Mrs. MORELLA. I'm pleased to recognize Ms. Shapley. Ms. SHAPLEY. Good morning. May I say in opening, thank you, Chairman Morella and our own Delegate Norton, for holding this hearing. I want to acknowledge that Mrs. Norton has visited Spring Valley, and among her innumerable D.C. visits, that is certainly appreciated. And her specifics in the opening statement, I think fall very much in line with some of the points that I am making. So I welcome that in advance. Let me just say, I am Sarah Stowell Shapley, elected community co-chair of the Spring Valley Restoration Advisory Board for the Army Corps of Engineers cleanup of war-related contamination of our neighborhood. This board is a mechanism authorized by statute for the Defense Department's Formerly Used Defense Sites [FUDS], and has a membership comprising the various stakeholders in the cleanup project. Besides institutional members representing American University, the local property developer of Spring Valley, the W.C. & A.N. Miller Co., the local elementary public school, Horace Mann, and the D.C. Department of Health in region 3 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, besides these, there are 14 community members who were all residents in the area. I was elected from this group. The Corps project manager, Major Michael Peloquin, is the other cochair. I should also say that in my non-volunteer life, I am indeed an employee of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency here in Washington. I want to emphasize, this is a very recently constituted board. July 10th was our first meeting after having elected a community co-chair. The statutory rules dictate that we speak as individuals, and so I will offer reflections upon concerns and priorities I have heard from both fellow resident board members and other neighbors who have contacted me. My role, in part, is to be an enabler, to reflect views and demands and to reflect upon them so as to enable the community's interest to be served. The basic purpose of the advisory board mechanism for the Corps is to provide it with a means of community review and comment on its proposed actions and plans. So today I have three basic messages for this D.C. Subcommittee. First, there are 1,200 households coping with the health and safety questions arising from the Army's contamination, and also coping with the potentially declining property values of their homes. Second, there is mistrust of the Army's ability to be fully forthcoming and actually get the job done, based on their having to reverse their own finding of 1995 that the neighborhood was clear and safe. Lawsuits among the principal parties, the university and the developer and the Army, have only served to reveal a record of non-disclosure and avoidance. Nonetheless, third message, there is a will to focus forward-that is my motto for the day, focus forward—and a demand to move forward with actually adequate testing and secure cleanup rather than to divert critical resources to rehearse the past. Let me illustrate the first message about 1,200 homeowners coping. I am especially moved by-and you have alluded to this, and I think anyone concerned with D.C.'s civic health for homeowner ship would be, too-those new homeowners who come up to me, wondering if this most important investment in their family life is about to be derailed. Parents wonder if their gardens are safe for their children to play in and if their homegrown vegetables are safe to eat. Homeowners employ garden workers, landscaping and construction firms which, in turn, wonder about the occupational safety of their workers. People have heard of the two cases of aplastic anemia and wonder when a systematic health survey will be conducted. People struggle to understand what to make of all the numbers for test results and risk levels, and mostly people worry, when will it all be over? When will we feel secure again? The second message of mistrust about full disclosure is manifest in the community board members' decision, as detailed in the meeting of July 10th, to write the Secretary of the Army to request that two things be provided to the community forthwith: A full set of documentation on the Army's dealing with the site, as well as the EPA's and the D.C. Health Department's; and second, a ranking point of contact in the Department of the Army who can respond authoritatively to the community's inquiries. Those are fairly specific things, and I'm sure you'll followup. The third message on the imperative to move forward with actually adequate testing and secure cleanup may be exemplified by the agenda now developing among community members. Expanded testing is seen as a probable need-expansion in spatial terms, as in adjacent property to major points of interest, and in chemical terms, as in applying the longer list of chemical by-products to a wider scope of properties. While there is provision for expanded followup in the sampling protocol, there is a perception of reluctance-no clear schedule and a great anxiety as to whether adequate funds are available to get the whole job done. Perhaps most troubling is the whole question of munitions and related chemical material remaining in the ground and the questionable detection testing methods used to date. There is a newer methodological exercise under way, we understand, at the Army's Research Center in Huntsville, AL, but I think there is a growing sense that what is needed is a re-survey of the whole area and certainly of those high-use areas within Spring Valley. Such a survey should also collate all the evidence of disposal material-maps, lab records and transfer records. Finally, I want to convey in very strong terms the need for you and the Congress, if we may ask, to support a health survey. Dr. Walker has alluded to this. This has been recommended formally by the D.C. Health Department and its Science Advisory Panel. Your help, as I see it, is to sort out the government parties who can authorize this study, who can pay for it-what is the budget required. The final priority I want to raise with this D.C. Subcommittee is one that may even necessitate congressional statutory action. It concerns the question of the government's providing final certification of clearance of hazard to each of the 1,200 property owners, a clearance that would run with the land. There are two aspects to this question: insurance for liability of the investigative work of the government contractor, which is deemed inadequate; and a certification from the U.S. Government that would convey with the deed to the property and that would have firm financial backing in the event that the representation and warranty of the U.S. Government proved incorrect. There are, as I understand it, statutory or regulatory limits on the feasible amount of liability insurance that fall woefully short for a population of 1,200 properties; and at this time, we have no idea whether the U.S. Government will certify a final clearance of each property that meets the rigorous standard required in real estate for certification of future safety of property. Finally, I wish to address an implication of an option I understand you are considering, namely, to institute an independent control. I'm quoting from the Washington Post editorial, but obviously you have raised this in your opening remarks. I would ask two things of you as you consider this option: one, that you involve the community in your consultations; and two, that you ensure that any new structure for the project include a mechanism such as the presently constituted community advisory board. All of us are volunteers who have invested too much, have so demonstrated their commitment to community welfare and are, frankly, I