    Environmental Contamination: Many Uncertainties Affect the Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup (06/06/2002, GAO-02-556}

    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-02-556
        TITLE:   Environmental Contamination: Many Uncertainties Affect the Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup
         DATE:   06/06/2002

    This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-556
    entitled 'Environmental Contamination: Many Uncertainties Affect the
    Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup' which was released on June 6,
    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:

    Report to the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on
    Government Reform, House of Representatives:

    June 2002:

    Environmental Contamination:

    Many Uncertainties Affect the Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup:

    GAO-02-556:

    Contents:

    Letter:

    Results in Brief:
    Background:
    Government Entities Have Formed a Partnership Approach for the Spring
    Valley Cleanup:

    Government Entities Have Identified and Removed a Large Number of
    Hazards, but the Extent of Hazards Remaining Is Unknown:

    Risks from Buried Hazards and from Arsenic-Contaminated Soil Drive
    Cleanup Decisions:

    The Corps� Estimated Cost and Cleanup Schedule May Change as More
    Information about the Site Is Known:

    Observations:

    Agency Comments:

    Scope and Methodology:

    Appendix I: Properties in the District of Columbia Where Hazards
    Resulting from Federal Activities Have Been Found:

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:

    Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:

    Appendix IV: Comments from the District of Columbia�s Department of
    Health:

    Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

    Tables:

    Table 1: Estimated Cost to Complete the Cleanup at Spring Valley,
    Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 and as of April 2002:

    Table 2: Estimated Total Cost to Complete Cleanup Activities at Spring
    Valley, as of April 2002:

    Table 3: Levels of Annual Funding Specified in the Corps� Schedule for
    Completing Cleanup Work at Spring Valley, Fiscal Year 2000, Fiscal Year
    2001, and as of April 2002:

    Table 4: Properties in the District of Columbia Where Hazards Resulting
    from Federal Activities Have Been Found:

    Table 5: Hazards Found at Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Federal
    Properties in the District of Columbia Where Remediation Was in
    Process, as of January 2002:

    Figures:

    Figure 1: World War I-era Photograph of Two Soldiers Preparing to Test
    Chemical Munitions in a Trench Located in Spring Valley:

    Figure 2: Location of the Spring Valley FUDS in the District of
    Columbia:

    Figure 3: Total Estimated Cost to Clean up Spring Valley, Fiscal Years
    1997 through 2001 and as of April 2002:

    [End of section]

    United States General Accounting Office:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    June 6, 2002:

    The Honorable Constance A. Morella:
    Chairwoman:
    The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton:
    Ranking Minority Member:
    Subcommittee on the District of Columbia:
    Committee on Government Reform:
    House of Representatives:

    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 formerly used
    defense site (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 in the soil and water or in containers such as
    underground storage tanks. Other hazards, including unexploded ordnance
    and unsafe buildings, may also be present on the properties. Such
    hazards can contribute to deaths and serious illness or pose a threat
    to the environment.

    Through fiscal year 2001, Defense had spent over $50 million to identify
    and remove hazards at the Spring Valley site. However, concerns persist
    over the extent of hazards remaining, and the U.S. Army Corps of
    Engineers (the Corps) is continuing to survey targeted properties for
    buried ordnance and explosives, and sample all properties in Spring
    Valley for arsenic-contaminated soil.

    In response to your letter, and as agreed with your offices, this 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. We have included this list in
    appendix I. To address these objectives, we reviewed documents on
    activities conducted at the site during World War I, the progress of
    cleanup activities at the site, health risks, and estimated costs, and
    interviewed federal and District of Columbia government officials and
    other stakeholders. We also reviewed the statutes authorizing various
    cleanup activities. In addition, we visited the site to observe the
    activities first-hand and attended meetings of resident and other
    stakeholder groups formed to advise the cleanup process. We obtained
    and reviewed records from Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency,
    and the District of Columbia�s Department of Health to develop a list
    of sites in the District of Columbia where hazards resulting from
    federal activities have been found.

    Results in Brief:

    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. The U.S. Army, through the Corps, is responsible for
    these activities at Spring Valley and is carrying out the physical
    cleanup. Defense is required under the environmental restoration
    program to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
    which has its own authority to act at the site under the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. 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.
    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 carrying out their roles,
    these 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. The entities are currently reaching agreement as to a
    cleanup level�that is, how much contamination can be left in the soil
    without endangering human health and the environment. The partners
    expect to finalize this decision by early June 2002. 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 involved at Spring Valley 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, the partnership agrees that ordnance and containers must
    be removed as soon as possible after they are found. In contrast, the
    partners have disagreed over the immediacy of the health risk posed by
    arsenic-contaminated soil. The partners recognize that exposure to
    arsenic has been generally linked to cancers and other health
    conditions. A recent study by the District of Columbia concluded that
    Spring Valley residents showed no increased incidence of certain
    cancers. A study by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
    Registry (an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services)
    found no evidence of actual exposure to arsenic in the individuals
    tested. However, these studies, according to some residents, were not
    sufficiently broad. 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 over the same period, 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 the approximately 2,800 other formerly used defense sites
    presently known 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.

    We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Defense,
    Environmental Protection Agency, and the District of Columbia�s
    Department of Health for review and comment. These agencies generally
    agreed with the information presented in the draft and provided a number
    of technical comments, which we incorporated in the report as
    appropriate. Defense stated that, while they agreed that there are some
    uncertainties associated with the Spring Valley cleanup, it is
    important to note that such unknowns are not unique to Spring Valley.
    Defense also stated that the partnership formed has been a model for
    regulatory relationships at other site cleanups. EPA stated that our
    report develops an accurate and unbiased appraisal of the problems and
    uncertainties present at the site. The District of Columbia�s
    Department of Health stated that it is committed to continuing to work
    with the other governmental partners in order to protect human health.

    Background:

    In 1917, the Bureau of Mines initiated the Chemical Warfare Research
    Program at American University, and in 1918, the research effort was
    transferred to the Chemical Warfare Service in the War Department. The
    Chemical Warfare Service used a portion of American University and other
    areas that became part of the Spring Valley neighborhood to operate a
    large research facility to develop and test chemical agents, equipment,
    and munitions. The U.S. Army used the remaining part of the area as a
    camp to house and train engineer troops. These two areas were known as
    the American University Experiment Station and Camp Leach (which
    includes Fort Gaines), respectively. Historical and archival
    information indicates that onsite development and testing of ordnance
    and chemical warfare materials occurred at the American University
    Experiment Station between 1917 and 1919, as shown in figure 1. The
    majority of the property was returned to private ownership by October
    1920.

    Figure 1: World War I-era Photograph of Two Soldiers Preparing to Test
    Chemical Munitions in a Trench Located in Spring Valley.

    [Refer to PDF for image]

    Source: The Corps.

    [End of figure]

    During the 1950s and 1980s, American University and others raised
    concerns about buried munitions in the Spring Valley neighborhood.
    Following an accidental discovery of buried ordnance in Spring Valley in
    1993, the Corps designated the site as a FUDS. The Spring Valley FUDS
    includes, in addition to American University, about 1,200 private
    residences, Sibley Hospital, 27 embassy properties, and several
    commercial properties. According to the U.S. Army, Spring Valley is the
    only known FUDS where chemical agents were tested in what became a well-
    established residential neighborhood at the heart of a large
    metropolitan area. Figure 2 shows the location of the Spring Valley
    neighborhood in Washington, D.C.

    Figure 2: Location of the Spring Valley FUDS in the District of
    Columbia:

    [Refer to PDF for image]

    This figure contains a map of the District of Columbia and surrounding
    areas, as well as a detailed map of the Spring Valley FUDS area.

