Page images
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Ms. NORTON. Are you concerned at the criticism about the way you dug initially, and the incompetence that it is alleged characterized some of the not digging deep enough, etc?

Colonel FIALA. Ma'am, I haven't heard any criticism about not digging deep enough.

Ms. NORTON. It was in

Colonel FIALA. I will tell you that we have been, as we have testified before and it's been common knowledge that we made a mistake in one point of interest in our operation between 1993 and 1995.

If you look at the map there, that's 660 acres. We made a mistake in locating one point of interest 150 feet from where it was. That mistake was based on an initial photographic interpretation that was then further updated during the course of the operation. It did not get back to the operators on the ground. .

We made that mistake in 1993 and 1995. The D.C. government Health Department and our review after they gave us a letter in late 1996, early 1997. We conducted a review of our operation and we found that we had made this mistake of 150 feet. When we went back in

Ms. NORTON. How did the District of Columbia find that out?

Colonel FIALA. They didn't. They gave us a list of concerns, and I think the number was 37 in the letter. And those were valid, and we applaud their Herculean effort in the further refinement and research of the documents.

We then in the Baltimore District went back and did a review and published a revised report in late 1997 and began operations in 1998. We went back to this point of interest, 24, which is in the backyard of the Korean ambassador's property. As we went into that hole, we found extensive munitions, and we started taking soil samples with EPA, and we found elevated levels of arsenic contamination, as Mr. Voltaggio talked about before.

Then we started expanding the circle, and that is the process. And we haven't wavered from that process since the Baltimore Corps of Engineers has been involved since 1993. You find some contamination in a hole, whether it's weapons material, you take samples, and you begin to build out from that point of interest, until you find clean soil. That's been the process, and it continues to be the process today.

Ms. NORTON. One further question. The District testified that its grant had been cut so that it can't do its own—as much of its own soil samples as possible. I need to know why that occurs, and I need to be assured that there will be no budgetary problems with respect to the total cleanup. Can I get that assurance?

Mr. Fatz. Yes, ma'am. If you're referring to Dr. Gordon's statement that the $80,000 was cut

Ms. NORTON. I am.

Mr. Farz. I will personally get with Dr. Gordon and explain why that money was withdrawn. It wasn't obligated, and I will get with Dr. Gordon and tell him how he can get more money. There's a process for that and I will explain that.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you.

Colonel FIALA. Ma'am, I would like to point out that this is the first time we heard requested that D.C. government would like to conduct separate soil samples, so we will support that effort.

Ms. NORTON. I very much appreciate that. I appreciate that has come out and that you are willing to work with the District. You believe you are adequately funded to do the complete cleanup?

Colonel FIALA. I'm the operator on the ground, ma'am. I'm adequately funded for my current operations. And let me point out when we worked the extensive and comprehensive sampling plan starting in February, and started work in that with community outreach and getting their opinions, and working with the EPA and the Department of Health, the Department of the Army stood up and gave me additional money to conduct that operation.

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, and thank you, Madam Chair.

Mrs. MORELLA. Thank you. Let me ask you, perhaps it's Colonel Fiala or maybe Mr. Fatz who would respond. What has the Army spent so far? And then, what is the cost of sampling each of the 1,200 properties? And then I'm curious also about how much is budgeted for sampling and remediation and how much has already been spent on sampling, including the restoration, and how much has been spent on remediation?

Mr. Farz. OK. If we can do this as a tag team, I'll answer the overall. To date, we have spent $50 million at Spring Valley and that includes $10 million this year. We went into the fiscal year 2001, and it was budgeted for $3 million, and we had to find $7 million in our program to bring it up to the $10 million that the Baltimore District required to do the sampling after the arsenic find.

Mrs. MORELLA. What's the breakdown

Colonel FIALA. With regards to your question about the sampling, our estimate right now, it's going to cost between $3 million to $5 million, and that's going to depend on how often and to what level we need to go back and do further sampling or refine it. And that will depend on what kind of initial results we get back in our initial sampling.

Mrs. MORELLA. Could you break it down on each of the properties, approximately what the cost is? I think there's

Colonel FIALA. And we'd—I'd like to submit that for the record.

Mrs. MORELLA. You certainly may. You may submit that to the record.

[The information referred to follows:]

[blocks in formation]

This is in response to your letter dated August 14, 2001, regarding my testimony before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia regarding the Spring Valley formerly used defense site.

My corrections to the transcription of my oral testimony are enclosed. I have also enclosed the following additional information requested during the hearing:

[ocr errors]

the cost per property to conduct soil sampling in Spring Valley.

