Public Health Assessment Work Group
Meeting Minutes
November 6, 2003
ORRHES Members:
Bob Craig (Chair), David Johnson, James Lewis, LC Manley, Tony Malinauskas,
George Gartseff, Susan Kaplan
Public Members and Others:
Danny Sanders, Donnie Sanders, Al Brooks, Roger Macklin, Tim Joseph (DOE),
Gordon Blaylock
ATSDR Staff:
Jack Hanley, Paul Charp, Bill Taylor, Melissa Fish, Lorine Spencer (telephone)
Purpose
There were four items on the agenda for discussion.
- Approval of October 20, 2003 meeting minutes
- Recommendations and resolutions for ORRHES to ATSDR
- New Business
- Identification of action items and assignments
Meeting Minutes
Susan Kaplan presented a written page with four comments regarding the
10-20-03 Draft PHAWG meeting minutes (See Handout One).
- Referring to the statement from the minutes of 10-20-03 that read
“Jack Hanley added that one reason for keeping the clean-up level
low in East Fork Poplar Creek was because of effects on the shrews and
wrens.” Susan Kaplan wanted to point out that the 400 parts per
million cleanup value started out at 10 to 12 parts per million, so
the term “low” is relative.
Jack Hanley clarified that EPA wanted a clean up level of 180 or 200
parts per million of mercury in the soil because of ecological reasons
and risk. The decision was later made to have a clean up level of 400
parts per million.
There was disagreement between Susan Kaplan and Al Brooks about whether
the Civic Center was cleaned up to the level of 10 to 12 parts per million.
Susan believed that the Civic Center was cleaned up at the 10 to 12
level while Al Brooks disagreed.
- Susan Kaplan noted that her comment was left out about the lawsuit
that had been filed by Wayne Clark and Mel Sturm regarding East Fork
Poplar Creek land.
Melissa Fish told Susan that she would add that information to the minutes
and the reason that it was left out was because the names were not clear
on the audio recording.
- Referring to the statement from the minutes of 10-30-03 that read,
“Paul Charp said that when ATSDR requests soil samples, ATSDR
always requests the top two inches of soil because that is the area
where children will dig into the soil and ingest soil.” Susan
commented that when her children dig, they dig deeper than two inches.
Susan Kaplan also commented that the black mercury layer in the soil
was located approximately five inches from the top and thus, going down
only two inches would miss that layer of mercury.
Jack Hanley said that normally EPA takes 6-inch, 12-inch, and 18-inch
core soil samples and those samples are used. However, in the evaluation
of recreational areas including playgrounds and residential areas ATSDR
also likes to look at the surface soil in addition to the core sample.
- Susan Kaplan asked that the comment number in which she referred
to ATSDR’s use of “nice academic exercise” be included
in the minutes. Melissa Fish responded that she would add the comment
number.
Approval of the PHAWG October 20, 2003 meeting minutes was tabled until
a future meeting so that the rest of the PHAWG members would have the
opportunity to review the draft meeting minutes.
Before moving on to the next agenda item James Lewis said that when he
looked at the agenda for tonight’s PHAWG meeting he thought that
it was too skimpy and that he did not understand why he was coming to
the meeting or how he could prepare for the meeting. James noted that
it is difficult to draw people to a meeting when the agenda is not detailed
because people do not know what will be discussed or the reason that they
should attend the meeting.
Bill Taylor said that the reason that the agenda was so short was because
the agenda items were not resolved prior to putting the agenda together.
The agenda needed to be sent out so it was sent out with as much information
as was available at the time. Bill Taylor agreed with James Lewis that
this meeting agenda is short and inadequate.
Recommendations and resolutions for ORRHES to ATSDR
Susan Kaplan read aloud two proposed recommendations concerning the Uranium
Public Health Assessment (Item #1 and Item #2 on Handout Two).
- EPA (both Headquarters and Region IV) should be officially asked to
comment on ATSDR’s response to their comments on the draft Uranium
Public Health Assessment report and to discuss whether ATSDR addressed
their concerns adequately.
- EPA (both Headquarters and Region IV) should be invited (together)
to an ORRHES meeting to discuss their comments and ATSDR’s responses
to those comments on the draft Uranium Public Health Assessment report.
Jack Hanley said that ATSDR has contacted EPA Region IV and EPA Headquarters.
