ORRHES Meeting Minutes,
February 11, 2002
The Oak Ridge Reservation Health Effects Subcommittee convened on February
11, 2002 at the YWCA at 1660 Oak Ridge Turnpike, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Chairperson Kowetha Davidson called the meeting to order at 12:15 PM.
Meeting attendees were asked to identify themselves for the record. The
attendees at this time were:
Elmer Akin
Barbara Sonnenburg
David Johnson
Jerry Kuhaida
Chudi Nwangwa
Bob Eklund
LC Manley
Don Creasia
Donna Mosby
Charles Washington
Jeff Hill
James Lewis
Karen Galloway
Bob Craig
Susan Kaplan
Brenda Vowell
La Freta Dalton
Cheryl Smith
Jack Hanley
Bill Murray
Karl Markiewicz
Paul Charp
Bob Capell
Art Stuart (sp)
John Steward
Wesley Howard
Mike Knapp
John Million
Fay Martin
Jerry Pereira
Tim Joseph
The recorder is Ken Ladrach
Opening Discussion
Kowetha Davidson announced that there were some minor changes in the
agenda since the pre-meeting mailing, primarily in the order of reports
from the work groups. The Public Health Assessment Work Group will give
its report first, followed by a public comment session. The Public Health
Assessment Work Group session will include presentations by Paul Charp
and Karl Markiewicz. Later in the afternoon the Subcommittee will hear
and vote on the recommendations of each work group. This will be followed
by the usual unfinished business/new business items and identification
of action items portions of the meeting. With no additional changes identified
the agenda was considered finalized.
Kowetha Davidson drew attention to the correspondence received and sent
out included in the pre-meeting mail out. Included in today's handout
material is a letter to Owen Hoffman regarding the comments on the minutes
for the June 11, 2001 Subcommittee meeting.
Kowetha Davidson announced that attendees could sign up for the meal
at the evening break by completing the signup form provided and returning
the form and money to Donna Mosby.
Barbara Sonnenburg asked if the Subcommittee had received a response
from Dr. Jackson. Kowetha Davidson responded that the Subcommittee had
not received a response from Dr. Jackson regarding the letter sent to
him by the Subcommittee.
Agenda Review, Correspondence, and Announcements
Kowetha Davidson announced that there were some minor changes in the
agenda since the pre-meeting mailing, primarily in the order of reports
from the work groups. The Public Health Assessment Work Group will give
its report first, followed by a public comment session. The Public Health
Assessment Work Group session will include presentations by Paul Charp
and Karl Markiewicz. Later in the afternoon the Subcommittee will hear
and vote on the recommendations of each work group. This will be followed
by the usual unfinished business/new business items and identification
of action items portions of the meeting. With no additional changes identified
the agenda was considered finalized.
Kowetha Davidson drew attention to the correspondence received and sent
out included in the pre-meeting mail out. Included in today's handout
material is a letter to Owen Hoffman regarding the comments on the minutes
for the June 11, 2001 Subcommittee meeting.
Kowetha Davidson announced that attendees could sign up for the meal
at the evening break by completing the signup form provided and returning
the form and money to Donna Mosby.
Barbara Sonnenburg asked if the Subcommittee had received a response
from Dr. Jackson. Kowetha Davidson responded that the Subcommittee had
not received a response from Dr. Jackson regarding the letter sent to
him by the Subcommittee.
Approval of June 2001 and December 2001
Meeting Minutes
June 11-12, 2001 Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
La Freta Dalton drew attention to the final minutes for the June 11,
2001 Subcommittee meeting provided in the handouts. The comments on
page 44 of the minutes were addressed as requested by the Subcommittee.
La Freta Dalton reviewed the meeting videotapes and stated that the
comments from the member of the public are incorporated verbatim. Comments
and corrections submitted by letter by Owen Hoffman were incorporated
in the minutes as appropriate and Owen Hoffman's letter submitted is
included in the Subcommittee members' hand out materials. La Freta Dalton
also noted for the Subcommittee that Owen Hoffman's comment letter is
included with the meeting minutes in the file at the ATSDR field office,
with a sheet noting that there are other documents there with the meeting
minutes available for the public to review.
Bob Craig moved that the final minutes of the June 11-12, 2001 Subcommittee
meeting be approved. The motion was seconded. A vote was taken by voice
with none opposed.
December 3-4, 2001 Subcommittee Meeting Minutes
Kowetha Davidson brought the December 3-4, 2001 subcommittee meeting
minutes to the attention of the Subcommittee and asked for any additional
comments on the December meeting minutes.
Discussion:
James Lewis repeated a request he previously submitted to La Freta
Dalton about itemizing action items arising from and statements made
during a presentation given in the December 2001 Subcommittee meeting
by Jerry Pereira about issues the Subcommittee raised for discussion
with the management team concerning problems they were encountering
in their efforts. James Lewis clarified that the Subcommittee was having
difficulty identifying what Dr. Jackson stated and the action items
from the meeting. James Lewis expressed concern that the Subcommittee
meeting minutes were not detailed enough to capture action items and
other key points arising from meetings. La Freta Dalton added that the
videotapes serve as the verbatim record of the Subcommittee meetings.
Jerry Kuhaida moved that the minutes of the December 3-4, 2001 Subcommittee
meeting be approved. The motion was seconded. A vote was taken by voice
with none opposed.
La Freta Dalton noted for the Subcommittee that a new recorder is working
with the Subcommittee and asked that subcommittee members state their
name for the record when making comments.
Status of Action Items
Kowetha Davidson proceeded to the status of action items by review of
the action items matrix.
- La Freta Dalton addressed the Subcommittee recommendation that the
ATSDR create an article for the local media on the screening and stated
that this issue will be addressed in today's meeting during the Public
Health Assessment presentations.
- La Freta Dalton addressed the web site design format issue stating
that recent modification to the host web site dictated slight changes
to Subcommittee web site design no. 3 (changes in colors).
- La Freta Dalton addressed the Subcommittee recommendation that ATSDR
determine the feasibility of review of the ORHASP minutes to document
historical concerns stating that this issue will be addressed in today's
meeting.
- La Freta Dalton addressed the action of the Subcommittee and ATSDR
to follow up with Dr. Jackson on outstanding issues resulting from
his presentation. Kowetha Davidson sent a follow up letter to Dr.
Jackson and Bill Carter followed up with Dr. Jackson as well. There
has been no response received from Dr. Jackson to either contact.
There were no further questions or comments on the action items.
Administrative Process Update
Kowetha Davidson proceeded to a presentation by Jerry Pereira updating
the administrative process, a follow up to the presentation he made at
the December 2001 Subcommittee meeting.
Jerry Pereira referred to a hand out to the Subcommittee members that
lists concerns and issues and associated ATSDR responses, themes common
among the concerns generally expressed. Specifically the presentation
addressed the concern about a need for administrative staff at the ATSDR
field office. The ATSDR has agreed to hire a part time person for the
field office, a local individual will be hired to assist with administrative
matters. The position will be advertised in the local newspaper. The time
frame for implementation is expected to be the immediate future, which
was estimated by Jerry Pereira to be within the next month or two months.
Work tasks for this position would be work group meeting minutes, logistical
support at the office, assisting Bill Murray with other administrative
needs.
Discussion:
James Lewis asked the following questions on the concerns hand out:
- Please expand on the meaning of the entry "Completion of necessary
administrative guidelines and procedures should facilitate more attention
to technical issues." Jerry Pereira's response was that, in part,
the new format of the Subcommittee meetings should facilitate more
attention to technical issues. Hopefully the meeting format changes
will allow more effective use of time.
- Please expand on the need indicated previously to get approval for
an option of the Subcommittee convening four-hour meetings. La Freta
Dalton responded that the charter would have to be revised to permit
shorter meeting formats. Committee management will suggest the necessary
charter revision in June or July 2002. James Lewis made the follow
up note that four-hour meeting formats can be very effective for communicating
to the community, which is very important.
Kowetha Davidson asked the following question on the concerns handout:
- Please explain the meaning of the entry that Jack Hanley is appointed
site lead. Jerry Pereira responded that Jack Hanley is responsible
directly for whatever happens at the site from a scientific perspective.
Jack Hanley is responsible for completion of the health assessment.
Technical aspects are the responsibility of Jack Hanley, administrative
issues and logistics are the responsibility of Sandy Isaacs
and Jerry Pereira.
David Johnson asked for confirmation that Jack Hanley is the lead.
Jerry Pereira confirmed that jack Hanley is the lead for the technical
aspects of the work.
James Lewis asked hypothetically, if a situation arises in which difficulties
between administrative branches of the ATSDR impedes timely progress
of the Subcommittee on an issue, can the Subcommittee turn to Jerry
Pereira for assistance? Jerry Pereira responded affirmatively, with
the clarification that the appropriate steps have all already been taken.
Kowetha Davidson added that it is also necessary for Subcommittee members
to keep the chairperson informed of issues that need resolution.
Bill Murray added that Subcommittee members can also get assistance
communicating with ATSDR from the ATSDR field office.
There was no further discussion on the administrative process update.
Work Group Presentations Sessions
PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Kowetha Davidson introduced the presentation of the Public Health Assessment
Work Group stating that the acting chairperson of the work group asked
that a smaller group within the Public Health Assessment Work Group draft
the recommendation. A minority recommendation was presented in that smaller
group. The recommendation adopted by the Public Health Assessment Work
Group and presented by the work group today is the majority recommendation
of the Public Health Assessment Work Group and is brought to the Subcommittee
today. The presentation of the Public Health Assessment Work Group was
made by James Lewis.
