Re: RAB "ADJOURNMENT"

[Ted Henry <thenry@umabnet.ab.umd.edu>]

I am not aware of the level of your involvement with the effort
you mentioned, but I should pass on one piece of information for
consideration if you speak to them.

At active installations with a RAB, community interests regarding health
and eco risks are directed by science and the installation boundary, not
the governing law RCRA (active) and CERCLA (past). In cases like the
Aberdeen Proving Ground, there is a problem for the community to obtain
needed information regarding on-going activities, whether they (1) deal
with a site adjacent to a site being addressed by the IRP, which brings up
contamination migration issues, or (2) the activity itself poses a threat
to the community such as OB/OD. At APG, the RAB may inevitably be the
main route for non CERCLA information to reach the community, and as a
result, the task force you mention should consider this in their final
version. At active installations, it may not be a good idea to destroy an
established line of communication, assuming it is a worthy one.

Sincerely

Ted Henry
thenry@umabnet.ab.umd.edu