Introduction
The Deseret Chemical Depot (DCD) is located 20 miles south of Tooele City and about 50 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. Since its inception, the depot has stored over 42% of the nation’s stockpile of chemical weapons. The stockpile has been stored at the depot since World War II, and the activities needed to administer and destroy the muntions have provided employment for the surrounding communities for more than two generations. These communities lived with this stockpile since before our nation’s movement toward environmental awareness, during (and nearby) land-based nuclear testing and downwind cancer scares, and concurrent today’s convoluted environmental processes mandated by the National Environmental Protect Act (NEPA).
While the communities may express a desire to ensure a healthy environment, they also maintain a desire for the depot to continue operating to ensure their own prosperity. They also understand that the government must destroy the stockpile to comply with an international treaty. These concerns may seem to conflict and have resulted in multiple communities that, while voicing their concerns, are willing to remain living near what they consider a potential health risk.
To examine this assertion, I will present the public comments submitted for a recent DCD-related Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA), which also apply to a follow-on Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA). The primary document discussed herein, is a compilation of public comments submitted to the Utah Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste in response to the Tooele Chemical Demilitarization Facility (TOCDF) Draft HHRA. The secondary documents include the draft and final versions of the HHRA and ERA . Together, the comments, the responses, and the final versions of the documents tell a troubling story about a small percentage of these communities – a percentage that may also convey a story of its own.
Dissemination: engaging the public
For all permitted activities at DCD, the public is invited to comment on open environmental actions (e.g., draft document prepared for review, new activity proposed to commence, hazard reports, etc.). Historically, there have been multiple actions (or reports) per year, which have not been administered equally (i.e., some comments are formally submitted, recorded and published where they are accessible, others comments are verbal, and even others are recorded as if published but are not accessible).
The two documents for this essay were concurrently disseminated over a three-year period (2002 – 2005). The dates for dissemination and comments are described below:
• TOCDF HHRA (2002 – 2003):
­ The Draft TOCDF HHRA publication date was April 2002.
­ The public comment period was originally from April 11, 2002 to June 10. The period was extended one month in response to requests from “interested parties”.
­ Interested parties were invited to formally submit comments via mail or email to the Director of Utah’s Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (DSHW).
­ Copies of the draft HHRA were available for public review at the Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste in Salt Lake, Utah; at the Tooele Chemical Stockpile Outreach Office, Tooele, Utah; and online.
­ A public information meeting was held on June 25, 2002 in Salt Lake City.
­ The public was notified by articles placed in the local paper (i.e., Tooele Transcript), the area papers (i.e., Deseret News and Salt Lake Tribune); and by notices disseminated by the TOCDF Outreach Office in the forms of flyers and emails (issued throughout Tooele County and the depot).
­ The Final TOCDF HHRA was published in September 2003.
• Phase I Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) Final Results Report (2002 – 2005):
­ The Draft ERA publication date is September 5, 2002.
­ The public comment began on November 29, 2004 and ended on December 22, 2004.
­ Interested parties were invited to formally submit comments via mail or email to the same individual until 5:00 pm, December 29, 2004.
­ The public was notified of this activity using the same approach as the HHRA.
­ The Final ERA was published on February 7, 2005.
Readership: involving the public
Public comments are, perhaps, the best resource for confirming that the public participated in an environmental activity. In fact, for DCD, there does not seem to be another viable tracking method for readership: Neither the government agencies (i.e., EPA, State, Army) nor public agencies (e.g., TOCDF Outreach Office) collect readership data.
The readers for this essay should have finished reading and commenting on the HHRA in July 2002, just in time to pick up the ERA in September the same year (although the comment period was two years later). The readership of the Draft HHRA returned comments from 51 readers (some representing more than one reader), which resulted in a total of 106 comments. These numbers allow for a quick calculation for demonstrating the quantity of readers:
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Tooele City (the largest community near the depot), was 43,739 in 2003. If we speculate that all of the 51 readers are from Tooele and that each represents at least two interested parties (102), then 0.23% of community participated in the comment period. This percentage significantly drops when other populations are added to the formula; while insignificantly rising when interested parties are added.
