ORRHES Meeting Minutes,
September 11-12, 2001
September 11, 2001
Present in the 9/11/01 Meeting of the Oak Ridge Reservation
Health Effects Subcommittee (ORRHES) were the following
Subcommittee members: Elmer Akin, Alfred Brooks, Bob
Craig, Don Creasia, Kowetha Davidson (Chair), Bob Eklund,
Karen Galloway, Jeff Hill, David H. Johnson, Susan Kaplan,
Jerry Kuhaida, James F. Lewis, Peter Malmquist, LC Manley,
Donna Mims Mosby, Bill Pardue, Brenda Vowell, and Charles
Washington. Other attendees included: Jack Hanley (CDC/ATSDR),
Kendra Myers (Writer/Editor/Cambridge Communications),
Jerry Pereira (Acting Designated Federal Official/ ATSDR).
Opening Comments
The Oak Ridge Reservation Health Effects Subcommittee
convened on September 11, 2001. Dr. Kowetha Davidson, Chair,
called the meeting to order at 12: 54 pm. She asked that
all meeting attendees identify themselves for the record.
Mr. Jerry Pereira, Acting Designated Federal Official
(DFO), represented CDC on behalf of LaFreta Dalton, who
was still in Atlanta as commercial air traffic in the United
States was halted due to the terrorist attack involving
the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a failed attempt
upon the White House. The retail portion of the Oak Ridge
Mall was closed down. While Y- 12 was in a state of alert,
Mr. Pereira said that he knew of nothing transpiring in
the area that was cause for alarm, and he indicated that
the Atlanta offices of CDC and ATSDR had closed down at
12: 24 pm.
Based on the events in the country, the committee debated
whether to hold the meeting and whether it could continue
in a thoughtful, participatory, and productive manner.
The alternative was to postpone the meeting to a date in
the near future, perhaps in the next 4 - 6 weeks.
Discussion Summary:
- Mr. Jeff Hill suggested that the agenda be shortened
so that speakers who were on site could deliver their
presentations.
- Mr. Pereira noted that some presenters were in attendance,
while others were either en route or would likely not
be able to travel to Oak Ridge.
- Mr. James Lewis pointed out that an EPA meeting was
being conducted down the hall, and that perhaps the Subcommittee’s
agenda could be modified to take full advantage of the
EPA’s availability.
Motion 1
A motion was made that the meeting continue with an abbreviated
agenda, and with the speakers who were present. There was
a motion to approve, it was seconded, voted on, and the
motion carried.
With that, the meeting continued.
Agenda Review,
Correspondence, and Announcements
The Subcommittee observed a moment of silence for those
who had been killed and injured in the attacks and for
the nation as a whole. Dr. Davidson then reviewed the amended
agenda. Presentations by Dr. Charles Miller and Jon Johnston
would take place in the afternoon. In the area of correspondence,
Dr. Davidson introduced two items:
- A letter of resignation from Ed Frome
- A letter from Dr. Koplan, Director of CDC, regarding
the committee’s recommendation to hear a presentation
from Dr. Charles Miller
The Subcommittee planned to make a decision about a follow-
up meeting after the day’s proceedings were complete.
Approval of June Meeting
Minutes
The Subcommittee then turned their attention to the approval
of the June, 2001 minutes of the Oak Ridge Reservation
Health Effects Subcommittee meeting.
Motion 2
A motion was made that the minutes of the June meeting
be approved. There was a motion to approve. It was seconded,
but discussion followed before the motion was voted on.
Discussion Summary:
- Mr. Lewis noted a misquote in the June meeting minutes.
A citizen’s comment related to meeting activities,
specifically to one Subcommittee member’s “dominating” of
the meeting, which needed to be evaluated. He suggested
reviewing that section of the minutes and comparing it
to the videotape of the meeting to determine whether
the minutes were accurate, and whether a change should
be made.
- Dr. Davidson directed the group’s attention to
the bottom of page 44 of the June minutes, where the
sentence in question began. The issue, she recalled,
was including the name “Dr. Davidson” and
the words “and the board” in the sentence.
- Dr. Al Brooks pointed out that the incident in question
should have been declared out- of- order at the time.
He did not believe that he “dominated the board” in
violation of the rules and bylaws.
- Mr. Lewis recommended reviewing the electronic records
of the meeting to validate the minutes.
- Mr. Craig amended his motion, recommending that the
paragraph in question be stricken from the minutes since
it violated the rules of decorum. Dr. Davidson replied
that it was public comment and could not be stricken.
Mr. Charles Washington indicated that the minutes can
be corrected, but if a statement was made in the meeting,
then it must be reflected in the minutes.
- Dr. Brooks noted that the rules of decorum were broken.
- Dr. Craig repeated his motion, but there was no second.
Mr. Lewis suggested that the motion be amended as follows:
the tape should be reviewed, and after that review, the
minutes should be updated to reflect the findings of
the review. This amendment received a second.
- Mr. Bob Eklund said that no events or statements should
be deleted from the minutes if they occurred. In a controversial
situation, the second source, the videotape, should be
consulted.
Motion 2 – Amended
This motion was amended as follows: The tape should be
reviewed, and after that review, the minutes should be
updated to reflect the findings of the review. Dr. Davidson
called for a vote on the amended motion to review the videotapes.
The vote was ten in favor, and one opposed. The motion
carried.
Motion 3
The remaining motion on the floor was to approve the June
minutes. The question was called, and the motion was unanimously
opposed. The approval of the minutes would then be delayed
until the time of the Subcommittee’s next meeting.
Discussion Summary:
- Mr. Bill Pardue commented on the conflict about the
meeting minutes. A similar situation had arisen in the
PHA work group, and the work group had created a process
for the approval of minutes. Meeting minutes should contain
what was said in the meeting and should never be changed
because a member of the Subcommittee or a member of the
public said, “I misspoke,” or “I didn’t
say that.” Minutes can be revised if the change
is verified by video or audio tape, but if minutes are
changed because of peoples’ sensitivities, then
the records of the Subcommittee will not be useful. There
should be a procedure for approving and verifying meeting
minutes.
- Ms. Donna Mosby asked who would review the tape to
make changes. Dr. Davidson replied that the recorder
usually makes those changes.
- Mr. Pereira observed that comments from the public,
in particular, should not be altered, even if a comment
is a personal attack on a Subcommittee member or an agency
representative. If the comments are disruptive to the
meeting, however, then the issue is different. He advised
caution in changing public comment made in these meetings.
If the citizen states that he or she has been misquoted,
indicating an error in reporting, then that situation
should be corrected. Mr. Lewis added that there should
be no deletions. Dr. Craig apologized to the Subcommittee
given that, “in the heat of the moment,” he
may have taken an “errant course.”
Status of Action Items
Dr. Davidson then reviewed the action items from the July,
2001 meeting. Their status was as follows:
- Ongoing: Provide a brief program of work
for the health needs assessment; Dr. Brooks will send
a copy to be edited.
- Ongoing: Ms. NeSmith and Dr. Paranzino
will develop a fact sheet about the health needs assessment
process.
- Completed: An additional “Epidemiology
101” course was offered to the committee.
- Completed: Why arsenic was not screened
for the ORNL.
- Completed: ATSDR will follow up with
HRSA about presenting at a future meeting, relative to
their ability to establish a clinic at Oak Ridge.
- Completed: ATSDR will advertise work
group meetings on the Oak Ridge Community Calendar.
- Ongoing: The members will provide comments
on the community input form and the facts sheet and the
communications committee will work on a procedure for
capturing public questions.