    Source: The Corps.

    [End of figure]

    To fund the environmental restoration program, the Superfund Amendments
    and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA) established the Defense
    Environmental Restoration Account. Total spending for the FUDS cleanup
    program since fiscal year 1984 is $2.6 billion.[Footnote 1] During the
    5 most recent fiscal years (1997-2001), annual program funding for FUDS
    cleanup 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. In addition, as of April 2002, EPA
    had spent about $800,000 on activities related to the site.

    Government Entities Have Formed a Partnership Approach for the Spring
    Valley Cleanup:

    The principal government entities involved at the Spring Valley site are
    carrying out their roles and responsibilities in cleaning up the site
    under the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (environmental
    restoration program). The environmental restoration 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. Activities under the
    environmental restoration program also must be consistent with another
    statutory provision[Footnote 2] that addresses, among other things,
    participation by the affected states�in this case, the District of
    Columbia. 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 3] In carrying out
    their roles, these 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 follows the
    recommendations of the District of Columbia and EPA to look for hazards
    buried at certain sites. The entities are currently finalizing
    decisions as to 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
    period.

    Government Entities Are Authorized to Take Various Actions for Cleanup
    at the Spring Valley Site:

    Because Spring Valley was designated as a FUDS, Defense is authorized to
    carry out cleanup activity at the site under the environmental
    restoration program established by SARA. The environmental restoration
    program also provides for participation by other entities.
    Specifically, in carrying out the environmental restoration program,
    Defense is required to consult with EPA, which has its own authority
    under CERCLA to act at the site. Also, Defense must carry out the
    program consistent with section 120 of CERCLA. Section 120 addresses
    the cleanup of federal facilities and, among other things, provides for
    participation in cleanup decisions by the state (in this case, the
    District of Columbia) in which a federal facility is located. The
    following sections provide more detail on the entities� authorities.

    * Under the environmental restoration program, Defense is authorized to
    identify, investigate, and clean up hazards at FUDS. In implementing the
    environmental restoration program, Defense has established guidance for
    the FUDS program. The FUDS program is intended to reduce the risk to
    human health and safety, and to the environment, resulting from past
    Defense activities at FUDS properties. Defense has delegated its
    authority for administering the FUDS program to the U.S. Army; in turn,
    the U.S. Army has delegated execution of the program to the Corps. The
    Corps� responsibilities include determining the eligibility of
    properties for inclusion in the FUDS program, identifying the
    requirements for funding the FUDS program, conducting environmental
    restoration activities at eligible properties, and reporting on the
    cleanup progress. The Corps is responsible for the cleanup of
    environmental contamination related to past Defense activities at
    eligible sites.

    * Defense�s policies for administering FUDS are outlined in its
    environmental restoration program management guidance, which cites
    CERCLA as the statutory framework. Additionally, under the Corps�
    guidance, efforts should be made to accommodate standards,
    requirements, or criteria requested by EPA, states, and local
    authorities where they are consistent with CERCLA. Both of these
    guidance manuals recognize the importance of involving EPA, the state
    government, and the public, among others. Defense consults with EPA and
    the states on cleanup decisions at specified points in the
    environmental restoration process, such as developing a site-wide
    sampling plan. Also, at Spring Valley, the Corps was urged to form an
    advisory board to involve the community and others. According to the
    Corps, these efforts have the overall goal of ensuring that decisions
    regarding environmental restoration activities reflect a broad spectrum
    of advice, expertise, and stakeholder concerns in making cleanup
    decisions.

    * As with any hazardous waste site, EPA has its own authority under
    CERCLA to act, including investigating the site and carrying out a
    removal action.[Footnote 4] EPA has established written policy for its
    activities at FUDS.[Footnote 5] The policy states that EPA intends to
    minimize duplication of effort, but may become more involved at a site
    if conditions warrant EPA action. EPA has not listed Spring Valley on
    its national priorities list of hazardous waste sites. According to EPA
    officials, if a site is not listed and there is no �imminent and
    substantial endangerment� or the releases are being adequately
    addressed by others, EPA may limit its role. According to EPA
    officials, EPA has the flexibility to increase its role should it later
    determine that greater participation is warranted. At Spring Valley, EPA
    has chosen not to investigate and remove hazards because Defense is
    carrying out the cleanup, and because the Corps has expertise in
    munitions and has responsibility for ordnance-related cleanups. EPA
    receives no targeted resources for FUDS. At Spring Valley, EPA primarily
    consults with and provides technical assistance to Defense and the
    District of Columbia. For example, EPA has consulted with the Corps to
    interpret aerial photography and test soil to locate potential buried
    hazards and contaminated soil. The Corps notes that EPA has been fully
    engaged in the decision making process at the site.

    * According to EPA, CERCLA provides that federal cleanup standards be
    used at sites covered by the statute, unless a promulgated state-wide
    standard exists which is more stringent than the federal standard.
    According to District of Columbia Department of Health officials, they
    are establishing cleanup standards for hazardous wastes under the
    Brownfield Revitalization Amendment Act of 2000, which contains some
    provisions comparable to CERCLA. As of the end of April 2002, the
    standards were in draft form. Although these standards were not yet
    final, a District of Columbia Department of Health official told us
    that the lack of formal standards would have no effect on the cleanup
    decisions made at Spring Valley.

    Government Entities Have Formed an Active Partnership:

    Over time, the Corps, EPA, and the District of Columbia formed a
    partnership in order to reach accord on important cleanup decisions.
    Early on in the cleanup, EPA and the District of Columbia collaborated
    with the Corps, but they did not always agree with the Corps�
    decisions. Further, there were concerns about the extent of
    collaboration on decision-making. For example, according to a senior
    District of Columbia Department of Health official, in the mid-1990s
    the District of Columbia environmental officials were not consulted on
    important cleanup decisions.[Footnote 6]

    In the past several years, the partnering process for reaching cleanup
    decisions has become increasingly more formalized and active. 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. The Corps now routinely coordinates with EPA and the District of
    Columbia on technical and health-related issues. In terms of cleanup
    levels, EPA has proposed how much contamination may remain in the soil
    without endangering human health and the environment. Under the Corps�
    guidance, the District of Columbia has a role in defining the cleanup
    levels at the Spring Valley site. 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), is studying
    whether residents have actually been exposed to arsenic in the soil.
    [Footnote 7] The government entities currently collaborate on the
    process of selecting a cleanup level, addressing health risks posed by
    hazards, and communicating with the public.

    Additionally, in the past year, advisory entities have been created to
    further facilitate the partnering process and ensure buy-in from all
    partners and community members. Important decisions, such as the
    cleanup levels at Spring Valley and the plan to prioritize cleanup, are
    now routinely discussed among these entities. The Restoration Advisory
    Board (the Board) and the Scientific Advisory Panel (the Panel) are two
    active advisory entities in which partners exchange information and
    collaborate as to cleanup decisions and potential health risks. The
    Board, created in May 2001, consists of residents of Spring Valley as
    well as representatives from the Corps, EPA, the District of Columbia,
    and American University, among others. The District of Columbia created
    the Panel in March 2001 to advise the District of Columbia and other
    partners on health risks associated with the hazards at Spring Valley.
    The Panel is currently evaluating data and is expected to make a
    recommendation as to the proposed cleanup level of arsenic in soil at
    the Spring Valley site. This recommendation was announced at the
    Panel�s May 29, 2002, meeting. The partners expect to finalize this
    decision by early June 2002.

    Officials acknowledge that, by having formed a partnership, a means
    exists to foster communication and collaboration, and stated that the
    partnership has been effective in the recent past. Continued progress
    at the site�which includes, among other things, finalizing a cleanup
    level for arsenic in soil�will depend on the effectiveness of this
    partnership over the duration of the cleanup period.

