Public Health Assessment Work Group
Meeting Minutes
November 4, 2002
Attendance:
ORRHES Members attending:
Bob Craig, Kowetha Davidson, James Lewis, and LC Manley
Public Members attending:
Gordon Blaylock
ATSDR Staff attending:
Burt Cooper, Jack Hanley, Sandy Isaacs, Bill Murray,
Jerry Pereira (phone)
Contractor attending:
Gayla Cutler
Agenda
- Minutes from October 21, 2002, meetings - Bob Craig
- Update on the
Public Health Assessment Project Plan - Sandy Isaacs, Burt Cooper,
Jack Hanley
- Present Data Sources Used for the Focused Public Health
- Assessment on Y- 12 Uranium Releases - Jack Hanley
- New business
Purpose: Bob Craig called the meeting to order and welcomed
Gayla Cutler to the Oak Ridge Field Office.
Minutes from October 21, 2002 Meeting
Bob Craig asked for
comments. No one responded. Kowetha Davidson motioned to approve the
minutes and LC Manley seconded the motion. No discussion
followed. The October 21, 2002 minutes were unanimously approved.
Update
on the Public Health Assessment Project Plan
Presenter: Jack Hanley
Summary
Jack Hanley presented an Overview of the Oak Ridge Reservation Public
Health Assessment Project Management Plan. However, it is still in draft
form because input is wanted from the PHAWG and ORRHES. A focused PHA
will be developed for each chemical/topic listed in the overview, i.e.,
Chemical Screening (Current Exposure and Past Exposure), Y-12 Mercury
Releases, PCB releases, TSCA Incinerator, Iodine Evaluation, Evaluate
Radiation Doses to Whole Body, Y-12 Uranium Releases, K-25 Uranium Releases,
White Oak Creek Releases, and Other Radionuclides (Current Exposure).
The basic steps of the Public Assessment Process are: (refer to overhead)
- Exposure Evaluation: Evaluate Environmental Contamination and Identify
Exposure Pathways.
- Health Effects Evaluation: Conduct screening analysis, identify
pathways and substances requiring further evaluation; conduct weight-of-evidence
analysis.
- Draw public health conclusions.
- Recommend public health actions
- Prepare public health assessment documents.
Site information will be obtained during steps 1 and 2. Community
involvement/ outreach/response to community concerns will be sought throughout
the
process.
Bob Craig asked about getting a commitment from DOE, EPA, etc.,
for getting an action plan. LC Manley commented that he has not seen
any
progress toward undoing the damage done at Scarboro. A lot of data has
been collected but no action has resulted. James Lewis remarked that
the EPA and “some of the others” do not identify what their
charter is. Jack Hanley reminded the group of the three 1999 Public Health
Working Group meetings where “We agreed to work with all the groups/agencies
in getting done what needs to be done, that the ATSDR will coordinate
the efforts of all the agencies.” Sandy Isaacs remarked that, if
no follow-up action is needed, this will be stated in PHA. She suggested
we go to the agency that should take responsibility for a particular
health aspect. Jack Hanley then explained the “Generic Process for Focused Public
Health Assessment” for each contaminant (refer to the overhead).
The first step is the assessment. We will give ourselves 90 days for
most of the assessments. When we begin the assessment, we will provide
a list of references that we plan to use to the PHAWG so they can provide
input. If someone has information or data that we could use, we would
like to have the data at the beginning of out assessment and not after
we complete our assessment. We will always be open to new data. We will
determine whether or not it will have an impact on our work. After the
initial three (3) months, we will give a verbal presentation of our methods
and findings to the PHAWG. The individual PHAWG members can provide comments
during the meeting or during the comment time period by filling out forms,
e-mails, etc. If people have concerns, they should fill out a concerns
form. (Concerns forms are available at the ATSDR Oak Ridge Field Office.)
Then ATSDR and the Work Groups can track them. After ATSDR addresses
comments from the PHAWG members in the draft PHA, the DOE Classification
Review of the draft PHA allows DOE 15 working days to make sure we are
not releasing anything we should not be releasing. This is a DOE requirement.
The DOE Classification Review and the Internal ATSDR Review will be done
concurrently.
In step eight, the draft PHA is mailed to the PHAWG and other agencies.
ATSDR will present the written draft PHA to the PHAWG and the PHAWG will
have two meetings to develop comments on the draft PHA for the ORRHES
to recommend.
James Lewis asked how much time would elapse between “Mail draft
PHA to PHAWG/ Agencies,” and “PHAWG Continues Discussion
of draft PHA.” The PHAWG/Agencies Comments on draft PHA due in
30 days.
ATSDR will review the comments from the PHAWG/ORRHES and the agencies
and prepare a public comment PHA. The public comment PHA is mailed to
the ORRHES and public for comments.
Bob Craig stated he thought that “ORRHES and Public Comments Due” is
rather late in the project, and that ORRHES does not get the PHA before
the public. Kowetha Davidson also expressed concern about a lack of time
for ORRHES review. James Lewis voiced concern about communicating with
the public.
