NEPA - Tolstoy thread

[Ed Kaplan <kaplan@bnl.gov>]

I can’t resist jumping into the current NEPA, and nuclear issues and

role of public opinion threads.  As background, I’ve been a scientist at

Brookhaven National Laboratory for 26 years, and also teach

environmental engineering at SUNY Stony Brook.  During this time I’ve

also been a member of several local governmental and citizen advisory

groups on environmental matters.  The comments below are strictly my own

and do not represent the view of BNL management.  Those who may not wish

to continue this thread on RADSAFE may contact me directly at

kaplan@bnl.gov.



William Lipton’s observations about what happened at BNL these past

several years are quite correct.  We were lambasted in the press, there

were public outcries at our contaminating the environment, a former

Secretary of Energy [and his entourage] came to the community and

publicly fired our former contractor, and politicians including our

local Congressman and Senator [both now ‘former’] joined the fray

calling for closure of several important scientific facilities (high

flux beam and medical reactors, D&D of our graphite reactor, etc).



Practices of BNL, its former contractor, and DOE did result in past

contamination ... in fact, this information has always been publicly

available in BNL’s yearly environmental reports.  I’ve used numerous

examples of these events in my university courses.  In addition, BNL,

its contractor, and DOE did little to solicit or listen to concerns of

its neighbors (current euphemism is ‘stakeholders’).  Actual

contamination has been quite minimal (especially compared with almost

all other DOE- or DOD-related facilities), with no significant

environmental or human health impacts.  This is borne out by publicly

available data reported by BNL, as well as local, state, and federal

agencies.



BNL employees formed two support groups that met with local press

officials to present facts in the matter.  We brought with us clear

examples of incorrect reporting and news stories meant simply to incite

the public.  Our protestations went largely unanswered.  We decided that

vigilance was our only recourse, and continued to bombard local news

editors with specific examples of how their stories were either

inaccurate, used inappropriate language, or both.  This oversight has

helped to lower the level of inflammatory reporting.



Shortly afterwards DOE selected a new contractor, and a new laboratory

director was hired (he is now the President’s science advisor).  A major

public outreach effort was undertaken by the DOE, the new contractor,

and the laboratory director.  A community advisory council (CAC) was

established comprised of representatives from more than two dozen local

civic associations, health and environmental action groups (including

one breast cancer group, as well as STAR … Standing for Truth About

Radiation … supported by those in the tooth fairy project, as well as

Hampton celebrities Brinkley, Alec Baldwin, etc), business associations

(e.g., builders), private citizens (e.g., local educators, retirees, a

high school student), and BNL employees.  Initially there was much

distrust, skepticism, and hostility directed not only against BNL but

between CAC members themselves.  We have met once a month for three

years.  DOE pays for a professional facilitator who runs the meetings.

To the best of my knowledge and experience all information that has been

requested by the group has been supplied promptly by BNL.   Each meeting

includes reports from BNL’s environmental remediation staff, as well as

from individual scientists reporting on their research.  This has been a

long, costly, and arduous process.  Much progress and understanding have

been made, though to use Ruth Weiner’s remarks, I would say the CAC does

still include “people who take an essentially political or policy

position and then proceed to ignore facts that contradict that

position.”



Yet we have seen enormous changes in the attitudes of many individuals

who were formerly quite vociferous in their condemnation of BNL.  In a

sense I both agree and disagree with some of Weiner’s observations.

First, patience and education have helped to change attitudes.  Second,

explanations in terms understandable by lay people have provided

enormous help in overcoming misinformation and fears.  Lastly, sometimes

bluntness is necessary to show (publicly and to their peers) how someone

is ignoring facts and is being deliberately disingenuous.



So what does this have to do with NEPA or Tolstoy (thanks to Stewart

Farber)?  While Weiner’s comments re NEPA are correct, they did not

address a fundamental assumption in the law, to wit, that the analysis

of potential environmental (and, yes, socioeconomic and human health)

impacts requires complete transparency.  This in turn leads to the

difficult, sometimes unrewarding, and often frustrating requirement to

communicate with and educate diverse interested parties (many of whom

are not technically trained).



Notwithstanding Tolstoy’s view that “even those who really are clever

and capable of understanding the most difficult … problems, can seldom

discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as

obliges them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed …

conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others,

and on which they have built their lives …” we who are professionals in

our fields must continue to meet with those who oppose our views, to

communicate with them at a level they can understand, to educate them,

and to do so openly and honestly.



Of course, it always helps to be vigilant and guard against deliberate

misinformation by our opponents.




begin:vcard 

n:Kaplan, PhD;Edward

tel;fax:(631) 344-3374

tel;work:(631) 344-2007

x-mozilla-html:FALSE

adr:;;;;;;

version:2.1

email;internet:kaplan@bnl.gov

end:vcard