Public Health Assessment Work Group
Meeting Minutes
December 2, 2002
Attendance
ORRHES Members attending:
Don Box, Bob Craig, George Gartseff, James Lewis, Tony Malinauskas, Pete
Malmquist, LC Manley, Charles Washington
Public Members attending:
Gordon Blaylock, Timothy Joseph
ATSDR staff attending:
Paul Charp, Burt Cooper, Jack Hanley, Sandy Isaacs,
Bill Murray, Jerry Pereira, Loraine Spencer
Contractor attending:
Michelle Arbogast, ERG; Gayla Cutler (NAHE)
Agenda
- Minutes from November 18, 2002, PHAWG meeting – Bob Craig
- ATSDR
presentation of the preliminary results of the
PHA on uranium releases from Y-12 – Jack Hanley and Paul Charp
- Develop recommendation for ORRHES regarding request for
cancer data from the TN cancer registry to Dr. Toni Bounds – Bob
Craig
- New business – Bob Craig
Bob Craig called the meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. Everyone introduced
themselves. Minutes from November 18, 2002 Meeting
Bill Murray commented
that the comments and slides regarding Dr. Hershman’s
talk make up Addendum “A” in the last two pages of the meeting
minutes. There being no further comments, Pete Malmquist moved to approve the
minutes
of the November 18, 2002 meeting. Don Box seconded the motion. The minutes
were unanimously approved.
Bob Craig reported that Toni Malinauskas has offered to track this particular
public health assessment (releases of uranium from Y-12) as the PHAWG representative
and that the ATSDR staff will “keep him up to speed.”
Preliminary Results of the PHA on Releases of Uranium from Y-12
Presenters: Jack Hanley and Paul Charp
Summary
Jack began with the Public Health Assessment that evaluated uranium releases
from the Y-12 plant. He said that last year we went through a screening analysis
and the State (Tennessee Department of Health (TDH)) identified a list of priority
contaminants and then we added fluorine, the TSCA incinerator, and groundwater
to this list.
He reviewed the history of uranium operations at the Y-12 plant, beginning
with electromagnetic enrichment from 1943-1947, through the uranium forming
and machining
for weapons components operations of 1949 until 1995. The public health assessment
is structured to look at past as well as current exposures. In the past exposure,
he reviewed radiation exposure from the air, surface water, and soil pathways.
For chemicals, the inhalation pathway (air) and ingestion pathway (surface
water and soil) were looked at. For current exposure, we used primarily the
screening
dose reconstruction on uranium done by the state of Tennessee. For the past,
they focused on 1995 all the way back to the original days of the Y-12. For
current exposures, we again looked at ‘radiation’ and ‘chemical’ and
used sampling data from 1998, EPA’s 2001 sampling, and the Oak Ridge Environmental
Information Systems (OREIS) database that has all the DOE electronic data in
the recent years, from the nineties to the current time period. Bob Craig asked
if there was State data on uranium. Jack replied he wasn’t sure if
the OREIS and the State data were combined, he would need to ask the person
who
put it together.
Charles Washington asked if Jack was able to get any ecological data from
X-10 and other places regarding animal and vegetable consumption by Scarboro
residents.
Jack replied that vegetables grown in Scarboro were evaluated, and they
were the main pathway looked at. Charles asked about squirrels, deer, and
fish.
Paul Charp responded that we asked EPA for exposure specific to the south.
Charles
Washington commented to take into consideration that, in this part of Tennessee,
our surface water becomes our ground water and our ground water becomes
our surface water, so wells are not deep. Bob Craig agreed with this assessment
and added
that if you’re measuring surface water, it’s (uranium) going
to show up.
Jack Hanley continued with the list of 37 Community Health Concerns
that were captured from Subcommittee and Work Group meetings, as well
as from
surveys
conducted in Scarboro, i.e., a CDC survey, a Florida A & M Survey,
and the Joint Centers Survey, plus other concerns that arose at community
meetings.
Some are directly
related to Y-12 and others are not.
Pete Malmquist asked if ATSDR would
answer these concerns. Jack responded that we would try to answer the
ones that are within our areas and, if
they’re
not, we will refer people.