    Government Entities Have Identified and Removed a Large Number of
    Hazards, but the Extent of Hazards Remaining Is Unknown:

    The Corps, in partnership with EPA and the District of Columbia, has
    identified and removed a large number of hazards from areas within the
    Spring Valley site. However, the extent to which hazards remain
    throughout the site is unknown. Since 1986, the U.S. Army has twice
    concluded that no large burials of ordnance remained on the site, but
    subsequent investigations discovered additional ordnance in large burial
    pits and widespread arsenic-contaminated soil. The Corps is continuing
    to search for hazards.

    U.S. Army Twice Concluded That No Large-Scale Hazards Remained at the
    Site:

    The U.S. Army concluded in 1986 and again in 1996 that it had not found
    any evidence of large-scale burials of hazards remaining at Spring
    Valley.[Footnote 8] In March 1986, American University was preparing to
    begin the largest construction project in its history, but it was
    concerned that chemical munitions might have been buried on campus.
    After the results of the university�s search of its own and available
    government records proved inconclusive, the university contacted the
    U.S. Army for assistance. The U.S. Army�s Toxic and Hazardous Materials
    Agency reviewed the work done by the university and interviewed the
    university officials who had done the work, reviewed documentation from
    additional sources, such as military and university libraries and
    historical centers and the National Archives, and contracted with EPA�s
    Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center to review available
    aerial photographs of the site taken during the World War I era.
    However, the photographs were not received or reviewed by EPA
    headquarters or Region III prior to 1993, according to EPA officials.
    Based on the results of its review, in October 1986, the U.S. Army
    concluded that if any materials were buried in the vicinity of the
    university, the amounts were probably limited to small quantities and
    no further action was needed. In August 1986, the U.S. Army agreed to a
    plan to ensure safety in the event that ordnance was actually
    discovered during the construction project. This plan included an onsite
    support presence before, during, and after any excavation activities.
    According to the university, no buried ordnance was found before or
    during the construction project.

    In January 1993, a utility contractor accidentally uncovered buried
    ordnance at another location in the Spring Valley site. The U.S. Army�s
    Chemical and Biological Defense Command 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 revisited
    the documents reviewed by the Toxic and Hazardous Materials Agency in
    1986, including the results of the photographic analysis performed by
    EPA�s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center, and reviewed
    additional information. The Corps identified 53 locations with the
    greatest potential for hazards. The Corps decided that if it found
    contamination in any of these locations, it would expand its
    investigation around each contaminated location.

    During the investigation, the Corps used two techniques to look for
    potential hazards: (1) a subsurface (geophysical) soil survey with metal
    detectors to identify buried ordnance and (2) an analysis of soil
    samples to identify chemical contamination. The Corps surveyed soil for
    ordnance at about 490 properties, including 37 of the 53 potentially
    hazardous locations that the Corps considered to be potential ordnance
    burial sites. These surveys identified over 2,000 buried metallic
    objects that could be pieces of ordnance, which, upon further review by
    the Corps, were narrowed down to about 840 warranting further
    excavation. These excavations led the Corps to identify and remove one
    piece of ordnance containing suspected chemical agent, ten expended
    pieces of ordnance, an empty bomb nose cone, and several fragments of
    ordnance scrap. Concurrently with the Corps� investigation, a builder
    found another piece of ordnance during construction activities, and two
    pieces of ordnance were anonymously left for the Corps to find. As for
    soil sampling, the Corps, in conjunction with EPA, sampled for a
    variety of chemicals at 15 of the 53 potentially hazardous locations
    where historical documents indicated field-testing, development, or
    accidental releases of chemical agents were known or believed to have
    occurred.[Footnote 9] No chemical warfare agents, explosives, or
    Defense-related chemicals whose only source could be chemical warfare
    agents or explosives were found in any soil samples collected at these
    locations, according to the Corps. Some metals were detected at levels
    exceeding both EPA�s screening levels (levels that EPA estimates are
    associated with a one in a million increased risk of causing cancer)
    and naturally occurring levels; but risk assessments, which consider
    many factors such as the levels of the chemicals, the likelihood of
    exposure to the chemicals, and the toxicity of the chemicals, indicated
    that no remedial action was needed, according to the Corps.

    Following this investigation, in June 1995, the U.S. Army determined
    that no further action was required at the Spring Valley site, except
    for a portion of the site referred to as the Spaulding/Captain Rankin
    Area, which was then still under investigation. This area contained
    concrete shell pits or bunkers that were used during World War I to
    test explosives and chemical warfare agents. Subsequent sampling
    detected arsenic in the layer of soil on the bunkers� concrete floors
    and debris at levels exceeding both EPA�s screening and naturally
    occurring levels, but risk assessments indicated that no remedial
    action was necessary, according to the Corps. Therefore, in June 1996,
    the Corps recommended that no further action be taken at the
    Spaulding/Captain Rankin Area. With both investigations, the U.S. Army
    maintained that it would remain responsible for taking any actions
    necessary if DOD-related hazards were discovered at the site.

    Follow-on Investigations Found Additional Large-Scale Hazards"

    In 1997, the District of Columbia completed a report of the actions
    taken at the Spring Valley site that 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 1 of the 53 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.[Footnote 10]

    According to the Corps, in February 1998, it surveyed the soil on the
    South Korean property and identified two potential burial pits.
    Excavation initiated in March 1999 and completed in March 2000 yielded
    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. Soil sampling conducted
    by EPA in mid-1999 resulted in the discovery of elevated levels of
    arsenic at the South Korean property and two adjacent properties on
    Glenbrook Road. Subsequent analyses concluded that arsenic was present
    in the soil at these properties at levels exceeding both EPA�s
    screening level for residential areas and the naturally occurring
    levels for Spring Valley. The Corps decided that contaminated soil
    needed to be removed from this site. By May 2001, the Corps had removed
    arsenic-contaminated soil from the South Korean property and the
    adjacent property. It has not yet conducted soil removal at the third
    property, which is the American University President�s residence. As of
    April 2002, the Corps had completed most restoration (i.e.,
    landscaping) activities at the South Korean property, but is still
    working at excavating a pit that extends from the South Korean property
    into the adjacent property on Glenbrook Road. In total, the Corps had
    removed about 4,560 cubic yards of contaminated soil from these
    properties.

    After the discovery of hazards on the Glenbrook Road properties, and
    consistent with the rationale it employed during the investigation, 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 found elevated levels of arsenic at the American
    University Child Development Center and other locations on the American
    University campus, and on 11 residential properties. As of April 2002,
    the Corps had removed about 1,063 cubic yards of contaminated soil from
    American University. The Corps is finalizing plans to address arsenic
    contamination in soil at other locations on American University.

    Agencies Have Initiated Extensive Additional Investigations for
    Hazards:

    At a public meeting in February 2001, community members urged testing
    the entire Spring Valley neighborhood for arsenic, a request first made
    by the District of Columbia in its 1997 report. The Corps, in
    consultation with EPA and the District of Columbia, agreed to sample
    soil for arsenic on all 1,483 properties within the Spring Valley site,
    with more intensive sampling at selected properties located where
    historical documents indicated that chemical weapons testing may have
    occurred. This expanded sampling effort, begun in May 2001, was
    completed at 1,316 properties, as of April 2002. About 160 of these
    sampled properties will require some degree of cleanup. Currently,
    seven of these properties are identified for priority removals of
    arsenic-contaminated soil because they present relatively higher risks
    of exposure, according to the Corps. The priority removals are
    scheduled to begin by late June 2002. In addition, the Corps has
    sampled for additional chemicals in selected locations depending on
    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.

