Environmental Cleanup: Progress in Resolving Long-Standing Issues at the
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (Letter Report, 03/29/96, GAO/NSIAD-96-32).
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the cleanup program
for the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, focusing on the: (1) status of cleanup
efforts; (2) completion plans for the cleanup; and (3) cost-sharing
plans between the Army and an oil firm that leased a portion of the
Arsenal.
GAO found that: (1) installation restoration efforts over the past two
decades have been hampered by prolonged and extensive disagreements over
costs and alternative remedies; (2) the Arsenal's study phase has cost
over $354 million for over 400 studies, primarily due to the large
volume of lawsuits, formal disputes, and other disagreements; (3)
although final cleanup has not begun, the Army and the oil company have
spent about $316 million to mitigate the most critical threats at the
Arsenal; (4) a conceptual agreement signed by six key parties in June
1995 should resolve the most significant issues and pave the way for a
final settlement in 1996; (5) the Army and the oil company estimate that
the final cleanup plan will cost $2.1 billion and will be primarily
accomplished by 2012, although groundwater treatment and monitoring will
continue for at least 30 years; (6) cost estimates and cleanup dates
have changed significantly over the years, and current estimates may be
optimistic because of such uncertainties as the impact of budget
limitations, cleanup complications, and evolving standards; and (7) the
cost-sharing agreement between the Army and the oil company calls for
the oil company's share to decrease on a sliding scale from 50 percent
to 20 percent as cleanup costs increase.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: NSIAD-96-32
TITLE: Environmental Cleanup: Progress in Resolving Long-Standing
Issues at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
DATE: 03/29/96
SUBJECT: Cost sharing (finance)
Pollution control
Obsolete facilities
Military facilities
Atomic energy defense activities
Weapons industry
Hazardous substances
Waste treatment
Waste disposal
Environment evaluation
IDENTIFIER: EPA National Priorities List
Colorado
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to Congressional Requesters
March 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEANUP - PROGRESS
IN RESOLVING LONG-STANDING ISSUES
AT THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL
GAO/NSIAD-96-32
Environmental Cleanup
(709144)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
DIMP - diisopropyl methyl phosphorate
DOD - Department of Defense
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-266062
March 29, 1996
The Honorable Bill Zeliff
Chairman
The Honorable Karen L. Thurman
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on National Security,
International Affairs, and Criminal Justice
Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives
You requested that we review the cleanup program at the Rocky
Mountain Arsenal, one of the Department of Defense's (DOD) most
contaminated installations. This report provides information on (1)
the status of cleanup efforts at the Arsenal, (2) completion plans
for the cleanup, and (3) the cost-sharing arrangement between the
Army and Shell Oil Company.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal, established in 1942, occupies 17,000
acres northeast of Denver, Colorado, and is contaminated from years
of chemical and weapons activities. The Army manufactured chemical
weapons, such as napalm bombs and mustard gas, and conventional
munitions until the 1960s and destroyed weapons at the Arsenal
through the early 1980s. In addition, it leased a portion of the
Arsenal to Shell Oil Company from 1952 to 1987 to produce herbicides
and pesticides. The Arsenal was placed on the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National Priorities List, the list of the
nation's most heavily contaminated sites, in July 1987.
More than 300 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and
fish can be found on the installation. Once the EPA certifies the
cleanup is complete, the Arsenal is to become a national wildlife
refuge managed by the Fish and Wildlife Service. Refuge management
activities are already underway. (App. I shows the key physical
features of the Arsenal.)
Waste disposal practices used by the Army and Shell in the past have
resulted in extensive soil and groundwater contamination. Some of
the common contaminants include nerve agents, diisopropyl methyl
phosphorate (DIMP), and the pesticides dieldrin and aldrin. Other
contaminants include heavy metals, such as arsenic, lead, chromium,
and mercury, and volatile organic compounds, such as benzene,
toluene, and xylene. The 209 contaminated sites on the Arsenal are
divided into on-post and off-post segments. The on-post sites
include all contaminated structures, water, and soil within the
boundaries of the Arsenal. The off-post sites include a region north
of the Arsenal requiring cleanup because of migrating groundwater
contamination.
