Highlights of the DERTF Conference

["Theodore J. Henry" <thenry@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>]

To Terry Olesen or anyone interested in responding:

I am a toxicologist at the University of Maryland and the
primary technical consultant for Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund
Citizens Coalition. I noticed in your e-mail comments you mentioned Ft.
Ord and a negative reference about the RAB. I have been involved with
APG's RAB since it changed over from the TRC in January 1995. We have had
some accomplishments, but it is still a daily battle trying to get APG to
inform the RAB in a straightforward and balanced manner. I am
interested in learning more about problems with Ft. Ord's RAB. I know
everyone is busy so even a paragraph or two would help in my continued
efforts to assess what problems tend to be installational issues and
which eminate from DoD.

Secondly, I was curious about the status of the UXO removal action at Ft.
Ord. I followed it last year via a series of correspondence between EPA
and DoD where EPA wanted part of the final say on whether the removal
action was sufficently protective. The last letter I saw was where DoD
said that they were using their lead agency status to move forward with
the project, despite their unresolved issue with EPA (region IX I
believe). This is of interest to me since APGSCC has had to deal with a
related issue, where UXO removal along the installation boundary was part
of a proposed plan for a remedial action for 2 years and than DoD switched
it to a removal action where the U.S. Army is the lead agency. Although
the Nike Site UXO removal at APG will remain a removal action, I
am sure this will not be our last encounter with this lead agency issue at
APG. As a result, I am interested in how it was or is being resolved at
Ft. Ord.(or did EPA just agree to disagree and let DoD go on their way?) 

APG keeps me quite busy, so if my brief summary of the UXO issue is off
base, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Ted Henry