EPA Spent About $27 Million of its Superfund Money to Clean Up the Capitol Hill Anthrax Site

According to EPA, the agency expended about $27 million on the Capitol  Hill anthrax cleanup, using Superfund program funding. Over the course of the cleanup, EPA revised its cost estimates several  times as the nature and extent of the contamination became fully known  and the solutions for removing and properly disposing of the anthrax were  agreed upon and carried out. Competitively Awarded Superfund Contracts

When responding to a release of hazardous substances, EPA first relies on  its existing Superfund contracts. Specifically,  about 50 EPA staff ensured the contractors were on site and performing  assigned tasks appropriately. Moreover, our review of  the Capitol Hill anthrax incident revealed inconsistencies in oversight  practices that could affect the quality of EPA’s contract cost oversight,  such as the extent to which regions use the computerized cost-tracking  system, the extent to which they assign dedicated administrative  specialists to cleanup sites to oversee costs, and regions’ varying  approaches to reviewing cost reports for technical contracts. Staff Oversaw Contractors’ Work to Ensure It Was Appropriate and Charges Were Accurate and Reasonable

EPA used emergency technical assessment and hazardous substance  removal contractors to conduct the cleanup and dedicated significant staff  resources to overseeing their work. In all, according to EPA’s Office of the Chief Financial  Officer’s payroll list, about 150 EPA staff participated in the anthrax  cleanup, including about 50 staff from nine regional offices who are  experienced in leading and overseeing emergency environmental cleanup  operations—the on-scene coordinators—and several staff from EPA’s  Environmental Response Team who also have experience in emergency  cleanup operations. EPA’s Assessments of Its Response to the Capitol Hill Anthrax Incident Identified Contracting Issues, Which EPA Is Addressing

EPA conducted four assessments that either focused on or included the  Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup; the reports resulting from each follow:    Regional Lessons Learned from the Capitol Hill Anthrax Response,    60-Day Counter-Terrorism Contracting Assessment Final Report,    Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s After Action Report for the Capitol  Hill Site, August 2002; and    Challenges Faced During the Environmental Protection Agency’s  Response to Anthrax and Recommendations for Enhancing Response  Capabilities: A Lessons Learned Report, September 2002. All regions use the system for removal contracts;  however, some regions also use it for some technical contracts also used  at cleanup sites. In the case of the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup, two  contractors with key roles in the fumigation of the Hart Senate Office  Building informed EPA that they were not able to obtain such insurance at  a reasonable cost, and they requested indemnification. As discussed  below, EPA agreed to provide the indemnification authorized by CERCLA  to the two contractors, protecting them from the financial liability that  could result if a third party were injured by the contractors’ release of a  harmful substance, including anthrax. In addition, EPA has less  assurance that it is providing effective, consistent oversight of its  contracts. Specifically, the system  is already being used to track the costs of some of EPA’s technical  contracts. As our report accurately addresses the extent to which EPA agreed to  indemnify contractors against liability for potential damages related to the  cleanup, we believe that a broader discussion of indemnification issues is  not necessary. Support chlorine dioxide decontamination of congressional mail packages.
Why GAO Did This Study

In September and October 2001, the first cases of anthrax bioterrorism occurred in the United States when letters containing anthrax were mailed to congressional leaders and members of the news media. As the cleanup of the Capitol Hill anthrax site progressed, EPA's estimates of the cleanup costs steadily rose. GAO was asked to describe (1) the costs EPA incurred to conduct the cleanup and how it was funded, (2) the extent to which EPA awarded the cleanup contracts competitively, (3) EPA's oversight of the contractors' work and any suggested changes to EPA's contracting practices, and (4) the extent to which EPA agreed to indemnify contractors against liability for potential damages related to the cleanup.

What GAO Found

EPA spent about $27 million on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup, using funds from its Superfund program. From the outset, many uncertainties were associated with the cleanup effort, including how to remove anthrax from buildings. EPA revised its November 2001 estimate of $5 million several times during the cleanup as the nature and extent of the contamination became fully known and the solutions to remove and properly dispose of the anthrax were agreed upon and carried out. To conduct the cleanup, EPA relied extensively on the existing competitively awarded Superfund contracts it routinely uses to address threats posed by the release of hazardous substances. Specifically, about 80 percent of the contract costs were incurred under 10 of EPA's existing Superfund contracts. EPA dedicated significant resources to overseeing the many contractors working on the Capitol Hill anthrax cleanup--including about 50 staff from nine regional offices experienced in leading and overseeing emergency environmental cleanups. Most often, these staff ensured that the contractors were on site and performing assigned tasks efficiently. EPA also assigned an administrative specialist to ensure that contract charges were accurate and reasonable. EPA's assessment of its emergency responses to the anthrax incidents, which focused on or included the Capitol Hill site, concluded that, overall, the agency had used its contracts effectively but that it could improve some areas of its contracting support. In addition, GAO's review of the Capitol Hill cleanup revealed inconsistencies in EPA's cost oversight practices among regions. For example, EPA uses a computerized system for tracking contractor costs for hazardous substance removal contracts, but regions use the system inconsistently for the technical assessment contracts also used during emergency responses. Consistent use of the system would likely improve the quality of EPA's nationwide contract data and enhance EPA's oversight capabilities. EPA agreed to indemnify two contractors with key roles in the fumigation of the Hart Senate Office Building with chlorine dioxide gas against liability that could have resulted if a third party had been injured by the contractors' release of a harmful substance, including anthrax.