Jack Hanley went on to say that all of the entities at Region IV and Headquarters
that have been involved in this issue are going to get together and come
up with a resolution. Jack said that ATSDR anticipates hearing from them
but he does not know how they will hear from EPA, when they will hear
from EPA, or what they will hear from EPA but he does know that the entities
are getting together to resolve this issue.
Jack Hanley also told the group that the EPA liaison Jon Richards would
be present at the December 2nd ORRHES meeting.
Tim Joseph asked if EPA could be reminded that the ORRHES expects EPA
to have comments regarding the Uranium PHA issue. Jack Hanley replied
that EPA had been reminded.
James Lewis said that there had been an Agenda Work Group meeting relating
to the same subject. James said that Barbara Sonnenburg had wanted a slot
on the agenda for an EPA Representative to come and address the Uranium
issues. Barbara Sonnenburg then had asked James to contact Jon Richards.
James explained that he contacted Jon Richards and that in addition to
that Kowetha Davidson is planning to draft a letter to request the appropriate
presence available at ORRHES to address the issues.
Tony Malinauskas asked what type of responses ORRHES is expecting from
EPA.
James Lewis said that outstanding EPA/ATSDR issues need to be discussed
openly.
Tony Malinauskas said that logically there are two conclusions—either
ATSDR was responsive to the EPA comments and addressed the comments satisfactorily
or they did not, according to EPA.
Al Brooks said that it is his understanding that as of right now, EPA
has more than one opinion. Al said that Region IV has agreed with ATSDR’s
conclusions but the Office of Indoor Air has written a contrary opinion.
In Al’s opinion, the problem is a disagreement within EPA. Al Brooks
urged the PHAWG members to not get caught up in EPA’s disagreement.
Bob Craig responded to Al Brooks by saying that ORRHES needs the unresolved
issues resolved. EPA caused the problem and thus EPA should resolve the
problem that they created.
James Lewis stated that most of the general public knows who EPA is but
does not have a clue as to who ATSDR is. The general public will not go
beyond the headlines that appear in the newspaper, one of which stated
“EPA Flays OR Public Health Report”. James believes that it
would be to the ORRHES’s advantage to find out what the EPA differences
are.
Bob Craig said that he knows that there were significant comments regarding
some of the ways in which the analysis was done and some of the conclusions
that were reached. Bob also added that EPA Headquarters comments were
significantly different than Region IV comments.
James Lewis said that after his phone conversation with Jon Richards,
James did not think that there were outstanding issues with the current
findings. Instead, James felt that Jon implied the area of concern was
with the past exposure calculations. James Lewis said that EPA should
state its position so that ORRHES and ATSDR can move away from this issue.
Tony Malinauskas said that ORRHES is an advisory group to ATSDR and that
ORRHES can only tell ATSDR and EPA to get together and try to resolve
these issues.
Susan Kaplan asked if the ORRHES would hear from EPA. Susan asked if
the group can trust ATSDR that they are trying to get into contact with
EPA or if there needs to be a resolution voted on [at this point Susan
was interrupted and the rest of her statement could not be heard].
Jack Hanley said that ATSDR has contacted EPA and ATSDR is trying to
work with them. EPA said that their entities need to get together and
if they have any outstanding issues they will come back to ATSDR to discuss
them. ATSDR has not heard back from EPA and ATSDR is continuing to work
on it.
Tim Joseph asked if EPA would have held their discussions by the next
meeting. Jack Hanley said that he couldn’t promise or predict what
EPA Headquarters will do. Jack Hanley said that EPA knew about this PHAWG
meeting, the next PHAWG meeting, and the December 2nd ORRHES meeting.
Susan Kaplan said that EPA is well known for dragging things out. Thus,
Susan felt that if the group made some type of official request, that
request would be more difficult to ignore than an unofficial request.
James Lewis said that it is imperative that an appropriate EPA individual
with some clout comes to the ORRHES meeting to discuss the outstanding
issues.
Al Brooks felt that an appropriate person would not be willing to come.
Bob Craig said that rather than having EPA attend an ORRHES meeting,
the group could have ATSDR request a consistent EPA position regarding
the Y-12 Uranium Public Health Assessment.
Tony Malinauskas told the group that it is important that the group recognize
an apparent difference in policy between EPA and ATSDR. The group could
suggest that the two organizations get together in an attempt to resolve
the issue completely. Tony added that EPA could be given the opportunity
to append an objecting opinion.
