100 Wiltshire Drive
Oak Ridge, TN 37830

July 28, 1997

Mr. Edward A. Slavin
(See note)

Dear Mr Slavin:

In your letter/fax of July 25, 1997, you state that I have published "erroneous information and possibly libel on the Internet" in respect to your actions concerning the DOE mercury contamination of Lower East Fork Creek. The specific statement to which you refer is: "This condition persisted until 1983, when there was an unauthorized announcement of unofficial information obtained under questionable circumstances." Inasmuch as this statement in no way identifies an individual nor a specific event which can be uniquely associated with an individual nor states the action was in any way criminal, immoral or depreciatory, I do not see how this statement could be considered actionable under libel statutes. Nevertheless, some explanation is warranted to preclude further confusion as to the referents of the statement.

The news articles Oak Ridger of the May 17 or July 11 and the report, Alleged Coverup of Mercury Contamination/Union Carbide and Department of Energy: Case 17-17 of July 19, 1985 issued by the DOE Office of the Inspector General will reveal the validity of my bland description of events starting in 1977 and leading up to the DOE news release when these matters were first announced to the public. (There was a perfunctory news release on August 10, 1978.) Since my purpose is to facilitate improved DOE/public participation, I made the statement solely to indicate that 1983 was the starting year of the positive changes in DOE public relations and not to castigate those responsible for earlier omissions, I did not supply names and details then and hesitate to do so now. However, if one reads the above source material it is clear that employees of UCCND and DOE were the main cast. Clearly, The UCCND employee did not go through channels within his organization and, more importantly, the DOE employee was not open with the DOE nor the public in matters related to the contamination of private property including my own.

When writing the article I was not consciously aware that you had initiated the Freedom of Information action the result of which was released to you on the same date as the DOE news release. In truth, if I had known of it, I would have probably said the same thing as the actions of others seem to dominate the events during 1982 and early 1983. Had I dealt with the FOI action, I surely would have regarded the DOE actions, not yours, as "questionable". Indeed, I have long felt that those who opposed DOE in this matter have done the public, including me, a great favor.

I hope the above clears up the matter of the referents of the statement you question. I am sorry that you were able to identify yourself in this matter when such was not my intent. As you requested, I am posting this letter on the web page to preclude further misinterpretation.

Sincerely,

__________________

/s/ A. A. Brooks

Note: Mr. Slavin has requested that his address not be posted on the Internet. I find the request for a public apology without clear identification of the apologee to be some what strange but I am pleased to comply. If you have any doubt as to which Mr. Slavin this is, it is the one appearing frequently at ORR public meetings.