- Ongoing: Mr. Washington requested the
emissions data on the plutonium fire at ORNL. Dr. Davidson
suggested that be brought up to the Public Health Assessment
Work Group. She also noted that its agenda is growing,
so patience may be necessary.
- Completed: ATSDR will explore another
date for the team- building exercise at the Children’s
Defense Fund Lodge.
- Being Addressed: The Outreach and Communication
Work Group will discuss:
- Ways other than advertising to solicit Concerns and information on
contaminants, which can also be solicited at the beginning of the public
comment periods; and
- The development of a cross- referential document about the role of
epidemiology and the public health assessment, relative to drawing conclusions
about health hazards in a community as pertain to specific chemicals
and their sources (perhaps Ms. Berger and Dr. Peipins can explain those
differences at the next meeting).
- Completed: The Public Health Assessment
Work Group will evaluate the need for a formal mechanism
to track needed information, such as “Inconclusive
by Design,” that is not applicable to the source
item or contaminant information, but might offer good
critical input.
- Completed: The Agenda Work Group will
discuss inviting Mr. Mangano to the next meeting if his
study is discussed.
- Status Pending: Ms. Dalton agreed to
consult with ATSDR’s management about following
up with UNOS, per Mr. Johnston’s suggestion, to
ask how they obtained the exception to the disability
rule that he had referenced earlier.
Mr. Lewis requested that in future, the action items be
numbered, rather than indicated by bullets.
Presentation and Discussion:
Review of the Considerations for Combining Iodine- 131
Doses at the Hanford Site
Mr. Lewis asked that context for the presentation be provided
so that the audience might understand what the Subcommittee
hoped to accomplish by hearing it. Dr. Davidson replied
that the Public Health Assessment Work Group requested
the presentation because Iodine- 131 is a contaminant of
concern. There were other questions and concerns, but the
main issue was whether doses from the Nevada test site
should be considered, or whether the iodine releases from
the local site only should be included in the assessment
of Iodine- 131. The Subcommittee will make a recommendation
regarding the Oak Ridge site.
Dr. Charles Miller
Chief, Environmental Dosimetry Section
Radiation Studies Branch
National Center for Environmental Health
Dr. Miller pointed out that while he now works at CDC,
he worked at the ORNL from 1976 until 1986. He was assigned
to work on the topic of Environmental Model Validation
and Uncertainty Analysis, when he worked with Owen Hoffman.
His talk focused on the issue of adding or providing cumulative
radiation doses. He briefed the Subcommittee on CDC’s
status regarding this issue.
CDC is involved in dose reconstruction as a result of
a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department
of Energy (DOE) and the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS). The MOU was signed in 1990 and was revised
in 1995 and 2000. This MOU transfers the energyrelated
epidemiologic research program to HHS, and CDC is designated
as the lead agency. The National Center for Environmental
Health (NCEH) coordinates the program and conducts environmental
studies. The National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) conducts worker health studies. An Advisory
Committee on Energy- Related Epidemiologic Research (ACERER)
is a Secretary- level FACA committee, providing advice
directly to the Secretary’s office. ACERER reviews
and approves the research agenda from CDC and NIOSH. ATSDR
conducts Superfund- related activities at DOE sites, and
they have now been brought under the MOU. In the President’s
budget, there is an item for funding of HHS activities
at DOE sites, which funds the MOU.
CDC has been working in a variety of sites. CDC provides
technical support at the Oak Ridge and
Rocky Flats sites, but is not actively at work there.
CDC’s involvement at Rocky Flats is changing, though,
as the state of Colorado Department of Health has an agreement
with DOE to do dose reconstruction at Rocky Flats. When
that agreement expired, Colorado wanted to produce an individual
dose- assessment program for the Internet using plutonium
results from the Rocky Flats dose reconstruction. That
effort is funded through the MOU.
The primary concern at Hanford is historic iodine releases.
Doses for representative people were estimated by the Hanford
Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project (HEDR) and were
published in 1994. This project was multi- year and cost
approximately $30 million. It is still not complete. The
computer codes from HEDR are used to estimate doses for
real people who are participants in the Hanford Thyroid
Disease Study, which is a dose- response, epidemiologic
study. These codes are also used by Public Health Departments
in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho in the Individual Dose
Assessment Project (IDA). This project was completed in
December, 2000 and provided individual doses to members
of the public. This system was not Internet- based, but
was based on interviews and questionnaires in booklets.
The questionnaires included detailed items on lettuce and
milk consumption, including the medium of milk consumption
(ice cream, et cetera). Almost 8000 persons underwent this
process and received individual thyroid dose estimates.
At the completion of the project, some Hanford stakeholders
asked CDC to investigate producing an Internet- based system.
As the Hanford Project was concluding, the National Cancer
Institute (NCI) produced the document, “Estimated
Exposures and Thyroid Doses Received by the American People
from Iodine- 131 Fallout Following Nevada Atmospheric Nuclear
Bomb Tests.” This report was released in 1997 and
is available on the Internet. NCI estimated the thyroid
dose from Iodine- 131 for every county in the lower 48
states from all of the tests conducted at the Nevada test
site. Congress gave CDC and NCI a joint project to investigate
the feasibility of reconstructing county- level doses for
other radionuclides from the Nevada test site and for global
fallout.
When NCI showed this report to their administration, and
they realized how much data they had, the management at
NCI decided not to publish massive volumes of paper. Instead,
they opted to create and implement a thyroid dose calculator
on the Internet. This calculator allows anybody to calculate
his or her thyroid dose according to the information presented
in the NCI report. The calculator utilizes tables produced
and used for the reports. To estimate Iodine- 131 doses
for individuals, there needs to be some information for
each nuclear weapon test:
- time- integrated concentration of I- 131 in all foods
and ground- level air;
- how much contaminated food the individual ate or how
much contaminated air the individual breathed; and
- the dose- conversion factor, which converts the amount
of iodine taken into the body into a thyroid dose.
Some of these factors are age- dependent and change throughout
the life course. Most people do not know their individual
I- 131 dose conversion factor. The calculation of individual
doses is based on representative values that have been
individualized. Everyone exposed to Oak Ridge fallout,
for instance, got an iodine dose, but it is impossible
to give an individual his exact dose. The calculator will
provide a figure based on the representative group of people
in which the individual is most likely to fit.
The current thyroid dose calculator is available at www. cancer. gov. At the same site, the full
NCI report can be downloaded.
To calculate an individual dose, a person provides the
following information:
- State and county of residence during the test for which
the calculation is being made
- Date of birth
- Gender
- Whether the individual drank cow’s milk or goat’s
milk
- Whether to report the dose by individual test or a
total for each test series and all tests
The testing was done in groups or series, and time would
pass between these series. Only one set of inputs is allowed
for each calculation. If an individual moved around the
country, then a new calculation is required for each move,
and each figure must be added manually.
The calculator will produce:
- the individual’s thyroid dose in rads,
- the geometric mean, and
- the geometric standard deviation.
The report includes instructions on how to use the geometric
mean and standard deviation to calculate various percentiles.
Stakeholders have expressed displeasure with this aspect
of the calculator and also with the presentation of the
numbers in scientific notation. The doses are for average
consumption of cow’s or goat’s milk and are
based on survey data collected by NCI. The Hanford Thyroid
Disease Study asked people how many glasses of milk they
consumed, which proved difficult to pinpoint. There is
a high consumption number, which is 1.6 times higher than
the average, and there is a “no milk” number.
There are also numbers for milk from a backyard cow and
from mothers’ milk.
