Collaboration versus constructive engagement

[Michael Glaab <michaelglaab@worldnet.att.net>]

Hello:

The actual theoretical concept which is referred to, in this EPA sponsored dialogue, as "collaboration" has much merit and potential for environmental remediation and preservation
activities. However, I respectfully suggest that consideration be given to avoiding using the term "collaboration" to describe what might more aptly be referred to as "constructive engagement."

Presumably the term "collaboration" is intended in this context to express the concept of having all stakeholders in a particular environmental project collaborate sincerely and forthrightly with one another in a constructive TEAM effort to resolve an environmental concern.
  
Unfortunately, as we all probably realize, the term collaboration is associated with surrender and the aiding of one's enemy. Of course, sometimes even the distinction between 
"constructive engagement" and  "appeasement" is very, very fine indeed. 

For example, consider the following recapitulation of events which, to the best of my recollection, describes a precedent setting dispute over cleanup standards which is an example of constructive engagement and which has national implications for us all :

At Picatinny Arsenal in New Jersey, a federal research facility presided over by a U.S. Army commandant, a remedial action for a site designated as site 20 / 24 had been agreed upon and funded in the 1997 / 98 time frame. The Environmental Affairs office at Picatinny Arsenal had asked for and received the RAB's
approval of a contaminated soil removal action. The principal onsite contaminant appears to be PCB. There is also a considerable presence of such diverse substances as lead, beryllium, barium, cobalt, arsenic, dioxins and the Strontium- 90 and Cesium-137 isotopes. Apparently the Strontium- 90 isotope
is in insufficient quantities to merit it being considered a COPEC ( chemical of potential ecological concern ).

However, the soil removal action was postponed and eventually cancelled - even though the funds for the action had already been appropriated. The RAB was eventually informed that the earlier promulgated cleanup standards were inappropriate and also that the mathematical formulae which were initially used to compute human risk were inapplicable and that they would not be used. To sum up, the RAB was informed that the revisions resulted in the determination that the soil removal action would no longer be necessary and that "a decision of no further action" had been proposed. 

Apparently a Mr. Lawrence Tannenbaum, a ( Biologist ) Risk Assessor in the Environmental Health Risk Assessment and Risk Communication Program of USACHPPM ( US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine ), had issued a report which resulted in the exposure and toxicity assumptions for the site being revised, as is explained in the  "Addendum to the Phase I Remedial Investigation Human Health Assessment for Picatinny Arsenal."

In addition, since the Army maintained that the NJ state legislature had not properly promulgated its cleanup standards the Army was not required to conform to the state's standards. The RAB was then asked to approve new cleanup standards which were less restrictive than those of the state ( NJ ) and apparently also of those recommended by the EPA - at that time. The RAB declined to approve the less restrictive standards since they deviated significantly from those standards which had previously been promulgated and submitted to the RAB. This was by a unanimous vote. 

There was considerable speculation, in and out of the popular media, that this matter would even be addressed in the courts. In fact, it was necessary for the NJ Attorney General's office to issue an affirmation of support, dated September 2nd. of 1998, of the very state carcinogen standards which were being disputed. 
 
Nevertheless, the Army decided to implement a "natural attenuation" option which would essentially result in the  "Capping" of the contaminated soils. According to this approach, which has recently become very common throughout our nation, the contaminants are kept on-site and allowed to be naturally degraded by the environment. Of course, this approach typically requires that access to the site be restricted for a significantly longer time interval until "Natural attenuation" does in fact reduce the degree of contamination to a desirable level. "Natural attenuation" obviously tends to be significantly cheaper in the short run since it often requires merely  "Capping" a site with soil, concrete and / or other media and then access to that site is restricted. However, the contaminants remain at the site longer and therefore the possibility of contaminants migrating offsite tends to increase. Unfortunately some of those opportunity costs which are attributable to the extended presence of contaminants onsite tend to be ignored in typical remediation cost evaluations precisely because the total potential impact on neighboring communities and on future development is often not easily quantified. 

In addition to opposing the less restrictive standards, the RAB immediately began to devote attention to the possible imposition of effective institutional and / or engineering controls which might reasonably be expected to reduce accidental exposure to the onsite contaminants. Research into federal regulations disclosed the requirement that an Army military installation must have the equivalent of a typical community "Master Plan"  with its commandant as the individual ultimately responsible for implementation of that plan - as of the 1998 / 99 time frame. The commandant is essentially the equivalent of a president of a planning board. The commandant can delegate planning board powers to another individual and / or entity. 