Please contact me or Major Michael Peloquin at 410-962-0157 if you have any questions in this matter.



Charles J. Fidia, Jr!
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer


What is the cost of sampling each of the 1,200 properties?

Under the Army's current sampling plan for all 1,200 residential properties and 400 non-residential lots located within the Spring Valley formerly used defense site, the first round of sampling is called "composite sampling." The purpose of this sampling is to serve as a screening tool to identify which properties may have contamination and may require additional investigation.

Composite sampling involves subdividing the property into 2 to 4 smaller units, and within each unit we collect surface soil samples from several locations and mix them together. Each of these mixtures is analyzed for arsenic, so that there is a separate result for each of the subunits on the property. The resulting arsenic concentration represents an "average" value for that subunit. Based on our knowledge of historical activities at each property (including aerial photography and historical records), we may also take subsurface samples, and we may analyze for other contaminants in addition to arsenic.

The average cost per property for the composite sampling is $2,100.00.

If the analysis results from the composite sampling finds an arsenic concentration less or equal to 12.6 parts per million, then our sampling plan indicates that no further action is necessary. If the analysis results find an arsenic concentration that is greater than 12.6 parts per million, then a second round of sampling is performed, called "grid sampling."

Grid sampling involves laying out an imaginary grid over the entire property, 20 feet by 20 feet, and taking a discrete soil sample from within each grid. These samples are not mixed together; rather, each discrete sample is analyzed separately. Thus, each property ends up with approximately 50 individual sample results (depending on the size of the property) which can be used to conduct a human health risk assessment. If this risk assessment finds an unacceptable risk, then the Army will recommend that it be allowed to remediate the property.

The average cost per property for the grid sampling is $10,000.00.

Please note that the above costs are averages. Actual costs at individual properties may be higher or lower depending on the property size, the need for subsurface sampling, and the need to analyze for contaminants other than arsenic.

Mrs. MORELLA. And tell me about your technologies. What technology did you use in 1986 and in 1993 to detect the burial sites? And then, what are you doing today?

Colonel FIALA. Yes, ma'am. When we started the geophysical surveys in 1993, again, we started in 1993, not in 1986. We used an instrument that's referred to as the EM–31. It is an instrument that was—the right instrument to look for buried munitions and mass locations of buried munitions and the metal signature that they provide. And there's been criticism that we aren't using the right piece of equipment. In our role of looking for these things, our experts in this business of ordnance discovery are convinced that we are.

There's been some minor technical improvements to the EM–31. There's been further improvements in GIS; in other words, where you are on the ground, refinement that allows us to improve the physics of how you determine whether or not you need to dig or not. In addition to that at the request of the D.C. Health Department, we are going to conduct some testing with some other more modern equipment to determine whether or not we can use those, and that testing is going to be conducted in late August, going into September. Based on those results, we will go back to areas where we jointly have some concerns—and when I say jointly, that's us, the EPA and the Health Department-and use that technology.

Mrs. MORELLA. Colonel Fiala, I really don't understand EM–31 or GIS, GIS, but I hope that what you are saying to me is that you have the best available, latest technology that you are employing.

Colonel FIALA. You've summarized it better than I have, ma'am.

Mrs. MORELLA. Just one final question, and I don't mean to ignore everybody. That's really been the difficulty because we'd like to spend time with each one of you and go through a whole litany of questions, but time doesn't truly allow it. Maybe for Mr. Reardon, General Reardon, is a criminal investigation being conducted by your agency or other agencies of the Federal Government regarding the Spring Valley project?

Mr. REARDON. Ma'am, Army audit would not be doing a criminal investigation, wouldn't be our area, and I know of no criminal investigation being done by anyone in the Army over Spring Valley.

Mrs. MORELLA. Is there anyone on the panel who feels qualified to respond to that? We had heard there might be.

Colonel FIALA. Ma'am, I'll respond to that because I have employees that have been interviewed. It's my understanding there is an investigation being conducted by the EPA, and in their investigation they're interviewing employees and other Federal officials that were involved in this operation in 1993 to 1995. So they have been interviewed, and I know this because they have interviewed a couple of our people.

Mrs. MORELLA. Do you have any idea of the scope of the investigation?

Colonel FIALA. No, ma'am. I just know that they come in and interview.

Mrs. MORELLA. This is a question we'll direct to the EPA in writing.

I'm going to defer to the ranking member. I have no further questions to ask you, but I would like to submit questions for the

« PreviousContinue »