James Lewis commented that a lot of activists
from surrounding areas attended Scarboro meetings. Jack replied that
these are not just Scarboro issues; some
of these have been answered by other agencies that had some responsibility.
If we can we will work with them to try and see if we can address them.
James Lewis asked if those agencies had written responses to the issues.
Jack responded that he doesn’t know and that he will need to talk
to them.
Pete Malmquist asked if you respond to some of these, could
the subcommittee get a copy of your response? Jack said that we anticipate
having a written
draft of this sometime in January and we would come back and present
in more detail.
This is a preliminary working draft.
Charles Washington commented that
the report should note the K-25 plant ceased operations in 1986, and
Y-12 ceased 100% operating capacity in
1990 or 1991.
Bob Craig agreed. Charles Washington said that cessation of these plants
operating at full capacity certainly affected airborne and water contamination.
Paul Charp explained the “Estimates of Annual Airborne Uranium
Releases” (Y-12
facility) graph provided by ChemRisk. Task 6 estimated releases from
a high of just over 6000 kg in 1959, down to zero in 1995, while DOE
estimates
of
the same
period calculate barely perceptible releases, i.e., a high of approximately
100 in 1971-1974, down to zero in 1995. Differences could have been
that uranium may have faded out onto pipes. He stated that he has contacted
ChemRisk to
break
down the combined U-234/U-235.
Next Paul reviewed the Y-12, U-234/U-235
Release Estimates Vs. Measured Scarboro Air Concentrations graph, for
station 46 in Scarboro. He stated
U-234/U-235
has 97% correlation of estimates to measured concentrations from 1986
to 1995. Charles
Washington commented that it was a manufacturing plant; they manufactured
weapons components containing U-235 and U-238 - that “the footprint” was
left. Paul continued with the same analysis for U-238 and commented
that this correlation is only 64% estimated to measured concentrations.
It
is questionable
whether the U-238 monitoring was as good as that for U-234 and U-235.
However, he said, using these regression analyses, we think that Task
6 overestimated
the U-234/U-235 that could be deposited in Scarboro in 1997 by a factor
of 5 ½ to
6 times. (Task 6 was the Oak Ridge Dose Reconstruction of uranium releases).
Paul also defined regression analysis as a method to compare a group
of numbers to see how straight the line is. He stated the correlation
coefficient for U-238
overestimated a dose that could have been received by a Scarboro resident
in 1987 by about 2 ½ times.
Charles Washington suggested it
would be helpful to tell people what U-234, U-235, and U-238 are. Paul
Charp agreed that they should be
defined in the
front of
the document. He continued that, when you sum up all the information
in the Task 6 over the years, you look at the total air concentration
of uranium.
You want
to compare that to a screening value for inhalation and determine a
minimum risk level (MRL). The MRL is a level below which exposures
will not result
in an adverse
health effect. The MRL for total insoluble uranium (most uranium from
Y-12 was insoluble) is a concentration of 0.008 micrograms of uranium
per cubic
meter
of air ( g/m3). The releases from Y-12 are significantly below our
MRL. Jack Hanley added that this includes exposures from immersion,
direct
inhalation,
eating livestock that inhaled uranium, drinking milk from dairy cattle
that inhaled it - a variety of exposures. The largest dose is from
inhalation.
Bob Craig commented that his concern is these are annual
averages, whereas it peaks during the year. It was determined there
is no MRL
for acute
exposure to
uranium, only for radiation. The MRL for uranium is for intermediate
exposure - a one-year exposure. For radiation, however, there is
an MRL only for acute
and chronic exposure, not for an intermediate stage.
Paul Charp continued
with another concern - how does Scarboro compare to Oak Ridge and other
surrounding areas? He explained that using
the OREIS, some
representative sampling locations for air monitoring were downloaded,
using Station #52 at Fort
Loudon Dam and Station #51 at Norris Dam. These are what DOE considers
background locations compared to other areas of Oak Ridge. Station
#1 is on the river,
south of the carbide park, slightly north of the reactor. Station
#46 is located in
the Scarboro community, #37 and #38 are along Pine Ridge, and #40
is near Bear Creek and Scarboro Road. Station #41 is at the Turnpike
and
Illinois Ave. So
we need to add that to the PHA for comparison with Scarboro.
