ORRHES Minutes
December 3, 2002
Status of Action items – list
provided
The list of action items and recommendations was reviewed by the Subcommittee.
La Freta Dalton highlighted that the action items concerning the ORRHES
web site from the August 27, 2002 ORRHES meeting have been completed.
ORR
Project Update
Jerry Pereira reported that Lorine Spencer will be working, primarily,
with the Communications and Outreach Work Group on Oak Ridge activities,
as a senior health communications specialist (approximately 50% of her
time). Lorine Spencer will be working only on community involvement (CI)
activities in order to develop fact sheets and perhaps onsite availability
sessions to present specific information about the PHA to members of
the community.
The administrative assistant for the field office in Oak Ridge, Gayla
Cutler, will unfortunately will be leaving within the next couple of
weeks for personal reasons. She expressed concerns about the work hours
and being out at night during winter months. Jerry Pereira will find
out the next step in the process of trying to obtain a replacement person.
Jerry Pereira presented the Subcommittee with ATSDR’s ORR PHA
Project Management Plan Overview, the project Gantt chart, and contaminants
of concern sheet. The Gantt chart covers the entire PHA process, with
the last item, the executive summary, scheduled for completion in the
second quarter of 2005. All PHA activities are scheduled for completion
by fourth quarter 2004. The Gantt chart detail shows that the focused
PHA for Y-12 uranium releases has been accelerated in the schedule. The
Gantt chart symbols show percentage of completion for each individual
work task. Sandy Isaacs took the time to assemble and construct the Gantt
chart in all of its detail. Subcommittee member comments on the Gantt
chart should be submitted to ATSDR at any time and concerns should not
be delayed until the next Subcommittee meeting. Examination of the Gantt
chart reveals that many tasks will occur simultaneously, and it will
require major effort from ORRHES and ATSDR staff in order to maintain
and complete the schedule as indicated. Jerry Pereira will have to justify
causes to ATSDR management if schedule slippage occur.
James Lewis asked for indication on the Gantt chart of where ORRHES
needs to concentrate its effort. Jerry Pereira responded that the Gantt
chart schedule lists, for example, PHA Work Group actions which would
be an ORRHES action item. Kowetha Davidson added that any PHA Work Group
work items listed on the schedule will be examples of actions that will
be brought to the Subcommittee.
George Gartseff asked to what extent the Gantt chart schedule reflects
the Subcommittee’s meeting schedule. The concern would be that
ORRHES meeting schedule might be a cause for a schedule delay. Jerry
Pereira replied that if a potential for a schedule delay appears ATSDR
and the work groups will need to work together to adjust meeting schedules
to accomplish the required deliverables.
James Lewis commented that a plan needs to be developed within ORRHES
to understand what has to be accomplished by ORRHES by what time point.
Bob Craig commented that the schedule software can easily produce a resource
report for an individual group, such as PHA Work Group, that will assist
with keeping up on the schedule.
Sandy Isaacs commented that the schedule includes two built-in PHA Work
Group meetings for every focused public health assessment. There is a
printout of the PHA Work Group resource report that can be given to the
Subcommittee.
Kowetha Davidson added that there may be some occasions when additional
PHA Work Group meetings may need to be added.
Jerry Pereira announced that Dr. Elizabeth Howze of ATSDR (Division
Director of the Division of Health Education and Promotion) is in attendance
at the meeting.
Presentation on the Status of the EPA Soil Sampling Effort in the Scarboro
Community
Jeff Crane of EPA Region IV (substituting for Elmer Akin) presented
the Draft Sampling Report for the Scarboro Community. Connie Jones is
the EPA project manager for the Scarboro project.
Project Background:
- Oak Ridge NAACP requested EPA to conduct sampling
in Scarboro
- DOE is defined as “lead agency” for conducting Comprehensive
Environmental Response Compensation and Liabilities Act (CERCLA)
investigations.
- CERCLA investigations can include “off the Oak
Ridge Reservation” environmental
activities
- In September 1998 DOE presented a report on its Scarboro
Community Project, which primarily addressed radionuclide contaminants.
- Additional concerns of EPA recognized that other potential contaminants
had not been addressed. Work plan developed in 1999, sampling conducted
in 2001.
