From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 26 Apr 2006 00:40:29 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-irf |
Subject: | [CPEO-IRF] Camp Bonneville (WA) transfer |
Lenny,Can you post this latest piece on Camp Bonneville? Dvija Michael Bertish <dvija@pacifier.com> ///////////////// Danger Still Lurks at Camp Bonneville By the Rosemere Neighborhood Association April 20, 2006 Despite repeated concerns from many knowledgeable community members at various public meetings, Clark County is on a fast track to receive Camp Bonneville in a "dirty transfer" from the US Army, meaning the County and its working partners will receive the property while it is still contaminated and covered with unexploded ordnance and munitions/explosives of concern. County officials are hoping to have all agreements signed with the Army, the state and clean-up contractors by July 1, 2006 in order to initiate a devised clean-up plan of the property that may take several years. The County's goal is to transform one third of this contaminated 3800 acre property into a free range public park, while explosive devices will remain hidden on the remainder of the property, the two sections separated by a mere three foot barbed wire fence that could easily be straddled by anyone of average height. On April 19th, following about two years of haggling with Army officials, the Washington State Department of Ecology held a public meeting to answer questions and take testimony on a Pre-Purchase Consent Decree, a Superior Court Document that will serve as a contract between the State of Washington, Clark County, and the clean-up team (comprised of five engineering/environmental firms that have formed a limited liability non-profit corporation). Various members of the public reiterated their concerns that the plan to transform this contaminated property into a public park is a bad idea, one Veteran of Foreign Wars calling the plan "insane." Various members of the RNA attended the court reported and televised public meeting and gave testimony regarding the proposed Consent Decree. Years ago, the County was appointed by the Army as the local Land Reuse Authority, and plans were initiated for the Army to transfer (dump) the property into County hands. The Army has implemented a process to divest itself of a barrage of unwanted properties throughout the nation and the world, and somehow, Camp Bonneville has become a significant trend-setting property that will be used to establish precedent by which the Army can lessen its liability for the environmental messes it has unleashed for decades. Unfortunately, under the "dirty transfer" process, while the Army is lessening its burden, the recipients of the dirty property (Clark County in our case) will face an ever-growing burden of costs associated with cleanup, administrative fees, and the frustrations of dealing with the Army's non-compliance on Washington State Environmental Laws. The Army claims that it does not even recognize Washington State Law, which leads one to wonder why decrees and contracts are even viable in this situation, meaning that the public fully expects the Army to violate the terms and conditions of such a contract, thereby causing the County to expend substantial dollars on court costs. This is how the game has been played with the Army at Camp Bonneville going on ten years already, wherein the Army has repeatedly and purposefully failed to complete required reports and long-term clean-up plans for the property. Amazingly, in spite of these tremendous setbacks and liability risks, Clark County insists on forging forward into the abyss of uncertainty about the hidden dangers at the Camp. The Citizen's Restoration Advisory Board has worked for years to advise all parties that the clean-up plan and the transformation of the camp into a public park are not a good fit, but those warnings have so far fallen on deaf ears. There are some extremely significant inadequacies in the contractual agreements being considered by the County at this time. A listing of some of these items will follow: 1) Commonly, part of a cleanup plan at a military base includes a process to define and analyze the risk of exposure by the end-users, or in our case, those that will use the park when it is complete. This analysis is commonly performed by munitions experts who use very specialized computer programs that will generate data to determine the chances of a park user coming in contact with explosives that will remain on site at the property. This analysis is broken down into units of time, such as hours of operation at the park, and will include statistics that will identify the number of people that could be injured at Camp Bonneville subject to specific site conditions. There has been no such risk assessment performed at Camp Bonneville, despite the fact that site characteristics (munitions on site and a feeble barbed-wire fence as a preventative measure) dramatically increase the chances of injury to humans coming into contact with explosives at the Camp. Advanced statistical analysis should have been performed long before any transfer documents were attempted. How can a responsible local government enter into such an agreement without thoroughly understanding the risk in advance? It appears that the County agrees that undefined risk, due to a lack of commonly applied risk assessment principles, is acceptable for our community residents. And yet, when questioned as to whether they would allow their children to play in such a park under these circumstances, one state official grimly replied that he would. 