Bob
Craig commented that if you’re concerned about outside populations,
that’s the one to look at. Paul said that some of the numbers
in the Oak Ridge data only go back to 1995 or so. These are the
estimated
uranium concentrations
in air, about 0.008 g/m3. The background locations: #46 is Scarboro,
along the river on the DOE side of Oak Ridge. The numbers are
so low they get down into
the nanogram and picogram range.” (A nanogram (ng) is one
billionth {1/1,000,000,000} and a picogram (pg) is one trillionth
{1/1,000,000,000,000}.
Bob Craig commented what you’re
saying is that the estimated air concentrations are 100-1000
times below the MRL in Scarboro.
Paul replied that even though they
are below the MRL, we did some estimated radiological doses also.
Charles Washington commented that these would not be applicable after
the year
1995, because the
plant was not operating after that. Paul Charp commented that
he is trying to find monitoring data before 1986 and in the 1950’s
also. Jack Hanley said we will keep looking for the data.
Paul Charp
next introduced Table 14, “Estimated Radiation Dose
from the Inhalation of Uranium in Scarboro. This is total uranium.
We estimated the dose
from each isotope – U-234, U-235, and U-238.
James Lewis
asked what is Mr. Washington’s logic for questioning
the data prior to 1995? Charles Washington replied that nobody
knows what happened prior
to 1995 because nobody has that data. But, if you’re operating
at 25% or 100% capacity when there was no environmental equipment
in place,
then
you have
the maximum emission out there. Paul Charp expressed confidence
in using the ChemRisk figures from 1990 forward, but that, prior
to that, they
were overestimated
by a factor of one to six. Jack Hanley said that all concentrations
are below the MRL, even though we think ChemRisk overestimated
the concentrations
by
3-6 times depending on which years you are talking about.
Paul
Charp continued with Figure 10, “Average Soil Uranium Concentrations
in Scarboro.” He compared the 1998 Florida A & M University
(FAMU) Study with the EPA study and also included the Oak Ridge
Soil Characterization
for uranium . The bar graph shows, in the case of U-238, no significant
difference between Scarboro locations and background locations.
In the case of U-234, there
also is no significant difference. For U-235, he stated that
it is above the natural background for the Oak Ridge Soil Characterization
Study
for uranium.
Scarboro is minimally higher than the average Oak Ridge background
. He stressed that when we put the ‘error bars’ in
here, there is no significant difference.
James Lewis commented
that this reinforces what was said in the paper, that, ”Scarboro
is as safe as any other community in the country.” Paul
Charp replied that based on this method of analysis, yes. There
is no difference in
these samples
collected by the EPA and FAMU and the Scarboro levels with natural
uranium.
Charles Washington commented you had to take into consideration
the sampling points, e.g., one might have been 5-6 meters to
the fence
line.
Paul Charp advised that another thing Task 6 of the ORDR
did was to use sediments collected from East Fork Poplar Creek to
give
their estimated
dose assessment.
(At the time there was no soil sampling specific to Scarboro)
Based on
the EPA and FAMU study, which he stated are essentially identical,
it turns out
that
Task 6 overestimated the uranium concentration. Jack Hanley
commented that this uranium concentration from East Poplar Creek was the
maximum, or was
near the
upper 95. It was also in the floodplain, which is almost ½ mile
from Scarboro itself. We didn’t think it was a true representative
sample.
Charles Washington commented that it was a small amount
of contamination, but existing for 100 miles. He commented
further
that U-238 was
what you didn’t
want, and that since the cost of U-238 was prohibitive, so
not much was allowed to escape from Y-12.
Regarding Table 21 “Soil
Ingestion of Uranium;” Paul Charp
said this EPA data is based on the intake of an African-American
who accidentally ingests,
in Scarboro, somewhere around 50 milligrams of soil a day (for
an adult). This constitutes a heavy metal dose to the kidneys. The doses,
as illustrated
from
Adult Male down to Six Year Child, are all below the MRL of
0.002 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg) body weight per day. This is the
FAMU data from
the late 1990’s using standard ATSDR and EPA equations.