Project Activities:
- EPA draft report posted for public review and comment
in September 24, 2002. www.epa.gov/region4/waste/fedfac
- EPA held 2 public availability sessions in November 2002.
- Final report will be available in late January 2003.
EPA Analytical Conclusions:
- There were no site-related radionuclides that
exceeded both the PRGs (preliminary remediation goals) and their
background levels in the samples or the walkover survey
- Exceedance
of the PRGs without comparing to background would lead to false assumptions
that the levels are excessive or site-related
- Some chemicals had high
detection limits or slightly exceeded PRGs, but none are known to be
site-related
- EPAs analysis identified no date above regulatory health
level of concern.
- Project results compare similarly with Department
of Energy’s
results (no significant differences were noted)
General Website Addresses:
EPA’s home web site: www.epa.gov
Radionuclide PRGs: www.epa-prgs.ornl.gov/radionuclides/
Chemical PRGs: www.epa.gov/region09/waste/sfund/prg/index.htm
Summary:
Based on EPA’s analysis of the data:
- EPA findings are consistent
with DOE conclusions
- There are no elevated chemicals, metals, or radionuclides above a
regulatory health level of concern
- Scarboro residents are not currently
exposed to substances that warrant
an EPA response for more sampling
- Scarboro is safe for residents
Path Forward:
- Final EPA report scheduled for issuance in January 2003
- Future off-site
evaluations (Oak Ridge-wide) will be coordinated with the ATSDR PHA
report:
- Should address ORR Health Effect Subcommittee recommendations
to Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
- ATSDR
is the principle federal public health agency with responsibility
to evaluate human health effects
- After ATSDR PHA report is issued, DOE, TDEC, and EPA will
scope offsite assessment activities with stakeholder involvement
Herman Cember asked, concerning the draft EPA Scarboro soil sampling
report, whether the uranium MCL in drinking water (30 micrograms/L)listed
in the report refers to natural uranium. Jeff Crane responded that his
understanding was that the MCL represents total uranium (all isotopes). LC Manley asked what additional contaminants did EPA sample and analyze
for that the DOE effort did not include. Jeff Crane responded that additional
analyses included organic compounds and metals.
James Lewis asked what specific additional compounds were analyzed and
why EPA was prompted to perform those additional analyses. Jeff Crane
responded that the EPA preferred to include a more complete list of analytes
simply because the DOE effort focused primarily on radionuclides.
Bob Craig commented that the uranium data appear to have the same distribution
as uranium in background soil samples, suggesting that no uranium got
to the community from the nearby Y-12 plant. Jeff Crane agreed that this
is the conclusion of the EPA sampling effort.
Work Group Sessions
AGENDA WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Barbara Sonnenburg reported that future subjects for discussion before
the Subcommittee should be presented to the Agenda Work Group before
future ORRHES meetings.
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES WORK GROUP
Karen Galloway was not present. Kowetha Davidson noted that the Subcommittee
had not given any tasks to the Guidelines and Procedures Work Group.
HEALTH
EDUCATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT WORK GROUP
Donna Mosby reported that Theresa NeSmith would present update information
regarding the focus groups of the Needs Assessment. Donna Mosby reported
that the work group itself had not met since the last ORRHES meeting.
Theresa NeSmith reported on the identities of the categories for the
focus groups of the Needs Assessment. A copy of an e-mail concerning
the input compiled from the work group on categories of focus groups
was distributed. The e-mail discusses the reasons for choosing the focus
group categories. Information was taken from the phone surveys, key resource
interviews, and information from the work group. The data collected did
not support inclusion of some of the focus group categories originally
proposed by the work group. However, the categories selected will likely
capture the persons who would have been in those categories. The titles
for the focus groups are vague, due to confidentiality concerns, but
should answer Subcommittee questions. The focus groups are due to be
held in January. The categories of focus groups are:
- Midlife women
- Long-term elderly residents
- People who have respiratory diseases
- People who have cancer
- People who have heart disease
- Ill workers (people who have worked or who are working at ORR)
- And 3 general resident groups (distinctly different groups based on
the study evidence)
Theresa NeSmith pointed out that a Needs Assessment is performed at
all DOE and DOD facilities addressed by an ATSDR PHA process. Needs Assessment
reports are available for each of those sites.
Barbara Sonnenberg asked why the focus group labels cannot be given
more specifically.