2) When the property transfers from the Army to the County, it will first be deeded to the clean-up team. The clean-up team will be contracted to implement what members of the community feel to be an inadequate clean-up plan. Initial studies estimated the clean up cost at Camp Bonneville to be nearly $100 million. A recent county newsletter indicated that figure had fallen to $25 million, and in recent public meetings with the Army, that number fell even further to only $19 million. Conversely, the current US Congressional Fiscal Budget projects a clean-up cost of $47 million for Camp Bonneville with the property slated for transfer in another few years, not 2006. Why does Congress have different information than Clark County, and why are there lower figures being negotiated at the local level (and at a faster timeline) that are less than half of what federal officials have been told? State officials indicate that the clean-up cost cap includes maintenance and operations fees that are intended to manage the public dangers at the Camp in perpetuity. Members of the public agree that cost of remedial activities and associated administrative costs will deplete the clean-up budget, and there will be no money left to manage the property (including fire response at $20,000 annually) for twenty-five years, let alone a hundred years or more. This means the local residents will have to pick up the slack in the long run. A county parks representative stated that the initial estimate of $100 million should never have been published, and the director of the clean-up team promised that actual clean-up costs will not even come close to the cost cap agreed to by the Army. Despite these promises the public remains skeptical, especially in light of the fact that the extent of contamination is unknown. There is no reliable data available to determine how many Howitzer missiles lay hidden in the Artillery Firing Ranges, and if those missiles exited the boundaries of the Camp and lay hidden beneath homes that were later built in neighborhoods immediately adjacent to the Camp. One thing is known for certain - 70% of the Camp will never been completely void of explosives, and all parties are aware that bombs will remain on site in perpetuity. Members of the public do not agree that such a property is appropriate for a public park. 3) Even when the property transfers, the County will encounter a host of deed restrictions, and County officials will forever have to administer specific processes in order to abide by these restrictions. In other words, the County will never be free and clear of the Army's oversight on any future use of the property. Under such deed restrictions, the County's administrative costs will soar and the Governor's office will remain embroiled in an administrative quagmire as the approving entity of this property transfer. If the County wanted to pave a parking lot or move a lamppost, the Army would enact the cumbersome deed restrictions. And anyone who has worked with the Army during this process knows that the Army's notorious bureaucratic red tape is costly and maddening. Moreover, as acknowledged by the state, the public will have to be aware that they cannot stray from park trails or dig holes for tent pegs in certain areas of the park because of the dangers from explosives. Apparently, the deed restrictions that are part of the transfer contract will be the largest section of the agreement. Again, members of the public have declared that these characteristics are not appropriate for public space. 4) Once the agreements have been signed, the County will not be able to recall the Army into additional clean-up plans for contaminants or hazardous waste within areas that were not thoroughly assessed or characterized. In other words, all parties are aware that there is an unknown quantity of explosive/hazardous materials hidden within the Central Impact Target Area and associated Artillery Firing Ranges. If the County accepts the risk of the clean-up plan as currently defined, it cannot make the Army undertake additional clean-up costs in the future. The only leverage the County will have is if entirely new contaminants are found in other areas. Nothing found within the Artillery Firing Ranges or the Central Impact Area will be considered a new source, and therefore, if the cost cap is insufficient, it's the County's (and the local residents') tough luck. 5) The Army has repeatedly stated that it has conducted an exhaustive archive search of historical documents to determine the nature and the level of contamination of the site, and the locations of the explosives. The state seems to have accepted the Army's presentation of documents in this search. However, members of the public are continuing the search and have readily identified documents that should have been part of the Army's records, but for unknown reasons have been ignored. For example, there is a parcel of land known as the Livingston Pit outside the current boundaries of the clean-up work plan. The County plans to use this pit for gravel mining in the future. Documents have surfaced that indicate the Livingston Pit was historically part of Camp