Jack Hanley used the timeline for the PHA focused on the mercury releases
to answer their questions. He said the draft PHA on mercury would be
sent to the PHAWG on August 4, 2003. The PHAWG could bring a recommendation
to the ORRHES when we present the public comment draft PHA at the November
11, 2003, subcommittee meeting (in response to Kowetha Davidson’s
comment). Jack Hanley also said there are four months between the time
when the subcommittee sees the public comment draft in November 2003,
and when we come back to present the final PHA on mercury to the ORRHES
in February 2004.
Hanley continued that the first written draft would be mailed on July
28, 2003, to the PHAWG. They have seven months until February 2004, for
the PHAWG to make recommendations to the ORRHES and, if not PHAWG, the
ORRHES can make recommendations. Kowetha Davidson expressed concern about
the PHAWG’s making official recommendations to ATSDR. Bob Craig
suggested making a resolution that PHAWG will present their comments
and recommendations to ORRHES. He wants ATSDR to take the PHA directly
to ORRHES. Jack Hanley agreed to change the project plan to address her
concern and add a step for the PHAWG to develop recommendations for the
ORRHES.
James Lewis thinks that, before anything released to the PHAWG, ATSDR
should inform ORRHES that the draft will be released to the PHAWG at
the preceding subcommittee meeting and add a statement that “PHAWG
continues discussion of draft” or that their recommendation go
to the subcommittee. He also suggested that, at each ORRHES meeting,
the Project Manager summarize the key issues and action items regarding
the PHA, including the status of the draft focused PHAs, what draft documents
are being released to whom, when, and for what purpose.
Jerry Pereira said the key point from the project management perspective
is that ORRHES would be accountable in terms of time frame issues, that
ORRHES and the Agency’s “feet are being held to the fire.” PHAWG
can bring issues forward to ORRHES. James Lewis commented, “Seven
months ago we identified this.”
Jack Hanley referred back to the project plan and said that when the
focused PHAs are completed, ATSDR will prepare an executive summary of
all of the focused documents. He gave an update on the current screening
for chemical exposures that Karl Markiewicz is doing and the tasks to
be done and when the work would be presented to the PHAWG.
Present Data Sources Used for the Focused Public Health Assessment on
Y- 12 Uranium Releases
Presenter- Jack Hanley
The first focused PHA will be done on Y-12 Uranium releases. He mentioned
that EPA was presenting their sampling data and findings from Scarboro.
In December 1998, ATSDR told Scarboro community members that once EPA
completed their sampling we would evaluate the data. We hope to complete
this document relatively quickly.
He stated we’re going to look at Oak Ridge Environmental Information
Systems (OREIS) and Tennessee Dept. of Environment and Conservation (TDEC)
data, i.e., uranium releases in Scarboro, Woodland, and other areas;
all are off-site releases. We are providing a list of references that
we will use. Before the next subcommittee meeting, we will give a verbal
presentation to the PHAWG on the preliminary assessment. We hope to mail
out a document for review before the December 31, 2002, which is the
date indicated on the timeline. The draft PHA will be presented to the
PHAWG on January 21, 2003. The PHAWG, ORRHES, and the public will have
a number of opportunities to present their comments on the document over
the next several months.
Gordon Blaylock asked if the uranium releases to water and sediments
would be looked at. Jack responded that we will look at air also. The
Oak Ridge Health assessment Steering Panel (ORHASP) looked at air releases
up to 1995. We will follow up from 1995 to now on the air releases. ORHASP
looked at releases to East Fork Poplar Creek (EFPC) up to 1992 and then
estimated releases to 1995. We will fill in the gaps there also. Jack
said they did not look at Bear Creek in the Oak Ridge Dose reconstruction
(ORDR) but we can pull up that data also and see how far back it goes.
There was discussion about releases from a waste pit on Y-12 that was
cleaned up. Jack emphasized that we are concerned only about off-site
releases. Bob Craig said the releases now are minimal compared to 10
years ago. Jack Hanley said, when we do K-25, we will see if there was
an overlap. When the screening was done for the ORDR, there was minimal
overlap on uranium releases from Y-12 and K-25. We will re-examine that
issue when we do K-25.
James Lewis said give people key dates for review of the draft documents.
Jack Hanley responded that we will put up key target dates for subcommittee
meetings and when the PHAWG has to get its recommendations to the subcommittee.
The Community Involvement Branch will do this. Bill Murray suggested
that this task be assigned to the Communications and Outreach Work Group
(COWG).
James Lewis suggested that the “Exposure Evaluation” be
put into the Public Health Assessment task completion schedule. This
was information laid out in the PHA Guidance Manual. Jack said the agency
has a website on the PHA process which is out for public comment. It
explains the PHA and will assist community in understanding what we are
doing about exposure pathways, etc. Jack said if anyone is interested
in where we are going they should check the website.
