Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to navigation Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options

Oak Ridge Reservation

Historical Document

This Web site is provided by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ONLY as an historical reference for the public health community. It is no longer being maintained and the data it contains may no longer be current and/or accurate.

ORRHES Meeting Minutes
October 22, 2002


Presentations and Discussion:
TN Department of Environmental Conservation
(TDEC) – Environmental Monitoring Database

Jim Harless is the Environmental Program Manager of the TDEC Environmental Monitoring Program.

A presentation was given by Dale Rector about the DOE Oversight Division of TDEC. This oversight is made possible by DOE grants under the TN Oversight Agreement.

There are three DOE grants:

  1. Non-regulatory independent environmental monitoring and oversight, TDEC Oversight Division.
  2. Regulatory participation in the CERCLA Federal Facilities Agreement with EPA and DOE.
  3. Multi-jurisdictional planning for emergency response, overseen by TEMA.

Purpose and Goal of Environmental Monitoring:

  • Monitor and track trends
  • Monitor exit pathways from the ORR
  • Evaluate effectiveness of CERCLA remediation
  • Monitor releases during operations (e.g. demolition, waste management)

Annual Environmental Monitoring Reports (AER) report on the following monitoring activities:

  • Surface water monitoring - ambient surface water, toxicity biomonitoring of effluent discharges, Bear Creek uranium study.
  • Sediment monitoring - stream sites on the ORR and in the Clinch River.
  • Biological/fish and wildlife monitoring - studies of Canadian Geese, benthic macroinvertebrates, honeybees, deer, mast, lichens and vegetation as an indicator of biological uptake.
  • Drinking water monitoring - water systems, chlorine and bacteria levels, ORR distribution systems, ETTP drinking water studies, EPA ERAMS (Environmental Radiation and Ambient Monitoring System)
  • Air quality monitoring - hazardous air pollutant monitoring at ETTP, ORNL and Y12, EPA ERAMS air monitoring, fugitive radiological emissions, ORR perimeter air monitoring.
  • Groundwater monitoring - residential wells, ORR spring and seep monitoring, dye tracing for Bear Creek Valley and SNS (Spallation Neutron Source).
  • Radiological monitoring - facility survey program, gamma radiation levels, foot print reduction surveys, building K-1066E yard monitoring, environmental dosimetry, radon monitoring at Bear Creek burial ground, real-time gamma monitoring, UF6 (Uranium Hexafluoride) storage yard gamma monitoring, Watts Bar “beach survey”.

Dale Rector introduced other TDEC staff making presentations to the Subcommittee including Dr. Charles Yard (Radiological Monitoring), Bob Childres (Hazardous Air Pollutant Monitoring), Roger Petrie (Biological Monitoring), Robert Benfield (Groundwater Monitoring), Don Gilmore, and Howard Crabtree.

Radiological Monitoring Program:

Dr. Charles R. Yard, manager of DOE Oversight Radiological Monitoring, gave a presentation on Radiological Monitoring.

The Radiological Monitoring Program is divided into three sections:

  • Environmental Restoration, soil monitoring (R.A. Storms)
  • Air/Water Monitoring (H.L. Crabtree)
  • SEER (Site Evaluation and Emergency Response) (D.A. Thomasson)

Radiological Air Monitoring programs described:

  • ORR perimeter air monitoring (low volume air samplers)
    • 12 locations
    • beta and gamma data
    • data are well below Clean Air Act 10 mrem/year level
  • Monitoring fugitive emissions (high volume air samplers):
    • two locations: outside K-33 building and at Fort Loudon Dam
    • data are well below Clean Air Act 10 mrem/year level
  • ERAMS air monitoring:
    • five locations
    • analytes include gross beta, gamma, Pu-238 and Pu-239/240, U-234, U-235 and U-238
    • data are well below Clean Air Act 10 mrem/year level

Radiological Water Monitoring programs described:

  • ERAMS water monitoring
    • samples collected from five finished water supplies
    • results compared to Tritium Drinking Water Act standard
    • data are well below Drinking Water Act standard
  • Monitoring of Uranium transport in Bear Creek Valley
    • 14 sampling locations on Bear Creek
    • 13 sampling locations on tributaries to Bear Creek
    • six sampling locations on springs in Bear Creek Valley