Presentation by James Lewis
James Lewis began by introducing the members of the ad hoc committee that
prepared the draft recommendation for the Public Health Assessment Work
Group:
- Bob Craig,
- L. C. Manley,
- Linda Gass,
- James Lewis
Barbara Sonnenburg asked James Lewis to briefly point out to the Subcommittee
during his presentation any instances when the minority recommendation
differs from the presentation being made, since the author of the minority
recommendation is not in attendance. James Lewis stated that he will capture
those differences during the presentation under areas of concern. He also
noted to the Subcommittee that the ad hoc committee reviewed a large amount
of documentation in the course of their work.
OVERVIEW OF RECOMMENDATIONS
James Lewis began by presenting to the Subcommittee a display depicting
an overview of the effort and objectives of the ChemRisk work in the past:
- ChemRisk objective 1 - Rapid identification of situations that have
produced doses or health risks to exposed individuals and/or populations
that are clearly below the minimum risk levels of concern established
by the Oak Ridge Health Agreement Steering Panel. These were identified
as items that did not warrant pursuing.
- ChemRisk objective 2 - Rapid identification of situations that have
produced doses or health risks to exposed individuals and/or populations
that potentially impact the health of the community. These were identified
as items that needed to be pursued.
Charles Washington asked where the risk levels were obtained from, the
ACGIH? James Lewis deferred to Kowetha Davidson for a specific response
and also stated that the information that the ad hoc committee reviewed
has also been available to the Subcommittee members and that the current
presentation now would not go into the technical detail of the reports
reviewed. Kowetha Davidson added that risk levels used in health assessments
generally use reference doses and cancer risk factors established by the
EPA as a baseline for determining whether risk levels are above or below
concern. Charles Washington pointed out that risk levels established by
different authorities are different.
James Lewis' presentation then identified that there are two major recommendations
from the Public Health Assessment Work Group to the Subcommittee about
the health assessment screening process.
One recommendation concerns the period before 1990, which is linked to
the ORHASP effort of the State of Tennessee to conduct a comprehensive
data review. This recommendation went from the ad hoc committee to the
Public Health Assessment Work Group and is brought to the Subcommittee
today for vote. There were minority position challenges to the work group
recommendation. The presentation identified categories of information
and input that were reviewed and considered in formulating the work group
recommendation:
- The ORHASP effort,
- ATSDR technical review comments,
- ORRHES members' review and assessment of technical documents, and
- Public issues/concerns expressed.
A flow process graphic was displayed to the Subcommittee depicting an
overview of the ATSDR health assessment screening process (presented by
Jack Hanley in earlier meetings), which was attached to the written recommendation
before each Subcommittee member.
The second recommendation concerns the period after 1990, for which there
are not yet health assessment findings. The work group is satisfied that
the process, as defined, appears to be sound. The process was depicted
to the Subcommittee with a flow process graphic, which was attached to
the written recommendation before each Subcommittee member.
On the subject of identifying issues and concerns, a timeline was presented
depicting the period of time that the Subcommittee has been working on
public health assessment issues and it was noted that this time period
spans January 2000 through February 2002. During this period, most of
the concerns that have been raised were raised very recently (toward the
end of February 2002). James Lewis stressed the importance of identifying
issues in a more timely manner rather than late in the Subcommittee review
process. As part of this, he stressed that it is essential that supporting
documentation related to issues and concerns be identified and brought
forward in a timely manner so that the Subcommittee has adequate time
to review it and take it into consideration in their public health assessment
review process. The ad hoc committee often addressed issues raised that
had been addressed previously. Therefore, it was suggested that previous
actions taken be identified and publicized so that issues that have been
addressed are not revisited repeatedly. A Subcommittee member made a request
for copies of the transparencies displayed by James Lewis during his presentation.
James Lewis stated that they could be made available to Subcommittee members.
SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS
The presentation then addressed the specifics of each of the two recommendations
from the Public Health Assessment Work Group.
Recommendation 1:
The Subcommittee endorse the ATSDR screening process for determining
the contaminants of concern for past exposure (1944 - 1990 data). This
endorsement begins with using the State of Tennessee's screening process
and its associated findings that identified the Oak Ridge Reservation
(ORR) offsite releases that warrant further evaluation. This endorsement
is based on the Subcommittee's collective review and understanding of:
- The ATSDR's screening presentations to the Subcommittee,
- ATSDR's independent technical reviewers' comments,
- The Subcommittee members' review and assessment of the technical
documents, as needed, and
- Related public concerns or issues as needed.
Other contaminants will be added if they are supported by a scientific
rationale and relevant data, and are deemed to be credible by the Subcommittee
after review and input from ATSDR.
Bob Eklund asked when the Subcommittee will vote on the recommendation.
Kowetha Davidson responded that the vote will occur later in the meeting
to allow time for discussion and possible public comment.
Continuing the presentation, James Lewis emphasized that the public health
assessment process has been presented before the Subcommittee in numerous
meetings and that the documentation of those meetings proceedings are
contained within the files of the ATSDR field office. The content of the
series of meeting presentations, including questions and issues raised,
were reviewed by the ad hoc committee as part of their effort to formulate
the recommendations of the Public Health Assessment Work Group. A graphic
was displayed identifying various presentations to the Subcommittee and
its work groups on the subject of the public health assessment process.
James Lewis next addressed the quality of documentation, its adequacy
and accuracy, the availability of the documentation to the public, and
whether all documentation has been brought into the public health assessment
process. These questions have been a general area of many concerns raised
in the public health assessment process. To address this, Tim Joseph was
asked to present an overview of how the data were captured.
Presentation by Tim Joseph
Tim Joseph presented and discussed a single graphic depicting a flow
process diagram of the ORHASP data process.
Overview
ORHASP was a seven year project during which 4 years were spent accessing
and collecting data. The prime contractor to the State of Tennessee was
ChemRisk. ChemRisk was supported by Shonka & Associates, which was
the subcontractor that searched for data. ChemRisk and Shonka & Associates
accessed data pertaining to three sites:
As relevant data and documents were identified at these three sites copies
were requested from the site contractor. A copy was submitted to the ChemRisk/Shonka
& Associates project file, a second copy was kept by the site contractor
as a record of what was provided, and a third copy went to the public
reading room in Oak Ridge. This gathering process was conducted for about
three years. The copies of documents in the possession of Shonka &
Associates were located in either their California office or their Ohio
office. Each document identified was entered into an abstracted bibliography,
whether or not the document was used. Not necessarily all documents identified
were used in the ORHASP. Many documents were not used but were listed
in the abstracted data base.
At project termination, the abstracted bibliography data base was put
on a compact disk (CD) available for the public. The abstracted data base
contains all of the bibliographic entries gathered, which includes numerous
documents that were identified but not used in ORHASP. The CD also contains
the full content of each of the project reports that were prepared as
part of ORHASP and the full content of interviews. Two types of interviews
were conducted by ChemRisk: telephone interviews and interviews with retired
workers. All of the telephone interviews are on the CD, in complete form
in the data base field named "abstract" on the CD. The interviews
with retired workers were conducted onsite and included discussion of
any classified information without restriction. However, the interviewer's
written notes from those interviews had to be reviewed for classified
content before being released to the ChemRisk interviewer. During review,
classified information was redacted (taken out) before the notes were
released to ChemRisk. The original interview notes and a copy of the redacted
notes were filed onsite by the site contractor. All of the redacted interviews
are included on the CD available for the public.
The CD did not include the actual content of the documents that ChemRisk
used in their work. In order to make the documents themselves available
for the public, all 142,000 pages of the documents used by ChemRisk were
all scanned electronically and placed on CDs (set of 18 CDs) and online
in the form of the Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource (CEDR). Tim
Joseph provided a set of the 18 CDs to the staff of the ATSDR field office.
Users should remember that not all documents identified in the ChemRisk
abstracted bibliography are in the 18 CD set because not all of the documents
were used by ChemRisk in their work. At the same time, the State of Tennessee
decided to make all of the data that ChemRisk gathered during their work
on the ORHASP available for the public. The state made the data accessible
in Nashville for two years and then submitted it all to the Tennessee
State Library archive. The archive materials are being placed on microfiche
and the documents are also available for the public in a monitored area.
This material archived in the state library is the only complete copy
of the ORHASP files.
Questions:
Jerry Pereira asked about the documents that ChemRisk did not use, what
did they do with those documents? Tim Joseph clarified that Shonka &
Associates identified documents but did not make judgements about whether
they would be used or not, ChemRisk made those judgements.
Bill Murray pointed out that documents from the telephone and personal
interviews are available on the single CD and that he has printed those
himself, despite the reports by some persons that the interviews can not
be found.
Susan Kaplan asked if the CEDR data base is on the web and if copies
of the ORHASP data process flow diagram sheet are available? Tim Joseph
confirmed that the CEDR is on the internet and provided copies of the
diagram sheet to the Subcommittee.
Bob Craig asked Bill Murray if the CD has the redacted interviews. Tim
Joseph explained that hand written telephone interviews were loaded into
a computer and the handwritten notes were discarded. The typed computer
notes of interviews are more complete than the hand written ones would
have been.
Elmer Akin asked if it is true that no chemical names remain classified.
Tim Joseph clarified that information that is still classified can be
a chemical name or a process that uses unclassified things in a way that
becomes classified. For example an unclassified chemical used at a building
in a process can then become classified. How it is used and what process
it is used in causes it to be classified. Elmer Akin asked if there are
any chemicals that by name alone the Subcommittee does not know of because
they are classified. Tim Joseph responded that there are not.
