This
document is a partial rebuttal to several statements made in the report: Impacts
on Oak Ridge Off-site Releases to the Environment from the Y-12 Plant and
Associated Long-term Stewardship Issues by Susan Kaplan of the Institute
Technology, Social and Policy Awareness (ITSPA). The technical qualifications
and prior interests and positions of the author in this and similar matters are
not documented. The rebuttal deals only with statements that impugn the public
participation process and the participation of the rebuttal's author. Omission
of remarks on other issues should not be taken as acceptance of their claims
nor innuendos. The ITSPA report abounds with incomplete descriptions of issues
that give a one-sided impression of the topic. The report also suffers from
procedural errors; this author was never contacted to determine the "other
side of the story" and much of the material quoted was attributed to an
un-named landowner making rebuttal difficult and therefore ITSPA must accept
the criticisms of their statements. At places in the report references are
incomplete making rebuttal difficult. See References for a
complete set of references to the LEFPC remediation problem.
The
following are the rebuttals of specific statements of the ITSPA report:
1.
Page
7 - "He [Brooks] said the mercury in the floodplain is 'essentially
innocuous' because it is one of the most insoluble compounds known.."
Rebuttal: The omission in the report is that the data in the literature
also indicated that the adsorption in the human gut was very small. This was
also borne out by analysis of the hair and urine of many
2.
Page
8 - "The following is a comment made by Brooks in a letter to Joe Lagrone (also published as a letter to the editor of the
OAK Ridger), which was upsetting to some:
"I would especially like to thank Mr. David Page and many others of the
DOE and contractor staff who assisted me in the presentation of the
opposition view during the last few months."
"This is what one unidentified property owner
documented in his personal notes about this statement by Brooks:
'To me this was an extraordinary disclosure: DOE coaching a person or
persons to appear at a formal public meeting to pressure EPA and the State of
Tennessee to accept higher cleanup limits, when such limits accrues direct
benefits to DOE.
'
Rebuttal: Since when was civility a sin. Having the same objectives as
DOE has a simple explanation: we both wanted to see a remediation that was
based on the best data and that would be both safe and cost effective. Also
saving what once was estimated as $1 billion is a benefit to the taxpayer as
well as DOE. Notice the subtle change of the verb from "assist" to
"coach"; I never said coach. Notice the plural persons when I spoke
for myself alone. Anyone knowing Fred Maienschein,
Josh Johnson and myself knows that being "coached" is not in our
vocabulary. Mr. Page was tasked with enabling one of the first public
participation programs and he did. Mr. Page's assistance was limited to giving
me names of risk assessors and a toxicologist to talk to in order to gain
understanding of the EPA risk calculation process and answered many questions
about the project. He also asked SAIC, a contractor, to supply me with
computer-readable mercury levels to avoid re-keying and to discuss how they had
massaged the data. He never suggested any remediation levels or the direction
my effort should take nor was he asked.
I do not believe that the thanking Mr. Page should be classified as a
conspiracy or collusion and the assistance I received was available to anyone
who asked politely.
3.
Page
9 "The property owner then commented on the open letter to Joe LaGrone, DOE, from Al Brooks, a citizen , a citizen
thanking Dave Page for help in preparing his technical criticism of the
selected 180 ppm of cleanup level. 'Something
here appears all wrong. Al Brooks spoke nine times at the public meeting (More
times and more pages of transcript than anyone. else). Were the proceedings
manipulated?"
Rebuttal: Thanking Dave Page has been covered in 2 above. So I spoke
nine times, but the report never says whether or not the technical
contributions were worthwhile or just the emotional utterances of a concerned
citizen. Both Elmer Aiken (EPA) and Fred Zaphrin
(SAI) said the public's claims were technically correct but EPA did it
differently incorporating safety factors into the input data; a position based
on their congressional mandate and hence political not scientific. Further I
was and still am unaware that public participants were limited on the number of
times they could talk; especially on such a technical and controversial subject
as risk assessment. Perhaps there's something about freedom of speech I dont
understand
In
Conclusion
The
worst transgressions of the ITSPA report are not impugning this author who is
now retired 21 years and whose past colleagues, including the friendly
opposition, know he is not "coachable". The
real damage is to currently employed DOE employees, Page in particular, and to
the image of the DOE public participation efforts. Ironically, The Lower East
Fork Poplar Creek project was as open as any I have participated in and DOE
because of their openness is falsely accused of manipulation and conspiracy. I
don't see how this leads to neither improved DOE public participation nor an
improved Environmental Management program.
On
the surface the allegations are ludicrous, with whom did I conspire:
a)
DOE
including Dave Page I was openly opposed to DOE as long as they appeared
responsible for distorted risk assessment and thereafter opposed to their
silence to EPA's risk assessment shortcomings. Co-conspirators do not oppose
each other.
b)
Maienschien, and Johnson We openly acknowledged our mutual
concerns; conspiracies are not open.
c)
The
public but the vast majority of the public commented that the 180 level was too
low.
The
ITSPA report is divisive. It divides:
a)
The
DOE from the public and inhibits trust on false grounds. Since the Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) used DOE data in their Public
Health Assessments, these are also are clouded by the report.
b)
The
public by misrepresentation of the relationship between DOE and one side of the
issue it confirms in the minds of the opposing side that their opposition is
dishonorable and their evidence can be ignored.
a)
Landowners
How am I to know who harbors such low opinions of my efforts and how can I
make explanation to unknown sources? I consider both of the unidentified large
landowners (see Table 9) as friends but am human enough to wonder which one is
poorly informed.
b)
The
public and science All of the views opposed to EPA risk assessment were based
on published or project data, represented hundreds (or thousands) of hours of
determined work and yet the report brushes this aside by labeling it
"manipulation" and worse. Thus reducing its status to opinion. See Le Potpourri Pages of
Nuclear Waste Disposal at ORR (Old links/CERCLA Critique) for output from
this effort.
The
report not only presents incomplete data on the several subjects but it
selectively chooses the "evidence" to support a particular of view and
hence is an advocacy paper not an impartial review of the problem.
The
paper frequently assumes and implies that any activity ultimately paid for by
DOE is suspect. This ignores that the DOE was the ultimate (though unwilling)
source of ITSPA's own funding. Is the pot calling the
kettle black? This all ignores the fact that state and federal laws, rules and
budgeting require Agencies, e.g.. ATSDR, TDEC, EPA to
provide DOE with certain services and that DOE should reimburse them. Any
changes in these rules will have to come from legislatures. The agencies cannot
be expected to violate the law. This comment is a red herring as the funding of
all federal functions are under the control of Congress by constitutional
authority.
This
ITSPA report should be read with caution; the innuendos, the lack of citations,
the incompleteness of citations and the anonymity of quotes will guide you past
its biases. There are statements made with out proof or citation or technical
justification and these must be considered as opinion. There are few
validations of claims and there is no claim to peer review such as the DOE and
ATSDR documents are submitted to. The references (above) give
some idea of the scope of the problem and the diverse opinion on EPA risk
assessment.
There is an irony in this matter: I still have
the file for printing business cards for the time I was asked and consented to
serve as a technical consultant for ITSPA:
I
am grateful I was never called to consult; I don't like the way they impugn
their employees..
A
Personal Contribution of:
Alfred A. Brooks
LEFPC Landowner
