From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | Thu, 22 Jun 2000 12:41:51 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] The Army's ITR Process at Aberdeen |
Submitted by "Cal Baier-Anderson" <cbaie001@umaryland.edu>, technical consultant to the Abderdenn Proving Group Superfund Citizens Coalition. The Army Internal Technical Review: APGSCC's Experience The stated purpose of the Internal Technical Review (ITR) process is to assess and defend the use of environmental restoration funds at military bases. The ITR provides technical expert assistance while evaluating the Installation Restoration Program (IRP). It also promotes the use of risk-based and risk-management approaches to remediation decision-making, which would, in theory, assure that remedial alternatives are "properly assessed and balanced". Additionally, the ITR should identify opportunities to implement new and innovative technologies. APGSCC was invited to attend Aberdeen Proving Ground's (APG's) ITR meetings. Having witnessed the review process, APGSCC has identified several conceptual problems with the ITR. 1) APG personnel indicated that a major obstacle encountered in the restoration process is that the Department of the Army (DA) regularly questions the need for remedies selected by the IRP yet declines to actively participate in the cleanup process until the final draft ROD is presented to them. This creates problems in the process for the local command, IRP personnel, federal and state regulators, and citizens who have participated in the process from the outset. The delays caused by the DA's last minute involvement extend the remediation process and time to site closure. Although the obstacles posed by the DA inevitably and unnecessarily increase the cost of remediation, the ITR team had absolutely no response to this very real problem. They literally changed the subject and moved on. 2) The ITR emphasized legal loopholes. They argued that if there is no legal driver, then there is no need to clean up a site. While APG personnel asked about "moral drivers" (e.g., the Army contaminated the environment, so they are morally responsible for its cleanup), the ITR team continued to emphasize that in the absence of legal drivers, no remediation is necessary. We believe that this view underscores the pressure that is put on IRPs to minimize remediation costs. 3) ITR strongly stated that the community is not part of the Project Management Team (PMT). The PMT consists of the Army Project Managers, the US EPA, and State Regulators, and it is the decision-making body. The ITR panel did indicate that open lines of communication between the PMT and Technical Staff (listed in their material as "CHPPM, EPA and State, ROM and USACE, Contractors and Consultants") and the PMT and "Other Stakeholders" (listed in their material as "Native American tribes, Property Owners, Local Government Agencies and Interested Public (RABs)" are important. This view of the PMT directly contradicts verbal assurances given by the DA to APGSCC that the community is part of the PMT. -- 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 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html. If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics | |
Prev by Date: Re: [CPEO-MEF] Fences at UXO sites Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Army to sign water treatment ROD at Aberdeen | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] POSITION AVAILABLE Next by Thread: Re: [CPEO-MEF] The Army's ITR Process at Aberdeen |