Ambient Radiation Monitoring program using environmental dosimetry described:

  • Optically Stimulated Luminescent (OSL) Dosimeter Program
    • 70-80 dosimeters deployed in and around Y12, ORNL, ETTP
  • Gamma monitoring with continuously recording gamma exposure rate monitors
    • two locations: outside K-33 building and at Fort Loudon Dam
  • UF6 cylinder yard OSL monitoring

Radiological Environmental Restoration surveys performed:

  • Footprint reduction surveys - systematic survey of 21,000 acres of the ORR, identified numerous abandoned dumpsites containing gamma emitting radioactive material.
  • Walkover surveys
  • Poplar Creek surveys - gamma measurements collected at frequent intervals along Poplar Creek.

Radiological Emergency Response Monitoring Responsibilities performed:

  • Staffing of EMCC (Environmental Monitoring Control Center)
  • Staffing of field teams (2-3 field teams)
  • Coordination for a multi-faceted response
  • Tracking occurrences
  • Exercise participation (drill exercise once per year)

Radiological Facility Survey activities performed:

  • Historical document research
  • Walk-through of facility
  • Evaluate facility
  • Rank facility as to potential for environmental release
  • Present results to DOE
  • Maintain facility file for public viewing

Radiological Materials Management Responsibilities performed:

  • Reactor oversight
  • EU (Enriched Uranium), DU (Depleted Uranium), and Pu (plutonium)
  • Pu production at ORNL
  • Spent fuel management
  • SNS (Spallation Neutron Source)
  • UF6 cylinder tracking (all cylinders to be shipped out of Tennessee by 2009)
  • Tracking of potential radioactivity leaving the ORR in miscellaneous materials (metals, concrete, etc.).

Discussion:

Paul Charp asked how the graphs of gross alpha and gross beta air monitoring results were converted to a radiation dose for comparison to the Clean Air Act 10 mrem/year dose limit. Howard Crabtree explained that the gross alpha air monitoring results were assumed to be contributed entirely by U-235 and the gross beta air monitoring results were assumed to be contributed entirely by Sr-90. The air monitoring results were compared (by ratio) to the air concentration limits for these two isotopes, which are the most restrictive isotopic limit values among alpha and beta emitters. The Clean Air Act limits are specified as values above background levels.

Susan Kaplan commented that the graphs of air monitoring data presented represented 2001 data and asked whether a graph was available depicting air monitoring results averaged over multiple years of monitoring. Howard Crabtree replied that facility perimeter air monitoring data have been collected since 1994 and that data are typically presented in reports on an annual basis. The staff regularly compares annual data from the current year to data from previous years to determine whether trends are evident. Susan Kaplan followed up asking whether air-monitoring data prior to 1994 are available (e.g. from the 1940’s). Howard Crabtree commented that ORNL probably has air monitoring data for their facility perimeter that dates back to the 1960’s, and that the ORHASP report includes historical estimates of stack releases as well as the ORHASP’s estimates of actual releases to the air. In addition, the OREIS (Oak Ridge Environmental Information System) data base may contain historical air monitoring or air release data, and maps, produced in 1985, may contain useful historical information.

Susan Kaplan commented that the water monitoring data presented included data indicating tritium present in water sampled from ETTP, and that previous water sampling efforts specifically excluded analysis for tritium. Howard Crabtree responded that tritium is very difficult to extract from water samples because it is present in water form, and that the measured tritium levels presented, although real, are well below the regulatory limit.

Don Creasia asked how the background air monitoring data were collected. Charles Yard responded that the air was collected at a location not impacted by the ORR (Fort Loudon Dam, 30 to 40 miles distant) in the same manner and at the same time as air collected at locations at the site perimeter.

Don Creasia asked whether the data are available to add standard error bars to the graphed data points of air monitoring results, and pointed out that the air monitoring graphs presented show “spike” variations in results for the site perimeter and the background location at corresponding points in time. Howard Crabtree responded that uncertainty (error) values are not presented on the graphs but are included in the data submitted to the Subcommittee, and that substantial temporal variations in the site perimeter and background location data are not unusual. Seasonal variations do occur.

Barbara Sonnenburg asked if any background sampling has been performed between Kingston and Oak Ridge. Charles Yard responded that there is not an air sampling unit between Kingston and Oak Ridge, and that the two monitors in operation are positioned where TDEC feels that the data collected would be most useful.