Elmer Akin also asked that this explanation by Tim Joseph be captured
from the video recording of the meeting to be made available to the community
for clarification. La Freta Dalton responded that she will pursue that,
and reminded everyone that the videotapes of the Subcommittee meetings
are available for the public to view. James Lewis suggested also capturing
the same information in a written form.
Kowetha Davidson noted at this point that five minutes remained before
the scheduled public comment period was to begin.
David Johnson recognized the efforts of Tim Joseph, noted the comments
of Elmer Akin and James Lewis about capturing Tim Joseph's presentation
for the public, and stated that it is important to put a video copy of
the presentation and associated written comments in the Oak Ridge High
School and public library so that people with concerns about access to
information will have access to the explanation presented. Kowetha Davidson
added that the Subcommittee could also make an effort to inform the public
that the information is available for the public at the ATSDR field office.
Charles Washington commented that although the complete list of names
of chemicals used is available you have to be aware of the manner in which
chemicals were used in addition to their names to adequately assess potential
hazards.
Susan Kaplan commented that the video capture would need more context
associated with it to communicate effectively to the public.
James Lewis commented that L.C. Manley and Jerry Kuhaida reviewed some
of the interviews during the ad hoc committee's effort and asked them
to share their findings. Jerry Kuhaida responded that he was interviewed
about eight years ago himself about potential releases via air and water.
He was working on the RI/FS and found some ChemRisk reports and made some
use of them during the RI/FS effort. Jerry Kuhaida stated that he provided
reference to documents that could provide input to ORHASP but thought
personally that the information that came out of the ORHASP process was
lacking in its consideration of potential releases to the environment.
Kowetha Davidson at this time began the scheduled public comment period.
Following the public comment period the presentation of James Lewis from
the Public Health Assessment Work Group continued.
The next part of the presentation addressed concerns and issues raised
during the ad hoc committee's work. James Lewis presented a minority position
list of issues and concerns submitted to the ad hoc committee. The list
displayed was identified as submitted by Linda Gass on January
14, 2002. Issues raised included:
- ATSDR has not performed an independent critical review of the State
of Tennessee Department of Health data as intended by Congress,
- The Oak Ridge dose reconstruction was not originally peer reviewed,
- The ATSDR contracted review of the Oak Ridge dose reconstruction has
not been adequate,
- The quality of documentation and the adequacy of the documentation.
David Johnson asked why the displayed list of issues was labeled "Issues
raised by Linda Gass." James Lewis responded that Linda
Gass submitted her issues in writing and it is presented here as a
minority position of issues submitted.
Additional issues raised by Bob Eklund and Harry Williams were
presented. These related to purge cascade release estimates. The ad hoc
committee found reference to independent calculation review.
Additional issues raised by Kathy Theissen in a letter to the Subcommittee
dated January 16, 2001 contained five major issues including:
- A number of contaminants were not evaluated quantitatively during
the Oak Ridge feasibility study or dose reconstruction,
- No rationale was provided for not doing quantitative evaluation,
- Kathy Theissen did not have access to information on the material
used and released for the screening of contaminants,
- Reports did not qualify fluorine or fluoride releases or reference
sources of information,
Investigation by the ad hoc committee of these issues raised has not
yet resulted in finding of significant concerns.
Additional issues raised by Owen Hoffman were presented that related
to the incorporation of SENES review comments and recommendations in the
Phase I report of ORHASP. Certain recommendations provided to the ORHASP
panel were reportedly not implemented in the Phase I report. The ad hoc
committee review indicated that the majority of the comments were captured
in the 1996 Task 7 ORHASP report that established the new screening process.
The ad hoc committee determined that the work conducted under the ORHASP
panel was technically credible and conducted independent of the Department
of Energy. James Lewis concluded the presentation of these issues with
a significant note from the minutes of one of the meetings of ORHASP on
November 15-17 in which Kathy Theissen expressed that no grievous errors
were discovered for the dose reconstruction feasibility study but additional
contaminants might need to be added such as nickel, beryllium, and ___________.
This statement indicated to the ad hoc committee that there were no significant
concerns.
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Kowetha Davidson reported for the Guidelines and Procedures work Group
that the work group has not met since the December 3-4, 2001 Subcommittee
meeting since there were no tasks for the work group, but that some issues
have been raised that may be tasked to the work group including examining
how the Subcommittee's work groups are functioning. Kowetha Davidson has
asked Karen Galloway, who has agreed, to chair the Guidelines and Procedures
Work Group in the future. This work group includes David Johnson, L. C.
Manley, and Donna Mosby and one other Subcommittee member that will be
identified during the meeting.
AGENDA WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Barbara Sonnenburg reported that the work group will recommend that the
Subcommittee vote to bring in principal investigators of DOE Worker Medical
Exposure and Surveillance Programs to make presentations. James Lewis
originated the idea. Bill Murray and Jack Hanley have made initial contact
with the individuals. A vote of the Subcommittee is needed to arrange
to pay for travel expenses for the program leaders to visit the Subcommittee.
James Lewis explained that he thinks the presentations would be helpful
to the Subcommittee to hear what the programs are like, how they are working,
and what conclusions are coming out of the programs. It would be an opportunity
for the Subcommittee to learn from the processes that these programs have
been through.
Jack Hanley stated that he has followed up with the surveillance programs.
These programs are former worker surveillance programs and are not the
same as the public health assessment process of the Subcommittee. Jack
Hanley identified three programs:
- The investigation of former construction workers by the University
of Cincinnati,
- The investigation of former gaseous diffusion plant workers by Queens
College, NY,
- The surveillance of beryllium workers by Oak Ridge Associated Universities.
If the Subcommittee decides that presentations from these investigators
will be helpful the ATSDR will work on arrangements for a Subcommittee
meeting in the near future. Jack Hanley specifically mentioned Eula Bingham
the principal investigator of the University of Cincinnati program and
described her as very credible.
James Lewis commented that he thinks it is critical to have these visitors
before the Subcommittee.
Bob Craig commented that the Subcommittee have visitors from the ORAU
study first to discuss the process they have experienced before taking
the step of bring in the visitors from New York and Cincinnati.
Barbara Sonnenburg closed the Agenda Work Group presentation by mentioning
that work group chairpersons should forward to her as soon as possible
those items to be included in the agenda of the next Subcommittee meeting.
COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
James Lewis reported that the Communication and Outreach Work Group met
briefly last week during which attending members of the work group explored
the current version of the Subcommittee's web site and discussed the current
version of the "concern form" of the Subcommittee. The work
group will likely make a recommendation to the Subcommittee regarding
the "concern form." The work group did not get to review of
the Subcommittee's fact sheet.
La Freta Dalton drew attention to the fact sheet before the Subcommittee
members stating that it reflected changes discussed during the December
3-4, 2001 Subcommittee meeting. The fact sheet now displays bulleted ATSDR
functions and activities and reflects enhanced readability. The comment
sheet reflects input from the Communications and Outreach Work Group provided
at the last Subcommittee meeting. The comment sheet incorporates information
for Bill Murray including the mailing address for mailing the form. Other
suggestions made will take more time to incorporate but the content of
the comment sheet is ready for of the Subcommittee to consider. A tri-fold
mailer format is being considered for the comment sheet (Tab 14). La Freta
Dalton noted that the pilot testing of the Subcommittee's web site hosted
by ERG is from February 11th through February 22nd , followed by incorporation
of comments by ERG on the web site, and a second pilot testing period
is from March 11th through March 22nd. Additional comments will be incorporated
on the web site by ERG from March 22nd through April 5th. The ATSDR web
site committee will then review the web site to start the approval process.
Final posting of the web site hosted by ATSDR is not scheduled yet but
the current estimate is that the web site will be available for the public
in May or June of this year.
Elmer Akin commented that EPA and ATSDR are working on a pamphlet for
the public that explains the differences and similarities between the
EPA and ATSDR health assessment processes. This pamphlet should be available
soon and an electronic copy could be placed on the Subcommittee web site.
Kowetha Davidson summarized the status of the Subcommittee fact sheet
and comment form as having their content completed and input received
to date incorporated.
James Lewis commented that it is not advisable to separate the name of
the commenter raising an issue from the issue raised on the form. Emphasis
was placed on the need to keep the name on same side of the page as the
comment/issue raised.
HEALTH EDUCATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Donna Mosby reported that the Health Education Needs Assessment Work Group
has made significant progress:
- Initial analysis of 400 phone surveys completed, additional analyses
pending,
- Written material for focus groups is nearly complete, and has been
submitted to the George Washington University IRB. The approval process
will begin in the next six weeks and must be completed before people
can be solicited for the focus groups.
- IRB approval process timeline:
- February 12th - materials submitted to the George Washington
University IRB,
- Early March - IRB review comments expected,
- To MCP for approval within seven to ten days of George Washington
University IRB approval,
- Submit to the Tennessee DOH IRB for approval,
- Following Tennessee IRB approval send out newspaper ads, radio
scripts, fliers, posters for the solicitation period (anticipate
two weeks during March),
- After people are assigned to focus groups hope for focus groups
to be conducted from April 4th through April 9th.
- If this timeline is not successful, the schedule slips to early
May, which is not considered a desirable time period for the focus
groups.
A range of focus group topics have been identified:
- Mid-life women,
- Long-term elderly residents,
- People who have respiratory disease,
- People who have cancer,
- People who have heart disease,
- Ill workers,
- People who have worked or are working at the Oak Ridge Reservation,
- Three distinctly different resident groups.
James Lewis asked whether the work group members have identified any
technical issues to date from interviews that may have any impact on the
work of the Public Health Assessment Work Group. Such information will
be provided as it arises.
