Re: [CPEO-MEF] Boxer Opposes Closure Proposal

[StellaVB@aol.com]

After working in the RAB/UXO arena for 3+ years, it is 'refreshing' to start 
seeing Senators and Congressman taking a 'national' stand regarding base 
closures of any kind.  I know there are those in 'public service' who have 
fought within their own states and feel assured their 'experiences' will be 
extremely beneficial to help with the cleanups on the closed bases.  

It would 'seem' practical to cleanup the closed bases before closing more as 
we've seen more than once, bases closed for 20 or more years are still 
contaminated.  Maybe the military could start cleanup of those bases they 
currently 'own' in order to turn over a 'clean' base to the community once 
they do close them.

I do have some questions to any of the EOD experts out there:

In the DoD UXO Response Estimated Costs and Technical Investments dated March

2001, Executive Summary Report, there was a statement made:

..Field experience (in as much as 99%) non-hazardous (referring to UXO 
detection)

I found this statement broad and leaving out a great many variables but then 
that is in my limited understanding.  To any EOD experts out there:

Did you read this report?
What are your educated opinions of such a statement?

I also found other statements I was not comfortable with nor felt it was 
based on facts.  One statement was 'all costs are based on a broad 
assumption'.  I have found site characterization to be the number 'pitfall' 
regarding the Camp Bonnevillle Base Closure.  Without one, we have no 
starting point.  I hope these broad assumptions (that would kill most 
business dealings) are coming to an end with concrete methodologies.  Without

the site characterization, one keeps going around the same tree over and over

again without any results.

Stella Bourassa

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~