Non-radiological Air Monitoring

Bill Childres, gave an overview of TDEC HAP (Hazardous Air Pollutant) Air Monitoring Program (substituting for Kristof Czartoryski).

  • HAP Monitoring began in 1998
  • Monitoring stations were originally located at K25, expanded to ORNL and Y12 in 1999
  • HAP under 1990 Clean Air Act are analyzed in the samples

Three monitors are rotated each month to a new location. Samples are obtained weekly and sent to Nashville for analysis. There are 7 locations total:

  1. TSCA Incinerator
  2. North of K25
  3. South of K25
  4. East of ORNL
  5. West of ORNL
  6. East of the Y12 plant
  7. West of the Y12 plant

These locations are chosen to sample air that flows naturally down the valley.

Concentrations are compared with national standards:

  • Lead (1.5 microg/m3)
  • Uranium (1.5 microg/m3) derived from DOE Order 5400.5.
  • No national or state standards for arsenic, cadmium, chromium, beryllium

Conclusions:

  • Sampling from 1998 to 2001: all analytical results indicate no HAPs above standards.
  • Other incinerator facilities are in the vacinity of the ORR.
  • The TVA Bull Run Steam Plant on Edgemoor Road and the Kingston steam plant could have an impact on the air around the ORR.
  • Operations at the TSCA Incinerator cannot be singled out as the sole contributor of levels seen in the analytical results from the ETTP or the ORR in general.

Discussion:
Bob Craig commented that the data provided indicate levels monitored at the ORR are consistent with levels monitored at unaffected control locations. Bill Childres agreed with that observation.

Susan Kaplan commented that one of the conclusions was that no results exceed standards, but that there are not standards for all of the HAPs. Bill Childres responded that TDEC compared results to standards or heavy metals guidelines. Susan Kaplan asked if TDEC has historical monitoring data. Bill Childres replied that TDEC does not.

Barbara Sonnenburg asked whether the composite impact from all three plants had been considered in the monitoring program. Bill Childres responded that they had not. Barbara Sonnenburg commented that no one looks at the sum of releases from all sites. Bill Childres agreed but stated that the composite impact still did not present a problem. Barbara Sonnenburg mentioned that Knoxville has some of the most polluted air in the region, and contributions come from surrounding areas. Tony Malinauskas commented that, for a specific location sampled, each sample represents a composite of impacts from all sources.

LC Manley asked whether locations north and south of the plants were sampled. Bill Childres responded that there are a limited number of samplers, and they are located in the valleys, where elevated concentrations would most likely exist.

Kowetha Davidson asked how much of the total chromium measured is chromium VI. Bill Childres replied that typically there is a very small percentage of total chromium that is chromium VI. Peggy Adkins asked whether there is a way to determine the proportion of chromium VI in samples of human tissues/biological samples. Bill Childres did not know and took the action to find out.

Environmental Monitoring

Roger Petrie presented an overview of the surface water, sediment, and biological monitoring program.

Ambient surface water and sediment monitoring sites:

  • Sediment samples are collected once per year.
  • Surface water samples are collected twice per year.
  • Surface water and sediment sampling location are co-located.
  • Sediment is not collected at Norris Dam due to the water flow rates associated with the power generation schedule of the dam.
  • Sites 2, 6, 23 & 25 are considered control sites (upgradient).
  • Single digit sampling location identifiers are on the Clinch River.
  • Double digit sampling location identifiers are tributaries to the Clinch River.
  • East Fork Poplar and White Oak Creeks are not sampled, but are covered under a different project.
  • Main point of project is to target exit pathways from the ORR.

Surface water samples are analyzed for a number of parameters for which there are TN Water Criteria:

  • Dissolved oxygen
  • pH
  • Temperature
  • E. Coli
  • Residue
  • Arsenic
  • Cadmium
  • Chromium
  • Copper
  • Lead
  • Mercury
  • Zinc

There are different standards for different designated water uses (e.g. fish and aquatic life, domestic water supply use, recreational use). All of the sampling results are less than water quality criteria.