Elmer Akin asked if the focus group selections are final and whether
it was intended that the selections be mutually exclusive since it seemed
that people could fit in more than one focus group selection. Donna Mosby
responded that people will call in for assignment to a focus group and
will be assigned to the most appropriate focus group based on information
obtained about the caller.
MISSION STATEMENT WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Karen Galloway reported that the work group has met a total of four times.
At the December 3-4, 2001 Subcommittee meeting the Subcommittee voted
on and approved the "vision" and "mission" portions
of the Subcommittee mission statement. There are three "goals and
objectives" added for the Subcommittee to vote on today. The three
goals and objectives before the Subcommittee for vote are:
- Provide informed recommendations to ATSDR on their formal Public Health
Assessment of Contaminants of Concern released by the Oak Ridge Reservation,
- Identify public health issues, health education needs, and health
care resources (both available and needed),
- Ensure that the findings and recommendations of ATSDR's public health
activities are presented in a manner which meets the needs of various
segments of the community (e.g., physicians, elderly, etc.).
Charles Washington asked whether the work group gave thought to particulate
emissions in the "mission" portion of the Subcommittee mission
statement. Kowetha Davidson stated that particulate emissions would not
be excluded by the wording of the mission statement and added that the
"mission" portion of the statement had been previously approved
by the Subcommittee at the December 3-4, 2001 Subcommittee meeting.
Public Comment
Kowetha Davidson began the scheduled public comment period asking that
speakers identify themselves by name.
The first public comment came from Art Stuart, a resident of Oak Ridge
since 1944, retired from Y-12 after 40 years, 25 years working with Health
Physics and 15 years working with the Metal Preparation Division and Uranium
Chemistry. Art Stuart stated that he was one of many workers that
were badged at all three Oak Ridge plants and who circulated from plant
to plant during their work. He asked how the time spent at the different
plants will be weighted in dose calculations for the health assessment
and how the amounts of time be determined. Jeff Hill responded that perhaps
the question is actually directed toward the Energy Employees Occupational
Illness Compensation Program, specifically the Special Cohort group of
that program, which is the K-25 workers and is not what this Subcommittee
is working on. Jeff Hill offered to share information with Art Stuart
about that program during the next break. Art Stuart's additional
question was how can there be a separation between worker exposures and
exposures to the public from environmental releases. Kowetha Davidson
responded that the Subcommittee is not addressing worker exposures on
site.
There were no additional comments from the public.
Public Health Assessment Work Group Session
Kowetha Davidson noted for the Subcommittee that Paul Charp has previously
brought the ATSDR community concerns data base to the Subcommittee's Public
Health Assessment Work Group for presentation and discussion and has taken
suggestions from the work group back to ATSDR to modify the data base
for the Subcommittee's needs.
ATSDR Community Concerns Data Base Presentation (Paul Charp)
ATSDR has a Federal Facilities Information Management System (FFIMS).
Within the data base system there is a module under development for each
federal facility. A portion of the module for Oak Ridge, the community
concerns data base, was presented in the Subcommittee meeting. The ATSDR
does not yet have the entire data base for Oak Ridge loaded into the FFIMS
module. ATSDR has tens of thousands of sample data points in Atlanta to
be loaded. Paul Charp brought the community concerns data base to the
meeting for the Subcommittee because capturing community health concerns
has been an item of concern expressed to ATSDR because there has not been
a computerized records and reporting mechanism for capturing health concerns
expressed about Oak Ridge. The community concerns data base for Oak Ridge
will provide the mechanism for recording concerns and reporting what concerns
have arisen. Paul Charp's objective during the meeting is to display how
the data base works and what it does at this point in its development
(beta test status).
Paul Charp proceeded to display to the Subcommittee actual computer screen
images within the community concerns data base. The data entry screens
for entry of name, medical condition, conversation narrative, data entry
date, follow up actions and dates, appropriate recommendations, follow
up circumstances, contact information, caller history, were displayed
for the Subcommittee. Pull-down menus were sequentially displayed to depict
the range of options available to the data base user for entering concerns
information.
Emphasis was placed on the ability to enter the data in a way that maintains
identity and medical confidentiality as needed and the ability to search
the entire data base on the basis of any of the data entry fields. Data
entry fields explored included:
- Time spending patterns,
- Food consumption habits,
- Sources of water used,
- Whether the person has a health effect potentially related to the
site,
- Physician diagnoses,
- Information for ATSDR to contact the person,
- Types of health effects/symptoms,
- The location where the person lives,
- The age of the person,
- Local population profile information,
- Substance/contaminant exposure information,
- Gardening habits,
ATSDR is developing this module with the Public Health Assessment Work
Group. Some of the work group's suggested changes were implemented and
some were not implemented. This module is the tool ATSDR will be using
to document community concerns in and around the Oak Ridge site.
Susan Kaplan asked whether the community concerns data base will be online
and whether people will be able to enter information into the data base.
Paul Charp responded that the data base will not be available online.
He explained that the ATSDR is developing a form entitled "Individual
Conversation Information" that will be available to the community
to be filled out. All entries into the data base will be performed at
the ATSDR offices locally or in Atlanta. Public access to the data base
itself will not be allowed because of the need to maintain confidentiality
of the data. Susan Kaplan suggested that there be a way for some of the
data to be available to the public for performing queries of the data
base.
Elmer Akin asked whether the ATSDR has a backlog of data to be loaded
into the data base. Paul Charp responded that the ATSDR does have a backlog
of information in meeting videotapes and concerns expressed to Bill Murray
and Jack Hanley by telephone and in person, but entry of this information
will not begin until ATSDR is comfortable with the status of the module.
Elmer Akin also asked whether the community concerns data base is intended
more for citizens' benefit or for the benefit of ATSDR, is the information
to be used to lead to ATSDR actions or is it to serve as a repository
for recording the information? Paul Charp responded that the data base
will help ATSDR to focus its health assessment needs based on community
concerns and it will demonstrate to the community the types and numbers
of concerns that ATSDR has received. The data base is not a one-way flow
of information.
Elmer Akin also asked how an individual would proceed to have information
they wanted to offer taken and entered into the data base. Paul Charp
pointed out that the specific process will be the decision of Bill Murray
and Jack Hanley. Jack Hanley explained that at this time the ATSDR field
office is working on getting a version of the data base in the field office
and the forms for submittal of information by the public. In addition
the ATSDR can capture comments, concerns, and issues expressed in work
groups meetings and Subcommittee meetings as a means for entering relevant
information into the community concerns data base and the Communications
and Outreach Work Group has developed the concern form for submittal of
comments to the Subcommittee. The data base is a way to capture community
concerns, document them, and track the process of responding to the comments.
Elmer Akin followed up commenting that the community perception of the
data base and what their expectations are about what ATSDR does with it
should be considered carefully.
Kowetha Davidson asked if the Subcommittee or one of the work groups
could obtain a query of the data base if such a query were requested by
an individual. Paul Charp stated that an individual would need to make
the request to the Subcommittee.
James Lewis expressed his appreciation for the progress made on the data
base and noted that two submittal forms have been discussed, one established
by the Communications and Outreach Work Group and one introduced by Paul
Charp during his presentation, creating the potential for inconsistent
levels of detail being recorded. Jack Hanley responded that the data base
form discussed by Paul Charp is a form to be used by ATSDR staff in an
interview situation to prompt them to ask related questions. The work
group form is for an individual to complete to submit a comment in writing.
La Freta Dalton commented that the Subcommittee's "concerns form"
will be available for the public while the ATSDR module form will not
be available.
Charles Washington remarked that the example of the data base presented
does not include many other questions that are relevant to potential past
exposure circumstances. For example, whether a garden was kept for food,
whether a family member worked at the plants, whether as a worker an individual
wore the same shoes at work and offsite, what kind of work an individual
performed at the site and how they performed it. Paul Charp responded
that the data base includes some of the questions that relate to gardening
and water consumption patterns and that open fields could be used to enter
other specific items of relevance to the individual's potential exposure
circumstance. Inclusion of the noted question items will be discussed
within ATSDR.
Susan Kaplan suggested strongly that the public should have access to
the community concerns information while protecting information that is
confidential because the public will have the expectation that they can
access information that has been expressed as a concern from the community.
Mark Evans (ATSDR) responded that ATSDR will present community concerns
information to publicize the concerns information without jeopardizing
confidentiality.
Jerry Pereira asked whether the data on Subcommittee concerns forms submitted
by the public will be entered into the community concerns data base. Kowetha
Davidson stated that her understanding was that the concerns form information
would be entered into the data base. James Lewis added that a major comment
heard from the public is that the information/comments that they submit
are not addressed or used in the process. The public needs to see their
comments and concerns summarized in writing rather than never seeing them
again.
ATSDR Radiation Screening Process Presentation (Paul Charp)
Paul Charp proceeded with a presentation about the ATSDR radiation screening
process. The presentation began with a display of the screening process
in a flow process diagram. The process has been in use by the ATSDR since
1988 and is typical of what is used for a site. The process begins with
consideration of the radiation source term, which is the contaminant release
point. For example the source term is generally one of three types of
source term:
- Naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM),
- Technologically enhanced NORM (TENORM),
- Man-made radioactive materials.
Two exposure categories are defined in the screening process:
- External radiation exposure,
- Internal radiation exposure.
External radiation exposure includes consideration of gamma ray radiation
and beta particle radiation because of their penetrating ability. External
radiation exposure rate is determined and is used in conjunction with
information about the amount of time spent in the radiation field to develop
the effective dose. Criteria used by ATSDR to develop dose estimates are
obtained from publications of the International Commission on Radiological
Protection (ICRP) and Federal Guidance Reports (FGR) 11, 12, and 13.