Cleanup at the Arsenal is subject to the legal requirements of the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
(CERCLA) of 1980, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601); the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6901);
and state laws. (See app. II for a description of the CERCLA
process.)
The Army is in charge of the cleanup under a Federal Facility
Agreement, which was signed in 1989. The signatories include the
Army; Shell Oil Company; the EPA; and the Departments of Justice, the
Interior, and Health and Human Services. The agreement established a
framework for cleanup and a process to resolve formal disputes among
the parties. However, the state of Colorado was not a party to the
Federal Facility Agreement because of litigation with the Army and
Shell. A court-appointed mediator facilitated negotiations between
the parties over several years.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
Permanent cleanup at Rocky Mountain Arsenal has been delayed for
years due to lawsuits and numerous other disputes between the parties
involved. In June 1995, the state and five other key parties signed
an agreement for a conceptual remedy to address the lawsuits and
disputes. Although about $300 million of the nearly $1 billion spent
to date has been for interim actions to mitigate the most urgent
environmental threats, the majority has been spent on studies and
other management activities. The $354 million spent on studies alone
represents the costliest study phase in the history of DOD's cleanup
program.\1
The June 1995 conceptual agreement resolves the most significant
issues and paves the way for a final settlement, or record of
decision, in 1996. Based on the agreement, the Army currently
estimates the cleanup will cost $2.1 billion and take until 2012.\2
Prior to the agreement, the Army had estimated a $2.8-billion to
$3.6-billion cleanup effort to be complete in about 2010. Although
the agreement addresses many of the disputed issues, the final
details are yet to be negotiated. Until the cleanup plan is detailed
and finalized in the record of decision, the cost and completion
estimates will be subject to change. Historical experience at the
Arsenal has shown escalating costs and unmet milestones.
Under a 1989 settlement, the Army and Shell are sharing cleanup
costs. The costs to correct damages attributable solely to either
the Army or to Shell are to be financed by the responsible party.
However, most contamination was commingled, and these cleanup costs
will be shared under a formula requiring each party to pay 50 percent
of the first $500 million in cleanup costs, with Shell's share
decreasing as total costs increase. Although the agreement does not
limit total contributions, Shell estimated its total costs will be
about $500 million; so far, it has contributed $274 million. By the
time the final phase of cleanup begins in May 1996, under an expected
record of decision, the Army will be responsible for 80 percent of
the costs for commingled contamination. These costs represent most
of the remaining cleanup.
--------------------
\1 The cost for the study phase is based on data supplied by the Army
and from DOD's annual report to Congress. DOD has made subsequent
adjustments to the data, not verified at the time of this report.
\2 Cleanup estimates are presented in fiscal year 1995 dollars.
DECADES OF CONFLICT APPROACHING
RESOLUTION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
The recent conceptual agreement for cleaning up Rocky Mountain
Arsenal may mark a turning point in years of conflict that has slowed
the implementation of permanent cleanup remedies and increased costs.
According to Army, EPA, state of Colorado, and Shell officials,
long-standing disagreements and extensive studies have diverted key
staff and contractors away from the cleanup program and driven costs
up. In the 20 years since the installation restoration program
began, the Army and Shell have spent about $1 billion to study and
control the environmental damage. The majority of the cost has been
for studying the site and resolving disagreements. Totaling $354
million as of December 1994, the Arsenal's study phase is the
costliest in the history of DOD's cleanup program.\3 However, about
$316 million was spent on interim remediation projects to cut off
contamination pathways. These actions may contribute significantly
to permanent solutions. (App. III contains a time line of the
Arsenal's installation restoration program.)
--------------------
\3 Unless stated otherwise, cost data in this report are based on
documents provided by the Army and DOD's March 1995 annual report to
Congress. An updated version of DOD's annual report was released
several months later and the adjusted data had not yet been verified
at the time of this report. For example, DOD's revised report
reduced the Arsenal's study costs by about $95 million. DOD has not
yet provided the support for that change.