The question was asked concerning the findings of persons who
eat food grown in the soils of Scarboro. LC Manley provided
the data
(in Table
22) which the
DOE provided him with after three years of sampling from his
garden in the Scarboro community. The graph depicted a total
uranium dose
of 2.97
x 10-5
mg/kg, or about
30 times lower than the Minimum Risk Level.
Paul continued
with Table 20, “Radiological Dose from Uranium Following
Ingestion of Private Garden Crops from the Scarboro Community.” Using
the same data, (leafy vegetables, tomatoes, and turnips),
for the years 1998, 1999,
and 2000, and a total ingestion of 1.37 x 10-1 millirem (mrem)
per year for a 80 kg adult eating 2.27 grams (g) of produce
per kg body weight
per day,
Paul
estimated is about 600 times lower than the MRL.
Surface water
was discussed next. Paul stated that Task 6 of the ORDR said
the major contribution in total dose was
the
consumption of fish
in East Fork
Poplar
Creek. Ingestion of Poplar Creek water was less than 1%,or
about 5% of total dose.
Paul next discussed Table 11, “Soil
Pathways Considered by the Task 6 Team.” The
consumption of vegetables grown in contaminated soil accounted
for the largest percent of pathway total dose, 30% from U-234/U-235
and 43% from
U-238.
Bob Craig said those are the pathways you’re
considering when you’re
doing your analysis. You’re going to focus on the major
pathways. He asked if you see nothing there, then you’re
not going to continue?” Jack
Hanley verified this.
Paul Charp stated he modified the Chem
Risk doses a little bit because Chem Risk did their doses
for 52 years, and we
said we’d
do a 70-year dose, so we modified the numbers slightly. In
some of the doses from
the air, ChemRisk
had
totals of about 21 mg, from surface water about 25 mg, soil
about 35 mg, with a total about 84 mg. Paul Charp said they
took the
Chem Risk
doses,
multiplied
them by 52, and then divided them by 70.
Jack Hanley summarized.
Paul Charp added the MRL is going to be an issue with regard
to kidney disease issues. He stated
there is discussion
regarding
what
the upper bound of kidney toxicity is. Three g of uranium
per
g
of kidney tissue has been put forth. There is ongoing debate
on this
issue. However,
the kidney
concentration is they are only absorbing 10-15% of uranium.
Jack Hanley said the MRLs for toxicity, dose-based, is based
on dog
studies and
rabbit studies.
Jack Hanley next reviewed Table 15, “Total
Uranium Concentrations in East Fork Poplar Creek and Bear
Creek,” data from
the 1990’s.
Both locations are on-site. Both the Upper East Fork Poplar
Creek and Bear Creek are above the
MCL of 20 g/L, which the EPA has scheduled to increase to
30 next December. Jack advised the group that there are still
some things we’re working
on, trying to investigate. We appreciate the comments you
gave us tonight. We hope to have
a document out in January so that we’ll come back sometime
in January and present to this workgroup. We’ll have
a written version for you to develop comments to the subcommittee.”
Paul
Charp advised that we are trying to find DOE monitoring data
to compare to the ChemRisk estimates. If we can, we’ll
try to do one of these regression analyses like we did from
1986 onward to see how
tight the numbers are. He doesn’t
know if the information is available.
LC Manley said that,
after the 1990 Clean Air Act, this information became more
difficult to obtain. Paul Charp said you can
always add to the information
he
has, if more data become available.
James Lewis commented
that we should make sure that people don’t
think the information is out there, but being withheld.
Paul Charp stated that, when
reviewing the Task 6 documents, they made the assumption
that the U-234 and U-238 concentrations were identical.
Again, this was at Y-12 and
their mission was
not working with natural uranium. But you’re taking
a huge leap of faith to think that the activity of the
U-238 and U-234
are the same.
Bob Craig commented that you’re fairly
confident that you’re
moving along on the uranium health assessment. Where does
it sit now on our project
plan? Paul Charp said they’re on schedule, possibly
a little ahead of schedule, and that, You’ll get
all that tomorrow.
