1995 CPEO Military List Archive

From: dmulqn@ix.netcom.com
Date: 22 May 1995 18:28:51
Reply: cpeo-military
Subject: Re: Response #3 to Benson Letter
Posting from dmulqn@ix.netcom.com (Dan Mulqueen)

This is multipart MIME message.

Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="NCZ0603.TMP"

does this wrk better?

Content-Type:text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; name="atsdr.txt"


 Dan Mulqueen
March 13, 1995 1422 S. York St.
 Denver CO 80210

Div of Health Assessment and Consultations
Attn. Chief, Program Evaluation, Records, and Information Services Branch
1600 Clifton Road, NE, Atlanta GA 30333

To Whom It May Concern:
re; Public Health Assessment for the Rocky Mountain Arsenal

 Please consider the following comments:
What are the costs associated with the preparation of this report and how are these costs funded? Also does the ASTDR feel that funding is adequate to prepare a comprehensive report in the event that existent documents are found inadequate, incomplete, o
r biased?

May the ATSDR initiate studies of health effects of contaminates released and potentially released at this site?

Would you consider including the known effects upon human health and reproduction of each contaminant of concern at this site in the report as well as in any "Fact Sheets", in order to allow the public to determine the possibilities of exposures having a
 connection with ailments or particular health concerns?

Given the vast number of animal samples frozen by USFWS and the number of necropsy reports completed, would this information be included as a basis for pathway assumptions, 
and perhaps otherwise undetected human health effects? 

More attention must be given to DIMP studies and expert testimony contained in records and files of the State of Colorado.

Why are nerve agent and unexploded ordinance not given more consideration? Periodically there have been releases of these toxins and suspected exposures to workers during interim clean-up activities. Just today a shell containing 7 pounds of GB Nerve
 Agent was discovered by TVA workers stripping out equipment for salvage and recycling.
In light of the fact that trained ordinance disposal crews are not onsite, the communities single source of notification and information remains the polluter. It is the publics view that these events are not admitted or considered with the past or prese
nt exposure burden.

 page two RMA Assessment Comments

Does ATSDR weigh the existence or adequacy of emergency and evacuation plans within it 's quantification of threat of exposure? It would seem to me that less that complete confidence should be expressed when these protective elements are not in place, i
nactive, or not drilled. The potential for exposure to many extremely toxic substances involved in military weapons designed and produced for killing and havoc needs to be discussed openly and critically.

ATSDR should be aware of the public statements by the PRPs to the effect that ATSDR is in compete charge of Human Health Issues, with the implication that your agency is pursuing data in an independent manner, with no lobbying or influence by the parties.
 It should be made clear in public documents and statements, the limitations to your charge as well as a clearer statement of the identity of the parties providing the data for your review. I feel that the implications of these facts will have a signif
icant bearing on public acceptance of your finding and confidence in the process. These issues may be of extreme importance given the "Sister" relationship between ATSDR,EPA,DOD, USFWS, and the public acceptance of the activities and remedies to be funde
d through tax-payers and our Congress.

If it is the role of ATSDR is to provide research and data to the public about this site, we need this to be done with the utmost of diligence and concern. What is at stake for us are homes , families and futures. Give us reason to trust your position an
d your reports as they themselves have a significant bearing on the publics own perception of health and safety.
If this burden has been unfairly placed on your agency, demand that your function not be misrepresented and used to cloak the lack of concern and accountability of others.

While it may be reasonable to assume from data provided by the parties and their contractors that no health hazard is posed at this site, the public ridicules that assertion as self serving propaganda and half-truth. If ATSDR cares about credibility, you
 must find ways to separate yourselves from the rhetoric of this small and distinct culture and show greater empathy to the public who are firm in their impression and not likely to accept the "education " offered patronizingly by the government. At thi
s time, and in this instance, it is incumbent on the ATSDR to be more responsive to concerns of the public and less to the traditional constituencies of the other Federal Agencies

I would like to thank you for the chance to comment on this important Report and the extension of time to comment. As a citizen unaccustomed to the these things, I hope you may overlook any failures in form or understanding on my part, and accept and res
pond in the spirit in which these comments are offered. 


Daniel P. Mulqueen


  Prev by Date: Re: DERA Funding for Rocky Mtn. Arsenal
Next by Date: Re: DERA Funding for Rocky Mtn. Arsenal
  Prev by Thread: Response #3 to Benson Letter

CPEO Lists
Author Index
Date Index
Thread Index