Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia,

Committee on Government Reform, House of

Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

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
Page 1 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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.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.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

 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, GAO-02-556 (Washington, D.C.: June 6,

2002).
Page 2 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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
Page 3 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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 arseniccontaminated 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
Page 4 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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.

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

Background
Page 5 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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 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.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.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

 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.

The Government

Entities’ Roles at

Spring Valley
Page 6 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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.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.

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

 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.

Hazards Identified

and Removed from

Spring Valley
Page 7 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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.
Page 8 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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 arseniccontaminated 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.6

 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.
Page 9 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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.

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

Health Risks

Associated with

Hazards Found at

Spring Valley
Page 10 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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.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

 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,

GAO-01-55 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 16, 2000).
Page 11 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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.
Page 12 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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 1.8

 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.

The Corps’ Estimated

Cost and Cleanup

Schedule
Page 13 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

Figure 1: Total Estimated Cost to Clean up Spring Valley, Fiscal Years 1997 through

2001 and as of April 2002

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.

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
Page 14 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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
Page 15 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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.

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.

Properties in the

District of Columbia

Where Hazards

Resulting from

Federal Activities

Have Been Found
Page 16 GAO-02-836T Environmental Contamination

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.

(360233)