Bob Craig reminded the group that they want to hear one voice from EPA.
After much discussion the motion was made and then seconded to recommend
that ORRHES request that ATSDR request that EPA come back with a definitive
set of comments reconciling the original set of EPA comments from Headquarters
(Office of Radiation and Indoor Air) and the ATSDR responses to those
comments prior to December 1, 2003 regarding the Y-12 Uranium document.
James Lewis stated that if ORRHES and ATSDR are going to be working with
Region IV EPA and if ATSDR is going to continue receiving comments from
EPA Headquarters then James would like to have both EPAs at the table
so that ORRHES and the community does not have to go through this same
process for each and every Public Health Assessment that ATSDR issues.
Al Brooks told the group that ATSDR is already trying to do what is noted
in the recommendation/resolution and it is possible that ATSDR may have
the issue resolved before ORRHES has to act on the recommendation.
Gordon Blaylock asked if someone from EPA should come to an ORRHES meeting
to present EPA’s comments.
James Lewis agreed with Gordon Blaylock and added that it often takes
a real person—one with the authority to speak to the issue—presenting
the information for accurate delivery of a message. James believes that
it would be more effective to have an EPA representative in person rather
than just a letter from EPA.
Susan Kaplan asked what will happen if EPA cannot come to an agreement.
Tony Malinauskas said that if EPA cannot come to an agreement then EPA
should send someone down to say that EPA Region IV and EPA Headquarters
do not agree.
Responding to Jack Hanley saying that Jon Richards is the EPA Region
IV representative, James Lewis said that Jon Richards told him that he
(Jon Richards) is not in the technical position to make the call. Jon
said that he has his own area of expertise and the area of expertise that
has been challenged came out of Headquarters and not from his own area
of expertise.
Jack Hanley reminded the group that EPA Region IV concurred with the
findings of the Uranium Public Health Assessment and had the expertise
to make that call.
Tony Malinauskas said that EPA commented on the Uranium PHA, ATSDR claims
that they addressed those comments, so what is the issue?
James Lewis said that he remembers Jack Hanley stating that the first
revisions ATSDR made to the Y-12 PHA would resolve some of EPA’s
questions and issues. James asked if ATSDR’s first revision took
care of EPA’s comments. He added that if it did then this in a non-issue;
however, if there are outstanding issues, ORRHES needs to know what the
outstanding issues are.
Regarding the motion and the amendment to the motion, Tim Joseph asked
about a single set of comments from EPA. Tim reminded the group that both
Headquarters and Region IV could have a definitive set of comments.
Tony Malinauskas said that all EPA comments have been addressed by ATSDR;
he asked, what is the issue?
Susan Kaplan responded to Tony Malinauskas saying that some of ATSDR’s
responses are very vague and don’t really [at this point Susan was
interrupted and the rest of her statement could not be heard].
James Lewis said that he feels that EPA comments may have been addressed
adequately for those who are very knowledgeable about the situation. However,
the other audience who believes EPA is the bigger agency or does not understand
the situation technically may not feel the same way. James added that
perhaps those who understand the issue might be willing to try to sell
the issue to ORRHES if they understand the situation so well or the group
could let EPA come and discuss the issue with ORRHES.
Susan Kaplan said that she personally wants to know if EPA accepts ATSDR’s
comments [at this point Susan was interrupted and the rest of her statement
could not be heard].
Al Brooks told Susan that he made comments and nobody asked if he accepted
ATSDR’s responses to his comments. Susan Kaplan reminded him that
he is not a federal agency.
Regarding the motion and the amendments to the motion, Tony Malinauskas
asked what version will EPA provide consistent comments to and he told
the group that he still believes the EPA issue is a non-issue.
Motion voted on:
ORRHES request that ATSDR request that EPA come back with a definitive
set of comments reconciling the original set of EPA comments from Headquarters
(Office of Radiation and Indoor Air) and the ATSDR responses to those
comments prior to December 1, 2003 regarding the Y-12 Uranium document.
The motion passed. 7 in favor; 4 against
Bill Taylor pointed out that an ORRHES conference call prior to the December
2nd ORRHES meeting would be necessary for this motion.
