On June 28, 1998, the Oak Ridge Health Liaison requested of Mr. John Hankinson, EPA Region IV, that the ROD for the remediation of LEFPC be re-opened for a number of reasons none of which seem to fulfill the requirements for such a post-ROD action. A letter opposing that request is shown below. It is followed by a detailed rebuttal of the points made in the ORHL request letter.

Opposing Letter

July 28, 1998

Ms. Camilla Warren, DOE Section Chief
USEPA Region IV -
Atlanta Federal Center
61 Forsyth Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30303

Dear Ms. Warren:

It has come to my attention that EPA/IV is considering a request to reopen the Lower East Fork Poplar Creek Floodplain Remediation project whose approved remediation recently has been completed. As you know, I am a resident directly on LEFPC who was deeply involved in the CERCLA remediation process. I would like to make the following points which are germane to reopening the LEFPC project:

1. The previous process which, took about 12 years and cost in excess of $30 million, involved the Oak Ridge stakeholders heavily in both a Citizens Working Group and DOE Public meetings. At the close of this process about 97 percent of the public comments favored the increased remediation goal or higher and the ATSDR Health Consultation found 400 ppm of soil mercury to be protective of human health. All the regulators, TDEC, EPA, ATSDR, have stated that the remediated floodplain would be safe. Clearly, the conclusion was reached by due process as defined by CERCLA and the FFA.

2. The alleged deposition of new sediment on the flood plain by storm floods is not a new phenomenon but has occurred about 3 to 5 times a year since the mercury releases and its effect was included in the LEFPC studies. Indeed, the net effect of the flooding appears to be to deposit sediments in the deep channels of Lower Watts Bar reservoir where it is harmless. All other new information bearing on the mercury risk assessment as well as other information not used earlier will support the existence of a increasingly adequate safety factor.

3. The CERCLA process places a great burden on the community stakeholders in the loss of community image, and especially on the landowners who face a period during which they cannot develop their property They also experience depreciated property values and reduced availability of mortgage money. To impose this burden again at the request of one stakeholder and before the recently completed remediation can be evaluated would be an injustice and needless expense.

4. Any re-evaluation of the LEFPC risk assessment should include an ATSDR Exposure Investigation of the extant LEFPC floodplain residents to empirically establish the presence or lack of mercury exposure. Preliminary data suggested that the human body burdens were normal.

For these reasons and others brought out in the prior CERCLA process, I am requesting EPA not to reopen the LEFPC project. However, if EPA does intend to do so, I am requesting the discussions include two or more public meetings held in Oak Ridge with sufficient notice for the stakeholders to update their technical arguments with the new data and otherwise prepare responses to EPA's technical basis or reasons for proceeding. The technical and political arguments for higher remediation levels are sounder now than before.

Sincerely,

_____________
A. A. Brooks
LEFPC Stakeholder and Resident

Cc: Carol Browner, EPA Administrator
Earl Lemming, TDEC, Director, DOE Oversight
Margret Wilson, DOE/ORO FFA Project Manager
Andrea Perkins, DOE/ORO LEFPC Project Officer
Rep. Zach Wamp ,U.S House of Representatives
Mayor Walt Brown, City of Oak Ridge
Susan Gawarecki, LOC Executive Director
Editor, The Oak Ridger

A Rebuttal of the ORHL Reasons for Re-opening the LEFPC ROD

Comments on the Oak Ridge Health Liaison (ORHL) request addressed to Mr. John Hankinson, EPA IV, dated 6/3/98 to reevaluate the Lower East Fork Creek (LEFPC) Record of Decision:

1. The LEFPC remediation goal for mercury in the floodplain soils was not raised from 1 to 400 ppm. The initial goal was set at 10 ppm by Dr. Gist (not then of DOE but of ORAU) and personnel of the Tennessee Department of Health , in a very informal setting, based on the World Health Organization limits for the consumption of dimethyl mercury and an ingestion rate of 1 gram/day. This estimation was made before there was experimental data showing the absence of dimethyl mercury in the flood plain soils.

