Re: REPLIES TO TED HENRY

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

I would certainly hope that the Senate Armed Services Committee and others
would see that the problem lies within the system to address sites, and
not simply that too many sites were given high priority status. Without
knowing what contamination is at the site, which I assume is often the
case, it is difficult to assess risk, which is kind of the point. At some
point, maybe while at the Mass conference, I would like to know what
scientific data are usually used. At APG, I dont think there was much
when the sites were ranked.

In the end, I guess the ranking system is bad because the selection of
priority should be done at the installation level in conjunction with the
regulators and the public, and I know the RAB at APG annually has a
funding/priority meeting. Of course, since the funding the different
forces are told to request are based on addressing 50% of the high
priority sites, it is better for the community that the military did
not use a more selective approach or there would be less money than there
is presently.

 Thanks for the info

Ted