Internal radiation exposure includes consideration of alpha particle
radiation (inhalation and ingestion hazard), beta particle radiation (inhalation,
ingestion, and skin deposition hazard), gamma ray radiation. Criteria
used by ATSDR to develop dose estimates are obtained from publications
of the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP)
and FGR 11, 12, and 13, DOE 5400 series orders, DOE and NRC 10 CFR regulations,
and EPA 40 CFR regulations.
The external dose and internal dose is combined as a total dose estimate.
The total dose estimate is compared to the ATSDR MRL screening value (minimal
risk level). The ATSDR MRL is 1 millisievert per year (mSv/yr) or 100
millirem per year (mrem/yr) minimal risk level. The total dose estimate
is also compared to the nominal average background radiation dose of 3.6
mSv/yr (360 mrem/yr), which includes radon exposure. If the total dose
estimate is less than the MRL the dose is determined not to be a public
health concern. If the total dose estimate exceeds the MRL it is compared
to the background. If the total dose estimate is less than the background
dose the total dose estimate is determined not to be a public health concern.
If the total dose estimate exceeds the background dose it is categorized
in the following manner:
- Total dose between 360 mrem/yr and 5 rem/yr no apparent public
health concern because review of the scientific literature indicates
that it is not clear there is a hazard below 5 rem/yr,
- Total dose between 5 rem/yr and 25 rem/yr ATSDR evaluates the
total dose based on site-specific conditions to determine if there is
a public health concern.
- Total dose above 25 rem/yr ATSDR implements a public health
advisory.
Historically ATSDR has issued five public health advisories on radiation
issues. This concluded the presentation on the ATSDR radiation screening
process.
Bob Eklund asked whether the 5 rem/yr criterion is applied to adults
or children. Paul Charp responded that this criterion is generally applied
to all individuals but that ATSDR does consider the potential for extra
sensitivity of subpopulations to radiation. The MRL is included to take
potential sensitivities into consideration. The total dose estimate is
developed using age-specific dose conversion factors.
Jeff Hill questioned the appropriateness of 5 rem/yr resulting in the
determination that there is no public health concern. Paul Charp confirmed
the criterion and repeated that the screening process presented is a general
process.
Kowetha Davidson brought up the example of intake of iodine and Paul
Charp discussed the difference between whole body dose and thyroid dose.
Charles Washington pointed out that researchers are studying the possible
effects of nuclear workers exposed below 5 rem/yr. Bill Murray joined
the discussion on studies of nuclear ship yard workers and added that
the findings of these studies are not clear at doses below 5 rem/yr. Bill
Murray mentioned the NIOSH study of nuclear ship yard workers in Portsmouth
Naval yard in Maine, which is still in follow up. Cohorts of DOE workers
studied have shown excess cancer mortality and dose response in several
of the studies. Paul Charp will explore the dose levels at which these
studies have found excess effects and inform the Subcommittee at the next
meeting.
Don Creasia asked how the MRL can be less than the nominal level of Background
in the screening process. In response Paul Charp stated that the MRL dose
level is a level above background. It was noted that the screening process
flow diagram as presented depicts the MRL as a smaller value than the
background value and is confusing as presented. Paul Charp will discuss
revising the screening process diagram at ATSDR. Karl Markiewicz added
that the MRL values for non-radiological contaminants may be below background
levels but that the MRL is used as a reference level at which there is
no concern of hazard. Paul Charp noted for the Subcommittee that he had
brought ATSDR toxicity profiles for ionizing radiation, uranium, and iodine.
Susan Kaplan asked whether health study results indicate that women overall
as a group are different in their health response than males. Paul responded
that that finding was for induction of thyroid cancer and that the standard
dose conversion factors are based on age but not by gender.
Elmer Akin suggested that because of the concerns being expressed about
the screening process diagram showing an MRL that is less than background
and indicating a "no public health concern" criterion of 5 rem/yr
the diagram needs revision before it is put into use in the Oak Ridge
health assessment process. Paul Charp will have the MRL and the 5 rem/yr
criterion in the diagram reviewed at ATSDR and bring a revision back before
the Subcommittee.
Jeff Hill commented that few people in the community are likely to be
estimated to be exposed to 5 rem/yr.
Susan Kaplan asked whether the radiation health studies of workers are
starting to show health effects with time simply because the latency periods
for the effects are only beginning to expire. Paul Charp did not refute
the possibility but pointed out that evidence supporting older radiation
dose data are not as clear and may confound the effort to discern a health
effect response with dose.
Public Comment
Kowetha Davidson at this time began the scheduled public comment period.
The first public comment came from Wesley Howard, a member of the PACE
Union. He asked whether kidney damage from working in the plants in Oak
Ridge has been addressed. Paul Charp responded that potential effects
on the kidney will be addressed in the health assessment because at lower
levels the primary health effect of uranium is kidney chemical toxicity.
The next public comment was from Mike Knapp, who asked whether there
would be a mechanism for individuals to enter into the community concerns
data base contaminant levels that have been measured inside their body.
Paul Charp suggested that those measurements would be very relevant and
that data entry could be made in an existing text box entry field. Don
Creasia pointed out that such data could be put on the Subcommittee concerns
form. La Freta Dalton pointed out that the confidentiality of those data
would have to be protected and could not be included on the written Subcommittee
concern forms submitted.
Mike Knapp also asked, in connection with the dose reconstruction, has
there been adequate offsite testing for environmental contaminants to
be able to verify dose estimates or is additional sampling needed? Kowetha
Davidson noted that the Subcommittee has already sent a recommendation
to ATSDR regarding the issue of offsite soil sampling for the Oak Ridge
area in general. Jack Hanley clarified that where ATSDR identifies data
gaps they notify the EPA and/or DOE to collect additional data to fill
those data needs for the ATSDR.
The next public comment was from John Steward, who expressed support
for the recommendation of the Agenda Work Group to invite Dr. Markowitz
of Queens College, NY to make a presentation to the Subcommittee. John
Steward stated that he recently met with Dr. Markowitz in Nashville.
There were no additional comments from the public.
Continued Discussion: Public Health Assessment
Work Group Session
The Subcommittee proceeded with the next agenda item, which was a presentation
to the Subcommittee of the ATSDR chemical screening process for the period
1990 to the present. The presentation was made by Karl Markiewicz.
ATSDR Chemical Screening Process Presentation
The Screening Process for Contaminants of Concern for 1990 to the Present
(Karl Markiewicz)
The presentation began with a display of the flow process diagram
for the ATSDR screening process for Contaminants of concern (COC). The
ATSDR process decision process addresses the following sequence of questions:
- Has the chemical has been detected in the environment? Chemicals that
are not detected are not a COC. If detected,
- Are the detected levels of the chemical greater than ATSDR media-specific
comparison values? Chemicals detected at levels below ATSDR media-specific
comparison values are not a COC. If greater than comparison values,
- Are the detected levels of the chemical (if an inorganic chemical)
greater than background levels? Inorganic chemicals detected at levels
below background are not a COC. If greater than background values,
- Are there complete or potential exposure pathways? Chemicals in environmental
media for which there is not an exposure pathway to humans are not COCs
for the past or for the current time period but may be COCs for the
future, depending on site-specific circumstances. If there is an exposure
pathway,
- Are estimates of exposure doses greater than Health Guideline Values?
Chemicals for which the estimated exposure doses are below Health Guideline
Values are not COCs. If greater than Health Guideline Values,
- Refine exposure dose estimates with more site-specific data, demographics,
water consumption patterns, other parameter values to determine whether
the chemical is a COC. If determined a COC then the chemical has passed
through the screening process and begins the public health implications
phase of the health assessment process.
The ATSDR media-specific comparison values used are very conservative
because they are based on conservative assumptions about parameters such
as whether the exposure pathway is complete, the potential duration of
human exposure, and bio-availability. ATSDR performs site-specific surveys
of behavior patterns and consumption rates to refine exposure dose estimates.
Chemicals determined to be COCs during the screening process begin the
public health implications phase of the health assessment process. In
this next phase of public health assessment, the ATSDR examines more thoroughly
the toxicology of the COCs. Studies of toxicology in humans, if available,
are examined for applicability. Human data are used in some cases.
Barbara Sonnenburg asked whether ATSDR will use bioassay data. Measurements
of chemicals in the body have been made for some people, would these data
be used in the health assessment process? Karl Markiewicz responded that
the COC screening process itself does not include the use of those data,
but the health assessment process will use those data as a reality check
for the screening process.
Barbara Sonnenburg then asked whether the ATSDR will consider multiple
sources of contaminants, she referred to emissions from area power plants
such as the Kingston, Tennessee power plant. Karl Markiewicz responded
that potential competing sources of measured levels of contaminants in
environmental media are not considered in the health assessment in general.
However, air releases will be assessed by mathematical modeling of only
the potential releases from the Oak Ridge site.
Barbara Sonnenburg also asked whether people could possibly have chemicals
still in their bodies when the chemicals have disappeared from environmental
media. The point made was that if people are not tested for chemical contamination
inside them then perhaps contaminants could be missed if they have already
disappeared from environmental media. Karl Markiewicz discussed biological
half-lives of chemicals, rates of removal from the body, and storage in
bones and fatty tissues of some contaminants. Various chemicals have various
rates of removal from the body. Inorganic chemicals have a tendency to
remain in the body a long time, chemicals such as benzene are purged from
the body relatively quickly.
Susan Kaplan asked whether ATSDR is examining, in addition to COCs, any
degradation products or reaction products of chemicals. Karl Markiewicz
responded that known breakdown products in the body are taken into consideration.
