later it did not do), it appears the University and the Army signed documents that purported to release the Army from certain claims. (Those documents were provided in the packet of materials that accompanied my written testimony). For a variety of reasons, including the apparent mis representations that preceded the signing of those documents, we do not believe any putative release contained within those documents is enforceable or that it bars the claim asserted by the University against the Army under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 4. After World War I, did the University enter into other lease arrangements with the agencies of the Department of War or the later Department of Defense? Did the University or the Army conduct tests on those sites where those activities were performed? Since WWI the University has permitted the U.S. government to use campus property for various purposes, but never to test live munitions. During WWII, the WAVES (Women's Naval Auxiliary) and the SPARS (Women's Coast Guard Auxiliary) used the campus for training. The U.S. Navy also used part of the campus for its "Bomb Disposal School," which taught soldiers training for duty in Europe and the Pacific theatres how to identify enemy war materiel. It is our understanding that live ammunition was not used in connection with the "Bomb Disposal School" or any other WWII training activity. 5. It has been said that the University knew nothing of the World War I era activities until it performed an archival search of its records in 1986. Yet an artide produced by the campus publicity department, apparently in 1957, gives details about an unexploded bomb that was found when the University was building its television station and tower in late 1953 or early 1954. Moreover, another publication makes reference to an archives exhibit “based on AU's wartime past," covering 1861 to 1946, that was once displayed in the University's Bender Library during the fall of 1985. How do you explain this? Did the University conduct an investigation after the bomb was discovered in 1953, and if so, what were the results? Respectfully, we have never asserted that the University "knew nothing" of the U.S. Army's WWI activities on campus until it "performed an archival search of its records in 1986." We certainly knew prior to 1986 of the Army's presence on campus during WWI. However we did not know prior to our 1986 records search, which uncovered the 1921 student newspaper article that any possibility existed that WWI munitions were buried on or near University property. Furthermore, as set forth in my testimony and documents submitted to the subcommittee, in 1986 the Army found the 1921 article to be "historically suspect" and found "no official evidence" of any burial of munitions on our campus. It is our understanding that the unexploded simulated or "dummy bomb" mentioned in a 1956-57 alumni publication, was a training device used by the Navy "Bomb Disposal School" on campus during WWII. It was not a live munition. The occasion for the article was the opening of the University television station. We have no other information regarding this. Regarding the Archive exhibit, it has been common knowledge for decades that the University was one site in the District used for WWI training activities. The property surrounding AU was also used by the U.S. Army during the Civil War as a fort for the defense of Washington D.C. The University Archives exhibit was a historical presentation by the archivist and was open to the public. It did not contain any information indicating the burial of World War I munitions on campus. 6. Did American University prepare a risk assessment report on the risks and liabilities associated with the Army's research on American University? We are not aware of any independent risk assessment report on the risks and liabilities associated with the Army's WWI activities at American University. We have always deferred to the expertise and experience of the Army and the EPA to evaluate possible risks from the Army's presence during WWI. In 1986 the University made a request through the Army's Office of the Assistant Secretary and to the EPA to advise the university of any risks to the campus due to the Army's prior presence. In 1986 the Army informed the University that as a result of their survey "no suspicious items" were present. On December 8, 1994, following soil sampling performed on University property as part of the Army's investigation and assessment, the Army Corps' analysis indicated there were "no chemical warfare agents, explosives or their breakdown products, or measurable levels of these compounds present in the soil samples collected. Therefore no further action is necessary with regard to soil sampling on your property." The Army further advised us through a Record of Decision issued on June 2, 1995, that the conditions on campus "do no pose unacceptable risks to human health and the environment. Therefore no further remedial action is necessary...." 7. What is the name of the law firm or law firms that assisted the University on all matters pertaining to the U.S. government's weapon's research on American University's property? Between 1986 and 2001, the University consulted with attorneys in the following firms: Hewes, Morella, Gelband and Lamberton; Ropes and Gray, Thompson Hine; Beveridge and Diamond; Hogan and Hartson. We have no information on firms that may have been engaged by the University prior to 1986. 8. Did American University or its contractors find any suspicious elements on the property uhen building after World War I and then after World War II when there was a grouth spurt at the University? If and when this happened, did the University or the contractor inform the Amy How long before the Army took action? To the best of our knowledge, there were only two incidents. In July 1988, while re-grading an area south of the soccer field, a projectile approximately 14 inches long was unearthed. The Army was immediately notified and they sent an explosive ordnance disposal team that removed the object. In July 1994 while re-sodding the soccer field, an AU worker hit a metal object. The University immediately notified the Army, which determined the item to be a munitions fragment and removed it. 9. How many acres of land did the University oun in 1918 when it leased to the Department of War for conducting chemical weapons testing? Answered in question one. 10. When the University sold property, did it provide disdosures to buyers that the property may contain hazardous materials? No. Prior to 2001, (when Army Corps of Engineers tests revealed elevated levels of arsenic in the soil surrounding the Child Development Center), the University did not know that its property might contain hazardous materials. Indeed, prior to 2001, the Army repeatedly advised the University there were no such hazardous materials on University property. The University has not sold any of its property since 1992. 11. What activities did the Bureau of Mines perform on the grounds of American University before the Department of War started its experimentation with chemical reapons? We have no definitive information with respect to Bureau of Mines activities and suggest that you ask the U.S. Army about this question. 12. After some 68 years, why did the University initiate a request to the federal government to assess the campus for buried munitions? In 1986, a Denver-based reporter contacted the University about a scientist who, according to the reporter, may have conducted research and used radium on the AU campus in the early 1920s. As a result of the inquiry, the University conducted research on the scientist and did a radiation survey of the McKinley Building, with expertise provided by a radiation safety officer from George Washington University. While no radium was found, our archival research on the scientist found the reference in the April 1921 student publication The Courier suggesting that the War Department may have buried munitions on or near the campus. Because the University was soon to begin the construction of Bender Arena, we contacted the U.S. Army and the EPA as a precautionary measure to ensure that no munitions or ordnance were present on campus property. This is in response to your letter dated August 23, 2001, requesting answers to additional questions related to my testimony before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia regarding the Spring Valley formerly used defense site. My responses to your questions are enclosed. Please contact me at 410-962-4545 if I can be of further assistance. Sincerely, Enclosure Charles J. Fiala, J Colonel, Corps of Engineers |