The first EPA remediation goal was 50 ppm based on the presence of mercuric chloride, the EPA RfD and a reduced ingestion rate. This computation made no allowance that the mercury species was shown to be primarily mercuric sulfide or at least some highly insoluble complex of mercury with soil constituents.

The remediation goal was then set to 180 ppm based on data submitted by DOE and later to 400 ppm based on technical arguments made by the public and on-site bioavailability data from DOE. All of these changes were made in the due process required by CERCLA with public participation.

2. The presence of mercury as the sulfide was more than an hypothesis as suggested by ORHL. Further, the significant releases of mercury to the creek and thence to the flood plain were not elemental mercury but were mercuric nitrate from a washing process. There was solubility data and extraction data on LEFPC soil samples to support the contention the sulfide was present . It was also demonstrated that incubation of soil samples converted mercuric chloride to an insoluble form in about 90 days. Contrary to ORHL claims, there was human data available , albeit limited in nature, it found no significant increase in body burdens of mercury. Similar results were obtained from livestock pastured along the creek. There is no indication that this is an "uncontrolled human experiment"; at least to this resident on the flood plain.

3. Other substances were not ignored in the remedial investigation process, the typical EPA-required screen was used including many contaminants found to present in small quantities . Mercury was the principal COC. As to the synergistic effects of trace quantities, this is a research question which so far has largely evaded a definitive answer. Given the complex nature of soils and the traces of "contaminants", both natural and anthropogenic, to base a remediation goal on suspected but unproven, synergistic effects would quite probably require the remediation (and destruction) of the entire earth's surface. I agree there is concern about synergism but it also appears limited.

4. The recent flooding at Y-12 is nothing new although the failure of equipment with the subsequent release to Upper East Fork Popular Creek of a de-chlorinating agent (not mercury) is atypical. The flood was intense in Y-12 but appears to have been local as the flooding of the LEFPC (where I live) did not appear unusual. In fact, the flood level was moderate at worst. The flood plain has evolved over a period of 50 years of evolution and reflects perhaps 250 "floods". Floodplain conditions should be relative stable and continue to show gradual improvement..

5. While I have no information on the discharge of an employee, LMES and DOE did release news of the spill and fishkill in a matter of hours, even before the fish count was final. While the incident was regrettable, it did confirm the greatly improved quality of UEFPC.

6. Contrary to what ORHL claims, there was follow-up on the mercury speciation, four laboratories did work on this question by several methods. While different methods yielded different detailed results, none found the mercury to be soluble on water or readily bio-available.

7. As to the nature of the LEFPC Citizens Working Group, while it was not a FACA group, it could not and did not issue a collective opinion nor recommendation about LEFPC. All comments made were made by individuals or collections of individuals, Also the meetings were open and non-members had ample opportunity to comment and participate. I was not a member of the CWG and found no problem in the process.

The LEFPC process followed the required CERCLA process and the final remediation goal was largely based on technical points expressed by the public in the meetings of the required EPA Risk Management phase . I have been assured by members of the three regulatory organizations that the public convinced them it was safe on technical grounds not by pressure alone.

8. The NO[A}EL used in the LEFPC remedial goal computations was the value for mercuric chloride, not mercuric sulfide. The value was not ignored by ATSDR nor EPA nor TDEC nor DOE. Rather they made a partial allowance for the experimental site-specific, bio-availability. The computations had all the usual conservative assumptions and a large margin of safety in the range of 300,000 to 1,000,000 by some estimates. There was no "flouting of any protective mechanism for the protection of human health".

9. There is no way to avoid a "conflict of interest " charge as long as an agency of the federal government was the origin of the contamination and hence the "responsible party". The funding of the remediation by the federal government would always raise such charges. Several different government agencies and third parties have investigated situations and claims in Oak Ridge. Unless the findings are consistent with the beliefs of the complaints, the charge of incompetence or conspiracy or conflict of interest has always resulted.

10. The EPA Guide to Addressing Pre-ROD and Post-ROD Changes, Pub. 9355.3-02FS-4 April 1993, contains criteria and factors which the lead agency (in this case DOE) is to consider in the consideration of Post ROD changes. The current ORHL request does not cite any new information that meets any of the referenced criteria.

Based on the above, I find the ORHL request specious.