I was pleased to hear reassurances from both NASA and DTSC that the AoC still applies, they plan to comply. I am hearing they consider the OIG report one opinion of many, with many debatable issues of fact within that document. I think this underscores the need to look seriously at soil volume reducing in situ solutions where feasible, and get those programs on the table for consideration so implementation can offset the prohibitive cost issues and soil movement issues and impacts. How do we get those alternatives onto the "record of decision" list?
--- In email@example.com, Christina Walsh <cwalsh@...> wrote:
> This needs to be discussed honestly instead of what we are seeing.
> The idea that they know exactly how much soil they would have to
> remove when they haven't even agreed on the "bright-line" is more of
> the same politics over actual cleanup for the purpose of protection of
> public health and the environment. This continued effort to go back
> to square one, instead of any honest effort to find remedial solutions
> that work, and can be implemented and started just as the AOC
> describes, is thoroughly disappointing. More arm-folding and
> posturing instead of real work! Instead of spending all the time
> debating how hard it would be, how about some real ideas and effort
> into making a reasonable solution work?
> NASA: No comment is not acceptable. We deserve real answers instead
> of more of this all or nothing bull!
> Christina Walsh SSFLCAG Petitioner