    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 discovered this pit by conducting a number of
    exploratory excavations at the adjoining property to determine whether
    any additional buried ordnance might be present. 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 11]

    Concurrently with the efforts to expand the arsenic investigation, the
    Corps is planning to expand its efforts to survey properties for buried
    ordnance. EPA�s Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center has
    reviewed archives and several additional aerial photographs of the area.
    This review and subsequent surveying activities performed by the Corps
    identified two properties on Sedgwick Street where buried metallic
    objects that could possibly be pieces of ordnance need to be excavated.
    The Corps plans to begin excavating these properties by September 2002.
    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. Along with the results of the
    review performed by EPA�s Environmental Photographic Interpretation
    Center, other site-specific information, such as the results of
    previous arsenic sampling and the extent of prior landscaping work,
    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 that hazards remain may never be
    known with certainty due to the technical limitations associated with
    sampling and geophysically surveying soil.

    Risks from Buried Hazards and from Arsenic-Contaminated Soil Drive
    Cleanup Decisions:

    At Spring Valley, as at other FUDS, cleanup decisions depend on the
    immediacy of the safety and human health risks presented. If disturbed,
    unexploded or leaking ordnance or containers filled with chemical
    warfare agent may present an immediate risk, and the partners have
    agreed to remove these hazards as soon as possible after their
    discovery. In contrast, exposure to arsenic-contaminated soil poses a
    long-term health risk and the partners have, in the past, disagreed
    about the level and extent of the risk at Spring Valley. Over the past
    year, the partners have been in the process of reaching agreement on
    the level of arsenic that may remain in the soil and that is protective
    of human health and the environment. The partners have agreed on a
    proposed cleanup level and are awaiting input from the Panel before
    finalizing the decision.

    Ordnance Removal Generally Takes Priority Because of the Immediacy of
    Risk:

    Throughout the cleanup of the Spring Valley 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. Because of the immediacy of the potential risk posed by human
    contact with ordnance, for example by the detonation of unexploded
    ordnance or skin exposure to a leaking container of a chemical warfare
    agent such as lewisite, the government entities agree that ordnance and
    containers must be removed as soon as possible after they are found to
    avoid the risk of immediate injury or death. Accordingly, since early
    on in the cleanup effort at Spring Valley, removal of buried ordnance
    has taken priority over other tasks. For example, shortly after the
    accidental discovery of buried ordnance in January 1993, the U.S. Army
    initiated an emergency response action to identify and remove ordnance
    buried at the site. Four weeks after that initial discovery, the U.S.
    Army had removed 141 pieces of ordnance, and the Corps, in conjunction
    with EPA and the District of Columbia, began its comprehensive
    investigation of the entire site, including soil sampling.

    Arsenic-contaminated Soil Cleanup Depends on Ultimate Risk
    Determination:

    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. As noted previously, after the Corps
    completed the emergency removal of ordnance in 1993, it began to sample
    soil for contamination. The Corps collected 260 soil samples from 15
    locations, and with EPA, tested and analyzed the samples. No chemical
    warfare agents, explosives, or chemicals whose only source could be
    chemical warfare agents or explosives were found in any of the samples;
    however, several metals were identified at levels that exceeded EPA�s
    standards. 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 level of arsenic in
    the soil were not significantly different from naturally occurring
    levels. In commenting on a draft of this report, EPA noted that it was
    involved in the oversight of the cleanup and did not object to the
    decision made at the time.

    Since early 1999, with the additional discovery of buried ordnance and
    elevated levels of arsenic-contaminated soil at the South Korean
    property, the levels of arsenic in soil have become the primary focus
    of soil cleanup efforts by the partners. 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. The partners recognize that arsenic exposure at
    certain doses in drinking water has been generally linked to cancers
    and other adverse health conditions.[Footnote 12] 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 extent to which arsenic is present
    and residents are exposed through ingestion, inhalation, or external
    contact at Spring Valley is unknown. The District of Columbia has
    requested technical assistance from ATSDR, which has conducted an
    exposure investigation of residents who have high arsenic levels on
    their property. Through soil sampling, the partners have attempted to
    detect levels of arsenic in the soil to ascertain health risks and to
    set priorities for cleanup. The partners agree that soil containing
    elevated levels of arsenic poses a greater health risk than does soil
    with lesser levels of arsenic. As such, properties with greater levels
    of arsenic in soil generally have cleanup priority over properties with
    lesser levels of arsenic.

    After the Corps tested and 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. Spring Valley
    residents then requested comprehensive soil sampling, extending to
    every residence in the Spring Valley site. The Corps, in consultation
    with EPA and the District of Columbia, responded with a plan to sample
    for arsenic on every property in Spring Valley, with more intensive
    sampling in selected locations. Efforts are still underway to determine
    the extent of arsenic present at Spring Valley and the extent to which
    residents are likely to have been exposed to that risk. 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 May 16, 2002, and were reviewed and discussed
    by the Panel on May 29, 2002.

    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. The studies examined the
    incidence of bladder, skin, lung, liver, and kidney cases. 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 as compared
    to U.S. national rates, and one of these control groups.

    Residents have raised concerns about the extent of the population
    studied and completeness of data used for these exposure and
    epidemiological studies. For example, some residents have voiced
    concerns that the full suite of hazards present at Spring Valley, even
    at trace levels, has not been factored into exposure and
    epidemiological studies and that arsenic is the sole hazard considered
    for exposure 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.

    As of April 2002, because of the safety risks associated with the
    ordnance burial pit on Glenbrook Road, the Corps had temporarily
    redirected other investigation and cleanup efforts, such as soil
    surveying and removal, to the removal of known buried ordnance. To
    identify other locations of potential remaining buried hazards, the
    Corps, after consulting with the partners, has proposed a
    classification scheme that attempts to prioritize the properties most
    likely at risk for the presence of hazards. The plan takes into account
    the results of preliminary arsenic sampling, aerial photography
    interpretation, and other characteristics. In conjunction with EPA and
    the District of Columbia, the Corps is developing a priority list of
    properties for additional geophysical surveys. Once comprehensive
    sampling is complete and soil removal commences, where necessary,
    arsenic in soil will be reduced to a cleanup level that is now being
    finalized by the partnership.

    The partners gather feedback on health risks from residents in several
    ways and consider this information when making cleanup decisions. In the
    past year, a communication process has been put in place to address
    residents� concerns about the health risks associated with Spring
    Valley. The District of Columbia publishes a periodic newsletter that
    has included information from ATSDR and updates residents on the latest
    information regarding the District of Columbia�s efforts to address the
    issues in Spring Valley, including the Scientific Advisory Panel
    meeting agenda. A hotline gives residents an opportunity to voice their
    concerns or share anecdotal information about exposure to hazards.
    Moreover, in November 2001, the District of Columbia and ATSDR
    conducted a focus group comprised of Spring Valley residents to, among
    other things, discuss community health concerns. The partners have also
    sponsored public meetings and distributed questionnaires. The District
    of Columbia has used anecdotal information from the residents about
    health effects they have experienced and compared that information to
    scientific literature concerning symptoms of certain cancers related to
    arsenic exposure.