While the quantity of the comments may present a bleak picture regarding public interest, the quality of the comments presents something quite different. For example, many of the responses were very technical and fluently discussed chemicals, monitoring methods, and risk calculation methods. These comments were not interpreted for the lay readers, and were therefore, difficult to understand even in context with their follow-up responses, for example:
“3j. Comment. The emissions estimates for TOCDF should be based on and include, but are not based on nor do they include, a measurement of the total dioxin-like emissions and total dioxin-like toxicity of a representative sample of stack gas (for example, using a bioassay approach).” (page 13 of 40)
“Response. The emission rates in the HRA include all dioxin-like chemicals (chemicals with a U.S. EPA 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin toxic equivalency factor [TEF]) from a representative sample of stack gas. The toxicity of the dioxin-like chemicals are evaluated by calculating 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo(p)dioxin toxic equivalents (TEQs) in accordance with USEPA guidance (1998). Bioassays (exposing a living organism to stack gas and evaluating adverse health effects) were not conducted for any of the trial burns and are not recommended in USEPA (1998) guidance. Bioassays would have serious methodological challenges such as overcoming the oxygen deficient stack emissions or assigning any observed toxicity to the appropriate chemical. No changes were made to HRA in response to this comment.” (page 13 of 40)
Not all readers, however, presented such technical questions. Instead, at least one expressed frustration in the system that they felt was supposed to provide them with information they could understand:
“4. Comment. Neither the HRA itself nor the state's handling of it adequately promote, provide for, encourage, facilitate or assist the public in understanding the risks posed by the TOCDF RCRA facility or in participating in the state TOCDF RCRA permit decisions in light of those risks.” (page 22 of 40)
Of note, the parties represented by comment #4 (including four sub-comments), focused their discussions on the overall approach used by the State for their environmental risk assessment process:
“4c. Comment. The use by DSHW of certain “draft” reports, documents, etc. and then not using other “draft” reports, documents, etc., such as the EPA Dioxin Health Assessment is arbitrary and capricious. The State's policy on use of drafts has not been disclosed to the public and should be established with public comment pursuant to law.” (page 24 of 40)
These comments demonstrated that a small portion of the affected communities wanted to be involved and some were even technically savvy enough to challenge the system. The first commenter (3j) was prepared to debate the technical approach used to analyze total dioxin-like toxicity and the second (4, 4c) expressed a desire to be involved and of value.
Impact: assuring the public
Although these commenters represented less than 1% of their communities, the responses they received and the changes they triggered had the power to inspire public participation or, conversely, public apathy. The commenters for this HRRA felt, however, disparaged. As noted in comment 4d, the level of public participation extended for this HRRA felt more like a notification of a final decision rather than an invitation for participation:
“Comment [4d]. …There is a difference between “public outreach,” which implies a decision has been made and the governmental agency is informing the public of the decision versus “Public participation,” which allows for two-way dialogue, consulting, and includes all entities in the decision-making process prior to a decision.”
To evaluate their affect, these commenters can read the responses documented in the formal report, contact the Director of Utah’s DHSW for elaboration, and compare the draft with the final reports to identify changes. Because their comments were formally published, it would make sense to review the responses prior to pursuing conversations or documentation comparisons . This is the approach chosen for this essay: The responses selected herein are for a topic that was threaded throughout the draft and final versions of the HHRA and ERA [i.e., emission rates for chemicals of potential concern (COPC)]. The value of the COPC debate is found in the objective of the ERA:
“The objective of the Phase I ERA was to determine, for each emissions source at TOCDF and CAMDS, cumulative (across agent campaigns) hazards for chemicals of potential concern (COPC) based on ecological screening quotients (ESQ) for ecological receptors (communities and guilds) in the assessment area…” (ERA, page 1)
To assess hazards for COPCs, emission rates needed to be established prior to performing the ERA. As noted in the ERA, the rates were finalized in the HHRA:
“The rationale for using these emission rates is discussed in detail in the HHRA report (Tetra Tech 2002a).” (ERA, page 1).
Therefore, the public comments regarding COPCs and emission rate methodology for the draft HHRA can be used to demonstrate how the public’s involvement in one comment period affected an integrated process and its interdependent documents.
