investigation were mailed to the residents and were reviewed
and discussed by the Mayor‘s Scientific Advisory Panel. During the
Panel‘s recent meeting, several members noted that this study was a
small sample screening investigation, not a full scientific human
research project or epidemiological study. The Panel discussed the
possibility of ATSDR‘s continuing a screening investigation during
the summer months.
* Descriptive epidemiological studies: The District of Columbia has
also conducted descriptive epidemiological studies in an attempt to
assess the arsenic-related health effects in Spring Valley compared with
two control groups as well as with the nationwide incidence and
mortality rates for certain cancers. The studies examined bladder, skin,
lung, liver, and kidney cancers. However, the number of cases of liver
and kidney cancers at Spring Valley was too small to conduct a
meaningful statistical analysis. Of bladder, skin, and lung cancers,
however, the District of Columbia observed no excesses of cancer
incidence and mortality in Spring Valley.
Residents have raised concerns about the extent of the population
studied and completeness of data used for the exposure tests and
epidemiological studies. For example, some residents have voiced
concerns that the full suite of hazards”not just arsenic”present at
Spring Valley, even at trace levels, has not been factored into
exposure and epidemiological studies. The District of Columbia and the
Corps have indicated that mustard agent was found in containers in the
pit discovered at Glenbrook Road in May 2001. The District of
Columbia‘s Department of Health does not plan to study exposure to
mustard agent, however, because it did not identify a pathway of
exposure to mustard agent that could produce a dose resulting in
adverse human health effects. The District of Columbia‘s Department of
Health has told Spring Valley residents that, if necessary, it will
expand the investigation to hazards other than arsenic, if the hazard
is found at levels of concern in Spring Valley.
The Corps‘ Estimated Cost and Cleanup Schedule:
Under the environmental restoration program, the Secretary of Defense is
required to report annually to the Congress on the progress the
department has made in carrying out environmental restoration activities
at military installations and FUDS. From fiscal years 1997 through 2001
(the most recent report available), the total estimated cost to clean up
Spring Valley reported by Defense increased by about six-fold, from
about $21 million to about $124.1 million. In response to our request,
the U.S. Army provided us with a more up-to-date estimate. As of April
2002, the Corps had slightly revised its estimated cost to about $125.1
million, as shown in figure 1.[Footnote 8]
Figure 1: Total Estimated Cost to Clean up Spring Valley, Fiscal Years
1997 through 2001 and as of April 2002:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following
data:
Total Estimated Cost to Clean up Spring Valley, Fiscal Years 1997
through 2001 and as of April 2002:
Fiscal year: 1997;
Cost to complete: $20 million;
Spent to date: $20 million.
Fiscal year: 1998;
Cost to complete: $22 million;
Spent to date: $21 million.
Fiscal year: 1999;
Cost to complete: $35 million;
Spent to date: $30 million.
Fiscal year: 2000;
Cost to complete: $75 million;
Spent to date: $40 million.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Cost to complete: $125 million;
Spent to date: $45 million.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Cost to complete: $127 million;
Spent to date: $47 million.
Note: For April 2002, ’spent to date“ reflects the Corps‘ revised total
of the dollars spent through the end of fiscal year 2001 (September
2001), whereas ’cost to complete“ reflects the Corps‘ revised estimate
for fiscal years 2002 through 2007, as of April 2002.
Source: GAO‘s analysis of data from Defense‘s Defense Environmental
Restoration Program annual reports to the Congress, fiscal years 1997
through 2001, and data from the Corps.
[End of figure]
Costs have increased principally because the Corps needed to increase
the scope of the remaining cleanup, as more information about the site
became known. For example, from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001,
the Corps doubled its estimate of the cost to complete the cleanup to
include the cost of expanding the scope of planned investigation
activities. In fiscal year 2000, the Corps estimated that completing
the cleanup would cost about $35.8 million. In fiscal year 2001, the
Corps raised its estimate to about $72.9 million to include the cost of
sampling the entire Spring Valley site for arsenic-contaminated soil,
geophysically surveying selected properties for buried ordnance, and
completing additional work needed to remove buried hazards at one
location. As of April 2002, the Corps slightly lowered its fiscal year
2001 estimate to about $71.7 million, as the preliminary results of the
sitewide soil sampling yielded additional information about the extent
of arsenic contamination.
The Corps‘ latest estimate of the cost to complete the cleanup depends
on assumptions the Corps has made about how many properties will require
the removal of arsenic-contaminated soil and how many properties will
need to be surveyed and excavated to remove possible buried hazards. For
example, as of April 2002, the Corps estimated that, in addition to the
ordnance and soil removal activities taking place at the South Korean
property and two adjacent properties, arsenic-contaminated soil will
need to be removed from another 161 properties and 202 properties will
need to be excavated for possible buried ordnance.
Despite the large increases in the scope and cost of the remaining
cleanup work, in April 2002, the Corps shortened its estimate of the
time to complete the cleanup by 5 years, projecting completion in
fiscal year 2007. Prior to fiscal year 2000, Defense‘s annual reports
to the Congress did not provide any estimate of when the Corps planned
to complete cleanup activities at Spring Valley. In Defense‘s fiscal
year 2000 annual report to the Congress, the Corps estimated that it
would complete such activities by the end of fiscal year 2012. The
Corps plans to meet the shortened time frame by applying considerably
more funding to the site in the near term.