Agenda Item 3, “Develop Recommendation
for ORRHES regarding request for cancer data from the TN
cancer registry to
Dr. Toni Bounds:”
Jack Hanley stated that the group had the discussion
at the last meeting, but there are new members here and he
would
like to
recap and get the
main points
so everyone has an understanding of what ATSDR does and
how they do it. Lucy Peipins gave this presentation and
it is
also on
the website,
Jack
advised.
There was discussion at the last meeting and ATSDR has
a decision tree they follow
to see if they should do a Health Outcome Evaluation. He
then re-introduced Figure 8-5, Health Outcome Data Evaluation
Decision
Tree and how
a potential for exposure
is determined. The geographic area must be somewhat defined.
Jack used lead for an example, and children getting sick.
Get an epidemiologist’s
opinion. If there is a disproportionate number of, for
example, breast cancer, determine
if it came from a particular site.
Jack Hanley said in June
2001, Sherry Berger and Lucy Peipins gave “Workshop
Objectives” presentation which included three key
aspects of epidemiology – groups
of people, measurement, and comparison. You need to detect
changes in disease occurrences in various groups of people.
If you want
to show
cause and
effect, you measure relationships between exposure and
disease. It is a long, drawn
out process. Epidemiology cannot tell an individual the
cause of his or her disease,
just as one study cannot prove a particular exposure caused
an illness. He further explained that adverse health effects
are
not uniquely caused
by
environmental exposures, that habits like cigarette smoking
are a major risk factor. One
in
two men will get cancer in their lifetimes, and one in
three women.
Jack Hanley explained ATSDR’s list of
Contaminants of Concern (COCs) for Further Evaluation.
Bob Craig asked
about the relationship
between
kidney cancer
and radiation. Paul Charp responded that the bones get
the highest radiation dose but the biggest effect is on the kidneys.
Jack Hanley next reviewed the Exposure Dose and Risk findings from the
ORDR Reports with regard to PCBs, and advised
the group that
the cancers
listed
here-liver,
biliary tract, intestines, and skin-might be ones to
look for. He also has a study by the State of Tennessee that
looked at
mortality from
1980-1992 in
all
surrounding counties and compared the mortality rate
to that for the State.
Bob Craig commented that the group should table
the idea of looking at all cancers, but we are committed to recommend
to
ORRHES a
list of cancers
related
to COCs – thyroid,
bone, colon, etc. Instead of looking at all nine counties,
look at those exposures and which counties may have
been affected.
Jack Hanley suggested
putting a
caveat on this and should not compare it to the reservation,
rather incorporate it into
the study.
James Lewis suggested the data be managed
and realistic. Jerry Periera said a comparison study
is the most sophisticated
study
that can
be done, with
blood, urine, hair, etc. Then go to another city 80
miles away and compare with them.
Then you could ultimately say, ‘this community
had a higher elevation than the other one.’ The
epidemiology study will not tell you cause and effect,
e.g., ‘you have cancer because…’.
Pete
Malmquist said that in a study by TVA in 1971, the
Kingston steam plant annually produced 12-24 tons
of
arsenic. So who
caused what?
James Lewis commented that lay people
want to know if there is an elevated level of cancer in the area.
Is
there or
not? The
public is confused.
Bob Craig commented that reports
are inconsistent, so who do you believe? He suggested a sub-WG be assigned
to look
at the
main
concerns as well
as the “outliers.” Jack
Hanley suggested getting Dee Williamson, an ATSDR
epidemiologist, on the phone. Pete Manley suggested
that we should really look for the high
incidences of cancer,
whether or not they’re affected by the contaminants
in this area. Jack Hanley said that you can not
relate this information
to the reservation.
Sandy Isaacs commented that
Jack has laid out the criteria for ATSDR to do
a study. We look at areas
of concern
but, if we were
to find
elevation in a
county
that is off-site, we would not go any further.
If you found a rare cancer you could not do a
study that only
looked
at Oak
Ridge.
She said you
would need
to explain what ATSDR can and cannot do.
A sub-Work
Group consisting of Pete Malmquist, Chair, Charles Washington, Tony
Malinauskas, George Gartseff,
James Lewis,
and Tim Joseph
was formed to develop
a plan for proceeding.
There being no further
business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:15 p.m.
|