Sediment samples are analyzed for:

  • Aluminum
  • Arsenic
  • Cadmium
  • Chromium
  • Copper
  • Iron
  • Lead
  • Manganese
  • Mercury
  • Nickel
  • Zinc
  • Extractable organics
  • Pesticides, PCBs
  • Gross alpha, gross beta
  • Gamma spectrometry

There are currently no criteria in place for sediment.

Three sites have been recently added downstream due to increased levels of mercury in Clinch River sediment where Poplar Creek flows into the river. These levels of mercury are still below the risk-based preliminary remediation goal.

Rapid bioassessment monitoring sites are located on White Oak, East Fork Poplar, and Mitchell Branch Creeks and are sampled quarterly. The results show minimal impact on water quality.

Monitoring of Canadian Geese began in the 1980’s due to concern that they may become contaminated from ponds/lakes on the ORR. Once per year the geese are rounded up for whole body counting. The administrative release level is 5 picoCi/g. In 1998, 38 geese at ORNL were found to have levels of cesium–137 contamination above 5 picoCi/g. These geese were rounded up at a contaminated pond at the west end of ORNL. The roundup captures 100-150 geese, mostly from K25 and ORNL. There were no contaminated geese found in 1999-2001. In 2002, three geese at ORNL were found to contain levels exceeding 5 pCi/g, but no contaminated geese were found offsite.

Discussion:
Don Box asked if studies of wasp nests had been performed. Roger Petrie responded that site health physicists had performed surveys of wasp and mud dauber nests.

LC Manley suggested that smaller streams near Y12 should be sampled to check for possible contamination that may have moved across the ridge (For example Mill Branch near South Hill Golf Course). Roger Petrie replied that a lot of the tributaries are very small, they dry out seasonally, therefore, many are not sampled.

Susan Kaplan commented that it has always been reported that there is no plutonium at ETTP, however, Bill Childres mentioned TDEC detected plutonium in air samples of fugitive dust raised during building demolition (Building 1131) at ETTP. Dale Rector clarified that in the 1960’s some UF6 feedstock came from recycled uranium, therefore, it contained contaminant radionuclides including plutonium. Susan Kaplan asked what form of mercury is tested in TDEC samples. Roger Petrie responded that the samples are analyzed for total mercury.

Elmer Akin commented about the objective of the monitoring program, using mercury in surface water as an example. There was no mention of tracking the source of mercury in the Clinch River. Roger Petrie responded that it is well established that Y12 is the source of the mercury in the Clinch River, and until mercury sources at Y12 have been eliminated the monitored mercury levels in sediment and surface water will persist.

Elmer Akin added that he was involved in the East Fork Poplar Creek cleanup, and the cleanup effort exempted sediments from cleanup until the sources of the mercury were eliminated. If mercury still continues to leach out from the creek then perhaps more than trace amounts of mercury may be going into the Clinch River, warranting closer monitoring. Roger Petrie responded that the mercury in the Clinch River sediment was released from Y12 twenty to thirty years ago and is moving very slowly.

Kowetha Davidson asked why analysis for sulfates was added to the monitoring program. Roger Petrie explained that the most hazardous form of mercury is methyl mercury. The form used at Y12 was elemental mercury, and that anaerobic sulfate reducing bacteria can convert elemental mercury to the methyl mercury form. These bacteria live in the sediments of streams, they thrive on sulfates, and they cause elemental mercury to change to methyl mercury. The monitoring program includes analysis for sulfates to examine the potential for these bacteria generating the methyl form of mercury. The sulfate monitoring data do not clearly demonstrate or refute the process for East Fork Poplar Creek and the Clinch River.

Herman Cember asked whether fish are living in the river and whether the fish show uptake of mercury. Roger Petrie replied that fish are living there, and that the fish at greatest risk for mercury uptake are bottom-feeding fish (e.g. catfish). The catfish do accumulate some mercury but the levels are below the FDA action level, which is 0.5 ppm in the tissue. Occasionally an older larger fish will have levels close to 0.5 ppm, but most of the fish caught do not live long enough to accumulate that level of mercury.

Tony Malinauskas asked about the levels of PCB’s (polychlorinated biphenyls) in the fish. Roger Petrie responded that PCB levels TDEC has measured are above the FDA action level of 1 ppm in tissue. The river is posted with an advisory to limit consumption of catfish due to the PCB’s.