As a result of stakeholder input, NCI is revising the
calculator. The individual’s date of birth and gender
are still needed, but the calculator will ask for the county
of residence in the years in which major tests were conducted
at the Nevada test site with major fallout. The type of
diet can also change for each test period. The output will
also change so that the result will be a low- end and high-
end number: the 5 th and the 95 th percentile. The number
will be in decimal format and in rads for each test series
and for the overall tests. In addition, NCI intends to
estimate lifetime risk of thyroid cancer using the calculated
doses, taking into account the uncertainties in dose and
risk. NCI expects to complete and post the revisions to
the input requirements and output features within the next
year. They hope to implement the risk calculator work after
that work is completed.
People are exposed to different sources of iodine and
radiation, for example:
- Weapon sites such as Hanford and Oak Ridge
- Fallout from nuclear weapons testing, both US and global
- Natural background radiation
- Medical and dental exposures
- Other man- made activities such as nuclear power plants
and air travel
Knowing about the variety of exposures, is it possible
to estimate an individual dose by adding all of the sources
together? Given sufficient resources, it is likely that
it will be possible to add at least some of the individual
doses that a person receives. Should they, though? Dr.
Miller has posed this question to Subcommittees and community
groups, and no easy answer has emerged. This Subcommittee
will have to deliberate the question for their purposes
at Oak Ridge.
Adding doses is not an easy issue. The question originally
surfaced for CDC as a question of adding Iodine- 131 doses
from Hanford and the Nevada test sites. Then, the Oak Ridge
dose reconstruction included representative doses from
both Oak Ridge and NTS releases. Other sites are now interested
in this issue, such as the Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory Health Effects Subcommittee (INEEL),
which has formally recommended that CDC include both kinds
of doses in their dose reconstruction. ACERER is considering
this issue as well.
CDC is a public health agency and therefore has three
basic considerations:
- The public’s right to know
- Technical issues
- Public health needs
CDC makes basic assumptions related to the weapons complex:
- The American people have been exposed to radionuclides
and chemicals that have been released from the weapons
complex.
- Complete information about these releases has not always
been readily available.
- CDC is committed to providing as complete information
as possible.
- CDC can provide some highly uncertain estimates of
levels of exposure for some of these materials at some
of these sites.
Dr. Miller noted that there are many DOE sites at which
CDC has no current activity and where no activity is planned.
The Public’s Right to Know: Does adding up
doses really add to a citizen’s knowledge of
exposure?
- Exposure estimates for various sources are being developed
over time; for example, there are iodine estimates from
Nevada, Hanford, and Oak Ridge. There are no iodine estimates
from Savannah River. There are no detailed, county- level
estimates for global fallout. Should they count doses
iteratively, or wait until the end?
- What doses should be added? There are many ways in
which an individual’s thyroid can be exposed to
radiation. When the doses are added, the list will be
incomplete. It is not possible to say that iodine releases
from specific sites are the only exposures that the American
people’s thyroids have had. Radiation was used
for nasal and acne treatments, for instance. These doses
were not large, but affected individuals’ thyroids.
- How can chemical exposures be addressed?
Technical Issues to Consider:
- The level of input: parameters can range from a small
amount of information (gender, date of birth, county
of residence) to the book of parameters created in the
work at Hanford. The differences in these levels must
be reconciled.
- Are all of the methods being used appropriate for estimating
doses to individuals?
- Reconcile differences in methodologies such as basic
model parameters and spatial resolution. The Hanford
dose calculations were done on a 6- mile by 6- mile grid,
then a 12- mile by 12- mile grid. These parameters are
much smaller than a county, which NTS used. There are
hundreds of different model parameter values being used
by different studies.
- Account for doses from multiple radionuclides. Iodine
is not the only concern: cesium, strontium, and other
elements have effects as well.
Given sufficient resources, these issues can probably
be addressed: the technical issues might be the easiest
to answer.
Basic Public Health Questions:
- Assuming that the total doses and risk can be estimated
from a given set of exposures, how can people be helped
to understand what the numbers the receive really mean,
and what to do about it?
- Can this information prompt an individual to do something
different?
Dr. Miller emphasized that doses and risk are estimated
using mathematical models. Models are approximations of
reality: they are not reality. Models are always a compromise
between reality and practicality. Real data is always more
credible than model predictions, but there are no historic
measurements of doses to members of the public. There are
many ways to validate models and many treatises on which
models are best. However:
“All models are wrong, and some are useful.” – George
Box, as quoted by Dan Strom
How good are the models from the Oak Ridge Dose Reconstruction?
ORHASP believed that the Project results provide valuable
information to a number of people. While the models cannot
tell a specific individual whether a given exposure made
him or her sick, or will in the future, the results provide
useful information about groups of people with common characteristics
and behavior patterns. In sum, the models are not perfect,
but they are useful.
Models rely on parameters that are uncertain from two
sources:
- Natural variability, such as wind
- Lack of knowledge
The models rely on estimating milk consumption in 1954,
for instance. How does a cow transfer I- 131
from the grass that it eats into its milk? There are some
data and some measurements that can give an indication
of the absorption, but the conditions cannot be reproduced
because a 1954 cow does not genetically exist anymore.
Parameter uncertainty is accounted for using subjective
probability distributions. In essence, each parameter has
a distribution. Nature, however, does not have a uniform
distribution. It is only possible to guess that a value,
then, lies within a given distribution. The state of knowledge
is subjective, as data is not available for every parameter.
Some parameters are set by expert opinion.
Dr. Miller directed the group’s attention to part
of table 11- 16, which is the subjective confidence interval
of I- 131 thyroid doses for a female born in 1952, on a
diet of backyard cow’s milk, located in Solway. The
table includes a lower and upper bound. The Subcommittee’s
job is to help the public understand what this table means
to them. There is a range of a factor of 10 between the
numbers, and the risk factor is a range of 100. The table
says with 95 percent confidence that this woman’s
true, but unknown, dose from both NTS and X- 10 is between
13 and 124 centiGray. Most people use the central estimate,
which in this case is 35. There is controversy about using
the central estimate and calling it the “most likely” number
in a subjective confidence interval. If an objective confidence
interval were possible, then the mean of 50 would be the
obvious answer.
ORHASP concluded that the doses and risks estimated in
a dose reconstruction effort cannot be known with precision,
so the goal is to estimate the interval within which the
actual value “most surely” lies. There is an
equal chance that the true value is higher or lower than
the central estimate. The 95 percent confidence interval
does not imply equal probability of occurrence for each
value within the range. The goal is to estimate the range,
and this fact is important to remember when considering
the results from the Oak Ridge Reconstruction.
How can this range be translated and be helpful for people?
How do people make public health- related decisions? Individuals
must answer these questions:
- Have I been exposed? People of a certain age who have
lived in the continental United States have been exposed
to NTS fallout.
- If so, what have I been exposed to?
- How was I exposed?
- What adverse outcomes might I expect from my exposures?
- What parts of the body are most likely to have been
harmed?
Representative dose estimates can address all of those
questions. Most doctors do not use a patient’s dose
in deciding on a course of action for them. After the Hanford
Dose Assessment Project, the states of Washington, Oregon,
and Idaho had to create a public health statement. The
essence of the statement informed citizens of their “number,” clarified
that it represented a range, and advised people who were
concerned to see their health care provider. ACERER is
preparing a plan that:
Stakeholders have requested an Internet- based calculator
for Hanford. At the beginning of the process, an Internet-
based, individual dose estimator was developed for the
Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) domain.