EXTENSIVE DEBATE OVER
CLEANUP REMEDIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1
The most recent delay in adopting a cleanup plan for the Arsenal was
caused by disagreements over cost-effectiveness and alternative
cleanup remedies. EPA's and the state of Colorado's initial cleanup
proposals were estimated to cost about $2.7 billion; Shell Oil
Company's was $1.6 billion; and the Army's was in the middle, at
about $2.1 billion. According to officials from the Army, EPA, and
the state of Colorado, the 2-year debate involved how to clean up
contaminated soils on the Arsenal and contaminated water off the
Arsenal.
All parties agreed that soils should remain on-site, because moving
them off-site would be prohibitively expensive. However, while
the Army and Shell suggested that untreated soils be capped in
place to prevent the spread of contaminants, EPA and the state
suggested that contaminated soils should be treated to
neutralize them, before they are capped or placed in a landfill.
The key off-post issue involved groundwater quality standards for
water contaminated with DIMP, a by-product of nerve agent
production. In 1993, the state promulgated a drinking water
standard of 8 parts per billion. The Army and Shell wanted to
continue to pump and treat the water to meet EPA's health
advisory of 600 parts per billion, while the state wanted the
Army to provide the residents with an alternative water supply.
COSTLIEST STUDY PHASE IN DOD
HISTORY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2
Largely due to the volume of lawsuits, formal disputes, and other
disagreements, the Rocky Mountain Arsenal has experienced the
costliest study phase in DOD's history. According to DOD reports,
the Arsenal's study costs represent at least 16 percent of the Army's
total study costs for about 1,200 installations. The Arsenal's study
phase began more than
20 years ago and was completed recently, in October 1995, when the
Army requested public comment on its preferred remedy. As of
December 1994, Shell and the Army had spent approximately $354
million on studies, which represents about 37 percent of the total
costs incurred by Shell and the Army at the Arsenal. Figure 1 shows
shared cleanup costs by category.
Figure 1: Shared Rocky
Mountain Arsenal Cleanup Costs
by Category (as of December
1994)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Army officials could not break historical costs into study and
cleanup. The "other" category includes some costs for program
management, facilities operations, the fish & wildlife program, and
advisory boards. The "study" category also includes some program
management costs, but officials were unable to determine how much.
Over 400 studies have been conducted at the Arsenal since 1983.
Approximately 14,000 samples were taken and 230 reports were produced
during the study phase. Although the complexity of the site
warranted study, according to Army, EPA, and state officials, the
litigation and other disputes encouraged excessive and duplicative
studies. For example, had the parties come to an earlier agreement
on the installation's future use and on levels of ecological
standards, some of the studies might have been avoided.
Relationships among the key parties have been strained by differences
throughout the history of the cleanup program, but particularly since
1983 when two major lawsuits were filed.
The Army sued Shell, and the state of Colorado sued the Army and
Shell to recover compensation for natural resource damages and
cleanup costs. The state sued the Army again in 1986 to enforce
regulatory authority over parts of the cleanup. Although the Army
and Shell settled their suit in 1988, the first Colorado case has not
yet been resolved and the second case went to the U.S. Supreme
Court. In January 1994, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case,
letting stand the lower court's decision in favor of Colorado's
jurisdiction. The key parties' exhaustive efforts to resolve their
legal disputes involved 7 years of assistance from a court-appointed
mediator. (See app. IV for a detailed chronology of major legal
actions involving Rocky Mountain Arsenal.)
In addition to the lawsuits, more than 140 issues have been taken to
formal dispute since 1987 under the Federal Facility Agreement, which
allows the parties to dispute Army decisions. Disputes have been
triggered by a variety of technical issues, often requiring further
studies to resolve the controversy. For example, the parties
disagreed about what level of dieldrin is considered safe in soil.
The Army, EPA, and Shell have all conducted and evaluated studies on
this issue, yielding different results and reaching different
conclusions. This dispute was invoked in December 1987 and is still
not resolved. According to Army, EPA, and state officials, study
results are particularly sensitive because precedents set at the
Arsenal could potentially have ramifications for Shell Oil Company at
its other locations.