In environmental media, the analyses of samples are often for groups of
chemicals. ATSDR then assumes the most toxic chemical form from that that
group. Jack Hanley added that environmental samples are typically analyzed
for standard lists of analytes established by EPA for superfund and RCRA
sites. Kowetha Davidson added that analyses of environmental samples reflect
what is present at the time the sample was collected and won't represent
all of what may have been present previously.
L. C. Manley asked what might be a source of boron in the environment
and what organ does boron affect. Karl Markiewicz explained that boron
does occur naturally and that it was also used as the reservation as a
neutron absorber. It is also commonly found in other consumer products.
Boron health effect studies will be discussed later in the presentation.
Charles Washington asked whether what the correct excretion rate of mercury
from the body is and pointed out that mercury in the body tends to remain.
James Lewis asked whether Karl Markiewicz has come across a situation
of exposure of a community to a COC that is present at levels that exceed
a threshold for safety without evidence of the expected health effects
in the community. How is the assumption of a member of the community that
their health effect is caused by the contaminant handled? Wouldn't that
be a conflicting situation and how would it be managed? Karl Markiewicz
responded that such a situation would be difficult and would depend on
the chemical. For example, asbestosis is only caused by asbestos. If it
was known that asbestos was never used in Oak Ridge and a person came
forward with asbestosis then ATSDR would have to investigate other potential
sources of the individual's exposure to asbestos because they clearly
have been exposed to it. ATSDR would consider other chemicals that can
cause the same health effects, but they can not necessarily attribute
an effect in an individual to particular exposure from a particular source.
Karl Markiewicz continued the presentation by discussing in detail the
concept of ATSDR media-specific comparison values used in the COC screening
process, expanding on how they are calculated and how they can be adjusted
to account for different exposure assumptions.
A typical comparison value is an EMEG (Environmental Media Evaluation
Guide) developed for the screening process. Derivation of a n EMEG:
EMEG = (MRL x BW)/IR
where, BW = body weight in kg,
|
|
MRL = minimal risk level in mg/kg/day,
|
|
IR = ingestion rate in mg/day
|
Example ATSDR EMEG in soil for a child for boron is 20 ppm (parts per
million). The MRL is 0.01 mg/kg/day. With a child body weight of 10 kg
and a child ingestion rate of 0.005 kg/day (5000 mg/day).
The MRL in this example EMEG is based on reduced fetal body weights observed
in an experimental study of rats ingesting boron. An important consideration
in the public health assessment process is the relevance of such animal
health effect studies to potential effects in humans, and the uncertainties
associated with the use of these studies. If you change the ingestion
rate (IR) to 100 mg/day and body weight (BW) to a 70 kg adult body weight
the EMEG changes from 20 PPM to 7000 PPM
The ATSDR MRL in this example for boron is based on the lowest observed
adverse effect level (LOAEL). ATSDR divides by an uncertainty factor of
10 because this is a LOAEL not a NOAEL (no adverse effect level), divides
by another uncertainty factor of 10 because the data are from an animal
study rather than human data, and divides by a third factor of 10 to account
for potential sensitive human subpopulations:
MRL = LOAEL/(10 x 10 x 10)
where, MRL = minimal risk level in mg/kg/day (0.0136),
|
|
LOAEL = 13.6 mg/kg/day
|
Bob Eklund asked whether all ATSDR EMEG values are so conservative. Karl
Markiewicz responded that all ATSDR EMEG values incorporate these conservation
uncertainty factors.
Elmer Akin commented that the EMEG values are conservative if the toxicity
endpoint being used is the most conservative endpoint. The EMEG value
is conservative relative to the health effect endpoint it addresses.
Karl Markiewicz then presented the boron EMEG that would pertain to adult
females by adjusting the body weight from 70 kg to 60 kg, resulting in
an EMEG of 6000 PPM rather than 7000 PPM
The consideration of acute versus chronic exposure was addressed next.
A LOAEL for acute exposure of a child was presented, 184 mg/kg/day from
a study of actual accidental ingestion of boron by children. Assuming
10 kg child body weight and child ingestion rate of 5000 mg/day results
in an acute child EMEG for boron ingested in soil of 368,000 PPM (36.8%
boron in soil). This is an example of the type of screening analysis that
would be used to address exposure concerns.
Karl Markiewicz next presented an example "thermometer" graph
of boron health effect versus estimated exposure dose for a site. The
relative positioning of LOAELs, NOAELs, average daily intake, and EPA
reference dose (RfD), were noted. On the same graph the ATSDR MRL is located
three to four factors of ten below the LOAELs for animals, illustrating
the high degree of conservatism incorporated into the ATSDR media-specific
comparison values used in the screening process.
This concluded the presentation about the overall screening process.
Don Creasia suggested that the consideration of differences between effects
in females versus males should involve more than adjusting the body weight
parameter. Karl Markiewicz concurred and stated that ATSDR does look at
such differences more carefully than just by adjusting the body weight
parameter.
Examination of site-specific soil sample map of boron data:
Karl Markiewicz and Mark Evans presented and discussed an example data
mapping program that is used by ATSDR. This presentation represents an
example ATSDR data file of sample data for comparison of the analytical
results in environmental media to ATSDR media-specific comparison values
(EMEGs) in the screening process. The example data map presented depicted:
- 570,956 data points from soil sample analyses.
- Each sampling station for which boron was analyzed was presented on
the map.
- Background sampling stations and site sampling stations were distinguished.
- 1306 site samples were reported analyzed for boron.
- 113 background soil samples were reported analyzed for boron.
- 480 site sample analytical results for boron were above the 20 PPM
screening EMEG.
- 13 of the background sample analytical results for boron were above
the 20 PPM screening EMEG.
- The detection limit for boron was reported as ranging from 4 PPM to
13 PPM
Bob Eklund asked for clarification about the color indications depicted
and whether the sampling stations depicted represented all of the sampling
stations or only those yielding analytical detections. Karl Markiewicz
responded that the map depicted all of the sampling stations.
Kowetha Davidson at this time began the scheduled public comment period.
Following the public comment period the presentation of Karl Markiewicz
continued.
Public Comment
The first public comment came from John Steward who pointed out the need
to carefully examine sources of chemicals at the Oak Ridge site. He stated
that three workers at K-25 had chronic beryllium disease and DOE maintained
that there was no beryllium at K-25, which was later determined not to
be the case as 15 buildings were found to have beryllium in them. Carefully
checking the sources of chemicals is very important.
The next public comment came from Mike Knapp who commented on the subject
of offsite sampling that additional offsite sampling has been requested
by members of the public. Mike Knapp asked what offsite data ATSDR is
using and does ATSDR think the offsite sampling is adequate or should
additional sampling offsite be performed? Karl Markiewicz responded that
ATSDR sometimes identifies data gaps during their data review process
and when this arises the ATSDR asks the responsible agencies to collect
the data to fill the data gaps. An example of such a data gap ATSDR identified
for the Paducah site was mentioned in which the soil data available was
biased toward only the discharge points from surface waterways. This constituted
a data gap that ATSDR recommended be filled by additional sampling. In
the case of the Oak Ridge site the ATSDR staff may examine the pattern
of gamma radiation levels from over flight surveys to look for indications
of potential environmental trends or pathways to investigate. If there
appears to be a need for additional sample collection to determine whether
a trend is in fact present that could be recommended to support the health
assessment process. At this point in the process it is too early for ATSDR
to say whether they may identify data gaps.
Mike Knapp asked for a definition of a "data gap". Karl Markiewicz
referred to the data map display to illustrate a hypothetical lack of
sample analytical data on the map offsite that would cause ATSDR to recommend
collection of additional data.
Mike Knapp also asked whether sampling is being performed in the Roane
County Gallahar Valley area where the TOSCA incinerator is located and
if so are those data being incorporated. Tim Joseph responded that the
TOSCA incinerator is monitored offsite and that the stack is monitored
continuously in real time.
Mike Knapp commented that it would seem helpful to the health assessment
process to have an epidemiological study to augment the sampling approach
and determination whether there are data gaps. Karl Markiewicz responded
that chemicals determined not to be COCs during the COC screening process
would not warrant an epidemiological study. ATSDR uses the conservative
screening level approach.
Mike Knapp asked how would the ATSDR health assessment address a hypothetical
situation in which individuals in the community expressed concerns about
excess cases of an effect, for example kidney problems, what would be
the response to such information? Karl Markiewicz responded that those
concerns would be included in the community concerns section of the health
assessment report and potentially addressed as a separate consultation
with people. It would be useful in the health assessment process being
conducted for Oak Ridge to have interaction with the local medical community
to work directly on such community concerns. This has been a useful aspect
of the health assessment process conducted at other sites.
Mike Knapp asked whether potential contaminant movement through the subsurface
vadose zone is included as a part of the health assessment and how is
that included. Karl Markiewicz responded that ATSDR will include vadose
zone groundwater modeling of potential movement of contaminants and identified
Mark Evans as the individual who will be involved in that modeling.
Susan Kaplan commented to Mike Knapp that the TOSCA stack is not continually
monitored, but is continuously sampled, and the data from that effort
are not analyzed on a regular basis. Tim Joseph clarified that the continuous
monitoring of the TOSCA incinerator does not include every parameter because
there are not real time capable monitoring devices for every parameter,
instrumentation does not exist to monitor all parameters real-time. Some
parameters require chemical processing of a sample in a laboratory to
produce a result, which does not lend itself to real time monitoring.
For those parameters for which there is not real time monitoring capability
samples are continually collected and are sent offsite for analysis. The
parameters for which there is real time monitoring include CO2, NOx, O2,
steam, and temperature.
