From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | Mon, 13 Sep 1999 17:09:29 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | Depth vs. Cost at Fort Ord |
At last week's public meeting on the cleanup at Fort Ord, the Army presented interesting new data that contradicts assumptions in earlier Army document on the cleanup of unexploded ordnance at the former Army base. In the now abandoned Phase 2 EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation/Cost Analysis) for unexploded ordnance removal at Fort Ord, the Army argued that it was not cost effective to do much subsurface clearance within the property's 8,000-acre impact area. Data from other sites indicated that clearance costs would grow substantially where crews removed ordnance and other anomalies beneath one foot below the surface. For that reason, the EE/CA recommended surface or one-foot clearance for the categories of open space that are expected to dominate the future use of the impact area. Recently, however, the Army analyzed 22 relatively small ordnance clearance projects already conducted at Fort Ord. Over a million metallic anomalies - relatively few of which were live munitions - were found and removed through those efforts. The Army found that 27% of the anomalies were found on the surface and another 68% were found in the top foot of soil. Only 6% were found between the one-foot and four-foot level. Thus, it concluded that the actual incremental cost of the deeper clearance - that is, in the one to four-foot range - represented a small increase in overall costs. It found a closer association between cost and the number of anomalies per acre. The single data table that the Army handed out and the short briefing didn't answer all the questions about the likely costs of clearance at Fort Ord, but the Army's report may make it possible to justify clearing wider areas to a four-foot depth. The Fort Ord results might not be replicated elsewhere. Ordnance and ordnance scrap may be concentrated near the surface there because of the high sand content in the soil, as well as the predominant historic use of the area by infantry and artillery units, as opposed to aerial bombers and naval gunners. Lenny Siegel -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/968-1126 lsiegel@cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org | |
Prev by Date: Camp Bonneville Congressional Letter Next by Date: Re: Feedback requested on DNAPLs | |
Prev by Thread: Camp Bonneville Congressional Letter Next by Thread: Re: Depth vs. Cost at Fort Ord |