    The Corps� Estimated Cost and Cleanup Schedule May Change as More
    Information about the Site Is Known:

    As of April 2002, the Corps estimated that the Spring Valley cleanup
    would cost another $71.7 million, including fiscal year 2002, and take
    5 years beyond fiscal year 2002 to complete, but these estimates are
    uncertain. Factors, such as the potential discovery of additional
    hazards, make it inherently challenging for the Corps to estimate the
    cost for completing cleanup activities at the site, as evidenced by
    periodic estimated cost increases. Further, the Corps� estimated
    schedule for completing the cleanup necessarily depends on projections
    of available annual funding, which may be different from actual
    funding. Consequently, any significant increases in the estimated cost
    of completing the cleanup or decreases in the amount of available
    funding would likely require that the Corps extend the completion date
    for Spring Valley.

    Estimated Cost to Clean up Spring Valley Has Increased by about Six
    Fold Since 1997:

    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 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 an update of the Corps� estimate, as of April 2002.
    The Corps had revised its estimate slightly to about $125.1 million, as
    shown in figure 3.[Footnote 13]

    Figure 3: Total Estimated Cost to Clean up Spring Valley, Fiscal Years
    1997 through 2001 and as of April 2002 (dollars in millions):

    [Refer to PDF for image]

    This figure is a stacked vertical bar graph depicting the following
    estimated data:

    Fiscal year: 1997;
    Cost to complete: $20 million;
    Spent to date: $20 million.

    Fiscal year: 1998;
    Cost to complete: $22 million;
    Spent to date: $20 million.

    Fiscal year: 1999;
    Cost to complete: $30 million;
    Spent to date: $25 million.

    Fiscal year: 2000;
    Cost to complete: $80 million;
    Spent to date: $40 million.

    Fiscal year: 2001;
    Cost to complete: $124 million;
    Spent to date: $50 million.

    Fiscal year: April 2002;
    Cost to complete: $125 million;
    Spent to date: $53 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 (see table 1).

    Table 1: Estimated Cost to Complete the Cleanup at Spring Valley,
    Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001 and as of April 2002 (Dollars in
    millions):

    Year of estimate: Fiscal year 1997;
    Estimated cost to complete the clean up: $0.5 million;
    Changes to scope of the cleanup: The Corps discovered it had
    incorrectly identified one of the potentially hazardous locations it had
    previously investigated.

    Year of estimate: Fiscal year 1998;
    Estimated cost to complete the clean up: $0.6 million;
    Changes to scope of the cleanup: The Corps surveyed two potential
    burial pits on the South Korean property.

    Year of estimate: Fiscal year 1999;
    Estimated cost to complete the clean up: $4.5 million;
    Changes to scope of the cleanup: The Corps increased the scope to
    include removing buried ordnance and bottles of chemicals found on
    the South Korean property.

    Year of estimate: Fiscal year 2000;
    Estimated cost to complete the clean up: $35.8 million;
    Changes to scope of the cleanup: The Corps increased the scope to
    include removing arsenic-contaminated soil from the South Korean
    property and two adjacent properties and subsequently expanding soil
    sampling efforts to about 60 nearby residences and the southern
    portion of the American University campus.

    Year of estimate: Fiscal year 2001;
    Estimated cost to complete the clean up: $72.9 million;
    Changes to scope of the cleanup: The Corps increased the scope to
    include expanding sampling efforts to cover the entire Spring Valley
    site, surveying selected properties for buried ordnance, and completing
    additional work needed to remove buried hazards at one location.

    Year of estimate: April 2002;
    Estimated cost to complete the clean up: $71.7 million;
    Changes to scope of the cleanup: The Corps lowered its fiscal year 2001
    estimate as the preliminary results of the sitewide soil sampling
    yielded additional information about the extent of arsenic
    contamination.

    Source: GAO�s analysis of Defense�s data.

    [End of table]

    As shown in table 2, the April 2002 estimate 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.

    Table 2: Estimated Total Cost to Complete Cleanup Activities at Spring
    Valley, as of April 2002 (Dollars in millions):

    Activities: Ordnance removal and soil removal and restoration
    activities at the South Korean property and two adjacent properties;
    Estimated cost: $13.1 million.

    Activities: Soil removal, landscape restoration, and other related
    activities at 11 properties subsequently found to have arsenic-
    contaminated soil;
    Estimated cost: $4.6 million.

    Activities: Soil removal, landscape restoration, and other related
    activities at an additional 150 properties estimated to have arsenic-
    contaminated soil;
    Estimated cost: $24.4 million.

    Activities: Soil excavation and restoration activities at 2 properties
    where buried metallic objects that could be pieces of ordnance were
    identified; subsurface soil survey, excavation, and restoration
    activities at another 200 properties estimated to contain such
    features; and other related activities;
    Estimated cost: $29.7 million.

    Activities: Total;
    Estimated cost: $71.7 million.

    Note: Figures do not add to $71.7 million due to rounding.

    Source: GAO�s analysis of Defense�s data.

    [End of table]

    Cost and Funding Uncertainties Suggest That Cleanup Schedule Could
    Change:

    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, for the first time, that
    it would complete such activities by the end of fiscal year 2012.
    However, as of April 2002, the Corps had moved up its estimate of the
    completion date by 5 years, to fiscal year 2007, even though it had
    doubled the estimated cost of the remaining cleanup.

    As shown in table 3, the Corps plans to meet the shortened time frame by
    applying considerably more funding to the site in the near term.

    Table 3: Levels of Annual Funding Specified in the Corps� Schedule for
    Completing Cleanup Work at Spring Valley, Fiscal Year 2000, Fiscal Year
    2001, and as of April 2002 (Dollars in millions):

    Year of estimate: Fiscal year 2000;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2001: $3.3 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2002: $2.5 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2003: $2.8 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2004: $2.5 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2005: $4.7 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2006: $7.4 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2007: $8.4 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal years 2008 to 2012: $4.2 million;
    Total cost to complete the cleanup: $35.8[A] million.

    Year of estimate: Fiscal year 2001;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2001: $10.7[B] million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2002: $12.1 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2003: 0[C];
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2004: $1.2 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2005: $2.4 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2006: $2.4 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2007: $1.8 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal years 2008 to 2012: $53.1 million;
    Total cost to complete the cleanup: $72.9[D] million.

    Year of estimate: April 2002;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2001: $12.9[E] million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2002: $18.0[F] million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2003: $11.0 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2004: $11.0 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2005: $11.0 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2006: $11.0 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal year 2007: $9.8 million;
    Annual funding, Fiscal years 2008 to 2012: 0;
    Total cost to complete the cleanup: $71.7[G] million.

    [A] For the fiscal year 2000 estimate, the estimated total cost to
    complete the cleanup covers fiscal years 2001 through 2012.

    [B] Figure denotes actual costs incurred during fiscal year 2001.

    [C] According to the fiscal year 2001 Defense Environmental Restoration
    Program report, the U.S. Army planned to reprogram $11 million in
    funding not allocated to specific projects toward fiscal year 2003
    costs and additional dollars in the outyears.

    [D] For the fiscal year 2001 estimate, the estimated total cost to
    complete the cleanup covers fiscal years 2002 through 2012. Annual
    totals do not add to $72.9 million due to rounding.

    [E] Figure denotes actual costs incurred during fiscal year 2001 as
    revised by the U.S. Army in April 2002.

    [F] Includes a $5.2 million increase approved by the U.S. Army on April
    9, 2002. According to the Corps, these funds were reprogrammed from
    possible use at other sites.

    [G] For the April 2002 estimate, the estimated total cost to complete
    the cleanup covers fiscal years 2002 through 2007. Annual totals do not
    add to $71.7 million due to rounding.

    Source: GAO�s analysis of Defense�s data.

    [End of table]

    However, the Corps may find it difficult 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 the District of Columbia and the states of
    Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
    Virginia. According to the U.S. Army, the provision of funds for the
    Spring Valley cleanup is currently 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.