INTERIM RESPONSE ACTIONS
ADDRESSED CRITICAL THREATS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3
Although final cleanup has not begun, the Army and Shell have made
efforts to mitigate the most critical threats at the Arsenal. As of
December 1994, they had spent about $316 million on source control
and interim actions designed to provide immediate containment or
treatment of some of the more highly contaminated areas. Early
assessments, conducted between 1975 and 1985, identified ways to
minimize the potential for exposure to and migration of contaminants.
Resulting projects included the installation of three groundwater
treatment systems at the Arsenal's boundary, the closure of an
abandoned well, and the removal of sewer lines known to be a source
of soil and groundwater contamination.
Building on earlier source control efforts, the Army began its
interim actions in 1986 to control immediate problems while the final
cleanup solutions were being determined. The resulting 14 interim
actions were designed to be consistent with long-term comprehensive
cleanup on and off the Arsenal. Two of these, the incineration of
liquid waste from the Arsenal's major disposal basin and the removal
of asbestos, have permanently removed the hazardous materials. Table
1 shows, for each of the 14 actions, the start date, actual or
estimated completion date, and the actual or estimated cost as of
December 1994.
Table 1
Interim Response Actions and Other
Interim Cleanup Actions (as of December
1994)
(Dollars in millions)
Start Completi
Interim response actions date on date Cost
---------------------------------------- -------- -------- --------
Off-post groundwater treatment system 5/87 2/94 $19.6
Groundwater boundary systems 5/87 7/93 14.5
Groundwater treatment system north of 5/87 9/90 4.5
basin F
Abandoned well closure 5/87 2/90 5.5
Groundwater treatment system in basin A 5/87 7/90 4.1
neck area
Basin F liquids, sludges, and soil 10/86 9/95 127.8
remediation
Building 1727 sump liquid 5/87 11/89 0.1
Closure of the hydrazine facility 5/87 9/92 13.8
Fugitive dust control 5/87 \a 0.7
Sewer remediation 5/87 9/92 11.6
Asbestos removal 5/89 12/96 16.5
Remediation of other containment sources 9/88 8/94 14.0
Wastewater treatment facility 5/87 2/93 9.1
Chemical process-related activities 4/91 12/96 44.2
======================================================================
Subtotal $286.0
Other interim cleanup\b 0 0 30.0
======================================================================
Total $316.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Application of dust suppressant materials to areas of basin A will
continue annually until a final remedy is completed.
\b "Other interim cleanup" represents Army cleanup paid out of the
Shell special account.
Source: U.S. Army.
CLEANUP PLAN EXPECTED, BUT
UNCERTAINTIES REMAIN
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
If the parties are successful in adopting the on- and off-post
cleanup plans as expected in 1996, the final cleanup can begin. The
conceptual agreement reached in June 1995 resolved the major disputes
and outlined a $2.1-billion cleanup to be completed in 2012.
However, the current cost and completion targets may be overly
optimistic given remaining uncertainties about the final details. In
addition, costs have significantly increased over time at the
Arsenal.
CLEANUP AGREEMENT OUTLINES
FINAL CLEANUP REMEDY
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1
According to the conceptual agreement, the parties are expected in
1996 to adopt a final cleanup plan or record of decision for a
$2.1-billion cleanup effort. Although most of the cleanup is
expected to be accomplished by 2012, groundwater treatment and
monitoring will continue for at least 30 years. The conceptual
agreement resolves the two most significant disputes among the
parties, regarding contaminated soils on site and contaminated
groundwater off site.
The parties agreed that a portion of basin F, the most contaminated
of the basins, will be solidified in place through a technique that
binds the soil together to minimize the release of contaminants but
does not destroy them. Contaminated soil excavated from the basin in
1988 will be removed from the basin area and contained, along with
other highly contaminated portions of the Arsenal, in a hazardous
waste landfill. The basin will then be capped.
The parties also agreed on demolition and on-site disposal for
buildings in the manufacturing areas. Structures with high levels of
contamination, such as agent residues, may be treated to reduce the
contamination before they are placed in the landfill. Structural
debris that is uncontaminated or has low levels of contamination will
not be disposed of in the landfill; it will be consolidated in the
other major basin, basin A, and capped.