James Lewis said that he believes ATSDR did an excellent job responding
to the EPA agency comments. However, the rest of the comments need to
be organized and reviewed so that they are user friendly for the lay public.
Al Brooks asked if there would be any delay in the final version of the
Y-12 Uranium PHA due to the panel that met.
Paul Charp said that the panel met last week and that the bottom line
was that the ATSDR procedures used to address radiation issues are fine.
There were no recommendations to change the approach. However, the panel
indicated that ATSDR needs to do a better job of communicating its approach
and its findings to the public. Paul Charp added that he is preparing
a synopsis of the findings that will be sent up the ATSDR administrative
chain. The synopsis will eventually go to the panel members to see if
it adequately addresses their comments and then at that point, the synopsis
will go to Dr. Falk.
Jack Hanley told the group that environmental issues, especially radiation,
are difficult to effectively communicate to the public—this is not
just an issue for ATSDR. Jack Hanley added that the panel thought the
Thermometer graph was an excellent tool for communicating and presenting
information. The panel also liked that Paul Charp had discussed the screening
value process with the ORRHES.
Paul Charp told the group that he had been in Washington DC at a Federal
Radiation Policy Coordinating Committee Subcommittee meeting and one of
the items on the agenda was whether or not things should be addressed
as dose or risk. Paul told the group this so that they would understand
that the dose versus risk is a national issue and not just an issue within
ATSDR.
Jack Hanley said that both approaches are appropriate, communicating
the information is the problem and the challenge.
Gordon Blaylock said that the general public could perceive risk while
most of the public will not understand the terms used for dose (rad, rem,
etc.).
Al Brooks explained that both of the motions that he would present were
in anticipation of the Y-12 Uranium PHA moving forward to ORRHES (See
Handout Three).
Al Brooks made a motion to request ORRHES to concur in ATSDR’s
responses to the PHA on the Y-12 release comments: Al Brooks moved that
PHAWG request the ORRHES to concur in the ATSDR responses to the public
and agency comments and request ATSDR include these responses in the final
PHA document.
Tony Malinauskas seconded the motion.
James Lewis said that he believes the public comments deserve some organization
in a way that is similar to the organization of the EPA comments. James
Lewis said that he believes in the detail but he also believes that it
would be beneficial to boil the comments down into a summarization since
nobody will read the entire set of comments.
Motion voted on:
PHAWG request the ORRHES to concur in the ATSDR responses to the public
and agency comments and request ATSDR include these responses in the final
PHA document.
The motion passed.
Al Brooks made a motion to request ORRHES to concur in ATSDR’s
findings on Y-12 Uranium releases: Al Brooks moved that the PHAWG request
the ORRHES to concur in the ATSDR findings of “No Apparent Public
Health Hazard” for the ORR Y-12 Uranium Releases and that this finding
be conveyed to the ORR public in an appropriate manner.
The motion received a second.
James Lewis said that the categorization categories involve specific
actions. One major problem with voting on a category is that the ORRHES
does not have a good understanding of what ORRHES is voting on. ORRHES
must have a good understanding of what they will be voting on before being
asked to vote.
Al Brooks said that he assumes there will be a negotiation between ORRHES
and ATSDR on what constitutes an appropriate manner of conveying the information
to the public.
Jack Hanley pointed out that in the Y-12 Uranium PHA the recommendation
states that ATSDR will inform the community and work with ORRHES to determine
the best ways to communicate the Y-12 Uranium release results.
Both Jack Hanley and James Lewis agreed that a plan for communicating
the Y-12 Uranium PHA results will need to be developed and followed so
that the Y-12 information is available and understood by the lay public.
Motion voted on:
PHAWG request the ORRHES to concur in the ATSDR findings of “No
Apparent Public Health Hazard” for the ORR Y-12 Uranium Releases
and that this finding be conveyed to the ORR public in an appropriate
manner.
The motion passed.
James Lewis said that something needs to be presented to ORRHES about
ATSDR’s conclusion categorizations so that ORRHES understands what
it is they are voting on. A motion was made and seconded that ATSDR give
a presentation to the ORRHES regarding the ATSDR conclusion categories.
After some discussion Jack Hanley explained that the conclusion categories
as identified in the most recent version of ATSDR’s Guidance Manual
are now policy and that a presentation could be given regarding the categories.
Motion voted on:
ATSDR should give a presentation to the ORRHES regarding ATSDR’s
conclusion categories.