Groundwater Monitoring

Robert Benfield, a Groundwater Geologist for TDEC, presented an overview of Groundwater Monitoring.

Groundwater Monitoring Program activities:

  • Monitor groundwater quality on and near the ORR
  • Assist the Division of Underground Storage Tanks (UST) on the ORR
  • Independent sampling of springs and wells
  • Co-sampling of springs and wells with DOE
  • Sampling of select residential wells around the ORR
  • UST investigations of underground tanks on the ORR

ORR and vicinity spring sampling:

  • First spring sampled in 1993
  • Currently sampling 70 spring locations
  • Samples collected using EPA protocols
  • All samples are sent to the state laboratories for analysis

Groundwater plumes detected:

  • Carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) Beneath Y12 and extending to Union Valley
  • BearCreek Valley plume
  • ORNL plumes of radionuclides and volatile organics
  • Melton Valley plumes from underground waste units (e.g. hydrofracture radionuclide injection wells)
  • K25 solvent plumes

Residential well sampling:

  • 15 non-community wells sampled from 1994 to 1996
  • Residential well sampling began in 1997 (26 different wells have been sampled)
  • To date no contamination has been found in residential wells.

Exit pathways from ORR are also studied in springs. At this time, DOE has no wells drilled offsite. Other organizations, such as USGS (U.S. Geological Survey), have drilled wells offsite. The USGS wells were drilled in the 1960’s to model groundwater flow.

Dye tracing studies have been used to link contaminants at the ORR with contaminants in offsite springs.

  • Bear Creek Valley dye tracing study has been used to determine the best places to monitor the EMWMF waste cell and the SNS site.
  • Chestnut Ridge dye traces from sediment disposal basin, Chestnut Ridge security pits.
  • Union Valley dye trace from Y12.
  • Other dye traces include Mt. Vernon, WAG 3, K1070A, 901 Pond.

Discussion:
Herman Cember asked at what rate the groundwater flows and how rapidly plumes are diluted. Robert Benfield responded that 1km/day is typical of rapid flow in underground channels, and a lot of dilution occurs because of large amounts of water flowing through the local groundwater system.

Peggy Adkins asked whether anyone had mapped the underground water conduits outside of the ORR. Robert Benfield responded that he was not aware of anyone mapping those features. Peggy Adkins inquired whether a spring contaminated in the 1950’s would still contain metals or radioactive substances today. Robert Benfield said that metals do not migrate well in water, and would likely precipitate onto the sides of a spring. Peggy Adkins asked how one could find out if a spring formerly contained sources of contaminants. Robert Benfield explained that dye trace studies could be used but that those studies must begin close to potential sources because dilution increases as contaminants move further away. For example metals would not travel very far, but volatiles can travel far. Peggy Adkins asked whether a neighborhood could be included as a test site. Robert Benfield responded that TDEC would test the groundwater from wells within a one-mile buffer of the ORR.

Public Comment

Gordon Blaylock commented that The TDEC sediment samples are grab samples and represent sediment deposited only in the past 3-4 years. No metals or radionuclides have been found in such grab samples, but are found in core samples of sediment. Dale Rector acknowledged the sampling distinction and added that a number of core samples had been taken in the Watts Bar reservoir. Dale Rector acknowledged that contaminants are buried in the sediment and that there is a provision in the record of decision at Watts Bar Reservoir recognizing this fact.

Elmer Akin asked what streams from the ORR might flow under the Clinch River, and potentially contaminate residential wells on the other side (south side) of the river. Robert Petrie responded that a spring from Scarboro Creek at the UT Arboretum is perched above the groundwater table. The Clinch River may have deeper routes downstream. Residential wells could potentially be contaminated by other sources on the same side of the river.

Peggy Adkins asked when and where the hydrofracture injections of radionuclides occurred. Robert Petrie replied that hydrofracture took place in Melton Valley, behind ORNL, until 1985.

Work Group Recommendations

AGENDA WORK GROUP

No recommendations from the Agenda Work Group.

GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES WORK GROUP

No recommendations from the Guidelines and Procedures Work Group.

COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH WORK GROUP

No recommendations from the Communication and Outreach Work Group.

HEALTH EDUCATION NEEDS ASSESSMENT WORK GROUP

No recommendations from the Health Education Needs Assessment Work Group.