A prototype, county- level dose estimator should be available
on the Internet this month. This prototype will not calculate
doses because it is designed only to garner public input
on its format. There is a link from the Hanford Dose Estimator
to the NCI Internet site. An individual can do calculations
on the NCI site and then return to the Hanford site to
add the doses
After the public has commented on the prototype, plans
for implementation will be made. The implementation of
the Hanford Dose Estimator could occur in 2002 if sufficient
financial and staff resources are identified and if the
implementation is determined to be in the interest of public
health. These efforts will be coordinated with NCI’s
communication efforts. NCI had begun a major communications
effort to inform the American public of the results of
the fallout study. The Hanford Dose Estimator will be compatible
with NCI’s work. The Estimator will be kept current
with NCI’s work.
CDC is responding to this request from ACERER, and any
implementation requires the identification of resources
and of a public health need. CDC and NCI are working with
stakeholders to develop information that citizens need
to evaluate their potential risk from I- 131 exposure,
both from adding doses and from other tools. The technical
issue of adding doses is easy. The more difficult question
is: Should doses be added? If so, how should that information
be communicated to people so that they will make good public
health decisions?
Discussion Summary:
Before the discussion of Dr. Miller’s presentation,
Mr. Bill Pardue addressed an administrative matter. Dr.
Peipins, from ATSDR, had arrived at the meeting, and she
wondered whether the group wanted to hear her presentation
on the Mangano Report on Cancer Mortality at this meeting,
or whether she should wait until the next meeting. The
audience was not wide at this meeting, and Mr. Pardue felt
that there were more citizens who were interested in the
report than were present. The presentation was a review
of the results of the PHA work group’s last meeting,
including its conclusions and a recommendation to the Subcommittee.
Other reasons to postpone the presentation included the
fact that the work group had not yet had the opportunity
to view a videotape presentation about the report. Also,
the work group had yet to consider and vote on the draft
recommendation of their evaluation of the report.
Motion 4
A motion was made that the presentation of the Mangano
Report be postponed until the rest of the Public Health
Assessment Work Group has a chance to view the videotape.
The motion was seconded, voted upon, and unanimously approved.
The discussion of Dr. Miller’s presentation began
with questions from Subcommittee members.
- Mr. Pardue understood that the Idaho Health Effects
Subcommittee was the only one that had asked to have
the combined doses evaluated. Dr. Miller replied that
the Subcommittee was the only one that had passed a formal
resolution to that effect. The Subcommittees in Idaho
and at Savannah River have been assured that when the
I- 131 doses are reached in their project, fallout doses
will be considered.
- Mr. Pardue asked whether Idaho’s favor of an “additive
approach” was influenced by the fact that they
seemed to have suffered most highly from the fallout,
judging from the map. Dr. Miller believed that there
were a number of factors, but that the NTS report released
by NCI raised issues and concerns in the state of Idaho.
- Mr. Pardue asked Dr. Miller to estimate the magnitude
of the exposures, doses, or health effects in the Oak
Ridge vicinity resulting from NTS fallout compared to
the RALA releases in Oak Ridge. Dr. Miller answered that
he would rely on the Oak Ridge Dose Reconstruction to
address that question, not recalling the exact numbers.
- Mr. Lewis asked whether there was a particular area,
city, or population in the country that may have received
doses that were equivalent to the exposures in Oak Ridge,
or if there is a site in the country with a rate of exposure
that is higher than the rate in Oak Ridge. Dr. Miller
recalled that early releases at Hanford were higher than
the ones in Oak Ridge, without considering fallout. There
were representative individuals who were born in 1945,
downwind from Hanford, who received high doses from Hanford
without considering the Nevada Test site. Releases at
Oak Ridge, Savannah River, and other sites are in addition
to the Nevada test site. When considering the Nevada
test site, the key is not as much where an individual
lived – a young female drinking goat’s or
cow’s milk was at the highest risk, regardless
of where she lived in the country.
- Mr. Lewis asked whether Dr. Miller had a feel for another
place in the country that was comparable to Oak Ridge
in exposure. Dr. Miller replied that they could be anyplace
in the country. NCI will try to convey the message that
if an individual is in a certain category, then there
is the potential for higher exposure, almost independent
of location.
- Ms. Susan Kaplan asked Dr. Miller to comment on the
use of central values versus the 95 th percentile. It
appeared to her that ATSDR is leaning toward the use
of central values. Dr. Miller replied that in making
this decision, it is important to keep the purpose of
the exercise in mind. He believed that the dose reconstruction
process as practiced in Oak Ridge and Hanford was conducted
to provide a range of numbers, not to provide a best
estimate. The 50 th percentile could be used for other
purposes, though. ORHASP does not believe that the two
ranges should be relied upon definitely. There is no
easy answer when trying to decide which is the best.
If the question were regulatory, then he would recommend
looking at the models that were used to develop the regulation.
Since they are dealing with a public health issue, the
dose reconstruction process can only say that there is
a degree of confidence that the true value lies in the
range.
- In establishing the 95 percent confidence interval,
Dr. Davidson inquired as to whether the upper value represented
a worst- case scenario, and if so, whether that was plausible.
Dr. Miller answered that the upper value is not necessarily
the worst- case scenario, depending on how the calculations
are done. There are many assumptions that can be made
to ascertain the worstcase scenario. He could not say
whether the 95 th percentile was probable, but the calculations
say that it is possible. The likelihood of the 95 th
percentile is probably small, but it cannot be ruled
out. It is possible that there might be something worse.
- Mr. Washington asked whether Dr. Miller suspects that
there is a significant amount of Iodine131 in the Savannah
area. Dr. Miller does not suppose that, but said that
they do not have numbers from Savannah yet. They are
in the process of deciding which radionuclides would
be assessed in the dose reconstruction project for Savannah.
He expected that I- 131 would be one of them. In that
project, they will assess I- 131 released at the site
as well as in fallout.
- Mr. Washington asked whether the Savannah exposures
could contribute to exposures in the Oak Ridge area because
of Savannah’s proximity to Oak Ridge. Dr. Miller
did not think that an effect from Savannah was impossible,
but that it was highly unlikely. The prevailing wind
direction is in the other direction, and there is a distance
with mountains between the regions.
- Mr. Elmer Akin commented on the public health question
of whether this information can be used to prompt an
individual to do something different. This question is
at the heart of all environmental exposures, whether
radiation or chemical. He felt that the question was
about more than changing behavior as a result of knowledge
given that people have an innate need to know what has
caused their problem. The issue then becomes how far
the government will go to answer that question and to
provide resources for citizens. Dr. Miller agreed and
noted that he wondered about whether adding doses will
provide public health benefit. Should resources be put
into something else? How does knowing your dose help
you interact with the health system? Some doctors want
to know their patients’ dose, while others do not.
He did not give an answer to those questions, as he is
asking them of all the Subcommittees.
- Mr. Manley asked if there had been an elevation in
thyroid diseases for women who were born between 1944
and 1956. Dr. Miller appreciated the question, but said
that he was the wrong person to answer it. The American
Thyroid Association states that there is an epidemic
of thyroid problems in the country. The Association has
recommended that individuals over the age of 35 have
a thyroid function test as part of their annual physical
exam. The NCI has done work in estimating the number
of excess cancers, and they have found that there is
a likelihood that there has been an increase in thyroid
cancers as a result of NTS fallout. It is not possible
to quantify thyroid function diseases or cancers at this
time, which is not to say that they do not exist, and
there is evidence to suggest that I- 131 exposure can
cause those diseases, if the exposure is high enough.
There is no dose- response relationship as yet.