The motion passed.
Jack Hanley followed up on the action items that were identified at the
end of the previous PHAWG meeting minutes.
- Regarding one of ATSDR’s responses to an EPA comment, ATSDR
will be adding language that Al Brooks and Tony Malinauskas suggested.
- Regarding EPA and the process used for soil samples (were they homogenized
or not) Region IV is consulting with their lab and will get back to
ATSDR with an answer. EPA will clarify their procedure.
- Regarding ChemRisk and a deposition map showing uranium fallout, the
ORHASP minutes have been reviewed and nothing was found so ATSDR is
in the process of contacting the ChemRisk people.
- The category will be changed from “health concern” to
“health hazard” as was suggested by James Lewis.
- Regarding the question of why ATSDR is only performing health education
and not a health investigation or residents tracking system—Jack
spoke with the Assistant Director for Science who is leading the effort
to develop the new Guidance Manual. Jack explained that the overhead
that he used last meeting listing the PHA recommendations’ options
of “health investigation” and “residents tracking
system” was from the 2002 Public Comment version of the Guidance
Manual. Since then, the Division of Health Education and Promotion and
the Division of Health Studies have removed those types of follow-up
activities and under the No Apparent Public Health Hazard category,
they no longer perform those follow-up activities. Those activities
will not be included in the Final version of the Guidance Manual.
- Regarding Peggy Adkins request for maps showing the ranges and ridges
in the different valleys, Jack Hanley explained the 1950s maps on the
wall.
Before the group moved on, James Lewis said that ATSDR must make an effort
to put forth information into the general public that the general public
can understand. Communication is important and ORRHES needs ATSDR’s
help in communicating the findings.
Jack Hanley referred James Lewis to DHEP and CIB staff.
James Lewis said that he feels the group is almost down to needing to
discuss the issue with Congressman Zach Wamp if ATSDR does not respond
or provide assistance in getting information out to the lay public.
New Business
Danny Sanders would like an updated timetable in regards to the issues
about Happy Valley that Danny raised last year at a PHAWG meeting. Danny
Sanders wants to know about the health risks for the Happy Valley community.
Jack Hanley explained that a Public Health Assessment would be performed
on K-25 regarding uranium and fluorides.
Danny Sanders said that he knows ATSDR has new historical information.
Danny pointed out that there are some discrepancies in the new information
regarding his sister’s address and the year of her birth-1948.
Danny Sanders asked if ATSDR would be looking at water sources. Danny
said that water from the Clinch River was sent to a tower [at this point
the audio is inaudible because people are interrupting].
Danny Sanders said that he has a picture of one of his brothers sitting
on the front of his parent’s car in Happy Valley at one of the hutments
with the license plate reading 1947.
James Lewis clarified that Danny Sanders had submitted his comments in
writing and is still waiting for a response to his written comments.
Jack Hanley said that there is a date planned when ATSDR will come to
the PHAWG with a preliminary assessment regarding where the agency is
concerning the K-25 PHA. After that, ATSDR will come in with a written
version and then a public comment version of the K-25 Public Health Assessment.
In both versions, PHAWG members have the opportunity to participate.
Bill Taylor announced that all ORRHES members need to review the draft
ORRHES meeting minutes from the October ORRHES meeting and turn in their
comments by end of the business day on Monday, November 10th. Melissa
Fish has copies available for those who cannot get to their email.
Votes/Specific Actions Taken in the Meeting
The draft meeting minutes for the October 20th PHAWG meeting was
tabled.
The following motion passed: ORRHES requests that ATSDR request
that EPA come back with a definitive set of comments reconciling
the original set of EPA comments from Headquarters (Office of Radiation
and Indoor Air) and the ATSDR responses to those comments prior
to December 1, 2003 regarding the Y-12 Uranium document.
The following motion passed: PHAWG request the ORRHES to concur
in the ATSDR responses to the public and agency comments and request
ATSDR include these responses in the final PHA document.
The following motion passed: PHAWG request the ORRHES to concur
in the ATSDR findings of “No Apparent Public Health Hazard”
for the ORR Y-12 Uranium Releases and that this finding be conveyed
to the ORR public in an appropriate manner.
The following motion passed: ATSDR should give a presentation to
ORRHES regarding ATSDR’s conclusion categories.
|
The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 P.M.
|