Bob Craig and Kowetha Davidson discussed using the same format. James
Lewis suggested using “Summary Chart” from the Guidance Manual.
Jack said we need to put this in a simple display so that everyone will
understand it. Kowetha Davidson said to put this up on a calendar.
Jack Hanley explained that after uranium, the next focused PHA will
be on mercury. Formats, whether calendars, etc., do not really matter.
Jerry Pereira said that, regardless of the format, they all have to have
the same information. Bob Craig said the COWG should take on this task.
Jack Hanley said that one key point from tonight’s discussion
is that we need a statement in the project plan about the recommendations.
Bob Craig emphasized that the PHAWG is not making recommendations but
they are communicating with ORRHES who makes the recommendations. This
should be our standard operating procedure. Hanley said that there will
be procedures for comments and target dates will be established.
Kowetha Davidson wanted to reiterate that the February meeting is the
only opportunity to comment. Jack said that was because this document
was expedited. Burt Cooper explained that we condensed the time frame
to get a document out by the end of 2002 and this time frame is not typical.
More review time will be available for future documents. Sandy Isaacs
said that this is also related to the EPA sampling program undertaken
in 1998.
James Lewis said if this works well, it can serve as an example for
the future. Kowetha Davidson said this is an opportunity to see if it
works without taking 10 months to find out. Sandy Isaacs said we have
the PHAWG “to do” list and that maybe we would want to use
this format for the calendar.
Summary of Agenda Item #2: We want to add a statement about PHAWG taking
recommendations to ORRHES. Once the dates are locked, discuss dates for
PHAWG and ORRHES. We need input from the Communications and Outreach
Work Group (COWG). We need a high level process sheet. Burt Cooper said
this puts large burden on Jack Hanley, the health assessors, and management
to meet these deadlines as well as for PHAWG and ORRHES to meet their
schedules. There will be considerable pressure to meet these deadlines.
Bob Craig said we asked for it. James Lewis said we have to make sure
the necessary infrastructure is in place to complete the work on schedule.
Item #3 on agenda: Jack Hanley went over the sheet “Data Sources
used for the Focused Public Health Assess on Y12 Uranium Releases.” He
stated OREIS only goes back to about 1994 for the electronic reports
and he’s trying to go further back, not just for Scarboro, but
for others that we are trying to get information on.
As part of the process, James Lewis said we need to get a list of concerns
and issues to publicize what we know and what we don’t know about
a particular contaminant. This is part of the generic message we want
to give early on when we start our process. We need to summarize as of
this date what we know, what the big ticket items are, and what’s
been challenged. If your concern is not included, get it in the pot by
a given date. This goes back to item #2 and #3 on the agenda. Jack agreed.
Jack Hanley said Florida A&M data put out on the table without explanation
and EPA has not released their data about the radiation. He said EPA
has not discussed the health issues related to uranium – they are
letting ATSDR do that. He plans to attend the EPA meeting in Scarboro.
There was more discussion about the EPA data and what they do with it.
Bob Craig suggested that this (uranium PHA) be put on the website, if
you have public data about uranium releases get them on the website now.
Kowetha Davidson agreed with this. She further stated that a press release
should be developed. Bob Craig asked Kowetha to make a resolution announcing
that if you have information on uranium say it now or forever hold your
peace.
Kowetha Davidson said this should go to the Communications and Outreach
Work Group to develop a press release instead of making a resolution.
Bill Murray said Paul Parson of the Oak Ridger covered ORRHES/ATSDR work
closely. His successor, R. Cathey Daniels has not shown similar interest
in our activities. Jack Hanley suggested contacting the editor. Bob Craig
said suggested to COWG they invite Ms. Daniels to meet, or go talk to
her and bring her up to speed.
Item 4, New Business: Bob Craig asked Gordon Blaylock if Owen Hoffman
plans to come to these meetings again, as they are experts in risk assessment.
Jack Hanley said when we look at uranium we will consider SENES when
drafting the assessment. James Lewis said we need to get comments in
an organized manner so we can deal with them.
Summarize: Passing to COWG (Item#2) they will develop easy way to make
a calendar. Also consider recommending to ORRHES and that ORRHES recommend
to ATSDR to prepare a press release that they are doing a health assessment
and request anybody with information to bring it forward. Also draft
a generic press release. Put it on the website. Talk to reporter R. Cathey
Daniels at the Oak Ridger.
No further new business. Meeting adjourned at 7:02 p.m. The next meeting
will be Nov. 18, 2002. There will be a presentation by a thyroidologist,
Dr. Hershman, from Los Angeles. He will be calling in at the Nov. 18,
2002, PHAWG meeting. He is presenting to the entire subcommittee at the
ORRHES meeting on December 3, 2002.
(Put on next agenda – put out as an e-mail): What cancer data
do the PHAWG want from the TN Dept. of Health Cancer Registry from Toni
Bounds.
|