- Dr. Brooks asked about the 95 percent confidence level,
which has been calculated as the difference between the
2 ½ percentile and the 97 ½ percentile.
Certain statements have been made about its properties
using nomenclature that is similar to the treatment of
a confidence level of a mean, which is a different issue.
No writings have indicated what the nature of the subjective
confidence level is. As the difference between the two
percentiles, it is really defining the region of the
probability curve which contains 95 percent of the observations.
It does not make a statement about the percentage at
the mean as contained in that interval. As these input
distributions are taken in an arbitrary way, the confidence
level gets large enough that it can go outside the correct
distribution. Dr. Miller replied that as a non- statistician,
he was not sure he could add to the discussion in that
area. The meaning of the subjective confidence interval
needs work. Part of the problem is that they are using
statistical terms and statistical language to describe
something that violates many of the assumptions and guidelines
of the language. Some people are not talking about a
subjective confidence interval at all for that calculation.
Instead, they are talking about a credibility interval.
- Dr. Brooks added that there are areas of science in
which an honest answer is, “I don’t know.” He
observed that the subjective confidence interval is one
of those instances. Dr. Miller concurred, saying that
it represents an intent on the part of the statisticians
and scientists to be as honest as they can, while assigning
numbers. In these calculations, they would like to be
able to make that interval as small as possible, but
at present, there are too many unknowns to be able to
do that.
- Dr. Davidson asked to what degree the subjective confidence
intervals vary by the model being applied and the person
applying the model. Dr. Miller answered that they can
vary. In a model such as the Dose Reconstruction, the
models will not vary a great deal at the end. If the
Oak Ridge group re- did the Hanford reconstruction, and
vice versa, there would likely be changes. He felt, though,
that at the end, there would be a great deal of overlap
and no significant difference. This statement is made
assuming that there were no major mistakes made in the
work.
- Mr. Eklund asked whether, if the actual value is between
the 5 th and 95 th percentiles, there is a uniform distribution
of likelihood; that is, is the 95 th percentile value
as equally likely to have happened as the 5 th percentile?
Dr. Miller responded that there is controversy around
that question. Most people believe that the distribution
is not uniform, and that a figure in the “middle” is
more likely than the two extremes. It is not possible
to tell where the “middle” is, or how wide
it is.
- Mr. Eklund returned to the question of whether this
information can prompt an individual to do something
different. Any information that an individual gets has
some effect in his or her behavior, in some way. These
effects can be negligible or important. A person’s
behavior is more likely to change when there is an increased
risk of disease. If a person’s risk of thyroid
disease is increased because of a release, then he or
she will not want such a release to happen again, and
without knowledge of dose an risk, that awareness would
not be part of a person’s behavior.
- When looking at reports such as these, Mr. Hill focuses
on the conclusions. He wants to know the impact on him,
what is an assumed safe level, and his exposure. He can
look at the NTS, Hanford, and ORNL exposures and their
safe levels and not have concerns. If those doses are
not added together to give a realistic exposure, combined
with his work exposures, then he does not know what to
relay to his healthcare provider. If his total, though,
is reason for concern, then he will be more likely to
relay that information. Not adding exposures is wrong.
- Mr. Lewis commented on the models for the various sites
and the degree of uncertainty about each of them. He
was concerned about the message that they may send, whether
they opt to use the central values or not. The reaction
of the general public is the concern of the Subcommittee,
and there are different segments of the public to consider:
individuals who are sick or ill, who feel that these
exposures may be related to their illness; and the public
in general. Another issue to consider is what the healthcare
provider will do with the data. He likened the situation
to the difference between an “idiot light” in
a car, which provokes one kind of response, and an analog
gauge, which people can consult to monitor progress.
He wondered how to handle the message to the public to
ensure that they will respond in a reasonable fashion.
Dr. Miller said that Mr. Lewis’s question was the
main issue being tackled by the NCI in their communications
campaign. The NCI is assembling focus groups, including
groups with physicians and healthcare providers, to try
to identify how to package the message in a way that
will encourage people to get the healthcare that they
need without having an inappropriate reaction.
- Mr. Lewis wondered whether there was a time- table
to NCI’s activity in this area and whether the
Subcommittee should factor that schedule into their decision.
Dr. Miller surmised that NCI would create materials for
presentation in the next fiscal year. NCI is developing
these materials that can be disseminated at the local
level.
- Ms. Kaplan admitted that the question that she was
about to ask was unfair, and said that if Dr. Miller
chose not to answer it, she would understand. She asked
whether, if he had a daughter who had been impacted by
the tests, whether he would vote to use the central value
or the percentile interval. Dr. Miller answered that
he would not care what the numbers were. If he were in
that situation, if he knew that he had fed his daughter
from a backyard cow or goat, then he would encourage
her to be checked by a thyroid specialist. Part of his
opinion comes from knowing that the numbers were uncertain.
His own numbers range from .01 to 124 rads, and he would
always err on the side of being checked. If he were sitting
on the Subcommittee, then he would calculate extremes
for both options. He would see where he fit in the range
and craft his public health message based on those ranges.
- Dr. Davidson asked about the relative contribution
of other sources of radiation exposure such as dental
x- rays compared to those from NTS, Hanford, or Oak Ridge.
Dr. Miller answered that looking at the averages, the
relative contribution of those other sources would likely
be negligible; however, the number of exposures varies
per person, so he cannot say what sources had an impact
on any given individual.
- Mr. Lewis suggested that if the doses were added, there
are other contaminants of concern. Would they “set
off an avalanche” if they tried to assess all doses,
such as arsenic from coal plants? Where does it stop?
Dr. Miller replied that he does not know. They have studied
I131 and have a great deal of information on it, but
they do not have as much information on the other contaminants.
How they help the public account for these things is
a big question. In looking at time and resources, they
should decide whether there might be a better way of
doing it.
- Dr. Davidson thanked Dr. Miller for his presentation
and for fielding the Subcommittee’s questions.
He had given the Subcommittee a great deal of issues
to consider:
- Should they recommend using the range or a central value?
- What impact will adding doses have on the public heath assessment?
Public Comment and Discussion
The microphone was open for members of the public to
speak:
- Mr. Coin commented that fluoride and certain other
mixed chemicals have the same effects as iodine does.
In all of the releases from K- 25, fluoride could be
a contributing factor.
- Dr. Davidson had not been aware that fluoride had an
effect on the thyroid. The issue can be investigated
toxicologically. These effects will be investigated and
presented.
The floor remained open to the public until 3: 45 pm.
As no other members of the public spoke, the floor was
opened to Subcommittee members to make statements:
- Mr. Lewis reflected on improving the efficiency and
effectiveness of the work groups and the 22 Subcommittee.
He advocated for a “lessons learned” discussion
that would focus on the Subcommittee’s future direction
and how to make improvements. This discussion should
be open and honest, and the Subcommittee should outline
their strengths and weaknesses. They have lost some good
members, and he wondered whether these losses were due
to the Subcommittee’s not completing work in a
timely and effective manner. He would like this discussion
scheduled as soon as possible, and it should be planned
carefully. Dr. Davidson noted that the Subcommittee planned
to discuss ways to self- evaluate its work. There have
been questions related to the Chair as well as to the
Subcommittee as a whole. She has been thinking about
this issue so that they can improve. Mr. Lewis reiterated
that pre- work will make the discussion much more productive,
as the issues can be outlined in advance. Dr. Davidson
noted the engagement of an individual to help them through
the process.
- Mr. Hill noted a recent telephone survey that assessed
the Subcommittee members’ areas of interest. Dr.