PUBLIC HEALTH ASSESSMENT WORK GROUP

Bob Craig stated that the Public Health Assessment Work Group has two recommendations:

RECOMMENDATION 1:

Bob Craig reported the following recommendation from the Public Health Assessment Work Group.

If ATSDR determines that there is unavoidable delay in completion of the I-131 evaluation, the evaluation of one or more other contaminants of concern should be expedited and presented before the I-131 Public Health Assessment.

Discussion:
Jack Hanley reported that ATSDR plans to expedite evaluation of uranium from Y12 since the EPA has completed the sampling program at the Scarboro community. James Lewis commented that Florida A & M University may return to Oak Ridge to perform additional studies. Jack Hanley responded that ATSDR has enough information regarding uranium releases from Y12 to expedite evaluation of that contaminant/source, and that no further sampling is needed. Kowetha Davidson asked if Jack knew when the PHA Work Group will receive data regarding uranium releases from Y12. Jack Hanley did not know the date information would be available.

This recommendation received a motion, was seconded, and was passed by the Subcommittee by a vote count of 15 in favor and none opposed.

RECOMMENDATION 2:

Bob Craig reported the following recommendation from the Public Health Assessment Work Group.

The ORRHES requests a copy of a detailed Gantt chart from ATSDR as soon as possible. The detailed Gantt chart should reflect the steps in the ORRHES flow sheet. (The flow sheet includes dates of presentations made to the workgroups and the Subcommittee.)

This recommendation received a motion, was seconded, and was passed by the Subcommittee by vote count of 15 in favor and none opposed.

RECOMMENDATION 3:

Bob Craig presented the following recommendation.

The Subcommittee should remain silent on the issue of the magnitude of the ATSDR screening value for radiation exposure.

Discussion:
Susan Kaplan suggested that a screening value between ATSDR's proposal (71 mrem/year) and Bob Peele's proposal (approximately a factor of 10 lower) be recommended. Kowetha Davidson stated that there should be a rationale for the recommendation. Burt Cooper stated that the MRL (5,000 mrem in a lifetime) is agency policy, regardless of the recommendation of the Subcommittee. Kowetha Davidson commented regarding exposures, that the lower the dose the longer the latency period, and the higher the dose, the shorter the latency period. Tony Malinauskas suggested that the Subcommittee does not have to endorse or reject the ATSDR screening value.

Herman Cember asked the purpose of the screening value. Paul Charp stated that the screening value is used to determine whether ATSDR will take additional action to evaluate potential impacts on public health.

Regarding discussion of collective dose, Herman Cember commented that collective dose is a method of applying zero threshold linear dose response to safety standards, and applies to populations, rather than individuals. Herman Cember asked whether the doses estimated in the PHA will be retrospectively estimated. Paul Charp confirmed that dose estimates will be retrospective, and that dose estimates above a screening value will trigger a more detailed assessment.

Susan Kaplan asked that Bob Peele propose a compromise screening value. Bob Peele suggested two possible compromises: that the Subcommittee remain silent regarding a screening value or that the Subcommittee pass a resolution stating that the Subcommittee does not endorse the ATSDR value, but recognizes that it is policy that ATSDR will use.

Tony Malinauskas expressed concern that the uncertainty in the screening value is larger than screening value itself.

Kowetha Davidson recommended that the Public Health Assessment Work Group evaluate the screening value issue further in its next meeting.

Bob Craig moved that ORHHES remain silent regarding the ATDSR screening value for radiation.

This motion was seconded, and was not passed by the Subcommittee by a vote count of 8 in favor and 7 opposed.

Susan Kaplan made a motion that the Subcommittee recommend to ATSDR a screening value of 39 mrem/year.

Discussion:
Donna Mosby commented that it does not make sense to recommend a screening value because ATSDR uses an MRL that is agency policy.

Elmer Akin made the distinction between MRL and screening value.

Paul Charp added that reducing the screening value creates complications because it then falls within the variation of background.

This motion to recommend to ATSDR a screening value of 39 mrem/year was seconded, and was not passed by the Subcommittee by a vote count of 2 in favor and 13 opposed.

Unfinished Business/New Business/Issues/Concerns

La Freta Dalton announced that two hours before the December 3, 2002 ORRHES meeting there will be a briefing for new committee members (10:00 AM).