think, too beneficial to the whole undertaking to be ignored and set aside at this stage. I believe you have a great resource in us in evaluating the best way forward, and I hope you will use it. Thank you for the opportunity to present my perspective. House Hearing: July 27, 2001 - Spring Valley, Toxic Waste Contamination Good morning. I am Sarah Stowell Shapley, elected Community Co-Chair of the Spring Valley Restoration Advisory Board for the Army Corps of Engineers' clean-up of war-related contamination of our neighborhood. This board is a mechanism authorized by statute for the Defense Department's "Formerly Used Defense Sites" and has a membership comprising the various “stake-holders” in the clean-up project. Besides institutional members representing the American University, the local property developer of Spring Valley, the WC & AN Miller Company, the local elementary public school, Horace Mann, and the DC Department of Health and Region III of the US Environmental Protection Agency, there are fourteen (14) community members who are all residents in the area. I was elected from this group. The Corps' project manager, Major Michael Peloquin, is other co-chair. I should also say that in my non-volunteer life I am employed at the US EPA. This is a very recently constituted board. July 10th was our first meeting after having elected a Community Co-Chair. The statutory rules dictate that we speak as individuals, and so I will offer reflections upon the concerns and priorities I have heard from both fellow resident board members and other neighbors who have contacted me. My role, in part, is to be an enabler, to reflect views and demands and to reflect upon them so as to enable the community's interest to be served. The basic purpose of the advisory board mechanism for the Corps is to provide it with a means of community review and comment on its proposed actions and plans. So today I have three basic messages for this DC Subcommittee. First, there are 1,200 households coping with the health and safety questions arising from the Army's contamination and also coping with the potentially declining property values of their homes. Second, there is mistrust of the Army's ability to be fully forthcoming and actually get the job done based on their having to reverse their own finding of 1995 that the neighborhood was clear and safe. Lawsuits among the principal parties, the university and the developer and the Army, have only served to reveal a record of non-disclosure and avoidance. Nonetheless, there is a will to focus forward and a demand to move forward with actually adequate testing and secure clean-up, rather than to divert critical resources to rehearse the past. Let me illustrate the first message about 1,200 homeowners coping. I am especially moved by, and I think anyone concerned with DC's civic health through more home ownership would be too, the new home owners who have come up to me wondering if this most important first investment in their family life is about to be derailed. Parents wonder if their gardens are safe for their children to play in and if their home-grown vegetables are safe to eat. Homeowners employ garden workers, landscaping and construction firms which, in turn, wonder about the occupational safety of their workers. People have heard of the two cases of aplastic anemia and wonder when a systematic health survey will be conducted. People struggle to understand what to make of all the numbers - for test results and risk levels. And, mostly, people worry: When will it all be over? When will we feel secure again? The second message of mistrust about full disclosure is manifest in the community board members' decision, as detailed in the meeting of July 10th, to write the Secretary of the Army to S.S. Shapley <ssshap@starpower.net> · p.1 4710 Upton Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016-2370 77-354 D-2 House Hearing: July 27, 2001 - Spring Valley, Toxic Waste Contamination request that two things be provided to the community forthwith: a full set of documentation on the Army's dealing with the site, as well as the EPA's and the DC Health Department's; and a ranking point of contact in the Department of the Army who can respond authoritatively to the community's inquiries. The third message on the imperative to move forward with actually adequate testing and secure clean-up may be exemplified by the agenda now developing among community members. Expanded testing is seen as a probable need, expansion in spatial terms, as in adjacent properties to major "points of interest", and in chemical terms, as in applying the longer list of chemical by-products to a wider scope of properties. While there is provision for expanded follow-up in the sampling protocol, there is a perception of reluctance, no clear schedule, and great anxiety as to whether adequate funds are available to get the whole job done. Perhaps most troubling is the whole question of munitions and related chemical material remaining in ground and the questionable detection testing method used to date. There is a newer methodological exercise underway, we understand, at the Army's research center in Huntsville, Alabama; but I think there is a growing sense that what is needed is a re-survey of the whole area and certainly of those high-use areas within Spring Valley. Such a survey should also collate all the evidence of disposal of materiel, (maps, lab records, and transfer records). Finally, I want to convey in very strong terms the need for you to support a health survey. This has been recommended by the DC Health Department and its Science Advisory Panel. Your help is needed to sort out the government parties: Who can authorize the study? Who can pay for it? What is the budget required? The final priority I want to raise with this DC Subcommittee is one that may even necessitate Congressional statutory action. It concerns the question of the government's providing final certification of clearance of hazard to each of the 1,200 property owners that would run with the land. There are two aspects to this question: insurance for liability of the investigative work of the government contractor, which is deemed inadequate; and a certification from the US government that would convey with the deed to the property and that would have firm financial backing in the event that the representation and warranty of the US government proved incorrect. There are, as I understand it, statutory or regulatory limits on the feasible amount of liability insurance that fall woefully short for a population of 1,200 properties. And, at this time we have no idea whether the US government will certify "final clearance" of each property that meets the rigorous standard required in real estate for a certification of future safety for a property. Finally, I wish to address an implication of an option that I understand the DC Subcommittee may consider, namely, to institute an “independent control” -- to quote the Sunday Washington Post editorial. I would ask two things of you as you consider this: one, that you involve the community in your consultations; and two, that you ensure that any new structure for the project include a mechanism, such as the presently constituted community board. All of us are volunteers who have invested too much, have so demonstrated their commitment to community welfare, and are, frankly, too beneficial to the whole undertaking to be ignored or set aside at this stage. I believe you have a great resource in us in evaluating the best way forward, and I hope you will use it. Thank you for the opportunity to present my perspective. 5. S. Shapley <ssshap@starpower.net> · p.2 4710 Upton Street, NW, Washington, DC 20016-2370 |