    Observations:

    Uncertainties will continue to affect the progress of the Spring Valley
    cleanup. The unknowns are many: the potential that as-yet undiscovered
    hazards will come to light and expand the scope of necessary cleanup
    activities; the extent of soil removal or cleanup that will be needed,
    which depends, in part, on reaching final agreement on a cleanup level
    for arsenic in the soil; and the actual availability of funding for the
    site cleanup that the Corps has projected for future years. Further,
    these uncertainties are interdependent; for example, estimating the
    amounts of funding needed in future years requires some certainty about
    the scope of the cleanup�certainty that has proven to be elusive as
    additional hazards have been discovered in the past.

    The Corps, EPA, and the District of Columbia have made progress by
    adopting a partnership approach to Spring Valley cleanup decisions.
    Importantly, they have established a systematic means of communicating
    information to, and receiving input from, the residents of Spring
    Valley and other interested members of the public. Progress depends on
    the continued effectiveness with which the government entities involved
    will sustain their partnership approach throughout the cleanup period.
    However, 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.

    Agency Comments:

    We provided the Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency,
    and the District of Columbia�s Department of Health with a draft of
    this report for review and comment. These agencies generally agreed
    with the information presented in the draft. They provided a number of
    technical comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate.
    Defense stated that, while they agreed that there are some uncertainties
    associated with the Spring Valley cleanup, it is important to note that
    such unknowns are not unique to Spring Valley, and that every
    environmental cleanup involves a number of unknowns, regardless of the
    locale, type of contaminant, or specific entity executing the cleanup.
    In addition, Defense stated that the partnership formed has been a
    model for regulatory relationships at other site cleanups. EPA stated
    that our report develops an accurate and unbiased appraisal of the
    problems and uncertainties present at the Spring Valley site, and that
    our report presents the substantive historical facts of this very
    complex and challenging site cleanup. The District of Columbia�s
    Department of Health stated that it is committed to continuing to work
    with the other governmental partners to establish and fully implement
    any action and/or remediation plan it determines is required to protect
    human health. The letters from these agencies are included in
    appendixes II through IV.

    Scope and Methodology:

    We performed our review at the Corps� project office at the site, U.S.
    Army�s and EPA�s headquarters in Washington, D.C., and the District of
    Columbia�s Department of Health in Washington, D.C. We reviewed
    statutes, regulations, and appropriate guidance, as well as interviewed
    government entity program officials to determine the relevant statutory
    framework. We interviewed officials at Defense and U.S. Army
    headquarters responsible for overseeing the FUDS program and budget.
    We interviewed officials at EPA headquarters, including those from the
    Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response responsible for developing
    EPA�s guidance for FUDS, and the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
    Assurance responsible for investigating matters relating to Spring
    Valley. Further, we interviewed regional and project officials of both
    federal agencies, as well as officials from the District of Columbia�s
    Department of Health, to understand their roles as actually carried out
    at the site. We reviewed historical information and agency data, as
    well as interviewed appropriate officials to identify hazards found at
    the site and the progress made toward cleaning up the site. We reviewed
    descriptive epidemiological studies conducted by the District of
    Columbia and interviewed Department of Health officials to understand
    risks associated with hazards at the site. We also attended Restoration
    Advisory Board and Scientific Advisory Panel meetings to gain an
    understanding of the perspectives of the various stakeholders. We
    reviewed cost, budget, and schedule data from the U.S. Army and the
    Corps and interviewed appropriate officials to determine how much the
    Corps had spent to date at the site and understand the Corps� estimate
    of how much it would cost and how long it would take to complete the
    cleanup.

    We conducted our work from October 2001 through May 2002 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    As we agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
    of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30
    days from the date of this letter. We will then send copies to other
    interested parties and make copies available to others who request
    them. In addition, the report will be available at no charge at GAO�s
    Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

    If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please call
    Peg Reese or me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report are
    listed in appendix VI.

    Signed by:

    David G. Wood:
    Director, Natural Resources and Environment:

    [End of section]

    Appendix I: Properties in the District of Columbia Where Hazards
    Resulting from Federal Activities Have Been Found:

    Table 4 contains summary data on 44 properties in the District of
    Columbia where hazards resulting from federal activities have been
    found, using Defense data as of March 2002 and EPA data as of April
    2002. For each property, the data include the name of the property, the
    agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards, the past or
    current use of the property, and the hazards found. Most sites are
    active Department of Defense (Defense) installations or formerly used
    defense sites (FUDS). For an active Defense installation, the host
    military branch of the installation is responsible for the cleanup
    while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) is responsible for
    the cleanup of all FUDS. In addition, there are six properties
    involving other federal agencies that are being addressed through the
    Environmental Protection Agency�s environmental cleanup programs.

    Table 4: Properties in the District of Columbia Where Hazards Resulting
    from Federal Activities Have Been Found:

    Defense, active installations (8):

    Name of property: Bolling Air Force Base[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Air Force;
    Past or current use of the property: Active installation;
    Hazards found: Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB); petro hydrocarbons;
    benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX); semi-volatile
    organic compounds (SVOC); lindane; dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
    (DDT); and heavy metals.

    Name of property: Fort McNair[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;

    Past or current use of the property: Active installation;
    Hazards found: Lead, BTEX, and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH);

    Name of property: Naval Station�Anacostia;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Navy;
    Past or current use of the property: Active installation;
    Hazards found: Acid, heavy metals, and other chemicals.

    Name of property: Naval Observatory;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Navy;
    Past or current use of the property: Active installation;
    Hazards found: Petroleum, oil, and lubricants.

    Name of property: Naval Research Laboratory;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Navy;
    Past or current use of the property: Active installation;
    Hazards found: Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste.

    Name of property: Naval Security Station[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Navy;
    Past or current use of the property: Active installation;
    Hazards found: Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste.

    Name of property: Walter Reed Army Medical Center[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;

    Past or current use of the property: Active installation;
    Hazards found: Fuel oil.

    Name of property: Washington Navy Yard[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Navy;

    Past or current use of the property: Active installation;
    Hazards found: Heavy metals, chlorinated solvents, and PCB.

    Defense, FUDS (30):

    Name of property: Anti-Aircraft Artillery Site�Fort Reno;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;

    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification and anti-
    aircraft site;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Barney Circle;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army Corps
    of Engineers and National Park Service;
    Past or current use of the property: Landfill;
    Hazards found: Lead.

    Name of property: Camp Simms Military Reservation;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: Department of
    Defense;
    Past or current use of the property: Military installation�small arms
    range;
    Hazards found: Ordnance and explosive waste, and hazardous, toxic, and
    radioactive waste.

    Name of property: Catholic University�Offense Research Station;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: World War I munitions research
    laboratory;
    Hazards found: Ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Chain Bridge Batteries Complex;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Diamond Ordnance Fuze Laboratories[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army and
    Department of Commerce;
    Past or current use of the property: Former location of the National
    Bureau of Standards� ordnance research and development activities;
    Hazards found: Ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Baker;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Bayard;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Bunker Hill;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Chaplin;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Davis;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort DeRussy;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Dupont Park Site;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Greble;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Kearny;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Lincoln[A];

    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Mahan;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Ricketts;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Slemmer;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Slocum;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Snyder;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Stanton;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Stevens;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Totten;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Fort Wagner;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: Civil War fortification;
    Hazards found: Civil War-era ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Naval Station�Anacostia Annex;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Navy;
    Past or current use of the property: Ordnance research, barracks,
    school;
    Hazards found: Ordnance and explosive waste.

    Name of property: Rock Creek Park Troop Housing;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: [B];
    Past or current use of the property: [B];
    Hazards found: [B].