Susan Kaplan also asked that ATSDR bring back to the Subcommittee additional
data maps that show what data exist at this point. Karl Markiewicz commented
that there are too many data points to present all data to the Subcommittee
on data maps. He proposed that it would be more manageable for ATSDR to
proceed through their COC screening process and come back to the Subcommittee
with the data at that point in the process. It was also suggested that
summary statistics on the data be presented rather than maps of all available
data.
James Lewis commented on two issue topics:
- Issues are raised by communities, such as the Scarboro community,
then sampling programs are conducted to address those issues, but these
efforts do not seem to ever result in an answer to the community about
what was found, even though similar questions are being asked each time.
As the health assessment process is conducted it is important to be
concerned about that trend, the concerns of the public need to be addressed
and the findings need to be communicated back to them.
- Regarding declassification issues, James Lewis asked Tim Joseph whether
over time certain things were held as classified that later were held
to be not classified?
Cheryl Smith responded to the concern about the availability of the results
of the sampling program in the Scarboro Community. The entire data package
has not been received but the radiological data have been received. The
results have not been publicly submitted to the residents of the Scarboro
Community. EPA will return to the community and provide the residents
the opportunity to ask questions. The radiological data have been reviewed.
There were a limited number of samples collected, there were 10 sampling
locations. The EPA review of these data indicates that the uranium levels
are within background levels.
Charles Washington asked that the location of the Scarboro Community
and the locations of the DOE facilities be pointed out on the ATSDR data
map displayed before the Subcommittee. The three DOE sites were located
on the map in relation to local roads, mountain ridges, and the background
locations. Charles Washington stated that other potential sources are
located in the vicinity and that in the past release stacks didn't have
filters in use today; therefore, background locations may not be strictly
natural or un-impacted. There was discussion of the topic of ranges in
background values.
Barbara Sonnenburg asked Karl Markiewicz if he has answers to three or
four questions/suggestions raised in a previous work group meeting presentation
that he made. One question concerned additional sampling if data gaps
are identified during the health assessment. He believes that the follow
up action was completed.
Bob Eklund commented that the boron map appears to show a bias in the
data map display for the boron sampling offsite. Karl Markiewicz responded
that this appears because not all samples are analyzed for all analytes.
The pattern didn't emerge by design.
Elmer Akin made a comment about communicating answers to community concerns
that are raised, pointing out that when a question or concern is raised
about the community and the Subcommittee delays response there may not
be another opportunity to communicate with the individual about their
concern. Perhaps a Subcommittee policy that directs that such issues be
addressed at the time is needed. An example is the question raised by
James Lewis about the delay in communicating the sample results to the
Scarboro Community. Kowetha Davidson recommended that that type of policy
would be too disruptive to the Subcommittee meeting process.
Work Group Recommendations Sessions
Kowetha Davidson began the work group recommendations portion of the
Subcommittee agenda by introducing the presentation of the Agenda Work
Group.
AGENDA WORK GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
Presentation by Barbara Sonnenburg
Barbara Sonnenburg moved that the Subcommittee recommend to ATSDR that
presentations by principal investigators from three DOE worker medical
and exposure surveillance programs be scheduled:
- The investigation of former construction workers by the University
of Cincinnati,
- The investigation of former gaseous diffusion plant workers by Queens
College, NY,
- The surveillance of beryllium workers by Oak Ridge Associated Universities.
Barbara Sonnenburg noted for the Subcommittee that the Agenda Work Group
understands that these presentations will not have a direct application
to the ATSDR public health assessment; however, these presentations will
provide the Subcommittee valuable information about the closest residents
to these sites (workers). The work group wants to find out from these
presentations the results of those studies, how they were developed, and
how they were funded. The motion was seconded.
Discussion:
Jeff Hill commented that he thinks the presentations will benefit the
Subcommittee since the principal medical investigators making the presentations
will discuss their medical findings.
Don Creasia commented that the presenters should be asked to make sure
they present their medical findings rather than just give an overview
of what the program involved. The Subcommittee needs to ask the presenters
in advance what they can and plan to present.
Bob Craig expressed support for the principal investigator presentations,
but clarified that the presenters should only have their travel expenses
covered. Kowetha Davidson responded that the specifics of how arrangements
were made for the presentations would be the responsibility of ATSDR.
Barbara Sonnenburg confirmed that the cost issue did not have to be a
part of the Agenda Work Group motion.
A vote count was taken: 13 = in favor, 0 = opposed. The motion carried.
Barbara Sonnenburg announced that the next meeting of Agenda Work Group
is Thursday February 21, 2002 at 4:30 PM and asked that all work group
chairs submit to her by that time the agenda items that they need included
in the agenda for the next Subcommittee meeting. The agenda will include,
as a minimum, a work group session presentation by each work group and
a work group recommendations presentation by each work group. Any additional
agenda time needed by a work group should be submitted as a request to
the Agenda Work Group.
GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Presentation by Kowetha Davidson
Kowetha Davidson recommended from the Guidelines and Procedures Work
Group that the Guidelines and Procedures Work Group look into how the
work groups are functioning, whether they are dysfunctional, and how they
may be remedied if found dysfunctional. The work group may work with Jan
Connery on this topic. No motion was made from the Guidelines and Procedures
Work Group.
Discussion:
James Lewis asked whether the Guidelines and Procedures Work Group can
look at the function of the Subcommittee as well as the work groups. Kowetha
Davidson responded that the issue of examination of the functioning of
the Subcommittee was addressed at an earlier meeting and the Subcommittee
decided not to follow through at that time.
With no objections from the Subcommittee, the task was assigned to the
Guidelines and Procedures Work Group.
COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Presentation by James Lewis
James Lewis moved that the Subcommittee accept the content of the "concerns
form" and the "fact sheet" found in Tab 14 of the Subcommittee
members' materials. The motion was seconded.
Discussion:
Kowetha Davidson asked for clarification whether these two documents could
be used now or not. James Lewis clarified the motion to include that these
two documents would be put into use now, with the stipulation that the
Subcommittee consider modifying the "concerns form" to put the
written entry of the person's name on the same side of the form as the
written concern expressed.
Susan Kaplan suggested that the Subcommittee may need more time for review
of these two documents to provide input.
Jeff Hill made the comment that the name of the individual could be added
to the back of the form as well as the front to help with keep the name
associated with the written comment.
Donna Mosby commented that the Subcommittee needs to finalize these two
documents and put them into use. The issue seems to be limited to format,
which can be changed later if needed. The content is good and only format
is in question.
Bob Eklund concurred with Donna Mosby that the content is good.
A vote count was taken: 13 = in favor, 0 = opposed. The motion carried.
HEALTH NEEDS ASSESSMENT WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Presentation by Donna Mosby
There are no recommendations at this time from the Health Needs Assessment Work Group.
MISSION STATEMENT WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Presentation by Karen Galloway
Karen Galloway moved that the Subcommittee adopt the goals and objectives
portion of the Mission Statement developed by the Ad Hoc Mission Statement
Work Group. The motion was seconded.
Discussion:
No discussion.
A vote count was taken: 13 = in favor, 0 = opposed. The motion carried.
PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT WORK GROUP PRESENTATION
Presentation by James Lewis
James Lewis moved that the Subcommittee adopt the recommendation submitted
by the Public Health Assessment Work Group on the ATSDR screening process
for determining the contaminants of concern for exposure from 1944 to
1990. The motion was seconded.
Discussion:
David Johnson recognized the hard work of the ad hoc committee and
asked for the Subcommittee to express their thanks to James Lewis and
the ad hoc committee with a round of appreciation.
Kowetha Davidson also expressed the thanks of the Subcommittee.
A vote count was taken: 13 in favor, 0 = opposed. The motion carried.
James Lewis moved that the Subcommittee adopt the recommendation submitted
by the Public Health Assessment Work Group on the ATSDR screening process
for determining the contaminants of concern for current exposure from
1991 to 2001. The motion was seconded.
Discussion:
No discussion.
A vote count was taken: 13 in favor, 0 = opposed. The motion carried.
Unfinished Business/New Business/Issues/Concerns
Discussion Topic: Clinic in Oak Ridge
Kowetha Davidson began a discussion on the issue of starting an ad hoc
work group on the topic of a clinic in Oak Ridge. Kowetha Davidson recommended
to the Subcommittee that the task be assigned to the Health Needs Assessment Work Group because this topic is not unrelated to the
work that the work group is doing and the Subcommittee has numerous work
groups already. It would be best to put the task in a work group that
already exists rather than create an additional work group, it is not
easy to schedule members to attend the work groups that exist at this
point.
Barbara Sonnenburg disagrees with assigning the task to the existing
work group. There may be members of the Subcommittee who are very interested
in this task so there is a need for a distinct work group of people who
are in this task, which will require quite an amount of work. Barbara
Sonnenburg noted that the Subcommittee has yet to receive a response from
Dr. Jackson after two requests to him for answers to questions raised
to him during his presentation to the Subcommittee.
Kowetha Davidson acknowledged that the Subcommittee does not yet have
from Dr. Jackson the requested criteria for establishing a community clinic
and also pointed out that persons interested in this task are free to
join the Health Needs Assessment Work Group to work on the topic.
At this time, assigning the task to the existing work group will allow
work to begin on the task without expanding the number of Subcommittee
work groups. Until the criteria are received from Dr. Jackson there is
not much work to do on the task at this time.
Donna Mosby commented that it seems premature to form an ad hoc work
group on this topic at this time since the Subcommittee needs more detailed
information. The task should be assigned to move forward with obtaining
the criteria information from Dr. Jackson.