However, we question whether the Corps will be able to achieve its
planned completion even if there are no further changes to the scope of
work. As part of its April 2002 revised estimate, the Corps acknowledged
that meeting the schedule would depend on the FUDS budget and the U.S.
Army‘s ability to apply the specified funding to the Spring Valley
site. In order to continue to meet these needs, the U.S. Army may have
to reprogram funds from possible use at other sites nationwide in each
of the remaining years of the cleanup. Furthermore, in fiscal year
2002, the Corps planned to allocate to Spring Valley about 8 percent of
the national budget for FUDS”which has declined in recent years”and
about 86 percent of the FUDS budget for the Baltimore District, which
includes funding for FUDS in six states and the District of Columbia.
According to the U.S. Army, the provision of funds for the Spring
Valley cleanup is already adversely affecting the availability of
funding and progress at other sites.
As more information becomes available about the hazards at the site, the
Corps will develop a clearer sense of how reliable its assumptions are
on the extent of the hazards present and the cost of removing them. The
Corps‘ experience with excavating buried hazards at two Glenbrook Road
properties illustrates the difficulty of estimating the cost of removing
buried hazards. In fiscal year 2002, the Corps determined that
completing the removal would cost about $6 million more than
anticipated at the end of fiscal year 2001. Furthermore, the Corps
assumed that arsenic would remain the focus of its efforts to reduce
the risks of exposure to contaminated soil, and based its cost estimate
on the work needed to meet a proposed cleanup level for arsenic; as of
April 2002, the partners had not finalized this level. As part of its
expanded soil sampling efforts, the Corps could identify the presence
of yet other chemicals and expand the scope of soil removal. Until more
complete information is known about the actual types and extent of the
hazards present throughout the site and the actual cost of removing
them, the reliability of the Corps‘ estimate of the cost and schedule
to complete the cleanup remains uncertain.
Properties in the District of Columbia Where Hazards Resulting from
Federal Activities Have Been Found:
We found data on 58 properties in the District of Columbia where hazards
resulting from federal activities have been found, using Defense data
as of March 2002, EPA data as of April 2002, and District of Columbia
data as of January 2002. These properties included 8 active Defense
installations and 30 FUDS. For an active Defense installation, the host
military branch of the installation is responsible for the cleanup,
while the Corps is responsible for the cleanup of all FUDS. We also
found six properties involving other federal agencies, including the
Department of Agriculture and the National Park Service. Hazards at
these sites include, among others, ordnance and explosive waste;
hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste; polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB); petroleum by-products; solvents; and heavy metals contamination.
Finally, we found data on 30 federal properties (including 16 of the
properties already identified) in the District of Columbia on which
remediation of leaking underground storage tanks was in process, as of
January 2002. Hazards at these sites include, among others, diesel
fuel, gasoline, heating oil, kerosene, and waste oil.
In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, a number of interdependent
uncertainties continue to affect the progress of the Spring Valley
cleanup. Until some of the existing uncertainties are resolved, the
government entities will not be able to provide the community with
definitive answers on any remaining health risks or the cost and
duration of the cleanup.
This concludes my prepared statement. I will be happy to respond to any
questions from you or other Members of the Subcommittee.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgement:
For further information on this testimony, please contact me at (202)
512-3841 or Peg Reese at (202) 512-9695. Stephen Cleary, Richard
Johnson, and Margaret McDavid also made key contributions to this
testimony.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] In examining the about 9,200 sites nationwide the U.S. Army has
identified more than 4,000 as not needing cleanup. At the request of
the Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, we are
examining the basis for those decisions made by the U.S. Army where it
concluded that no cleanup actions were needed.
[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Contamination: Many
Uncertainties Affect the Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02-556] (Washington, D.C.:
June 6, 2002).
[3] Specifically, Defense‘s activities addressing hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants are required to be carried out consistent
with section 120 of CERCLA.
[4] The Department of Health defines exposure as any completed
pathway”through the air, water, or soil”of the contaminant that results
in an inhaled, ingested, or dermal-absorbed dose associated with
adverse human health effects.
[5] ATSDR is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Created by CERCLA, its mission is to take responsive public health
action and provide public health information to prevent harmful
exposures and diseases related to toxic substances.
[6] In January 2001, the Corps also removed oil filters, glass, and lab
equipment, along with soil contaminated with elevated levels of lead
and arsenic from a small surface disposal area discovered on American
University property adjacent to the South Korean property. However,
according to the Corps, it was not possible to determine whether these
hazards resulted from past Defense research activities, or from another
source.
[7] For example, EPA recently established a more stringent standard for
arsenic in drinking water. See U.S. General Accounting Office,
Environmental Protection Agency: Use of Precautionary Assumptions in
Health Risk Assessments and Benefits Estimates, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-55] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16,
2000).
[8] For our report, we focused on the revised cost figures that the
Army provided to us in April 2002, rather than the figures reported in
the fiscal year 2001 Defense Environmental Restoration Program report.
According to the Corps, the revised figures more accurately reflect the
costs incurred by the Corps through fiscal year 2001 and the Corps‘
estimate of the cost to complete cleanup activities at Spring Valley.
[End of section]
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov] contains abstracts and full text files of current
reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The
Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents using
key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety,
including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail
alert for newly released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