Davidson replied that the results of the survey were
not complete or ready for discussion.
The group then engaged in a general discussion about
when the postponement of the meeting could be scheduled.
- Mr. Pereira indicated that the agenda would have to
be shaped to determine how long the meeting would need
to be.
- Dr. Brooks pointed out that the LOC traditionally meets
on the second Tuesday of each month, and so the Subcommittee
should endeavor in the future not to meet on those days,
in the evening.
- Dr. Brooks suggested that the agenda preparation be
based on omissions from the current meeting rather than
implementing the full agenda preparation schedule.
- The group ultimately decided on the 15 th and 16 th
of October, with alternate dates of the 29 th and 30
th.
Update on Off-Site Sampling
Elmer Akin and Jon Johnston
Office of Technical Service
Waste Management Division
US EPA
Mr. Akin’s talk had been scheduled for the next
day of the meeting, but as the meeting had been truncated,
update on off- site sampling was presented. The importance
of the issue of off- site sampling has been expressed by
both the Subcommittee and by community members at large.
Therefore, Mr. Akin has involved senior management of the
EPA in making a report regarding sampling in the Oak Ridge
and the Scarborough area. He introduced the Federal Facility
Branch Chief of EPA Region Four, Jon Johnston, who is responsible
for EPA’s activity in DOD and DOE areas.
Mr. Johnston greeted the Subcommittee and thanked them
for the opportunity to address them. He has held community
meetings regarding upcoming sampling that EPA plans in
the Scarborough community. EPA has taken public comment
on a draft study, and they had been slow in implementing
the study.
The DOE conducted a study of soil samples in 1998 from
around the Scarborough area. These samples were analyzed
for a variety of elements. The EPA received feedback from
this study and then devised a study plan based on the feedback.
The original study yielded valuable information, but the
data package needs to be completed by the new report to
assure its conclusions. The EPA will begin the new sampling
the week of September 24, 2001 with the following points
in mind:
- The samples taken in the 1998 report were surface samples,
and there was a question about whether uranium, for instance,
would be found at those depths, or whether a deeper core
sample should be taken. Therefore, some of the samples
will be deeper.
- Regarding uranium in the soil from the industrial activities
at the DOE facilities, these questions arise: Is it present?
What is present? Where did it come from? There are differences
of opinion on this issue, but it seems that to be able
to determine the local sources of uranium activity, the
data should be analyzed at a different level to ensure
that the uranium isotopes that can answer this question
can be assessed.
- The analyses in 1998 determined that there were no
contaminants found above health- based guidelines, so
no immediate action was needed for the soils that were
sampled. Some of the analyses did not seem to cover the
contaminants that correspond to the release histories,
particularly of Y- 12. A total of 26 contaminants did
not appear to be analyzed in the samples that were taken,
and this data gap can be addressed in a fairly straightforward
manner.
EPA representatives have not been very clear in the community.
They originally talked about “verifying” the
original data, which is misleading. A soil sample is virtually
impossible to verify, as the soil matrix itself will yield
analytical variations. The new study will attempt to generate
data which will be compared to the original report.
The Scarborough community is not the only place where
these questions should be raised. The community feels singled
out as “contaminated,” and this impression
is unfair. EPA can help with this impression by publicizing
study results and also by comparing the results to other
areas. Questions about soil values, contamination, health
effects, and the potential need to look at the Oak Ridge
community in a larger sense, including historical releases
and what might remain in the soil, are being asked of EPA,
TDEC, DOE, and the ORRHES, as well as other agencies and
committees. The question of what to do about historical
releases in the larger community is a pertinent one. DOE
needs advice, and someone needs to take responsibility
for the follow- up questions of:
- what to do about the larger issues of soil contamination,
- the legacy of releases,
- health- related questions, and
- how to inform the public.
EPA will take ten samples in the week of September 24
th . The study is designed to be small and limited. The
samples will be sent to the National Air and Radiation
Exposure Lab in Montgomery, Alabama. Those ten samples
will be compared with the original data. It could take
as long as four months to share the information. If the
new data are in the same range of values as the first study,
then they will conclude that there is nothing in the soil
that exceeds federal health standards and that any further
work in the Scarborough community should be done as part
of larger- area studies. If the new data does not agree
with the original data (for instance, if a contaminant
that was not discovered in the original report is found),
then they will notify DOE of the new problem that must
be prioritized. This function is part of EPA’s duties
under Superfund.
Discussion Summary:
- Ms. Kaplan inquired about the title of the original
report. She also asked about the procedure that will
be used to take the ten samples in the new study. Mr.
Johnston answered that the original report was conducted
by Florida A& M University. It was a DOE report.
The study plan for the sampling is in draft copy, which
refers to the EPA’s Standard Operating Procedures
and Quality Assurance Manual. The personnel for the sampling
include Sharon Matthews and Kevin Simmons, who are from
the Science and Ecosystem Support Division of EPA. The
Oak Ridge oversight office will be there in the field
as well. As a responsible party, DOE has a statutory
right to a split sample. They have not specified whether
they want that sample.
- Mr. Akin added that the community had been informed
about the sampling and had heard a presentation from
the EPA laboratory in Athens, Georgia, about the impact
of sampling on the community. Mr. Johnston added that
there had been confusion about the times of community
meetings.
- Mr. Pardue served on the Site- Specific Advisory Board,
and he recalled an EPA representative on that board stating
that there was activity underway between DOE, T- DEC,
and EPA to develop a sampling plan all of Oak Ridge.
Mr. Johnston replied that there had been no progress
in that effort. Under Superfund, DOE, T- DEC, and EPA
meet on a variety of levels. At a recent senior management
meeting, the DOE expressed requests for a greater, communitywide
effort of sampling or collection of historical data before
taking more samples. Since then, the EPA project managers
have discussed how to put that effort into a priority
scheme, but the task should not be on them. Senior and
middle managers have had discussions that have not been
fruitful. There were questions about how to make such
an effort. Who would do it? Oak Ridge is a “national
priorities list” site under the Superfund statute.
Studies and response actions to any releases from the
facility are its responsibility; that is, the DOE, which
is the lead agency by executive order. All concerned
agencies and committees, as well as community members,
have expressed a desire for an effort, and the time has
come to move forward.
- Dr. Brooks remarked that the EPA representative at
the SSAB meeting promised a response in writing to a
number of questions submitted by several organizations
in Oak Ridge. He noted that Mr. Johnston had answered
some of those questions, but it was likely that there
would still be conflicts, given the variety of his audiences.
Dr. Brooks suggested that EPA write a brief response
to the submitted questions. Mr. Johnston agreed, adding
that he had made that assignment to one of his staff
members.
- Dr. Brooks also noted the long history of this inter-
agency working group for widespread sampling. At one
meeting, T- DEC stated that they would take the task
on and would provide a plan in a month. After some time,
the planning had been given to DOE. Then the inter- agency
group was formed, and then they heard that EPA was the
lead agency. Now, they are hearing that EPA is the lead
agency, and that conflict should be resolved. Mr. Jack
Hanley clarified the issue. There was an inter- agency
conference call in July of 2000. EPA was offered the
lead to set up a working group meeting so that the technical
staff could develop a plan to bring to the other committees.
The meeting was held in February 2001. A plan was not
developed at that meeting.
- Dr. Brooks expected that the Subcommittee would be
interested in expediting the plan, as they have had requests
from an array of areas for a larger study. He wondered
to whom they should write a letter to move the process
along. Mr. Johnston replied that the DOE would benefit
from that opinion. He also suggested writing the Acting
Regional Administrator of EPA, Stanley Meiberg. John
Owsley or Milton Hamilton at T- DEC were other possibilities.