    Name of property: Shepherd Parkway;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: [B];
    Past or current use of the property: [B];
    Hazards found: [B].

    Name of property: Spring Valley;
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Army;
    Past or current use of the property: World War I munitions testing
    area;
    Hazards found: Ordnance and explosive waste and arsenic in soil.

    Name of property: Washington Navy Yard[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Navy;
    Past or current use of the property: Naval shipbuilding and ordnance
    production;
    Hazards found: Hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste.

    Other federal agencies (6):

    Name of property: Kenilworth Park Landfill Site[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: National Park
    Service;
    Past or current use of the property: Former municipal dump;
    Hazards found: PCB and polynuclear hydrocarbons.

    Name of property: National Park Service�Anacostia Park Sections E &
    F[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: Not available;
    Past or current use of the property: Not available;
    Hazards found: Not available.

    Name of property: Southeast Federal Center[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Navy;
    Past or current use of the property: Administrative offices and storage
    facilities, ordnance research and manufacturing, and shipbuilding;
    Hazards found: Solvents, PCB, polyaromatic hydrocarbons, and heavy
    metals (including lead, arsenic, and chromium).

    Name of property: St. Elizabeth�s Hospital[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: Not available;
    Past or current use of the property: Former federally owned and
    operated mental institution sold to the District of Columbia;
    Hazards found: Polynuclear hydrocarbons, perchloroethylene (PCE),
    toluene, chromium, cadmium, mercury, cobalt, and DDT.

    Name of property: U.S. Department of Agriculture�National Arboretum[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: U.S. Department
    of Agriculture;
    Past or current use of the property: Agricultural research facility;
    Hazards found: Organochlorine, insecticide, herbicide, fungicides, wood
    preservatives, and solvents.

    Name of property: Washington Gas Light Site[A];
    Agency or agencies responsible for leaving the hazards: Federal
    property affected by contamination from a private property;
    Past or current use of the property: Equipment storage area for the
    District of Columbia�s Department of Public Works, river debris removal
    staging area, and recreational use;
    Hazards found: Coke breeze, benzene, xylenes, toluene,naphthalene, fat
    chemco, carboseal, petroleum by-products, and polynuclear hydrocarbons.

    [A] Also listed as a Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation, and Liability Act site.

    [B] Defense was unable to provide information on the agency or agencies
    responsible for leaving any hazards, the past or current use of the
    property, or whether or not hazards had been found at the site.

    Note: Table includes Defense active installations and FUDS listed as of
    March 2002 and properties involving other federal agencies as of April
    2002.

    Source: GAO�s analysis of Defense�s and EPA�s data.

    [End of table]

    Table 5 contains data on 30 federal properties in the District of
    Columbia, on which remediation of leaking underground storage tanks was
    in process, as of January 2002, as well as the hazards found.

    Table 5: Hazards Found at Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Federal
    Properties in the District of Columbia Where Remediation Was in
    Process, as of January 2002:

    Federal property: Anacostia Naval Station�Building #353;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel, gasoline, halogenated hydrocarbons,
    trichloropropane (TCP), and waste oil.

    Federal property: Architect of the Capitol�Capitol Power Plant;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel and heating oil.

    Federal property: Architect of the Capitol�O�Neill House Office
    Building;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel and gasoline.

    Federal property: Architect of the Capitol�Rayburn House Office
    Building;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel and gasoline.

    Federal property: Architect of the Capitol�Senate Underground Garage;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel and gasoline.

    Federal property: Bolling Air Force Base;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel and gasoline.

    Federal property: Bolling Air Force Base�Army and Air Force Exchange
    Service�s Service Station;
    Hazards found: Gasoline.

    Federal property: Bolling Air Force Base�Car Care Center;
    Hazards found: Gasoline.

    Federal property: Dalecarlia Water Treatment Plant;
    Hazards found: Heating oil.

    Federal property: Edgewater Stable�U.S. Secret Service;
    Hazards found: Gasoline.

    Federal property: Federal Triangle;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel and gasoline.

    Federal property: Former Architect of the Capitol Poplar Point Nursery;
    Hazards found: Gasoline.

    Federal property: Fort McNair�Fitness Center;
    Hazards found: Heating oil and kerosene.

    Federal property: Fort McNair�Gas Station;
    Hazards found: Gasoline, kerosene, and waste oil.

    Federal property: Fort McNair�Parking Lot;
    Hazards found: Gasoline.

    Federal property: Fort McNair�Quarters #20;
    Hazards found: Heating oil.

    Federal property: The John F. Kennedy Center;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel.

    Federal property: National Park Service�1900 Anacostia Drive;
    Hazards found: Gasoline, heating oil, and waste oil.

    Federal property: Naval Observatory�Building #52;
    Hazards found: Heating oil.

    Federal property: Naval Observatory�Building #64;
    Hazards found: Gasoline.

    Federal property: Park Police Anacostia Operation;
    Hazards found: Gasoline.

    Federal property: Southeast Federal Center�Block H;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel.

    Federal property: Southeast Federal Center�Building #216, 2nd & M Sts.,
    SE;
    Hazards found: Waste oil.

    Federal property: U.S. Department of Agriculture National
    Arboretum� Building #014;
    Hazards found: Gasoline.

    Federal property: U.S. Government Printing Office;
    Hazards found: Heating oil.

    Federal property: U.S. Postal Service�Brightwood;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel and gasoline.

    Federal property: U.S. Postal Service�Vehicle Maintenance Facility;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel, gasoline, and waste oil.

    Federal property: Veterans Affairs Medical Center;
    Hazards found: Heating oil.

    Federal property: Washington Navy Yard�Building #071;
    Hazards found: Diesel fuel, gasoline, and waste oil.

    Federal property: Washington Navy Yard�Building #111;
    Hazards found: Heating oil.

    Note: Table excludes leaking underground storage tank cases where
    remediation was complete as of January 2002.

    Source: GAO�s analysis of the District of Columbia�s data.

    [End of table]

    [End of section]

    Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense:

    Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
    Acquisition and Technology:
    3000 Defense Pentagon:
    Washington DC 20301-3000:

    May 20, 2002:

    Mr. David G. Wood:
    Director:
    Natural Resources and Environment:
    U.S. General Accounting Office:
    Washington, D.C. 20548:

    Dear Mr. Wood:

    The Department of Defense (DoD) appreciates the opportunity to provide
    comments regarding the GAO draft report, GAO-02-556, 'Environmental
    Contamination: Many Uncertainties Affect the Progress of the Spring
    Valley Cleanup', dated May 7, 2002 (GAO Code 360145).

    The objectives and findings of the report focus on uncertainties at the
    Spring Valley site involving: 1) the extent of contamination remaining
    at Spring Valley; 2) the regulatory partnerships; 3) health risks from
    contaminated soils; and 4) funding, and the uncertainties impacts on
    the progress of cleanup. While we agree that there are some
    uncertainties associated with the Spring Valley cleanup, it is
    important to note that such unknowns are not unique to Spring Valley.

    Every environmental cleanup involves a number of unknowns, regardless
    of the locale, type of contaminant, or specific entity executing the
    cleanup. The purpose of the site characterization process is to reduce
    the uncertainties associated with the nature and extent of
    contamination, risk to human health, and implementation of the
    appropriate response action. The site characterization process at
    Spring Valley has, in many respects, reduced many of these
    uncertainties, and the Army, with its regulatory partners, plans to
    continue to address each discovery in the same deliberative and
    responsive manner.

