New records reveal installation issues behind Lincoln Memorial reflecting pool damage

Investigative Photojournalist

WASHINGTON —

The Justice Department has dropped a criminal case against four people accused of vandalizing the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool after newly disclosed government records pointed instead to a rushed and flawed installation of the pool’s new protective coating.

The indictment against David Hearn was dismissed July 31 after prosecutors said the Department of the Interior provided documents that “significantly undermine” the evidence originally used to pursue the case.

The documents show problems with the $14 million renovation were being recorded before Hearn was arrested, including failed tests involving the pool’s expansion-joint sealant, blistering in completed sections and peeling reported just days after the project was finished.

The findings closely mirror concerns raised weeks earlier in our own investigation from the Hearst Television National Investigative Unit.

Hearst Television asked two polyurea experts with more than 60 years of combined experience to review project photographs, videos and contract documents. Polyurea is the thick, rubber-like protective coating sprayed across the bottom of the Reflecting Pool.

The experts said the coating itself was appropriate for the project, but identified potential installation problems involving seams, tie-ins and expansion joints.

Expansion joints are intentional gaps that allow the concrete slabs beneath the pool to expand and contract as temperatures change. After reviewing photographs of the project, the experts said the joints appeared to have been sprayed over, although they cautioned that they could not make a definitive determination without inspecting the pool in person.

“We do not advocate that in our projects,” said Aidan Bradley, vice president and co-owner of Freedom Chemical Corp. “The expansion joint is there for a reason.”

Kyle Flanagan, the company’s president and founder, said coating placed over a moving joint can eventually fail.

“It’s going to crack,” Flanagan said. “It’s going to let water into the joint, and it’s going to let water underneath the polyurea.”

Problems documented during construction

According to the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss, installation began May 5 and was repeatedly delayed by rain, supply shortages and concerns that the contractor was falling behind schedule.

The filing says the second trial installation of an expansion-joint sealant failed May 16, forcing the contractor to explore other solutions. A third test was accepted May 21.

A quality-control inspector documented blistering in finished portions of the liner May 20 and directed the contractor to make repairs.

Beginning May 29, crews sprayed a separate sealant over expansion joints running across the pool. Work around the perimeter joints began June 1.

The filing says that sealant was the material Hearn was later accused of pulling from the pool.

Most of the work was completed by June 7, and a final inspection took place June 9. But two days later, a National Park Service engineer reported that part of the coating was already peeling.

The engineer wrote that the contractor attributed the failure to “overspray” from work around the perimeter joint. The engineer also warned that the overspray could leave a strip one to two feet wide around the pool vulnerable to peeling.

That warning was issued June 11—eight days before Hearn’s arrest.

The engineer described the peeled material as a thin top layer and said its removal would not affect the strength of the underlying liner.

Prosecutors say they did not receive the records

Prosecutors said the Interior Department initially represented that nearly all the damage to the pool had been caused by vandalism, with only a small portion attributed to unidentified causes.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office presented evidence to a grand jury, which indicted Hearn July 2 on a felony destruction-of-property charge.

But prosecutors said they did not receive the documents detailing the installation failures until after the indictment.

The motion says prosecutors first recognized the extent of the damage July 17, when they visited the drained pool while a defense expert conducted an inspection. The U.S. Attorney’s Office then requested all Interior Department records related to the coating and its installation.

Prosecutors received approximately 695 megabytes of additional documents, which they said revealed “a rushed and flawed installation process,” repeated coating failures and extensive peeling throughout the pool.

“Had DOI been forthcoming with the information clearly in its possession, the government would not have sought a grand jury indictment,” prosecutors wrote.

What’s next for the Reflecting Pool? It’s currently fenced off and has been drained. Construction for new repairs should start soon and it should reopen later this summer.