Burt Cooper stated questions for the epidemiologist/thyroid specialist, who will make a presentation to the Subcommittee on December 3, 2002, are due to Bill Murray by October 23, 2002.

La Freta Dalton reviewed 2003 meeting dates, beginning in February 2003. Future meetings are tentatively scheduled for:

  • February 10
  • April 1
  • June 3
  • July 29

Tony Malinauskas commented on a statement made in the previous ORRHES meeting (August 27, 2002) regarding the chelator DTPA. Tony Malinauskas has investigated DTPA and reported to the Subcommittee that DTPA is a FDA investigational new drug approved for chelation of plutonium, americium, californium and curium. It is not approved for uranium or neptunium, no mention of strontium. The drug is delivered by intravenous infusion, inhalation with a nebulizer, or intramuscularly, and is effective for water soluble forms of the approved radionuclides. The drug can be made available to private physicians through proper protocols. FDA maintains a strict accountability over the drug.

Paul Charp reported on a case of the use of DTPA at Hanford, Washington to chelate plutonium in a worker who experienced a plutonium intake in 1976. The incident involved an explosion that embedded plutonium in the man's skin. DTPA was administered by injection, and was demonstrated to cause the removal of approximately 90% of the plutonium from his body. At the time, a complicating side effect was the simultaneous chelation and removal of zinc from the man's body.

Identification of Action Items

La Freta Dalton read the following action items from the meeting:

ACTION 1: ATSDR will provide the new ORRHES members with a package of the meeting minutes from the April 2001 ORRHES meeting to help them become acclimated to the Health Needs Assessment and associated plan for the Focus Groups.

ACTION 2: Toni Bounds will provide ORRHES with copies of the Tennessee cancer registry maps displayed during her presentation to the Subcommittee.

ACTION 3: Toni Bounds will provide ORRHES with a calculation sheet that presents the "age adjustment" calculation for the cancer registry statistics for the Oak Ridge area.

ACTION 4: Toni Bounds will help evaluate certain cancers to determine whether the Tennessee cancer registry data indicate that cancer rates in certain local counties are above or below baseline rates.

ACTION 5: Bill Childres will examine the magnitude of a composite/combination of the air sample data from all of the Oak Ridge Reservation facilities, combined.

ACTION 6: Bill Childres will determine whether the chromium III and chromium VI species can be distinguished in tissue samples from people.

Housekeeping Issues and Closing Comments

Jerry Pereira reported that ATSDR made arrangements today for the administrative assistant to begin work at the ATSDR Oak Ridge field office, as a part time staff person, beginning November 4, 2002.

Regarding the setting of future Subcommittee meeting dates, Jerry Pereira requested that La Freta Dalton suggest ORRHES meeting dates through 2004 and then distribute those calendar dates to the Subcommittee members for comparison with their calendar schedules. Identified schedule conflicts would then be resolved at the next ORRHES meeting. This approach would save the time spent during ORRHES meetings establishing future meeting dates.

Kowetha Davidson reminded attendees of the EPA meeting on November 14, 2002 concerning the Scarboro community sampling program and report. Meeting times are from 11:00 AM to 1:00 PM at the Oak Ridge Mall and from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM at the Scarboro Community Center. In addition, the public comment period on the EPA Scarboro community sampling program report ends on November 22, 2002.

Kowetha Davidson declared the meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.

<< Back

 
Contact Us:
  • Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
    4770 Buford Hwy NE
    Atlanta, GA 30341-3717 USA
  • 800-CDC-INFO
    (800-232-4636)
    TTY: (888) 232-6348
    Email CDC-INFO
  • New Hours of Operation
    8am-8pm ET/Monday-Friday
    Closed Holidays
USA.gov: The U.S. Government's Official Web PortalDepartment of Health and Human Services
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 4770 Buford Hwy NE, Atlanta, GA 30341
Contact CDC: 800-232-4636 / TTY: 888-232-6348

A-Z Index

  1. A
  2. B
  3. C
  4. D
  5. E
  6. F
  7. G
  8. H
  9. I
  10. J
  11. K
  12. L
  13. M
  14. N
  15. O
  16. P
  17. Q
  18. R
  19. S
  20. T
  21. U
  22. V
  23. W
  24. X
  25. Y
  26. Z
  27. #