Skip to main content

Norton Disputes Army Corps of Engineers’ Decision to Leave Family With Young Children Living Near Chemical Munitions Excavation Site

February 21, 2013

Washington, DC – The Office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today released Norton's letter to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Lieutenant General Thomas Bostick, urging him to temporarily relocate a family in the Spring Valley neighborhood of Northwest D.C. because they have very young children, ages 1 and 5, living directly across the street from property, where the Army Corps has demolished a home and is about to excavate. The Army Corps has already removed a large amount of hazardous substances from the property at 4825 Glenbrook Road, and excavation is necessary because a 2011 Army Corps remediation investigation report indicated that chemical weapons-related debris are likely buried under the house.

In her letter, Norton explains why she was shocked by the Army Corps' decision not to relocate, since it did not see a distinction between children this young and adults living in the area. "This conclusion is uninformed and ignores widely available scientific data and studies." Norton wrote. Norton cited as an example an authoritative Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) source that notes that children are more vulnerable to various toxins and pollutants because "the cellular immaturity of children and the ongoing growth processes account for elevated risk[s]." Norton also wrote that "an increasing number of children today are being diagnosed with various forms of cancer at very young ages. Although the causes are not always known, we do know that young children are significantly more vulnerable because their immune systems and other natural defenses are not yet fully developed."

The Army used Spring Valley in Northwest D.C. as the major U.S. chemical weapons testing and development site during World War I. Norton has been working with the Army Corps since 1993 to clean the site, where numerous toxins, including arsenic, lewisite, and mustard gas, have been found. Unlike most Formerly Used Defense Sites, Spring Valley is the home of a major university, American University, which has more than 12,000 students, and is located in a densely populated residential area.

The full text of Norton's letter follows.

February 21, 2013

The Honorable Thomas Bostick
Lieutenant General
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
441 G Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20024

Dear Lieutenant General Bostick:

I write you concerning a telephone call I received on January 30, 2013, from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) staff, Scott Whiteford, Chief of Real Estate; Dr. Christine Altendorf, Chief of the Environmental Division; Brenda Barber, Program Manager for the Baltimore District; and Jennifer Greer, Chief of the Future Directions Branch. During the call, Mr. Whiteford informed me that the Army Corps would not relocate Rogerio Zandamela and his family, including his very young children, ages 1 and 5, who live across the street from 4825 Glenbrook Road in the Spring Valley neighborhood in the District of Columbia, where the Army Corps demolished a house and is about to excavate to unearth chemicals that are believed to be buried there.

Since 2000, the Army Corps has removed over 500 munitions, 400 pounds of laboratory glassware and over 100 tons of soil contaminated with arsenic and other hazardous substances from 4825 Glenbrook Road and the immediate area. Despite this and the very real possibility that hazardous substances remain, the Army Corps decided to reject the family's request for relocation during the remainder of the Army Corps' work at 4825 Glenbrook Road. The family appealed the decision, and I was very disappointed to learn that the Army Corps is rejecting the appeal.

I was genuinely shocked to hear Mr. Whiteford say that there is nothing that would allow the Army Corps to differentiate between children this young and adults living in the affected area. This conclusion is uninformed and ignores widely available scientific data and studies. Both the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the World Health Organization (WHO) differentiate between children and adults when assessing environmental risks. To cite one authoritative source, an EPA handbook, entitledChild-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook,clearly notes that children may be more vulnerable to various toxins and pollutants because "the cellular immaturity of children and the ongoing growth processes account for elevated risk[s]." The report explains that the exposure of children to certain chemicals can cause neurodevelopmental disabilities and that the "developing brain can be particularly sensitive to environmental contaminants." In addition, President Clinton signed an Executive Order on April 21, 1997, which requires all federal agencies to "make it a high priority to identify and assess environmental health risks and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children … and shall ensure that its policies, programs, activities, and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health risks or safety risks." While chemical weapons may pose different risks than some environmental contaminants, the science requiring assessing children and adults differently applies.

Moreover, as you well know, an increasing number of children today are being diagnosed with various forms of cancer at very young ages. Although the causes are not always known, we do know that young children are significantly more vulnerable because their immune systems and other natural defenses are not yet fully developed. We also know that the Army Corps' relationship with the Spring Valley community is fragile, that the cost of relocating this family is small compared to the overall cost of this years-long project, and Army Corps risks serious negative publicity by denying this request. Given these facts, I find it unreasonable that the Army Corps would opt to deny the relocation request.

In light of the scientific evidence available to the Army Corps and to the general public, I believe that the only prudent decision is to relocate the family. This decision is ultimately yours to make, not Mr. Whiteford's. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider your decision, with full and fair consideration, consistent with applicable law, rules, and regulations, especially given the troubled history between the community and the Army Corps.

Sincerely,

Eleanor Holmes Norton

Published : February 21, 2013