Charles Washington agreed with Barbara Sonnenburg's position because
participation by people in the local communities could be solicited to
work on this particular issue along with Subcommittee members. Alternatively,
persons interested in this task could join the existing Health Needs Assessment Work Group to participate (only on this task) and perhaps
later a subgroup could be formed from that work group as needed.
Kowetha Davidson asked the Subcommittee if there were any objections
to assigning the task to the Health Needs Assessment Work Group.
Bob Eklund commented agreeing with Barbara Sonnenburg and Charles Washington
because it is an issue that has arisen often to warrant its own work group.
Acknowledging that there is not at this time enough information to work
with Bob Eklund advocated that the Subcommittee consider forming a work
group for this particular issue.
Kowetha Davidson repeated her recommendation not to form an additional
work group and stressed that the issue would receive appropriate attention
within the structure of the existing work group, which is already established.
No one would be precluded from working on the issue with it assigned to
the Health Needs Assessment Work Group.
Susan Kaplan disagreed with the statement that there is not yet enough
information for a group to begin working with on this issue. Susan Kaplan
reported that she has been collecting information and has a videotape
concerning a clinic in Hanford, Washington that needs to be reviewed.
There is a model established for a clinic that is not operated by the
site contractor. In addition, at this time there is a need to examine
the proposed state legislation on this issue discussed at the previous
Subcommittee meeting. Also someone needs to pursue the information requested
from Dr. Jackson.
Kowetha Davidson asked again that the task be assigned to the existing
work group and pointed out that the Subcommittee has a point of contact,
through ATSDR, to pursue information from Dr. Jackson, and that is Bill
Carter. The Subcommittee will not contact Dr. Jackson directly per protocol.
Donna Mosby commented again that the Health Needs Assessment
Work Group can begin work on the effort.
James Lewis suggested that a detailed written account of the discussions
and decisions made during Dr. Jackson's presentation to the Subcommittee
be prepared so that the Subcommittee will have a basis for moving forward
on the issue of a clinic.
Kowetha Davidson at this time assigned the issue of a clinic to the Health Needs Assessment Work Group until there is additional information
available to allow the Subcommittee to determine how to proceed on the
issue.
Announcement: Public Health Assessment Work Group Chairperson
Kowetha Davidson announced that Bob Craig has agreed to become the chairperson
of the Public Health Assessment Work Group. Kowetha Davidson agreed to
provide assistance to Bob Craig as needed.
Other items of business:
- In light of the assignment of the issue of a clinic to the Health Needs Assessment Work Group Barbara Sonnenburg asked Donna
Mosby to specifically identify agenda items related to that issue so
that people who would like to attend the next meeting can plan their
time accordingly. Donna Mosby responded that at this time there is no
other business for the work group other than the clinic issue.
- Kowetha Davidson asked that each work group meet at least briefly
within two weeks after each Subcommittee meeting to plan their strategy
for their work that they have to accomplish between Subcommittee meetings.
This approach is intended to expedite work. James Lewis mentioned that
the Subcommittee previously discussed having a chairpersons meeting
following each Subcommittee meeting to identify from the Subcommittee
meeting what each work group is to be working on. James Lewis suggested
that the Guidelines and Procedures Work Group develop a procedure for
the Subcommittee to assist with this. Kowetha Davidson noted that a
conference call has been scheduled for this Friday (February 15, 2002
at 10:30 AM) to address these issues with the work group chairpersons.
La Freta Dalton will distribute to the chairpersons the conference call
telephone number prior to the call.
- Karen Galloway asked whether a motion is needed to dissolve the ad
hoc mission statement committee and asked whether an additional person
has been recruited for the Guidelines and Procedures Work Group. Kowetha
Davidson stated that no motion to dissolve the ad hoc mission statement
committee was needed. Kowetha Davidson noted that the Guidelines and
Procedures Work Group currently includes Karen Galloway, David Johnson,
L. C. Manley, and Donna Mosby. Kowetha Davidson asked the following
persons whether they would join the work group, Jeff Hill (declined),
Don Creasia (can volunteer but cautioned that he travels frequently
which complicates his ability to attend meetings), and Jerry Kuhaida
(not in the room at the time).
- Regarding vacancies on the Subcommittee, La Freta Dalton announced
that ATSDR will meet this week to select new Subcommittee members. ATSDR
has received 26 to 27 new applications. ATSDR has identified one of
the openings for a worker (ATSDR has applications from workers) and
ATSDR also notes the Subcommittee's preference to include a self-identified
ill resident. ATSDR will also try to replace the expertise that was
lost in 2001 through resignations. ATSDR has a total of five positions
on the Subcommittee to fill.
Discussion Topic: Motion to Request Data Maps from ATSDR
Susan Kaplan moved that ATSDR produce color sampling maps and summary
information showing the existing status of sampling that has been done
that yielded the ATSDR contaminants of concern. Since the Subcommittee
continues to study the issue of sampling the Subcommittee needs to see
what sampling has been done. Susan Kaplan stated that the maps presented
by Karl Markiewicz during the meeting were very informative and the Subcommittee
can not move forward with recommendations on sampling without having this
kind of information. The motion was seconded.
Karl Markiewicz pointed out that the ATSDR has not yet determined the
contaminants of concern and suggested that the maps and summaries address
samples collected rather than what has been selected as a COC, which will
come later in the process. ATSDR can provide sampling summaries as an
overview at this point; however, data maps for contaminants analyzed for
would at this point amount to nearly 400 maps.
Kowetha Davidson suggested that the Public Health Assessment Work Group
look into this with ATSDR to decide what to ask for so the Subcommittee
does not get too many maps. Susan Kaplan clarified that the ATSDR could
produce the maps for a short list of historical contaminants of concern.
Jack Hanley asked that the ATSDR be allowed to proceed through the chemical
screening process with the work group and with the Subcommittee in a stepped
manner to identify the contaminants that need to be looked at in greater
detail and ultimately determine those contaminants that warrant additional
sampling. At this point in the process there are too many contaminants
detected. To produce data maps for them prior to the screening process
will generate an overwhelming amount of information.
Charles Washington commented that ATSDR could provide data at this point
on contaminants that are of concern to the Subcommittee members.
Kowetha Davidson suggested that the Subcommittee allow ATSDR to carry
their screening process further along and then look at the sampling efforts
performed for the contaminants that emerge from the screening.
Jerry Pereira expressed the concern that data maps produced at this point
would be out of context out in the public view, data maps before the community
should have associated context, dialog, presentation to present them in
a meaningful manner. Perhaps this step is premature at this point.
James Lewis asked whether the rumor that Karl Markiewicz will be leaving
this ATSDR project is true. Karl Markiewicz confirmed that he is relocating
to Texas. Karl Markiewicz emphasized that his replacement will do an excellent
job. The Subcommittee expressed thanks to Karl Markiewicz for all of the
hard work he has contributed.
Bob Eklund commented that it should be reasonable to identify the five
or eight contaminants that are most likely to be an issue, in the proper
context, to get an idea of what sampling has been accomplished for these
contaminants. The issue of sampling has been re-occurring in the Public
Health Assessment Work Group often enough to warrant producing an overview
of sampling information at this point.
Kowetha Davidson cautioned that the issue of contaminants of concern
could be confused if the contaminants picked for presentation at this
point are not the same as those yielded by the ATSDR screening process.
Kowetha Davidson reminded the Subcommittee that the ATSDR screening process
has already been adopted by the Subcommittee.
David Johnson commented that the sampling data maps would merely be a
visual aid for the Subcommittee to be able to identify and track certain
chemicals, and would not be in conflict with the screening process but
would facilitate/complement the screening process.
Barbara Sonnenburg expressed support for producing a limited number of
data maps, perhaps up to ten contaminants. Barbara Sonnenburg asked Susan
Kaplan whether she could name about ten contaminants to request or whether
she would suggest asking one of the work groups to recommend to the Subcommittee
which contaminants to request.
Bob Craig moved that the motion by Susan Kaplan be tabled and that the
issue be assigned to the Public Health Assessment Work Group to bring
a recommendation to ATSDR on behalf of the Subcommittee. With concurrence
from the Subcommittee, Kowetha Davidson stated that Susan Kaplan's motion
is tabled and the task of determining whether sampling maps should be
produced at this time, and for which contaminants, was assigned to the
Public Health Assessment Work Group.
Identification of Action Items
Kowetha Davidson read the list of actio
Action:
|
Tim Joseph will provide a copy of the ORHASP data process/data
compilation (18 compact disks) to ATSDR to be available for viewing
in the ATSDR field office.
|
Action:
|
Paul Charp will review health effect studies of nuclear shipyard
workers to see at what levels of worker radiation exposure researchers
may have found association with health effects in the workers.
|
Action:
|
Paul Charp will discuss within the ATSDR office the appropriateness
of presenting in the radiation screening process an MRL that is
less than the average annual background radiation exposure of an
individual in the United States.
|
Action:
|
La Freta Dalton will pursue extracting the portion of the videotape
of today's meeting that captures the presentation by Tim Joseph
concerning the ORHASP data process so that it can be made available
for viewing by the public.
|
Housekepping Issues and Closing
Comments
La Freta Dalton announced that the ATSDR field office in Oak Ridge will
be closed at 7:30 PM on February 13, 2002 and will be reopened at 10:30
AM on February 20, 2002.
La Freta Dalton asked that Subcommittee members examine the web site,
examine the links on the web site, and evaluate whether information needs
to be added to the web site. The web site is a first draft. Most of the
information and input provided so far has been incorporated into the web
site.
Kowetha Davidson reminded Subcommittee members that Donna Mosby should
be paid for any snacks that each may have consumed.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 PM.
<< Back Next
>>
|