Dr. Brooks mentioned including Bill Moore’s successor.
He was more interested in the future than in the past,
and hoped to move toward a fact- based, established condition
of the Oak Ridge environment.
- Mr. Akin commented that resources to carry out the
work would be a big issue. DOE, not EPA, resources would
be used to do the sampling work. Mr. Johnston agreed,
noting that EPA resources are limited and that under
the executive order, DOE should do the work.
- Mr. Johnston added more persons that the Subcommittee
could contact to move the project forward: Leah Dever
and Rod Nelson at DOE. They are the action agencies in
the federal family who need to take action. They understand
that they have that responsibility, but are unclear on
how to proceed. The project being proposed is large and
complex. Beginning the process requires someone taking
ownership of the issue.
- Mr. Akin commented on EPA’s credibility issues.
In the Oak Ridge community, EPA has some credibility
that DOE does not, so they get direct requests for unilateral
action. Dealing with the off- site sampling and how to
communicate it is an important issue. The Subcommittee
would be a key communication mechanism. There is suspicion
around DOE in some circles, which will have to be reconciled
with the fact that DOE will do the work, and EPA will
act as oversight.
- Dr. Davidson remarked on community confusion with the
different agencies. Each agency’s responsibilities
and how they interact are not clear. Dr. Brooks said
that DOE has the money, and DOE does the work. There
should be oversight from EPA, the Department of Health,
ATSDR, T- DEC, and others.
- Mr. Jerry Kuhaida recalled a project from the early
1990s, when risk analysis was just being developed for
the Oak Ridge reservation. At that time, there was a
soil background study for the Oak Ridge reservation that
was conducted by the Environmental Sciences Division
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for the Environmental
Restoration Program. He was technical manager for the
program, and the study was long and detailed, involving
three transects. Dr. Johnston was familiar with the study,
and Mr. Hanley added that the study had been used by
Florida A& M to compare their soil samples.
- Mr. Lewis expressed his frustration while waiting for
EPA to take action. EPA has decided to conduct sampling
the week of September 24 th , but some community requests
and recommendations did not support this decision. Mr.
Lewis accepted the decision to sample, but cautioned
EPA against making another mistake. Referring to Mr.
Akin’s comment about the EPA having more credibility
than DOE, Mr. Lewis said that every agency has credibility
in the community “until they weigh in.” If
an agency weighs in and the community is not pleased,
then the agency’s credibility is lessened. A community
that is trying to resolve a number of issues must have
issues and ideas presented to them in a logical and sequential
manner, which will develop trust. He hoped that the EPA
would not weigh in with a small number of samples and
expect that the study will address a litany of other
issues and concerns in the community regarding past history.
- Mr. Johnston assured Mr. Lewis that the EPA did not
make that assumption.
- Mr. Lewis understood that the EPA did not make that
assumption, but perception in the community is reality,
he said. The Subcommittee was formed to bring synergy
to all of the different agencies that work in the Oak
Ridge area, and he believed that EPA should have come
before the Subcommittee to make them formally aware of
their plans so that the Subcommittee could share those
ideas and plans with the community. The community would
then have been better equipped to hear specifics about
the plans. Oak Ridge is a technically- savvy community
as a whole, but some communities do not have the same
level of expertise, so they rely on the words of a few
people. That community should have had a more definitive
presentation of information, with a logical support for
conclusions and answers to community questions. If he
disagrees with the EPA’s work, then how can he
file a complaint to look at the sequence of issues and
whether or not the proposed work may create a larger
problem than what currently exists? He expressed his
hope that EPA would consider the needs of the people.
- Mr. Johnston accepted Mr. Lewis’s comments, but
stated that it was not correct to say that EPA had not
been in the community and had not communicated with the
Subcommittee about the proposed study. He outlined some
instances of EPA presence in the community and at the
Subcommittee. He did not believe that EPA representatives
had been clear or timely, but he planned to learn from
those mistakes. Many people come to many meetings in
Oak Ridge, and the same people do not attend the different
meetings. EPA tries to reach the groups that they can.
He is not sure that it is possible to communicate with
all interested parties. In the community meeting the
night before, he observed a diversity of opinion among
the attendees and a range of public reaction, both strongly
in favor of, and strongly opposed to, the upcoming soil
sampling.
- Mr. Johnston noted that to register complaints or to
make comments, three people can be contacted:
- James S. Kutzman, who is Mr. Johnston’s supervisor. He is the
Deputy Director of the Waste Management Division; 61 Forsyth Street,
Atlanta, GA 30303 (the address is the same for all three EPA managers).
- His boss is Richard D. Green, the Director of the Waste Management
Division, who has been in the Oak Ridge community to talk about the sampling.
- Dr. A. Stanley Meiberg is the Acting Regional Administrator, and he
welcomes comments about the sampling.
- Mr. Washington congratulated Mr. Akin and Mr. Johnston.
They had changed his mind about having DOE representation
at the table. Mr. Akin’s representation has led
to their questions being answered by a high- level EPA
official. There is benefit in having representatives
from agencies with funding at the table.
- Mr. Hanley asked about the upcoming sampling, which
it is a validation sampling to follow- up Florida A& M’s
analysis. Did they identify any technical, analytical,
or laboratory problems with the data? Mr. Johnston replied
that they had not, as they were not in a position to
make those evaluations since they did not take split
samples.
- The sampling was presented to the Scarborough community
in September of 1998, said Mr. Hanley. At that time,
Florida A& M presented the analytical results, not
a health interpretation of the data. DOE gave a grant
to the Joint Centers for Economic and Political Studies
to assess the health implications of the study results.
ATSDR and the Joint Centers approached the Scarborough
Environmental Justice Committee in December of 1998,
and the members conveyed that they did not trust the
data from the study because they had read in the paper
that EPA had said that the data was not good. ATSDR then
visited the laboratories and personnel in Florida and
found no problems with the data that would prevent a
judgement on its health implications. Since the community
did not trust the data, the Joint Centers recommended
waiting to do health assessments, as the EPA would be
sampling in the Spring of 1999. When the sampling was
finished, the perception that the data is bad might be
alleviated.
- Mr. Johnston acknowledged that his staff may have made
statements that were not clear, such as stating that
the data packages were not included in the report. Mr.
Hanley suggested that Mr. Johnston be clear in his meeting
that night that the EPA did not find problems with the
original data. Mr. Johnston reiterated that the upcoming
sampling was aimed at filling in gaps in the analysis.
- Bob Peele commented that when this issue arose earlier,
he had been involved with the SSAB and interacted with
the EPA. He noted at the time that many of the uranium
isotopic results depended on comparing total uranium
and uranium- 235, by gamma rays. This comparison requires
two absolute measurements of different quantities, and
it is a bad way to obtain isotopic ratios when one of
the issues is qualitative. Where did the uranium come
from? Whereas, the air sampling measurements in Scarborough
show an excess of uranium. There must surely be uranium
in the ground at some level. Interpretation must be done
in that framework. Most of the original measurements
were made that way, and then conclusions were drawn which
might be right or wrong. He hoped that EPA would measure
the isotopic ratio. Mr. Johnston replied that measuring
isotopic rations was one of their key criteria.
- Dr. Brooks asked whether, given that Dr. Johnston had “never
put this much effort into ten samples,” he had
ever had more than one meeting for every two samples,
as they have over the past three years. Communications
have not always been perfect, but EPA has tried to convey
this information to the community in every way possible,
he believed.