Theresa NeSmith stated that the categories are generalized
in order to allow as many people as possible to take part in the focus
groups and
avoid biasing the membership in the categories too narrowly. Don Creasia asked whether the ill worker category and the respiratory
disease category were redundant. Theresa NeSmith explained that, while
there could be overlap, the screening process will distinguish between
ill workers and other people who have respiratory diseases.
Peggy Adkins asked for clarification on the 3 general resident focus
groups. Theresa NeSmith responded that the screening process helps enable
persons with certain health concerns to be placed into a specific focus
group. Peggy Adkins requested that persons with neurological autoimmune
diseases, endocrine disorders, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, and
lupus be specifically included in a focus group(s). Theresa NeSmith responded
that people with those illnesses may be captured within the existing
focus groups but she does not know if that is true.
Kowetha Davidson asked if everyone who calls in to be included in a
focus group will indeed be put in a focus group. Theresa NeSmith responded
that the only way a person will be turned away and not included in any
focus group is if all the focus groups are full. The likelihood that
the focus groups will be full and volunteers will have to be turned away
is low.
Herman Cember asked how a person with multiple health concerns would
be selected for one focus group rather than another. The concern being
creation of confounding factors in the statistical analysis of the data
when persons could be placed in more than one category. Theresa NeSmith
replied that even though a person may qualify for more than one group
they would only participate in one focus group.
Tony Malinauskas inquired how solicitations would cover a large geographic
area, such as Roane County, if advertisements were limited to the Oak
Ridger. Theresa NeSmith stated that the Roane County News was used to
carry advertisements as well, and other resources, such as college students
handing out fliers, were used. The suggestions of the work group to solve
this issue were very helpful.
James Lewis requested that the Subcommittee be given an example report
of a Needs Assessment that has been completed for a site. James Lewis
asked about the definition of the term “priority health issues” in
the Needs Assessment Project Summary dated March 19, 2001, where is the
list of priority health issues, will it be presented, and will it be
incorporated into the PHA community concerns database. Theresa NeSmith
stated that this kind of information was currently being collected, that
is exactly one of the reasons for performing the Needs Assessment. James
Lewis also asked if assistance could be provided for effectively communicating
in the community the information collected and put in the final Needs
Assessment report. Can the information be sequenced in order for the
Subcommittee to know what communication approach to take with the community,
to reach people.
Don Box asked if persons with cancers in remission are disqualified
them from participating in a focus group (i.e., because their cancer
may be in the past or “cured”). Theresa NeSmith replied that
there would be no such disqualification.
COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH WORK GROUP
James Lewis reported that he has had discussions with Lorine Spencer
about potential community involvement plans, and asked that Lorine Spencer
introduce herself to the Subcommittee. James Lewis repeated his request
that Theresa NeSmith provide a copy of a Needs Assessment report prepared
for another site for the Subcommittee to review.
Lorine Spencer introduced herself and stated that she has assembled
ideas for community involvement activities based on the ATSDR PHA project
plan. Lorine Spencer encouraged suggestions for community involvement
activities that would involve the community in the ORR area. The goal
is to make the effort to involve as may people as possible, so that members
of the local community feel that they are part of the process.
Kowetha Davidson asked that the Communications and Outreach Work Group
work closely with Lorine Spencer to develop specific strategies for the
ideas for enhancing community involvement. Perhaps a presentation of
strategies could be made at the next ORRHES meeting.
Bob Craig recalled that at the last ORRHES meeting there was agreement
that Kathy Daniels of the Oak Ridger would be invited to meet with ORRHES,
re-establish the Subcommittee’s relationship with the Oak Ridger.
James Lewis has met with Kathy Daniels previously and will talk with
her again.
La Freta Dalton noted that the existing communication strategy should
be revisited in light of the new project plan that is available at this
time.
PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT WORK GROUP
Bob Craig reported that good working meetings have taken place recently
and the PHA Work Group is identifying the data they would propose request
from the State of Tennessee cancer registry. The work group will likely
have a recommendation for the Subcommittee at the next ORRHES meeting
on that issue.
Jerry Pereira took a moment to distribute to the Subcommittee a printed
resource report from the scheduling software (for the PHA Work Group),
listing who is responsible for what task completions and when.
<<Back Next
>>
|