I have serious concerns regarding the cleanup option (LS4) chosen by the EPA for the Li Tungsten site. The EPA has chosen to separate the radioactive waste on site with unproven technology that will increase the negative health impacts of the cleanup. A safer cleanup option (LS2), which is excavation and complete removal and offsite disposal of all the radioactive waste, is available and recommended by the EPA's consultants in their proposal plan. Approximately 1,000 people in the community, plus the Li Tungsten Task Force, have written to the EPA during the brief comment period and expressed their opposition to the EPA's on-site separation plan because it will generate excessive radioactive dust that could migrate off-site, increasing the cancer risks associated with this operation. Also, safety precautions, such as a containment structure over the excavation site and thorough radioactive monitoring, need to be included in the cleanup plan.

The cleanup option, LS4, chosen by the EPA, is flawed for the following reasons. The EPA admits that they don't know if the separation of the radioactive material from non-radioactive material will be effective, in which case they would revert to option LS2 anyway. They admitted in their news release that, "In the event that the use of these technologies proves to be not practical, all material will be disposed of off-site in an appropriate manner." In order to suppress the radioactive dust, they have to wet down the dirt; however, this will interfere with the separation process, making it less efficient. This is contradictory, and would sacrifice a necessary safety procedure. Also, the EPA did not present the risk assessments associated with any of the cleanup options; therefore, the community was not given an informed choice.

The community has taken responsible action by opposing the plan in writing to the EPA; however, in spite of the community's opposition, the EPA made a hasty decision. After approximately one week from the end of the comment period, Sept. 17, they mailed a news release dated Oct. 4, stating that they are going to separate the radioactive waste on-site. The EPA did not respond to the objections raised by the community and did not satisfy the criteria for "community acceptance," "protection of human health," or "cost." On the surface, it appears that the public hearing and community comment process was a sham.

In my opinion, the EPA chose option LS4 because it is less costly, not better or safer than option LS2. However, it is doubtful if the separation process will save money. Regardless, the overriding issue here should be the safety of the community, not cost. Our health and well being are more essential than saving money. We agree that cleaning up the site is constructive and will improve Glen Cove, but the clean-up process should not jeopardize our health.

I urge all residents of Glen Cove and the surrounding communities to contact their local, state, and federal representatives to express their concerns and opposition to EPA's cleanup option LS4 and request that the EPA select cleanup option LS2. To receive a copy of the letter that was sent to the EPA, you can contact me at 674-2441.

Dr. Roy M. Speiser