I have read the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance document, "The Continuing Assault - How the Department of Energy Avoids the National Environmental Policy Act, Undermines the Public Trust, and Fails to Protect the Environment" (July 1998). I am compelled to say I do not recognize in this document, the DOE/ORO which I freely criticize and often suggest alternatives and improvement to their actions with significant acceptance. Nor do I claim they are above reproach but only that they are trying hard with a great deal of success to involve the public appropriately in the DOE decision making process. I believe that many Oak Ridgers would agree with me in this matter. I believe that the following is a fairer statement of the Oak Ridge public participation process than that given by OREPA:

1. DOE/ORO announced several years ago with appropriate public discussion that, in the interests of efficiency for the public as well as themselves, they would be incorporating NEPA values and requirements into the CERCLA process. I recall that this was viewed by the majority of the public as a desirable move since it would eliminate redundant public meetings which were and are still abundant. Under this plan and at great expense, DOE has increasingly involved the stakeholders in CERCLA and pre-CERCLA processes and has quite clearly accepted the publics suggestions, advice and constructive criticisms. We are even invited to help plan the content of and mode of presentation at public meetings. Perhaps the streamlined procedures should be referred to as "the CERCLA(NEPA) procedures".

Many stakeholders interested in public participation, perceive the NEPA questions raised by OREPA are a smokescreen for other concerns. OREPA freely admits and demonstrates by it actions that it opposes a wide variety of nuclear applications. Many of their positions are perceived as furthering these ends rather than contributing constructively to the improvement of public well-being and environmental improvements. An example was the Y-12 permit request to maintain the flow in Lower East Fork Poplar Creek at the historic levels by the release of raw Clinch River Water in lieu of historic process water flows. This level was needed to meet the design conditions for down-stream, non-DOE facilities and to maintain the well-being of the stream. OREPA wished the State to establish unrealistic release requirements at Y-12 as a condition of the permit and have the Y-12 closed down if the conditions were not met. This request was perceived by many as "anti-nuclear" rather than "pro-environment.

2. The NEPA regulations require the DOE to meet certain requirements when public health and the environment will be impacted by planned actions or decisions. However, the regulations do not specify the quantitative levels of risk and impact that are required to initiate the NEPA process, independently or within CERCLA processes. Therefore, it is often a matter of opinion whether or not any specific action realistically requires the process to occur. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and it is apparent that there is a wide range of opinion about what constitutes undue risk, harm and impact. It is perceived by many that when some opponents of DOE actions do not "win the day" they resort to criticism of the process. I will defend their privilege to do this but invoke my own privilege to disagree: The ORO public participation processes at ORO are quite adequate in most cases and subject to correction when a deficiency is brought to DOE's attention.

3. The ORR stakeholders have recently completed, through the efforts of the End Use Working Group, an intensive study into the present condition of the environmental aspects of the contaminated ORR facilities and have produced a set of community guidelines, watershed land use recommendations and suggested a long-term stewardship plan. The EUWG was an open-membership group, any one could participate at will. The total effort was measured in thousands of hours and in excess of $500,000 DOE support. DOE supported the work with copious requested information in group-determined formats, presentations by technical experts, guided tours and answers to all manner of impromptu questions. The final reports sought consensus and permitted minority opinions. A more democratic process is difficult to conceive. Yet, many of those whose opinion did not "carry the day" proclaimed the process flawed. I find it strange that OREPA failed to mention this effort nor the very successful Lower East Fork Citizens Working Group efforts.

While I ardently believe that minority rights must be protected (as in the 2/3 majority rule for questions of parliamentary rights), I know of no democratic principle which requires the majority to yield to the will of the minority.

4. The OREPA report lists several projects for which they believe the public participation was deficient. Suffice it to say, I recall these processes in a different manner: Delays in some projects, e.g., the waste disposal cell, were at the request of the public, not an evasion of responsibilities. I believe public pressure to have the waste cell available to receive waste in a timely manner was the explanation for dropping the RCRA permit. Delays in this project would be a show-stopper for the ORR EM program. There are still many of the public that wish DOE to obtain a RCRA permit.

The problem with in situ vitrification, which was more of a low-pressure belch than an explosion, seemed by many to be normal in the development of a new application of an old technology. It also was adequately anticipated and controlled by the off-gas collection system. The problem has received adequate public discussion and new operational procedures to avoid past problems have been initiated at other sites and proposed for ORR.

The OREPA report failed to mention that DOE has reconvened public meetings at public request when it was clear the original meeting had not been adequately attended, e.g., the K25 Ponds Remediation.

In the face of this and other evidence, I cannot agree with the OREPA conclusion that the DOE commitment to NEPA "is not shared by Oak Ridge Operations management." I believe the evidence is quite to the contrary.

I hesitate but will make one suggestion to OREPA: Recognize DOE as comprised of individuals who need help, not as scoundrels who conspire against the public. Compliment them when they try and accomplish something good. Propose , not incomplete nor impossible solutions to their problems, but some reasonable position that DOE and the majority of the public can accept.

Epilogue: If, as is usual after I make such statements, I am accused of being a pawn of DOE and a member of the "conspiracy", I freely admit to working many years for the DOE prime contractors. I also quit a management position because I would not accept DOE's micro-management practices. I was never known for toadying up to DOE. However, I must give them credit for great improvement in the matter of public participation. They have been both attentive and responsive to the public. As for the alleged ORR conspiracy, the DOE I know could not coordinate such a giant and complex collusion effort.