Fwd: Engineering Evaluation a...

[CGumbi@aol.com]

Subject: Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) documentation.
Date: 95-09-14 02:58:18 EDT
From: zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu
Reply-to: careerpro@igc.org (Conference cpro.military)
To: careerpro@igc.org (Recipients of conference)

Posting from Don Zweifel <zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu>
Subject: Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) documentation.

To Peter Strauss and all interested recipients of the net:

The National Contingency Plan (NCP) statutory law is spelled out in the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980 (AKA 42 U.S. Code Annotated section 9601 thru 9675).

According to section 9605 of the above, "The National Hazardous 
Substances Response Plan shall estb. procedures for responding to releases 
of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants which shall include 
at a minimum: 

Subsection two: Methods for evaluating incl. analysis of relative cost 
`(EE/CA)' and remedying any releases or threats of releases
from facilities which pose substantial danger to the public health or 
environment... 

Subsection three: Methods and criteria for determining the appropriate 
extent of removal, remedy and other measures authorized by this chapter.

In regards to your query as to public participation: The RAB at MCAS, 
Tustin, Ca. is currently reevaluating the EE/CA's for a few selected sites.
The Dept. of the Navy (DON) has asked for this review. Our 
recommendations will be forwarded to the OSD (Office of the Sec'y of Defense)
and responded to in a timely manner. On an interesting note, our RAB has 
never had any difficulties with the DON that a `little prayer meeting' 
wouldn't solve. 

Public participation in your community should be encouraged by the 
military entity in charge of the on-site remediation effort. If there's no 
community interaction then it is the above's duty to sincerely try to 
generate active involvement.

P.S.: The downside of utilizing EE/CA's may be that they tend to be 
rather abbreviated expositions.
 Don Zweifel

==================================================
Chief Dennis,

The above information is the essence of the problem with unexploded ordnance
(UXO) cleanup here at Fort Ord, and why the Department of the Army (DA) and
the Department of Defense (DoD) Explosives Safety Board (ESB) are fighting so
hard to keep UXO from being listed as a "Hazardous Substance" under
"Superfund" or the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act (CERCLA).

The issue of UXO as a "Hazardous Substance" is being hotly contested right
now through the "informal dispute resolution process" of Fort Ord's Federal
Facility Agreement (FFA). It seems this UXO dispute has been going on for
some time now, with little progress being made with the DoD/ ESB. DoD/ESB's
COL. Wright, USAF, seems to believe that UXO is exempt from environmental
regulations, and is a military safety issue, only. 

When UXO is defined as a CERCLA Section 120 (h) "Hazardous Substance" (as the
US-EPA, Region 9 says it is) and when the "Hazardous Substance" rules are
applied to UXO clearance in accordance with the NCP, it will drasticly
change the course of citizen involvement and "community right to know" with
regard to the cleanup, lease, transfer, and reuse of the properties at Fort
Ord.

This explains why the Base Environmental Coordinator (BEC), who also happens
to be the Army's RAB Co-Chair, has so diligently endeavored to control the
membership and functioning of our RAB. The operation of our RAB has beem a
very bloody and contentious affair. The Army's attitude regarding
"civilians" and the threat of injury from UXO was quite clearly stated at the
August 24, 1995, RAB meeting when Capt. Labranch felt compelled to say, when
it comes to UXO "civilans are stupid"! 

To date, the Army has been successful in excluding local citizens and the RAB
from really knowing anything about the planning or execution of UXO cleanup
prior to the searches for military explosives on what has already become, and
soon will be public lands. This "fast and loose" process has been on going
since befor the Fort Ord RAB came in to existance (1993-94 ?). Our RAB has
never seen an EE/ CA (or anything that resembles one) for any cleanup action
at Fort Ord. 

As you observed today, on our OEW Committee's field trip in to the "inland
firing ranges", with sections of fence surrounding the "impact area", missing
or removed, it is virtually impossible to secure this UXO laden hazardous
waste site. The BLM observes trespassing incidents in to the "impact area"
daily. They have estimated at least 40 arrests for trespassing in this area
in the last year, by persons on foot, motorcycles, and in 4 wheel drive
vehicles.

All UXO removal has been done under "Time Critical Removal" which has never
been justified. The question that has never been answered is, why was the
Army allowed to created an "iminant and substantial endangerment to the
public" when they removed the federal police from the gates of Fort Ord 12
months ago. 

I find this the Arny's approach to this UXO problem here at Fort Ord very
alarming. I hope it does not require someone's death or injury befor the DoD
and the Army responds to our citizens concerns.

CURT GANDY
CHAIR, OEW COMMITTEE
FORT ORD RAB
---------------------
Forwarded message:
From: zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu
Reply-to: careerpro@igc.org (Conference cpro.military)
To: careerpro@igc.org (Recipients of conference)
Date: 95-09-14 02:58:18 EDT

Posting from Don Zweifel <zweifel@nexus.chapman.edu>
Subject: Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) documentation.

To Peter Strauss and all interested recipients of the net:

The National Contingency Plan (NCP) statutory law is spelled out in the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act 
(CERCLA) of 1980 (AKA 42 U.S. Code Annotated section 9601 thru 9675).

According to section 9605 of the above, "The National Hazardous 
Substances Response Plan shall estb. procedures for responding to releases 
of hazardous substances, pollutants and contaminants which shall include 
at a minimum: 

Subsection two: Methods for evaluating incl. analysis of relative cost 
`(EE/CA)' and remedying any releases or threats of releases
from facilities which pose substantial danger to the public health or 
environment... 

Subsection three: Methods and criteria for determining the appropriate 
extent of removal, remedy and other measures authorized by this chapter.

In regards to your query as to public participation: The RAB at MCAS, 
Tustin, Ca. is currently reevaluating the EE/CA's for a few selected sites.
The Dept. of the Navy (DON) has asked for this review. Our 
recommendations will be forwarded to the OSD (Office of the Sec'y of Defense)
and responded to in a timely manner. On an interesting note, our RAB has 
never had any difficulties with the DON that a `little prayer meeting' 
wouldn't solve. 

Public participation in your community should be encouraged by the 
military entity in charge of the on-site remediation effort. If there's no 
community interaction then it is the above's duty to sincerely try to 
generate active involvement.

P.S.: The downside of utilizing EE/CA's may be that they tend to be 
rather abbreviated expositions.
 Don Zweifel