- Mr. Eklund observed that the inter- agency sampling
of Scarborough is stalled and has been for too long.
The problem may lie in a matter of trust. DOE might acknowledge
this factor internally. If they did the sampling, it
would probably get the same response as previous samplings
had gotten. Since EPA does not have that “label,” he
wondered whether DOE could fund a sampling, but EPA could
plan it, do the sampling, do the laboratory work, and
report it. Would EPA be willing to do this endeavor?
Mr. Johnston replied that EPA would certainly be willing
to consider such a project if there were a request from
citizens or from an advisory committee. Actually conducting
the project would be a much larger decision with a number
of parameters, including a shrinking workforce and the
fact that EPA has no statutory authority to supplant
the lead agency. Fiscal laws preclude EPA from using
Superfund dollars to study a federal facility because
the authorization from Congress to do that work goes
to the other department. The Federal Managers Integrity
Act is also a factor. There must be people and laboratory
space to do work, and both are difficult questions. The
EPA full- time equivalents are being cut. In his opinion,
the only way to make the project work is to get it out
in the open and convince the various agencies and the
citizens to make it a high priority. DOE is doing a great
deal of work, and Mr. Johnston asked people to weigh
in on where the project fits in the list of priorities.
- Mr. Eklund asked whether EPA oversight of planning,
sampling, and laboratory work was feasible. Mr. Johnston
replied that is was.
- Dr. Davidson asked whether any members of the public
had comments to offer. As there were none, the conversation
continued.
- Mr. Eklund noted that the community prefers that EPA
do work over DOE. Mr. Johnston replied that “the
community” is diverse and has a range of opinions.
There are many communities, and EPA has to hear all of
their voices when hearing from “the community.”
- Mr. Akin shared Mr. Lewis’s frustration in the
process. Mr. Johnston had been candid about EPA’s
legal abilities and where the burdens of activity fall.
He was also aware that credibility is short- lived and
is hard to regain. Since “perception is reality,” then
it behooves all of them to align perception with reality
in the community. Perception that is different from reality
can do damage, so it is important to help the community
understand the roles of EPA and DOE. He hoped that Mr.
Johnston’s presence and his statements in community
meetings would influence them as they proceed, and as
requests come to them regarding the off- site sampling.
A monumental question is being posed about the off- site
areas around the Oak Ridge reservation. “Site characterization” is
always an issue. How much sampling is enough to characterize
a site? He cautioned that the ten samples that come from
the upcoming sampling may lead to more questions than
they answer if they do not match the previous report.
The Subcommittee needs to be ready to examine the ramifications
of the data and how to proceed when it comes in. This
committee can help the community understand what can
be done and the required time- frame and resources. When
the off- site work proceeds, then it must be given a
high priority or there will be a great deal of frustration
in the community and on the Subcommittee if there is
not a clear understanding of the resources. He wanted
to be the liaison to the EPA on this issue, bringing
people to speak to the Subcommittee on it. Site characterization
is becoming a large issue, and there must be a structure
in place to accomplish it.
- Dr. Davidson asked if there were public comments. As
there were none, the discussion continued.
- Mr. Manley commented on credibility. If they do not
bring people what they want, they will not have credibility.
He gave the example of a group of Scarborough children
who were sick. Their families did not trust the doctors
in Oak Ridge, so they children went to doctors in Knoxville,
through CDC. When CDC did not find anything wrong with
the children, then CDC lost credibility. Falling out
of favor is almost inevitable. Mr. Johnston understood
that point and said that EPA would do a better job of
presenting what they are doing, how they are doing it,
what the results are, and what the results mean.
- Dr. Davidson asked if members of the public would like
to speak. No members of the public came forward.
- Mr. Lewis apologized for becoming emotional, and he
responded to Mr. Akin and Mr. Johnston’s comments.
He said, “Sometimes, the boss is never wrong, he
just gets bad advice or skewed data.” Actions may
be taken without the appropriate feedback from certain
levels of the community. Many people have high hopes
that the EPA will give them the answer that they want.
In the general African- American community, he observed,
word does not get out in the same manner as in other
communities, and they do not always have the same level
of expertise. He noted that the community does not get
detailed minutes of EPA meetings so that the proceedings
and presentations can be shared with members of the community.
If work is done and taken out of context, then it hurts
the community. He spoke then from the perspective of
the African- American community, saying that they are
not always as organized as they should be. They need
to be up- front and come together collectively with their
expertise to interact with the EPA. He recommended that
EPA be careful and not listen to only one or two people.
There is an office in Oak Ridge that has a better sense
of what is going on in the community. Having these connections
will provide EPA with better feedback so that they can
time their responses to aid in recovery. He thanked Mr.
Johnston for his efforts.
- Dr. Davidson stated her belief that Scarborough is
an informed community and that all of the communities
in Oak Ridge make efforts to be informed.
- Dr. Johnston thanked the Subcommittee for their time
and the work that they are doing. He encouraged their
work in an advisory capacity, saying that their work
is consulted by other members of the government.
Closing Comments
Dr. Davidson presented an issue for the Subcommittee’s
approval. She recommended that the Subcommittee examine
the broader issue of soil sampling for the general area.
She asked the Subcommittee to approve that the Chair work
with the Public Health Assessment Work Group to draft a
recommendation to ATSDR so that they may ascertain the
responsible agencies are for the soil sampling and their
responsibilities.
Motion 5
A formal motion was made for the Subcommittee to examine
the broader issue of soil sampling for the general area,
and for the Subcommittee Chair to work with the Public
Health Assessment Work Group to draft a recommendation
to ATSDR so that they may ascertain the responsible agencies
are for the soil sampling and their responsibilities. The
motion was seconded, voted upon, and unanimously approved.
Discussion Summary:
- Dr. Davidson reminded the group that they would not
be meeting the next day, and that the two potential dates
for meetings to complete the agenda were October 15 th
and 16 th ; and October 29 th and 30 th .
- Mr. Pardue commented that the Public Health Assessment
Work Group would meet within the next few weeks. Their
agreement had been the 1 st and 3 rd Mondays of the month,
which he would confirm via e- mail.
- Ms. Kaplan pointed out that ATSDR fulfilled their commitment
to provide organizational charts of their agency, and
thanked them. She asked that EPA develop those charts
as well.
- Dr. Brooks said that the Agenda Work Group would wait
to collect comment until they receive a proposed agenda
from ATSDR. They did not receive flowchart information
from George Washington University, and he asked to renew
that action item.
- Ms. Mosby said that a recent conversation with Rebecca
Parkin led her to believe that this flowchart would be
available soon. She and Mr. Lewis offered an update on
the Needs Assessment Work Group. Ms. Parkin’s presentation
was to be an update on the Work Group: they have done
some questioning. The content of the questions or any
results will not yet be reported, but she was going to
update the group on how many people had been contacted
and the status of IRB approvals. They want to be complete
by the end of the year and they need IRB approval by
the end of September in order to complete the telephone
survey by the end of October. Only 50 percent of the
key informants had been reached, but the group seems
to be making good progress. They generate a weekly report,
which could be summarized and prepared for the monthly
Chairs’ meeting.
- Ms. Karen Galloway noted that a draft of a mission
statement for the Subcommittee had been requested. All
members of the Subcommittee have not seen the draft,
so she left copies for members to collect.
Dr. Davidson asked that all members pray and meditate
for their country and for the victims of the terrorist
attacks. With that, the meeting was adjourned.
End of Summary Proceedings
<< Back
|