Regarding off-site contaminated groundwater, the parties agreed to
continue operating existing groundwater treatment systems at the
Arsenal's boundary, where the water will be treated to meet
Colorado's groundwater standard of 8 parts per billion of DIMP. The
Army and Shell will also supply clean water to residents living near
the Arsenal's boundaries.
CLEANUP ESTIMATES MAY BE
OPTIMISTIC
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2
The parties agreed in concept on a $2.1-billion cleanup, but until
the record of decision is finalized, the cost and time frame
estimates remain uncertain. The cleanup estimate reported to
Congress just prior to the June settlement called for $2.3 billion in
appropriated funds, in addition to Shell's $500-million share, for a
total of $2.8 billion.\4 According to Army officials, the $2.8
billion represented a reduction from a $3.6-billion estimate prepared
just 2 months earlier. The Army did not have a detailed analysis at
the time of our fieldwork that explained how the conceptual agreement
reduced the estimate to $2.1 billion. The Army expects to complete
its analysis for the May 1996 record of decision.
The Army's projected cost estimates and cleanup dates have changed
significantly since 1984. The $2.1 billion estimated for the
conceptual agreement is 10 times greater than the best case estimate
released a decade ago. The 1984 projections of a record of decision
by 1990 and cleanup by 2000 are now estimated for 1996 and 2012,
respectively.
The cost and completion schedules recently established could be
affected by numerous uncertainties. Budget limitations that reduce
the scope or extend the life of the cleanup, cleanup complications,
and evolving standards could drive up costs and extend time frames.
In July 1994, we reported Army officials' concern that stricter state
standards could increase cleanup costs at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
by at least
$1 billion.\5
Although the conceptual agreement should make this less likely, Army
officials noted continuing uncertainties regarding the scope of the
state's regulatory authority. In addition, the Army's $2.1-billion
cleanup estimate does not include an estimated $200 million for
inflation, or costs of long-term operations and maintenance for the
off-post treatment facility.
--------------------
\4 Defense Environmental Restoration Program, Annual Report to
Congress for Fiscal Year 1994
(Mar. 31, 1995).
\5 Environmental Cleanup: Inconsistent Sharing Arrangements May
Increase Defense Costs (GAO/NSIAD-94-231, July 7, 1994).
ARMY WILL PAY THE MAJORITY OF
COSTS UNDER COST- SHARING
ARRANGEMENT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
Under the cost-sharing agreement between the Army and Shell, Shell's
share of cleanup costs decreases on a sliding scale from 50 percent
to 20 percent as total costs increase. The agreement was reached in
1989, when the cost estimates were lower than now. According to
officials from the Army, EPA, and the Department of Justice, the
formula was based on the best available knowledge of risk and damages
at the time.
However, Shell's share of total costs has dropped significantly as
cleanup costs exceeded the early estimates; the current estimate is
more than
3 times higher than estimated at the time of the settlement.
According to Arsenal and Shell officials, the Army will pay about
$1.6 billion, and Shell about $500 million toward the $2.1 billion
cleanup. When the permanent cleanup begins, Shell's 20 percent share
of the costs will be significantly less than its share of remaining
contaminants.
COST-SHARING FORMULA
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1
Because its operations contributed to the contamination problem,
Shell agreed to pay a portion of the cleanup costs. The cost-sharing
formula divides cleanup costs equally between the Army and Shell for
the first $500 million of allocable or shared costs, but then reduces
Shell's share to 35 percent of the next $200 million of these costs,
and 20 percent of all allocable costs exceeding $700 million. Each
party agreed to absorb its own program management costs. "Army-only"
and "Shell-only" costs, for contamination solely attributed to each
party, are also excluded from the allocable formula.
When the Army and Shell adopted the cost-sharing formula, cleanup
costs were expected to be less than $700 million, not the currently
estimated $2.1 billion. Even though the permanent cleanup is not yet
underway, the parties have already arrived at the second level of the
cost-sharing formula; allocable costs reached $500 million in 1994.