The RAB then asked for an appraisal by the US Dept. of Health and Human Services - Public Health Service Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR ) Div. of Health Assessment and Consultation. It was forthcoming in 1999 and it focused on the REVISIONS to the exposure and toxicity assumptions ( i.e. cleanup standards, averaging the degree of contamination over a larger area, etc. ) cited in the "Addendum to the Phase I Remedial Investigation Human Health Assessment for Picatinny Arsenal" which resulted from the USACHPPM report. This ATSDR report, "HEALTH CONSULTATION - Review of Picatinny Arsenal PCB Health Risk Assessment Assumptions" - CERCLIS NO. NJ3210020704 1/21/99, differed significantly from the USACHPPM report. The following quotes from the ATSDR report exemplify its general tone which disputes the USACHPPM conclusions.  Please note the following quotes from page 11 of the ATSDR document :

a. "ATSDR does not concur with the assumptions made when    
   intermediate or acute exposures and noncancer health risks  
   are considered. The PCBs in soil north and southwest of the
   gravel pad in the western half of the grid area pose a 
   potential public health hazard ..." - page 11

b. 'No, the conclusion of "no further action" is not
    appropriate. The PCBs in soil north and southwest of the
    gravel pad in the western half of the grid area pose a  
    potential public health hazard on the basis of risk for
    immune and developmental effects.' - page 11

A second ATSDR report authored by entirely different individuals has subsequently been issued which appears to support the USACHPPM report. The RAB responded to it with the assistance of its consultant by addressing several critical issues which the RAB believes were either inadequately addressed or not addressed at all by the second USACHPPM report. The RAB still awaits a response to these issues. 

Eventually the RAB decided to ask its local federal legislators in the House of Representatives and in the Senate to intercede. Shortly after this the EPA representative announced that he had been informed that his superiors had cited to him an internal memo which they interpreted such that the EPA would no longer oppose conformance to the less restrictive standards: OSWER Directive 9355.0-30  "Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions."   

Our local Congressman, Mr. Rodney Frelinghuysen ( Republican ), immediately and publicly supported adherence to the state cleanup standards in a letter to Mr. Louis Caldera, the then Secretary of the Army. Subsequently Senator Robert Torriccelli ( Democrat ) and former Senator Frank Lautenberg ( Democrat ) also expressed their support, in respective letters to the Secretary of the Army, of the requirement that the more restrictive state cleanup standards be adhered to. Their bipartisan support is much appreciated.

This dispute over the applicability of state standards to federal military facilities has obvious national ramifications. This is reflected in the following quote from a letter issued on behalf of the base commandant to the NJDEP.

"Since this is a precedent setting issue, we will make sure
 that our final position reflects the consensus of all of DOD."
 - letter dated January 13th. of 1999  from Mr. John  P. Geis,
 U.S. Army Brigadier General Commandant of Picatinny Arsenal 
 (former ) addressed to Mr. Bruce Venner, Chief Bureau of 
 Federal Case Management - NJDEP

Currently the Army asserts that "Capping" and "Natural Attenuation", with "engineering / institutional" controls, will be adequate to achieve the less restrictive cleanup levels. Engineering and institutional controls are expected to be imposed on the concerned sites to reduce access to contaminants. This compromise approach has been referred to as a cleanup to state standards but it is in my opinion merely a "Capping",  covering up if you will, of the contaminated soils with access restrictions imposed to reduce exposure.

In addition, the Army expects that MANY additional sites at the Arsenal which were previously presumed to require real remediation actions will now only require  "Capping"  and  "Natural attenuation."  This has been mentioned in thought provoking articles posted on the world wide web which question the commitment of various agencies to real environmental remediation. 

However, the Arsenal's Environmental Affairs office had also informed the RAB at its January of 2000 meeting that the Arsenal is in the process of developing a Land Use Control Assurance Plan  ( 40CFR 300, National Environmental Policy Act for the Army, AR200, AR210, ? ) for the entire base which will in the future probably be vital to the implementation of  "engineering / institutional"  controls throughout the facility  -  especially if any Arsenal property should someday be granted / sold to other parties. 

Many apologies for the excessive length of this note.

Michael