Comments under review
The readers submitted four separate comments that specifically addressed COPCs two of which should have impacted how the authors presented COPC information in the final documents:
“1a. Comment... Risks for several chemicals, including mercury, 2 PAHs, DNOP and EMS were found to exceed the State adopted EPA risk standards. Then, after calculating the risks with its own procedures, data and standards, the State promptly abandoned the HRA methodology and declared its own risk results for numerous chemicals of potential concern (COPCs), those that exceeded the risk standards, to be meaningless and unreliable. The fact that the State abandoned its own approach only after seeing the risk results shows a bias and a predisposition to find in favor of the TOCDF operators, the Army and EG&G…” (page 1 of 40)
“27. Comment. (pg. 18 section 4. 1; par 1) “...assessment of all COPCs, which includes those compounds detected in emission and the non-detected compounds evaluated at the analytical detection limit in the stack gas.” It is unclear what is meant by “non-detected”? If non-detected means the compounds did not exist it is one thing, but it is another if the detection equipment was not capable of detecting a compound actually present due to limitation of equipment, or if the compound was not tested for (was not a target analyte).” (page 30 of 40)
The responses to these comments were not encouraging:
“Response [1a]. The Division disagrees with the comment…” explanation followed indicating no changes would be made to the HHRA. (page 1 of 40)
“Response [27]. Non-detected compounds were compounds that were analyzed but were not present in the sample at a concentration greater than the laboratory’s certified reporting limit. The compound may be present at some concentration below the laboratory’s certified reporting limit or may not actually be present. No changes were made to the HRA in response to this comment. (page 30 of 40)
Regardless of HHRA public input, the methodology for studying emission rates for COPCs was defended, unaltered and used for the ERA. If this methodology is questionable, the lack of change that could have been induced by the public’s comments can be discouraging. The State’s responses compel the public to either trust the State or initiate a legal action.
Another example of a cross-document topic is a specific COPC: Mercury. Several readers (i.e., #1, 2, 3, 35, and 46) extensively discussed mercury with highly technical prose. The responses, however, defended the State’s approach and – in turn – resulted in the methodology used in the ERA. Yet again, the public must trust or litigate.
Overall, the State responded to 13 of the comments by flatly disagreeing or indicating that they were incorrect, and to 61 of the comments by indicated that “no changes” would be made to the HHRA. In fact, the comments returned very few actions including 3 responses promising to ‘clarify’ the document, and 2 responses indicating that the report will be updated as needed:
“The emission data and waste characterization assumptions will be updated as new data is collected.” (25 of 40)
If the lack of public-inspired changes and overlord-like dissent were not enough, the public may have been further discouraged by State’s full dismissal of the need for public contribution:
“Response [4d]. The Division was not required to conduct a risk assessment nor was the Division required to solicit public comment. The Division conducted these activities because the HRA is a useful tool for evaluating the protectiveness of the operating permit and the Division wanted the public to be informed concerning the process and the results. The Division believes that the HRA is reliable for its intended purpose and was prepared in accordance with the USEPA (1998) guidance. The Division would not have released the draft HRA if the assessment was not reliable for its intended purpose. Soliciting public input on the risk assessment methodology for the HRA protocol prior to the preparation of the risk assessment facilitated public participation. The Division did not rely on the findings of the HRA until all comments on the HRA were considered. No changes were made to the HRA in response to this comment.” (page 24 of 40)
Perhaps the key phrase in this response is that the “Division wanted the public to be informed” – not necessarily empowered.
Conclusion
Reflecting on the quantity of comments received, it is clear that the public was not actively engaged in this process. Reflecting on the quality of the comments received, it is clear that the few who were engaged were knowledgeable and, potentially, valuable representatives for their communities. The final reflection, however, on how these comments were received could leave the public embittered. The comments did not result in technical changes to the HHRA or its subsequent ERA. Many of the comments were dismissed with a dissent or as incorrect. In fact, the State clearly informed the commenters that their input was neither necessary nor required by regulation or law (see response to 4d, above).
This episode of DCD’s environmental assessment process demonstrates that the public is invited to participate and is encouraged to comment, that some are technically competent, and some want to understand. It also demonstrates that although the public competently voiced their concerns, they were unable to affect change and discouraged to try. If they were truly at risk, they could move or initiate litigation. If they chose neither, they have on some level decided to trust the State and maintain the status quo.