According to Army, EPA, and state officials, Shell's 20-percent share
of the final costs has an inverse relationship to its share of
remaining contaminants that are to be cleaned up. They stated that
from a risk management perspective, the contaminants driving the
majority of the final cleanup costs will be those related to Shell's
production activities.
According to Army and EPA officials, the cost-sharing formula was
negotiated when much less was known about the extent of Arsenal
contaminants and associated risks. In addition, an Army attorney
said that the decision to reduce Shell's share as costs increased was
an equitable way of recognizing that the Army owned the installation
and the disposal systems that Shell used. In retrospect, these
officials noted that a declining formula is probably not the best
approach to use in allocating shares, particularly early in the study
phase before the contaminants have been fully characterized.
ARMY AND SHELL EXPENDITURES
TO DATE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.2
The Army and Shell have already spent nearly $1 billion of the
current $2.1-billion estimate. As of December 1994, the Army had
spent about $687 million of its estimated $1.6-billion share and
Shell had contributed about $274 million of its expected $500-million
share. The Army's $687-million share breaks down into about $431
million in shared or allocable costs and $256 million in Army-only
costs. Total allocable costs paid by both parties represent about
$589 million of the total. Although Shell contributed about $274
million toward the allocable costs, the Army has not yet spent $80
million of this amount. Figure 2 shows Army and Shell expenditures
as of December 1994.\6
Figure 2: Costs Incurred at
Rocky Mountain Arsenal (as of
December 1994)
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Note: Allocable means shared costs. About $80 million of Shell's
$274 million contribution remains unspent in a special Army account.
--------------------
\6 After our fieldwork was completed, Shell provided summary data on
Shell-only costs showing it spent $95 million from 1984 through
December 31, 1995 related to the Arsenal. However, Shell officials
stated they could not break the costs out by year or by category,
such as for remediation, although they believe the cleanup amount to
be minimal. Therefore, these Shell-only costs are not included as
part of our analysis.
THE SHELL ACCOUNT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.3
Shell pays its share of cleanup costs directly to a government
account. As of December 1994, Shell had contributed about $274
million of the $500 million it is expected to pay. About $116
million of the $274 million was deposited into the Shell account, and
the other $158 million represented costs Shell incurred directly at
the Arsenal. Shell was credited, for example, for conducting one of
the Arsenal's costliest projects--the incineration of liquid waste.\7
Legislation restricts use of Shell's reimbursements to cleanup
projects at the Arsenal. As of December 1994, the Army had spent
approximately $36 million from the $116 million that Shell had
deposited into the account, leaving about $80 million for future
obligations. The funds are retained by the U.S. Treasury until they
are requested.
According to Army officials, the funds in the Shell account are
generally not used to offset budget requirements. Rather, the funds
are used to supplement appropriations from the Defense Environmental
Restoration Account. The Arsenal's annual work plans outline
requirements for appropriated funds, and those requirements are
rolled up and consolidated into a DOD budget request. Therefore,
according to these officials, the Shell funds are not visible in the
budgeting process as requests proceed from the Army to DOD and
Congress and do not influence funding decisions. Officials said it
is not feasible to use the Shell funds to offset budget requirements
in most instances because they do not represent a steady fixed flow
and they are not fiscal year specific. The Arsenal's allocation for
fiscal year 1995 was about $70 million, which is less than the
balance available in the Shell account.
--------------------
\7 In a related assignment, we are reviewing the nature and
appropriateness of the costs incurred by Shell.
AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
In discussing a draft of our report, DOD officials agreed with the
report's findings and conclusions. Their comments have been
incorporated where appropriate.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We performed our work at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Commerce City,
Colorado; EPA's Region VIII headquarters; and the Colorado Department
of Health, Denver. To determine the status of the cleanup work at
the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, we attended public hearings and reviewed
applicable documents and records maintained by DOD and EPA. We also
interviewed officials from the Departments of the Army, the Interior,
and Justice; EPA; and the state of Colorado.
To assess plans for future cleanup at the Arsenal, we interviewed
officials from the Army, EPA, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
state of Colorado. We also reviewed the Federal Facility Agreement
and the conceptual agreement for Arsenal cleanup. To understand the
cost-sharing arrangement between the Army and Shell, we reviewed the
settlement agreement, financial manual, and other pertinent
documents. We also interviewed officials from the Army, EPA, and the
Department of Justice.