Bonneville, but is not considered a part of the Camp at this time. These documents indicate that the pit was known to contain explosives from the Army, but this is not part of the current clean-up plan. These documents were internal to a state government agency, and thereby are credible sources of relevant and important information that should have been considered in the entire clean-up plan. How will the County react when a backhoe or bulldozer that is digging for gravel accidentally ignites a missile or a bomb that might explode in the immediate vicinity of residential neighborhoods? Should such an accident occur, the Army would remain free of liability in that the noted parcel is not represented within the transfer documents. Members of the public believe the archive search report has been marginalized to avoid the publication of such information. 6) As stated earlier, the Army has failed to produce required studies and reports during the design and implementation of the clean-up plan. The new non-profit clean up team (comprised of five engineering/environmental companies) will take over the Army's responsibilities as part of the cost of clean-up, and this team will produce the required documentation. At anytime during this process, the Army can dispute the new team's findings, and refuse to fund any portion of the clean-up work plan devised by the new team. The clean-up team's manager explains that, although this is also a concern to the County and the clean-up team, the contract allows for a "dispute resolution" process. However, the Army has consistently displayed its lack of interest in dispute resolution, has refused to acknowledge Washington State Law which resulted in the state filing an enforcement order against the Army for failure to abide by these state environmental laws. When the property transfer is complete, the state's enforcement order will be null and void. The Army's liability will have been reduced, and the County's liability increased. This contract is terribly one-sided in the Army's favor. Dispute resolution is only effective when all parties are willing to negotiate. Time and time again, the Army has refused to negotiate. With this track record, members of the public feel that any form of contractual dispute resolution under these conditions will be futile, and once again, the County will be burdened with the costs of attempting to enforce the contract with the Army as a non-responsive party. 7) Members of the public have not been allowed to review the project budget prior to the expiration of the public comment period, and the project budget is still being negotiated. The public process requires that everyone have access to all elements of the clean-up plan, and this has been denied. It is impossible for the public to comment thoroughly on the plan without all available information, especially when the state has arbitrarily decided to shorten the public comment period to accommodate the property transfer on an accelerated timeline. 8) Members of the community should be allowed to voice their concerns directly to Governor Gregoire since she will finally authorize the property transfer from the Army to the County. Direct access to the Governor, our senators and state representatives has been restricted, and the public has not been allowed to voice its concerns or participate in open dialogue on the subject of Camp Bonneville with our elected officials. Members of the community have vital information that is unknown to our officials, and it is imperative that all parties are working from the same documented evidence before entering into contractual obligations. To do otherwise would be foolish. 9) There has been no plan identified for firefighting on the Camp Bonneville property. The Department of Natural Resources has indicated that it will not send firefighters into an area that is known to contain explosives. This leaves the community to question the public safety, especially for the homeowners adjacent to the Camp and park users. What will happen if a power line goes down, or if a forest fire races out of control? A strong east wind could easily escalate a forest fire, and hikers at the proposed trail heads would easily be stranded without being able to exit the park. Add explosives to this scenario, and obviously, human casualties and extensive property damage are likely to occur. This is a serious public safety and liability issue that has not been addressed, and the County will inherit the cost burden of fire protection. 10) All of these items clearly show that the County's plan for a public park at this site is fraught with insurmountable problems and risks. Surely, there could be an alternate use for this land, one that would not endanger the public to the extent possible with a public park. Members of the public firmly believe that an alternate re-use for the land is in order. --
_______________________________________________ Installation_Reuse_Forum mailing list Installation_Reuse_Forum@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/installation_reuse_forum | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-IRF] Smalley Reserve Center, Norman, OK Next by Date: [CPEO-IRF] Upbeat look at Brunswick Naval Air Station (ME) | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-IRF] Camp Bonneville (WA) transfer Next by Thread: [CPEO-IRF] Involvement at Ft. Monmouth (NJ) "crucial" |