1999 CPEO Military List Archive

From: "Ted Henry" <icfke@toad.net>
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 1999 16:04:09 -0700 (PDT)
Reply: cpeo-military
Subject: Re: Off-Base Sampling
 

To the CPEO listserver participants and readers:

A recent posting from me included my automatic signature, indicating my
employment with The IT Group.  I noticed this and felt it was appropriate to
clarify my basis for submitting a response to the initial question regarding
off-post sampling.  While I do work for IT in Edgewood MD,  on various
community outreach projects, my comments are not based on my work with IT
nor do they represent IT's views.  While I could assume each reader could
figure this out, environmental remediation is a field where regulations,
practices and people are often vague or general, so I
wanted to make this clear.

I responded to the discussion regarding off-post sampling based on my 5
years as a TAG consultant for the Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens
Coalition. During these years I participated actively on the TRC and then
the RAB.   In turn, I am very familiar with APG's history, contamination and
efforts to remediate and include the public.

Although my participation in the TAG has ended, I still volunteer my time
regarding APG clean up as a community member of the RAB.  With my knowledge
of APG contamination issues, my continued participation on the APG RAB is
one of the ways I can give back to the TAG Program and the dedicated
community members of the Coalition who spent countless volunteer hours to
keep the TAG working well. It also allows me to continue to participate in a
process I believe in, with people on the RAB who also donate many volunteer
hours to this massive project known as APG.

In the past and currently, I submit technical and policy-based comments to
APG and this listserver in hopes of improving the clean up process and
improving public involvement. This I obviously do on my own time and with
the same vigor with which I entered this process 6 years ago. My goal has
always been and remains to be the improvement of clean up approaches and
policies and the enlightenment of its participants, including myself.


I apologize for taking up a few moments of your reading time with this, but
it is sometimes necessary to make specific efforts to keep lines  and
intentions clear and transparent.

Sincerely

Ted Henry

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Henry (by way of "cpeo@cpeo.org" <cpeo@cpeo.org>) <icfke@toad.net>
To: cpeo-military@igc.org <cpeo-military@igc.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 3:57 PM
Subject: Re: Off-Base Sampling


>Original Message-----
>From: Ted Henry <icfke@toad.net>
>To: lsiegel@cpeo.org <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
>Date: Monday, August 02, 1999 10:23 AM
>Subject: Re: Off-Base Sampling
>
>
>Aberdeen Proving Ground has conducted off-post sampling.  However, it
>should be understood that this effort has taken significant pressure from
>the community and its TAG consultants.
>
>The example that immediately comes to mind in groundwater flow near the
>Edgewood boundary.  In a description at the RAB regarding a TCE plume in
>the area, contour data were provided with arrows showing water only flowing
>from off-post to on-post.  Yet, the data actually suggested that
>groundwater may have been flowing off-post in a localized area. After 6
>months of pressing the EPA and getting hydrogeological assessments
>conducted by the EPA and USGS, there was finally agreement that there was
>an area of flow moving off-post.  6 months.
>
>As you might have guessed, TCE was found at the boundary and then found in
>off-post sampling near the adjacent neighborhood.
>
>Most troublesome was the fact that minutes from an internal APG meeting
>dated before the 6 month battle began indicated that agencies at APG knew
>of the data suggesting groundwater flow off-post.
>
>There are other examples where APG did sample off-post, including surface
>water (although part of the Chesapeake Bay and the tributaries are
>considered APG property).  So, APG has made some effort and work by the
>community has improved the quality of this sampling.  For instance, APG did
>not sample for RAD contamination regularly until the citizens coalition and
>its consultants pressed for it.
>
>In short, the community efforts is a critical part of the process and
>military agencies will do the right thing, it just often takes pressure to
>ensure the "corners are not cut".
>
>Peace
>
>Ted Henry
>Community Outreach Specialist
>The IT Group
>2113 Emmorton Park Road
>Edgewood, MD 21040
>(410) 679-9939 - phone
>(410) 679-9940 - fax
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>
>>To: cpeo-military@igc.org <cpeo-military@igc.org>
>>Date: Sunday, August 01, 1999 8:17 PM
>>Subject: Off-Base Sampling
>>
>>
>>>A question came up today at our meeting of community members from Army
>>>Ammunition Plants. It actually applies to all military installation.
>>>
>>>Where there are indications of possible contamination migration, does
>>>the installation in your area conduct off-site sampling,  of
>>>groundwater, surface water, and/or other media?
>>>--
>>>
>>>
>>>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: Re: natural attentuation -- the reality
Next by Date: From Doris Bradshaw Defense Depot Memphis Tn-Concerned Citizens Comm]
  Prev by Thread: Re: Off-Base Sampling
Next by Thread: RE: Off-Base Sampling

CPEO Home
CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index