Re: DERA Funding for Rocky Mtn. Arsenal

[dmulqn@ix.netcom.com]

Posting from dmulqn@ix.netcom.com (Dan Mulqueen)
Subject: Re: DERA Funding for Rocky Mtn. Arsenal

This is multipart MIME message.

--mgyktxdjwdvwikehqnmpijvbhiehkw
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="NCZ317E.TMP"

can you red this? whats wrong/

--mgyktxdjwdvwikehqnmpijvbhiehkw
Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="rabfinal.txt"

 

May 19, 1995 Dan Mulqueen
 1422 South York St.
 Denver CO, 80210
RAB Chairpersons
Sandra Jaquith
Kevin Blose
 As a member of the Restoration Advisory(RAB) and the Secretary of the Site- Specific Advisory Board(SSAB), involved in issues of public participation I am compelled to bring forward some concerns I share with many other members, about the credibility o
f the process we are following.
 First, it is disturbing that after being invited to observe and provide feedback during settlement talks with the Steering and Policy Committee(SAPC), one "stakeholder" group actually presented a remedy scenario. This proposal was represented as from t
he public when in fact it was presented by a contractor to the Army. ( The presenter, Mr. Chris Wyant works for Tri-county Health (TCH)which contracts with the parties to operate a public information line, and conducts a groundwater sampling program for
 the Army. 
 None of the other 3 stakeholder groups had been consulted on this proposal; nor did any of these other participants believe that they would be allowed to present specific remedies. The fact that this particular proposal consumed the agenda of the SAPC m
eetings for the next 2 months precluded other stakeholder concerns from being heard. When the discussion on this issue finally closed, an announcement was made that the talks would now become closed to the stakeholders, as the public had been heard. 
 This is a gross misrepresentation and appears to be "cherry picking", if not orchestration of public participation. 
 This brings up a further point of how advisory board members are portrayed. While there are more than a dozen volunteer citizens active on each panel, it seems that it is most often those with contractual relations with the Parties who are ostensibly s
peaking for the public, this includes US Fish and Wildlife Service, whose activities at the Arsenal are fully funded by the Army and Shell Oil.
 As an example, the following concerns have been raised by citizens repeatedly over the last few years, and have yet to be responded to satisfactorily;
1. The representation of this Superfund Site as a Wildlife Refuge before cleanup decisions are made, and before the Administrator of the EPA certifies the cleanup, seems fraudulent.
2. Citizens have objected to providing funds for free tours of the site as a Refuge, to schools and even Daycare centers without advising children, teachers or parents that this is a contaminated area, or that cleanup operations including hazardous wast
e incineration are occurring.
3. The promise of the Army and Shell providing water to South Adams County should not be a bargaining point in selection of a remedy, or as a carrot for public acceptance of a remedy,
We have asked publicly that replacement water be provided now and not be made contingent on the recipients position in remedy discussions.

Page 2

4. When citizen groups differ with consultants proposals, such as USFWS or Tri-County Health, the Army and Shell side with the contractors and represent this as the Public view. These contractors have been included in meetings on substantive issues wit
hout the notification of other stakeholders, and have actually led some of these discussions. When decisions are made in this manner they have been portrayed as "publicly supported".
5. The ability of the parties to play favorites among the stakeholder groups in terms of notification and information sharing is a problem that must be addressed. The problem is exacerbated by the ability of Shell Oil to provide grants and other funds t
o selected entities which concurrently are representing stakeholders. Included in this are the Denver Audubon Soc. and CO Wildlife Foundation which receive Shell money for their promotion of the tours and the "refuge". Both of these groups recently sen
t letters endorsing Shell's position on the remedy. While a Quid-Pro-Quo is not apparent, the taint of these actions is undeniable.
6. The citizens have recommended a bite-size approach to the cleanup, in order to tailor the technologies and science for particular contaminants and concerns. While the State of Colorado and the EPA have embraced and supported this approach as a reas
onable means of understanding this huge and complex site, Shell and the Army have pressed on with the so-called global remedy, which in itself precludes any further question on the site characterization or remidiation technologies in which the citizens ar
e deeply interested. 
The understanding of members of the board today, is that cleanup demands have been given up in order for a water deal to be brokered. History may prove this out. 
7. The citizen consensus has steadfastly recommended treatment of toxins, and has been adverse to both incineration and capping. At the same time, USFWS, TCH, and others mentioned have supported the Shell position of capping and no treatment. The part
ies then represent the citizens position as "obstructionist" and not pertinent to the discussion. 
 I know that meaningful public participation is a goal we share, and we need to stay on this to work out these problems, but my hopefulness is dimmed by the ability of Shell in particular to spend large amounts of money in deviously self-serving ways. Th
is seems to be the constant undermining factor and it is beginning to erode the confidence of the remarkable citizens who have volunteered their time to make this project credible.
 If there is anything I might add, feel free to contact me at 722-7981. I hope we can find some solutions rapidly as the ROD process is now on the fast track.

 Daniel P. Mulqueen

--mgyktxdjwdvwikehqnmpijvbhiehkw--