We conducted our review from October 1994 to January 1996 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of the report until 30 days after its issue date. At
that time, we will send copies to appropriate congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense and the Army; the
Administrator, EPA; and the Director of the Office of Management and
Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request.
Please contact me on (202) 512-8412 if you or your staff have any
questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix V.
David R. Warren, Director
Defense Management Issues
ARSENAL LAYOUT
=========================================================== Appendix I
Located 9 miles northeast of downtown Denver, Rocky Mountain Arsenal
is adjacent to the communities of Commerce City, Montbello, and rural
Adams County. Key physical features of the Arsenal include the north
and south chemical manufacturing complexes, numerous pits and
trenches, and a series of man-made lakes and basins A through F.
Liquid waste from the two manufacturing complexes was discharged into
basins A, B, C, D, and E, a series of unlined waste evaporation
ponds. In the mid-1950s, the Army discharged all liquid waste to
basin F, a newly constructed asphalt-lined waste basin. Solid waste
was disposed of in the trenches and pits. The man-made lakes were
used to provide process and cooling water to facilities within the
south plants area. (See fig. I.1.)
Figure I.1: Rocky Mountain
Arsenal Layout
(See figure in printed
edition.)
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND
LIABILITY ACT PROCESS
========================================================== Appendix II
PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT
The initial stage of the cleanup program is an installationwide study
to determine if sites are present that pose hazards to public health
or the environment. Available information is collected on the
source, nature, extent, and magnitude of actual and potential
hazardous substance releases at sites on the installation.
SITE INSPECTION
The next step consists of sampling and analysis to determine the
existence of actual site contamination. Information gathered is used
to evaluate the site and determine the response action needed.
Uncontaminated sites do not proceed to later stages of the process.
REMEDIAL INVESTIGATION
Remedial investigation may include a variety of site investigative,
sampling, and analytical activities to determine the nature, extent,
and significance of the contamination. The focus of the evaluation
is determining the risk to the general population posed by the
contamination.
FEASIBILITY STUDY
Concurrent with the remedial investigations, feasibility studies are
conducted to evaluate remedial action alternatives for the site to
determine which would provide the protection required.
REMEDIAL DESIGN
Detailed design plans for the remedial action alternative chosen are
prepared.
REMEDIAL ACTION
The chosen remedial alternative is implemented.
INTERIM REMEDIAL ACTION
Remedial actions can be taken at any time during the cleanup process
to protect public health or to control contaminant releases to the
environment.
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
TIMELINE
========================================================= Appendix III
(See figure in printed
edition.)
LEGAL ACTIONS AFFECTING THE ROCKY
MOUNTAIN ARSENAL
========================================================== Appendix IV
-------- ------------------------------------------------------------
1982 Memorandum of Agreement signed by state of Colorado, the
Army, Shell Oil Company, and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
1983 U.S. Army litigation against Shell Oil Company for natural
resource damages and cleanup costs.
1983 State of Colorado filed suit for damages to natural
resources and state money spent responding to contamination.
1986 Memorandum of Agreement considered invalid. Colorado filed
suit to enforce Army compliance with the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act on basin F.
1988 Army and Shell Oil Company settled 1983 suit by signing
consent decree.
1989 State of Colorado won the 1986 suit and issued an
administrative order requiring the Army to follow its
closure plan at basin F; Army filed suit disputing
administrative order.
1991 Court granted Army's motion and affirmed EPA's role as final
authority at Rocky Mountain Arsenal; state appealed.
1993 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Colorado.
1994 Army appealed to U.S. Supreme Court. Certiorari denied.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
=========================================================== Appendix V
NATIONAL SECURITY AND
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS DIVISION,
WASHINGTON D.C.
James F. Wiggins
Uldis Adamsons
DENVER FIELD OFFICE
Patricia Foley Hinnen
Maria Durant
Mark McClarie
Stephen Gaty
*** End of document. ***