    In addition, the cooperative relationship formed between the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the District of Columbia
    Department of Health (D.C. Health) and the Corps of Engineers has been,
    in our opinion, a model for regulatory relationships at other site
    cleanups. Each agency's dedicated commitment to the partnership, and
    participation in critical decisions throughout the cleanup process, is
    evidenced by the substantial progress made in addressing contamination
    arising from war preparation activities of almost a century ago. This
    collaboration, in contrast to enforcement, has resulted in a more
    timely and cost effective cleanup, and the Department has every reason
    to expect that this relationship will continue to be effective into the
    future.

    In regard to funding, DoD has continually demonstrated a financial
    commitment to completing the cleanup at the Spring Valley site. Over
    the last ten years, and at the expense of other cleanups, the Army has
    allocated over $50 million to the cleanup of Spring Valley and, at the
    behest of stakeholders, will reprioritize another $70 million to
    complete the cleanup at this site.

    The protection of human health and the environment is critical, and DoD
    will continue to work in partnership with EPA and the D.C. Health to
    ensure that the health and safety of the residents are protected, and
    that sufficient resources are made available. Our attached comments
    reflect this position.

    My point of contact on this matter, Mr. Kurt Kratz (703) 697-5372, is
    available to discuss our responses to findings and additional comments
    provided on this document.

    Sincerely,

    Signed by:
    Raymond F. DuBois, Jr.
    Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and Environment):

    Enclosure:

    [End of section]

    Appendix III: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency:

    United States Environmental Protection Agency:
    Office Of Solid Waste And Emergency Response:
    Washington, D.C. 20460:
    [hyperlink, http://www.epa.gov]:

    May 20, 2002:

    David G. Wood:
    Director:
    Natural Resources and Environment:
    United States General Accounting Office (GAO):
    Washington, DC 20548:

    Dear Mr. Wood:

    Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the May 7, 2002,
    draft report entitled "Environmental Contamination - Many Uncertainties
    Affect the Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup" (GAO-02-556). This
    letter transmits our comments on the draft report.

    EPA believes the report has done an excellent job presenting the
    substantive historical facts of this very complex and challenging site
    cleanup. EPA appreciates the substantial effort made by the GAO in
    developing an accurate and unbiased appraisal of the problems and
    uncertainties present at the Spring Valley Site. However, there are
    several issues raised during our conference call on Monday, April 29
    that were not addressed in the draft report. These concerns are the
    references to and the description of the relationship between the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
    of 1980 (CERCLA), the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of
    1986 (SARA) and the Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP).
    There are also some statements attributed to EPA that are inconsistent
    with our policy on privately-owned Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS).
    We hope these comments will be considered during your revision of the
    draft report.

    All comments included in the enclosure are intended to improve the
    accuracy of the draft report. If you have any questions about these
    comments, please contact Renee Wynn, of my staff, at (202) 260-8366 or
    Hank Sokolowski, Region 3, at (215) 814-3348.

    Sincerely,

    Signed by:

    Michael Shapior, for:

    Marianne Lamont Horinko:
    Assistant Administrator:

    Enclosure:

    [End of section]

    Appendix IV: Comments from the District of Columbia�s Department of
    Health:

    Government of the District of Columbia:
    Department of Health:
    Office of the Senior Deputy Director for Public Health Assurance:
    825 North Capitol Street, NE, 4th Floor:
    Washington, DC 20002:
    Tel: 202-442-8982:
    Fax: 202-442-4886:

    May 17, 2002:

    Mr. David G. Wood, Director:
    Natural Resources and Environment:
    United States General Accounting Office:
    Washington, DC 20548:

    Dear Mr. Wood:

    The DC Department of Health (DOH) has received a draft copy from the
    United States Government Accounting Office (GAO) of the proposed report
    entitled "Environmental Contamination: Many Uncertainties Affect the
    Progress of the Spring Valley Cleanup" (GAO-02-556). The DOH's written
    comments were transmitted to you during our meeting with the GAO on
    April 26, 2002 and many have been included in your draft report.

    The DOH has received additional information since our meeting on April
    260th, regarding the collaborative investigation with the Agency For
    Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) that has been conducted
    with the participation of Spring Valley residents. The results of the
    Phase I exposure investigation suggest that arsenic contamination on
    properties in Spring Valley has not resulted in significant exposure by
    the residents. The interpretation is based on biological samples
    (urine, hair) collected from Spring Valley residents with the highest
    soil levels of arsenic on their properties. The results from the Phase
    I exposure investigation will be helpful as part of the ongoing
    assessment of Spring Valley residents by the DOH.

    The District is committed to continuing to work with the other
    governmental partners to establish and fully implement any action
    and/or remediation plan it determines is required to protect human
    health. Using its available scientific resources and information, its
    monitoring and enforcement capabilities and authority, the District is
    confident that the objective of ensuring a timely response to protect
    human health will be achieved.

    We appreciate the inclusion of our remarks in your report and the
    opportunity to comment on the initial draft.

    Sincerely,

    Signed by:

    Theodore J. Gordon:
    Senior Deputy Director for Public Health Assurance:

    cc: James Buford, Interim Director, DOH:

    [End of section]

    Appendix V: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

    GAO Contacts:

    David G. Wood (202) 512-3841:
    Peg Reese (202) 512-9695:

    Acknowledgments:

    In addition to those named above, Ridge Bowman, Stephen Cleary,
    Margaret McDavid, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman made key contributions
    to this report.

    [End of section]

    Footnotes:

    [1] The Department of Defense Appropriation Act, 1984 (P.L. 98-212)
    provided 1 year of funding for the cleanup of hazardous substances
    released from Defense properties and the removal of unsafe or unsightly
    Defense buildings and debris. Annual appropriations for these
    activities have continued, but since 1986, have been funded under the
    Defense Environmental Restoration Account established by the Congress
    as part of the Defense Environmental Restoration Program.

    [2] Specifically, Defense�s activities addressing hazardous substances,
    pollutants, or contaminants are required to be carried out consistent
    with section 120 of CERCLA.

    [3] 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.

    [4] Removal actions are generally short-term responses to address
    immediate and significant dangers at any hazardous waste site but are
    not necessarily final solutions.

    [5] EPA Policy Toward Privately-Owned Formerly Used Defense Sites,
    which notes that, while the policy focuses on authorities available to
    EPA under CERCLA, �nothing in this policy should be construed as
    limiting EPA�s or a State�s authorities� under other applicable
    environmental statutes, such as the Resource Conservation and Recovery
    Act or the Clean Water Act.

    [6] In commenting on our report, the Corps stated that the reason the
    environmental officials were not included was that the Mayor of the
    District of Columbia had expressly designated a different agency as the
    point of contact for Spring Valley.

    [7] ATSDR is an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services.
    It was created by CERCLA, and its mission is to take responsive public
    health action and provide public health information to prevent harmful
    exposures and diseases related to toxic substances.

    [8] We are currently reviewing the Corps� process for assessing the
    need to clean up FUDS nationwide and will issue a report this summer.

    [9] In addition, the Corps sampled soil for a variety of chemicals at a
    number of locations at American University and at the location where a
    piece of ordnance containing suspected chemical agent was found. Total
    potentially hazardous locations surveyed and sampled do not add to 53
    because some locations were both surveyed and sampled, some were either
    surveyed or sampled but not both, while others were neither surveyed
    nor sampled because they were either buildings or under a large
    concrete reservoir.

    [10] According to a District of Columbia official, the Corps had
    discovered this error in 1994 and had found a possible buried ordnance
    pit, but did not undertake a cleanup action at the time. However, the
    Corps disagrees and stated that it did not find any indication of a
    possible ordnance burial pit at the site in 1994.

    [11] 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.

    [12] 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).

    [13] For this report, we focused on the revised cost figures that the
    Army provided to us in April 2002, as opposed to 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: