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Historical Document

This Web site is provided by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) ONLY as an historical reference for the public health community.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
December 2, 2003


Presentation by Mr. Jack Hanley

MR. HANLEY: We sent out the comments back in late October; we had a PHAWG meeting, and one of the recommendations at the PHAWG meeting we presented the summary of the EPA comments like I just did earlier. And one of the recommendations was to summarize the main community comments so that it’s concise and the subcommittee could read it and understand it. So, that’s what I just put in front of you all and this is a summary of what the public, some of the public comments we received, non-EPA comments. And to conclude my presentation; after reviewing and evaluating the public comments, ATSDR made these changes in the health assessment; however, we have not changed the conclusion that the past and current offsite exposures of uranium posed no apparent public health hazard because the estimated doses are not at levels expected to cause adverse health effects. Basically, we added more description about the wind directions, the closest residence, and the rationale for using Scarboro as a representative community for the City of Oak Ridge, which would have been the community likely to have been impacted. We removed discussion of the ICRP dose coefficient for uranium as a conservative aspect. We clarified our screening evaluation and the weight of evidence decision process and how we come to these decisions. We included some missing data sources, just identifying the references basically. We revised our Figure 9; that Figure 9 is the thermometer-graph that Paul put up earlier. We got input and we made some modifications to help communicate. We’re going to add a health outcome data section specifically outlining the criteria and why health outcome data for uranium specifically was not, the kidney effects were not evaluated; however, we are doing the cancer incidence review based on the request of the subcommittee, plus refer them to the other sections in the document where we talk about the Scarboro investigation, health investigation, and also some of the other public health activities that I mentioned earlier. We added some new figures. One of the comments was about all the sampling that Florida A&M and EPA conducted, so we’re adding a map that outlines all those points. And we’re adding some other comparison documents to help communicate some of the toxic effects. These are the doses we estimated, these are ATSDR’s MRL, this is what the MRL was based on, and then we have a little discussion in this to explain why we don’t see public health effects. This is based on dog studies inhalation exposure. A couple of those examples, and then we added an appendices in the back with briefs on some of the primary sources, descriptions of the data that we used, the sources, and it’s a brief like we prepared once before for the subcommittee, explains the methods, what was done, what were the findings of each of those. And these are the basic changes. But the bottom line, the doses haven’t changed and our criteria haven’t changed and so our finding stays the same, and that’s the main message.

DR. CEMBER: Is that what’s going into the book or the final report? In italics?

MR. HANLEY: This paragraph? Yes, that’s the final conclusion; that’s the conclusion in the document.

DR. CEMBER: I just wanted to criticize that a little bit. It sounds weasel worded to me. It says it has not, current exposure pose no apparent public health hazard.

MR. HANLEY: Yes.

DR. CEMBER: That doesn’t sound very convincing to me as a member of the public. If we didn’t find any hazard I would say that we found that there was no illness due to releases from there or not just apparent public health hazard.

MR. HANLEY: Well, that’s official classification.

DR. CEMBER: Yeah, but that’s so weasel-worded; that may be your official one, but to present to the public that you did not find that, that you found no health risk or no threat to health from the uranium that has been released period.

MR. HANLEY: Well, when we presented that actually in the brief, we ask is it a public health hazard and we put no. The community members have looked at that and they gave us feedback on that and they said it looks like propaganda; you’re not explaining, you’re not saying anything. What we’re basically saying is that there’s not a hazard.

DR. CEMBER: Well, that’s the conclusion but then you have the rest of the report on which you base your conclusion.

MR. HANLEY: Yes, but when we gave those very clear decisive statements in our briefing materials that was considered, I think the word was propaganda that we were submitting.

DR. CEMBER: And they would think this is better?

MR. HANLEY: The fact that we say that there’s no estimated doses of exposure at levels expected to cause health effects, yes. I don’t know.

DR. CEMBER: Say at levels below which we’ve, at levels which we’ve never found health effects. But expected to cause, that means you’re, again, that’s weasel-wording that there may be but who does the expectation. But if we haven’t found it, that’s a definite fact. It’s at levels at which we have never found health effects from.

MR. HANLEY: I like that. We’ll see if we can use it. I like to be as definitive as I can but this is the language that comes out of the guidance manual; this is the language that comes in our conclusion categories that was mentioned earlier, and actually it was suggested that that’s what we need to follow.

DR. CEMBER: You have to use the same wording, follow it blindly? That sounds very bureaucratic to me.

MR. LEWIS: I think what we need to talk about being consistent; I guess I was involved in that. Once you write those words that doesn’t mean that you can’t write another set of words over that that clearly, you know, explains things, but you can reflect a category. We were learning as it relates to that. We’ve gotten involved in looking at that; I think there’s some comments coming out on the brief at some point in time; it may help that we’ll have two types of briefs.

DR. CEMBER: Well, when I read that it sounded very weasel-wording to me.

MR. GEORGE GARTSEFF: Jack, could you just explain a bit more about item one, the additional discussion on Scarboro being representative?

MR. HANLEY: I’ll use this map over here. This is Y-12 and Bear Creek Valley right over here. You have Pine Ridge runs along here and Chestnut Ridge runs on the other side. So, you have Bear Creek Valley, on this end you have Union Valley, and what we basically are saying in the document is the comment from a couple of people said the prevailing winds inside this valley go up and down the valley, and we have wind rose data that shows it; very little goes in these directions, ok. The question was why did we choose Scarboro as a reference location and so we acknowledge in the document that the prevailing winds go up and down the valley; most of the uranium would have fallen out in this valley, Union Valley and Bear Creek Valley. However, no one lives in those valleys and no one has lived in those valleys since the plants were there. So, you look for, in a health assessment you look for a community that’s likely to have been exposed and based on the state’s evaluation, their modeling, which they used some simple modeling, they estimated that Scarboro would have been an established community that would have likely been exposed at the highest levels. So, that’s why Scarboro was chosen. We acknowledge it, the City of Oak Ridge is likely to be the community that would have, the city that would have been exposed, the population that would have been exposed. Scarboro is being used to represent the whole Oak Ridge, so this area that we acknowledge is likely not to have been exposed to levels of health concern and the rest of the city wouldn’t have. In addition, we did some additional analysis because some people were concerned about the gap here in the, along Scarboro Road here, and they were concerned about Woodland community. And so, to evaluate that analysis there’s a monitoring station right here in Bear Creek Valley right at the end. This monitoring station had, on average, over ten years or so, a twenty percent higher exposure than Scarboro, but it’s in the valley right near the site. With one year being almost twice the exposure as the monitoring station here. So, we made the assumption that if you took the exposures here that they would have received and assumed they were here, we took the dose twice as much as Scarboro, and we added that for this dose here and it still would not have been a public health problem. So, these are points that EPA brought up and we discussed them with EPA Region IV. In addition to that, we have fly-over data that is used that’s fairly sensitive enough to identify surface contamination if there would have been any deposition from uranium and any little elevated levels that came up during the fly overs that were checked by the state and DOE and they were found not to be of significance. So, we feel that these residential areas would not have been exposed to levels of health concern.

MR. GARTSEFF: This is one of the issues that ORIA had raised? Is that correct?

MR. HANLEY: Yes.

MR. GARTSEFF: Where do they feel would be more representative?

MR. HANLEY: They never say.

MR. GARTSEFF: They don’t, ok. Is your re-write, in your opinion, is your re-write sufficient to refute their position that Scarboro is incorrect?

MR. HANLEY: We feel so and Region IV agreed. Now, what did ORIA say? I don’t know; we haven’t received anything in writing.

DR. CHARP: Don’t forget the station, the one over there by the museum.

MR. HANLEY: Oh, also, where is the museum? Right around in this area, yeah. There’s also a station here that we compared with Scarboro and it was much lower than the Scarboro releases for the years that we had. I forgot the percent but it was much lower so we had other locations too.

MR. GARTSEFF: Well, I just saw this as an opportunity given all the discussion we had before the break. Since ORIA is not telling us these details I think we should take every opportunity in the re-write to make sure that we bolster our arguments and poke holes in theirs to the extent we can and they’re justified, providing of course they give us some clue as to what they think their answer is, but I believe you said earlier they would not be commenting further. Is that correct?

MR. HANLEY: Yes, they told the ATSDR staffer at the EPA Headquarters that they would not comment further but that was a few weeks ago. Now we have this letter; we’re going to go back to them to get clarification and see if we can address these issues. This is one of the things that we suggested that, you know, I don’t know if they know about Union Valley, but Union Valley has, you know, commercial development and there’s all up and down the valley, there’s no one lives there, what other community they would recommend, especially in the fifties, when you didn’t have this other portion of Oak Ridge up here; there was no one that lived out there. We have the maps from the fifties and stuff, so, you know, who would they say and we don’t know; they didn’t say.

MR. HILL: One interesting point, I used to service those air monitors; there were some other air monitors. I don’t know if you found all the locations but I’ll talk to you about that off line. The comment I wanted to make, when this committee first started one of the first couple meetings Mr. Manley asked us to be sensitive to the Scarboro community issues and I think Mr. Washington did too at different times. As I listen to the discussions, it sounds like we have the opportunity to point the finger back at Scarboro and say this is the worst place in Oak Ridge or to say, look, Woodland is potentially worse than Scarboro, which politically those are sensitive issues. So, I wanted to make sure we were sensitive to that and I appreciate Mr. Manley or Mr. Washington’s comments.

MR. MANLEY: My basic comments about the uranium issue, as a whole, I am reasonably dissatisfied. Basically, what I look for was data that said that Scarboro is not contaminated above whatever minimum requirement that the government agencies required, and I think basically data from FAMU and EPA basically clears that up with me. I can’t answer for anyone else other than myself and sometimes I wonder whether I can answer for myself or not, but that is all that I wanted out of this, but we talked earlier about health effects. You know, we look at the thing, once you put a stigma on a community, more than health effects is at stake, socioeconomic and economic situations have a tendency to go either up or down. I think the socioeconomic effect of the newspaper articles and the negative comments that have been directed towards Scarboro have just about killed the community. No one will want to come back to live there. The kid that grew up out there will get out as fast as they can. At one time basically Scarboro was one hundred percent home owners, but not now, about anywhere from a third or a quarter of the properties is rental property now, and once a community starts being a rental property community everything seem to start, economically and socially start going down hill.

DR. DAVIDSON: I’m calling on people who haven’t spoken very much today, you know, that’s why I’m bouncing around, but I was going to get Susan next because I think she’s only said something once and then it will be Peggy.

MS. KAPLAN: I had two questions. One is, Jack, you mentioned fly over data. Does uranium show up in a fly over because it’s mainly alpha, isn’t it? Is that going to show up?

DR. CHARP: The question was will uranium show up in a fly over. The uranium will not show up in a fly over; however, the decay products show up like a sore thumb.

MS. KAPLAN: I see.

DR. CHARP: So, what they look for are the decay products and then they back calculate and if they see on the fly overs any, they call them one contour area of interest, they would go in and check that area to see if it was just an anomaly or if it actually is something there, but they can detect uranium decay products and they can back calculate it to see if it is uranium.

MS. KAPLAN: But the half life is very long, is it not, like billions or millions of years?

DR. CHARP: Well, 238 is somewhere around four and a half billion years, yeah.

MS. KAPLAN: So, is it really going to decay at a rate that’s going to be meaningful to us in this short time period?

DR. CHARP: Yeah, because if it’s naturally occurring, or even if it’s not naturally occurring, some of the initial decay products will build up fairly rapidly so they can show up because there are some gamma emitters.

MS. KAPLAN: And the other question I had was you mentioned that the wind blows down the valley, has anyone gone in and pulled soil samples down the valley to see what those levels are as a comparison to test your hypothesis? No.

MS. ADKINS: I’d like to volunteer to take some people to do soil samples down the valley and to move the point of, I can’t remember the word, suspicion or bad press to Scarboro, and move it to Bradbury, Dillis, Gallaher Road, and Crestwood, and that in our next meeting that we have a topographical map that actually shows, where you can actually feel the valleys and the ridges, and so forth, and see where those air currents really went and also an underground map that shows the underground topography.

MR. WASHINGTON: I guess the point that I want to bring up, and as Jeff said, the one I’m concerned about is do the air monitors pre-date the Clean Air Act. When did we put those monitors out there and the exact time that we went from a hundred percent production of UF6 to roughly ten, fifteen, or twenty percent production. If it is twice, if what we find is twice as much now when we’re operating at ten, fifteen, or twenty percent, what was it when we were operating at eighty, ninety, and some time a hundred percent to the full capacity? You have to take into consideration too that a temperature inversion appears in that valley about most nights at 2:00 when you go out there you can’t even see in that valley. And what happened to UF6 as it fell on the trees and the humus it was mixed in, water washed down hill toward Scarboro, what happens to this? For those of us who know a little something about the air monitoring; in my opinion, those air monitors were placed in a very scientifically suspicious position and I mean that to say that they were placed in a position where probably they wouldn’t get too much of whatever was in the air, because of the topography.

MR. HANLEY: A couple things. George, in response–

MR. MANLEY: In response to what, this is basically the type thing that I was trying to bring up. Now, basically, what I’m saying and what Washington is saying is like EPA and ATSDR, he’s saying one thing and I’m saying another, so we basically contradict one another. Yes, contamination probably could have happened out there in the past, but with all the latest data that’s been brought up, people, the water, the soil, and air sampling that has been done over the last few years have deemed that Scarboro is basically as clean as any of the surrounding areas. But when you keep going back and saying that there is possibility of contamination in Scarboro, you’re just cutting the people that live in Scarboro’s throat, socially and economically. I might be wrong about this, but this is just a basic feeling that’s what you’re doing. Every time you bring up that negative connotation you’re just cutting our throat, but if you’re right, you’re right to say whatever you feel.

MR. WASHINGTON: I think you know me well enough to know that really I’m not so much concerned about the implications of whether there was more or less. What I do want the people to know in Scarboro is whether or not they were adversely affected or not. Now, irrespective of, you know, the reputation or anything else, home values, and all of the rest, the people have a right to know. And if we come out with a concentration of uranium in the Scarboro community, under the law, you know, they will be affected by the law. I mean, they have to be bought out and then the government has to take over, give them a chance to leave that area, those who want to leave, but they need to know. If it was operating at one hundred percent you don’t have to be a genius to know that you’re going to get more fall out at a hundred percent than you would at twenty percent, and what has fallen on the ground becomes embedded in the humus and if you strategically place those air monitors, you know, I could because I know the wind patterns there, I know where I would place them to get the smallest amount of uranium that was released. Now, if you are not aware of some of the implications of science, perhaps, you wouldn’t know that and you would go on and believe that the data that you’ve got is the correct data from 1942 until the present and that just isn’t the case.

MR. MANLEY: Well, I guess I will have to agree that as far as SAS is concerned, I’m ignorant. Now, I used that word about myself because I don’t have any scientific background so the science of it I’m just looking at the practical end of things. So, the science of it doesn’t mean anything to me.

DR. DAVIDSON: I think what Mr. Manley is saying that Mr. Washington if you have some proof that they put those air monitors in places where they get the least amount, bring that proof forward; if not, you know, it’s just supposition.

MR. CHARP: Kowetha, I would like to say one thing. By no means am I an air monitoring expert, but I slept at a Holiday Inn Express. Many times when ATSDR has done exposure investigations, and I’ve listened to some of their discussion of it, they always seem to put air monitors in the area where they expect to see exposures. So, to me it would make sense that Station 46, which is in Scarboro near the community center, would be a good place to put an air monitor to see what fell on the Scarboro community. I mean, if there wasn’t an air monitor in Scarboro and we had to rely on the air monitor in Claxton then I would say, hey, they put that ten miles down wind because uranium is not going to travel that far generally, so you wouldn’t see any exposure. Is it possible that they put it in an area where they wouldn’t expect to see much exposure? Yes. Is it a possibility that they put it where they wanted to see little exposure? Yes. Is it in a better area? Maybe not because that’s where the community is located. I mean, I can see both points, but to me, like I said, I slept at a Holiday Inn.

MR. WASHINGTON: Well, seriously, the Scarboro community might not be the worse area. I mean, the worse area might be five or ten miles outside of Oak Ridge some place. We simply don’t know because that would depend on a whole lot of parameters including, for example, the wind direction, the particle size, the density, and everything else.

MR. CHARP: Yeah, the wind directions for the valley are up and down the valley. If you look at the distribution patterns maybe five percent of the time the wind would go across the ridge and deposit into the Scarboro area, but it did pick up something.

MR. WASHINGTON: But the temperature inversions do–

DR. CHARP: If it is a temperature inversion, most of that will stay inside the valley.

MR. WASHINGTON: The temperature of the emissions; there were emissions that are on record and, you know, DOE can get those. When there were emissions that were unplanned they know about them. They did that quite a few times and tried to put some of the blame on TVA. Well, TVA turned around and said, ok, we’ll go out there when you’re operating at a hundred percent, which was in May. They went out at night and soon Y-12 stopped looking at the emissions from the TVA stacks.

MR. HANLEY: In the dose reconstruction screening evaluation by the State of Tennessee they looked at dispersion modeling and they used the dispersion model that best fit the data that they actually had, and it indicated that the fallout would have been near the site and Scarboro was the community where there’s actually people that would have received the highest dose. That’s what the model indicated. The other thing is that Paducah, which we also evaluated, we have a health assessment on Paducah, the modeling indicates because it’s uranium, heavy metal, it falls out near the site; it doesn’t travel many, many miles away and it stays in the general pattern of the facility. And then also I just wanted to point out these are the air monitoring stations that were used and also many of these monitors we have data from the mid 1980's through the 1990's and the operation slowed down, I think, in the early 1990's and then picked up again later. But during the 1980's we do have monitoring data and that’s the data that we used and focused on when we made that assumption about the Woodland community and, George, in response, the written description of our response to EPA on this issue is in their EPA summary comment number two where we go through that.

MR. DAVID JOHNSON: Now, Jack, with regard to health outcome data, now, correct me if I’m wrong, in that quality of information is used to correct outcome data, something to that effect, is that correct, that you can change the health outcome data based on quality of information? That was mentioned earlier today, if I’m not mistaken, and it might have been Jack who made that statement, but I’ve turned my back to him and I’m coming to you.

DR. CHARP: You can’t change what’s in the data but you can alter how it’s used, maybe that’s what you’re asking.

MR. JOHNSON: Well, that’s with regard to the quality of information. Now, could you give me a definition as it relates to quality of information, an example of.

DR. CHARP: Ok, here’s an example, let’s say that someone is concerned about, I think its chronic lymphocytic leukemia, Herman, is that the one that doesn’t have a radiation components.

DR. CEMBER: Yes.

DR. CHARP: Someone says our community has a high level of chronic lymphocytic leukemia and we’re down wind from a nuclear power plant. All the data suggests, or actually strongly shows that there is no correlation between radiation exposure and chronic lymphocytic leukemia; therefore, that type of cancer you can discount from a radiation exposure. Likewise, if you, let’s see, what’s another good example, if you’re down wind from a place that produces radioactive iodines and someone has skin cancer, no, well, let’s not use that one because you could have some deposition on the skin; if you have a cancer that’s not related to radiation or that the organ that is diseased doesn’t have a component then you can maybe adjust it one way or the other. Radium, for example, is a bone seeker, so if someone has liver cancer and they’ve been exposed to radium then you may be able to rule out the liver cancer because radium doesn’t accumulate to a high degree in the liver. So, that’s how I would look at it. I don’t know if that clearly answers your question or not. So, turn your back to me and ask Jack now.

MR. JOHNSON: I first have to ask Herman, was he being somewhat weasel-worded with that? Jack, I’ll ask you about the quality of information; Paul tried but he passed it back to you.

MR. HANLEY: I don’t know what this is.

MR. BROOKS: That is the cancer incidence of Scarboro that was obtained by the cancer institute.

MR. LEWIS: The data for Scarboro cancer incidence they said that numbers were too low. You know, in other words, that couldn’t be used for quality. Somebody who is an expert in that can explain, that was information that was done by the joint–

MR. HANLEY: Is there a report on this?

MR. LEWIS: I found, that’s the only copy that I have. It was in a report; I don’t where the report is. I can tell you what I was able to find.

DR. DAVIDSON: I thought we were discussing quality of data?

MR. HANLEY: Yeah, you’ve mentioned this Florida A&M data.

DR. DAVIDSON: James, give this to Pete. This should go to Pete.

DR. CHARP: What’s the question?

DR. DAVIDSON: I don’t know what the question is; we were discussing quality of data, but this is not what we were discussing. We’ve gotten so far off the subject. This should be given to Pete.

MS. ISAACS: Can I answer David’s question. Example of where there’s problems with HOD data is where, for instance, they’re duplicate records.

DR. DAVIDSON: We’ve discussed health outcome data today; I think it’s time for us to move on from that subject. This should go on to Pete’s ad hoc group, any other questions and issues regarding this.

MR. JOHNSON: She’s clarifying the quality of information as it relates to that.

DR. DAVIDSON: We are done with health outcome data for today.

MR. TIMOTHY JOSEPH: This isn’t health outcome data, no. I’d like to address the air monitoring in Scarboro. That site was selected for the community in combination with our technical air monitoring people and the residents of Scarboro. Ideally, what you want is sort of the middle of a community which it almost is, it’s not geographically the center, but it was placed there as a result of both looking at the community and where the best fit would be with the residents. Also, Scarboro is a very, very small community and there’s not a lot of ridges or anything within the community and I doubt if it was two or three blocks left or right or north or south you could possibly detect an air quality difference in that small community. So, we certainly didn’t pick that site so that it would be the least exposure.

DR. DAVIDSON: Thanks, Tim. I think we are at Barbara at this point. We’re going to have to move on. We can give that to Pete.

MS. SONNENBURG: In your summary of public comments, at the very bottom, it says the report also neglects news articles which I saw in the mid 1980's that showed three times the death rates for specific illnesses at Oak Ridge Hospital compared to the ones in Knoxville, and then I looked at your answers in the back and it refers to two studies that were done in the mid 1990's, ten years later, but it doesn’t give any conclusions; it just said there were two reports done in the mid 1990's and I guess you can go look them up some place else.

MR. HANLEY: The health assessment. The findings are summarized in the health assessment on page B7 and B9.

MS. SONNENBURG: Did you find anything about the mid 1980's?

MR. HANLEY: The mortality data, they looked in the 1980's and the 1990's.

MS. SONNENBURG: No, they didn’t, not according to what you said back here.

MR. HANLEY: It was conducted in 1994, but they looked back into the 1980's and 1990's.

MS. SONNENBURG: But you didn’t find the newspaper articles to see what they were based on? At the bottom of the first page, number eight, the second paragraph.

MR. HANLEY: No, we did not look for the newspaper article in the 1980's. No, we don’t have that newspaper article.

MS. SONNENBURG: You didn’t find it.

MR. HANLEY: No.

MS. SONNENBURG: I noticed one thing–

MR. HANLEY: What I did is I relied on what the health statistics and reviews that were conducted by the state.

MS. SONNENBURG: One thing that you said was that the statistics of something weren’t very accurate because they came from a wide area around Oak Ridge; that’s also, it should be noted that the Methodist Medical Center draws from areas that are far removed from ORR. So, I guess that you’re trying to say that anything that was in the Methodist Medical Center wouldn’t be very accurate because it draws from a wider area. That’s at the bottom of page eighteen.

MR. HANLEY: If you look at number seven, it says the report neglects, our report, our health assessment neglects to explain why the Oak Ridge population remains constant from the 1960's through 2000 time frame while the footprint of the Oak Ridge hospital zone quadrupled in size. And so, our response to that is there are many factors relating to the number of medical professionals in the community. ATSDR does not believe there’s a correlation between the number of medical professionals and the health impact on the region.

MS. SONNENBURG: Oh, I could give you a better answer.

MR. HANLEY: Also, we said that the hospital, Oak Ridge Hospital in the 1960's, which developed into the Methodist Medical Center, is drawing on an area that has grown in the rural areas and it’s just drawing people from larger areas.

MS. SONNENBURG: I wasn’t asking you about seven; I have several better answers than you have for seven.

MR. HANLEY: Well, fine.

MS. SONNENBURG: What about your response for eight when you say it should be noted that, it sounds like the statistics shouldn’t be very accurate because Oak Ridge draws, the hospital draws from a wide area. I just wanted to say too that the employees in Oak Ridge come from a wide area. One of your councilmen here, Mr. Abitello, said that of the people that have been moving in the last few years into Oak Ridge to work here the biggest bulk of them don’t live in Oak Ridge. So, you know, the fact that the hospital draws from a wide area, so do your employees and the people who work here.

MR. BROOKS: It is true that eighty percent of the people who work in Oak Ridge do not live here; they tend to live in Anderson County and Knox County most heavily, and the other counties to some extent, but the growth of the hospital is to the northwest and it involves three counties which are, I believe they’re in the first ten of the counties in Tennessee as far as Tenn. care is concerned, so there is a health care problem up there. And these numbers come from Jen McNally who is the CEO of the Methodist Medical Center.

MR. WASHINGTON: What was that number thirty, thirty-five years ago? Wasn’t that just the opposite?

MR. BROOKS: Years ago the highest percentage of people lived in Oak Ridge, yes.

MS. KAPLAN: In regards to the newspaper articles it would be really difficult for Jack to go back and do that. They didn’t go online until 1996, 1997. So, he couldn’t just go do an online search. He would have had to go back physically paper by paper and that’s really difficult. So, in defense of Jack here for that. I’d like to go back to the air monitoring issue that Mr. Washington brought up. You mentioned that the air monitoring stations were put up in 1980 and later. What were the operations level at that point? I know it started declining after that. When did the decline kick in?

MR. HANLEY: The decline was 1991, 1992.

MS. KAPLAN: So, you would have had some data at the higher operating levels.

MR. HANLEY: But that’s what we have and that’s what the ORHASP had when they modeled it over; they just used the data they had in the 1980's and the 1990's to get that conversion rate, what would have gone over, and they used that conversion rate from the 1980's and 1990's to estimate what would have been exposed in the 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The monitors were in place a long time ago; it’s just the data.

MR. HANLEY: Yes, Scarboro, Oak Ridge. I’m getting out of here. I’d like to ask, Tim, James has brought this joint center data and I haven’t been able to find a report or anything regarding this. Is there any way you can talk to the people that were in charge of that contract? Ok, thank you.

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok, we finally finished with this section and just some of the things that I can remember that we’ve discussed this afternoon primarily was EPA’s letter, you know, and their comments on the PHA; we’ve briefly reviewed the PHA process in general and the screening process; we discussed issues on risk versus dose; air monitoring data; health outcome data; changes to the public comment document that will be in the final document as opposed to the public comment release that we saw, that we have already reviewed; and right now I think those are probably some of the large general issues of things that we’ve discussed this afternoon. There may be some more but I didn’t get those written down. So, at this point we will go on to our next item on the agenda. We can try to finish up before so we can go home. As soon as I get my agenda out to find out where we are. We are with Bob Craig. Pete?

MR. MALMQUIST: Couldn’t we also vote on the work group recommendations when they be given rather than go through all the work group recommendations and then come back and ask for a vote later?

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok, we can do that. Why don’t we just go through the other work groups and do the PHA last then. Ok, we’ll start with Communication and Outreach.

MR. LEWIS: We had one meeting in which we took a look at the briefing document. The briefing document is actually a summary of the public health assessment that we’re talking about. What we were able to determine is we didn’t think it was user friendly to the lay public and there’s been some work that’s been done on that and it looks like we’re going to suggest or recommend there are going to be two documents; one that is a little less technical or plainer for the lay public to use and we’re still going to try to stick to the other one which is a summary of that effort. I’d like to compliment Melissa Fish who I think led that. As Herman talked about, we reached out to the community to try to get some feedback and we found some things that you were talking about like the wording, whether or not it made any sense, and there’s been some adjustments that are going to be made for the other document that we think will be user friendly to the public. That’s the summary of what we’ve done and that will be presented at a later date.

DR. DAVIDSON: Any questions? Barbara, the agenda.

MS. SONNENBURG: We just had one meeting to work on the agenda and you saw the results of it. That’s it.

DR. DAVIDSON: You did a good job. Guidelines and Procedures.

MS. GALLOWAY: We had no meetings and have no recommendations. Thank you.

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok, thank you. Health Education.

MR. LEWIS: Health education? You mean COWG. Oh, needs assessment, you changed the name. We had a meeting with–

DR. DAVIDSON: Health Education Needs Assessment.

MR. LEWIS: Correct. I’m a little slow this afternoon. I didn’t sleep at Motel 6, but anyway. The issue is that we had a meeting in which we had a discussion about where are we on the needs assessment. What we’ve done is we’ve looked at the issues, we put together a plan to try to go back and look for the weaknesses that were in the needs assessment and we felt like that, although the needs assessment was not acceptable, we felt that some of the components of the needs assessment would be useful to help us guide our efforts as it relates to communicating with the public. So, we talked about looking at holding a few focus groups along with things that Herman talked about when we talked about birth defects. We said we may want to make a recommendation about three key focus groups. We looked at utilizing some of the data from the various literature searches that we had to help us identify what some of the older public concerns are and that’s really centering around with Peggy; I want to make a special emphasis because of what happened last time that we really are suggesting that to go and get the relevant newspaper articles that you can pull down and pull out those issues and concerns, I think most of those will be focused on the Nashville Tennessean. And I want to make a public apology; I was not laughing last time in the concept about what you were saying because I respect, you know, all concerns that people have. We were going to look at the key informants, but the bottom line is we do have a rough plan laid out and we’re waiting on DHEP to come back and tell us where they stand on that, but we are making some progress.

DR. DAVIDSON: Any questions? Bob.

MR. CRAIG: I think in your package you’ve been handed out the report of the Public Health Assessment Work Group. This is just meant to be a summary. If you need more detail there are very good meeting minutes that you can get from Melissa at the ATSDR office. We met twice since our last meeting and you can see that we did discuss a lot of what has taken up time here today. We felt that we needed to resolve the differences between EPA Headquarters and EPA Region IV comments and you will see that there will be a recommendation on that down below. At the first meeting we also discussed the need for PHAWG and ORRHES to go on record as concurring with the ATSDR PHA on uranium releases from Y-12, including ATSDR’s extensive response to comments, and especially the conclusions of no apparent health hazard from past exposures, and there are a couple of recommendations down below. At the second meeting the primary discussion in the beginning before Karl’s presentation was did we really need to make a recommendation to ORRHES regarding EPA resolving their comments, the difference between Headquarters and Region IV. Since action had been taken by ATSDR and we were aware of it, Kowetha was writing a letter, and we knew it could have no effect on this meeting, we decided that we would bring the recommendation to ORRHES and allow the subcommittee itself to make that decision on that recommendation.

DR. DAVIDSON: Did we have a copy of this?

MR. CRAIG: I presume everybody got it and I thought it was in your packet handed out. Sorry, I was reading fast through it since it is almost 1:45. So, that’s kind of a summary of what went on in our committee meetings and it did result then in three recommendations. And if everybody has them, I’ll read the recommendations and then submit them as motions, and if we decide to go ahead with those, ORRHES can then consider them and I think we’ve had considerable discussions during today’s proceedings. Recommendation number one, ORRHES requests that ATSDR request that EPA come back, they come back, with a definitive set of comments reconciling the original set of comments from EPA Radiation and Indoor to ATSDR and EPA Region IV on the Y-12 Uranium document prior to today; that was the recommendation of our group and that is a motion. The question was do we really need this now. So, if the Chair goes along with me, it fails for lack of a second. Ok, this was something we decided and the committee did want me to present it in our hearings here but we think it’s now; Al, do you have any more comment on that one?

MR. BROOKS: No.

MR. CRAIG: Good. Recommendation number two, resolved that PHAWG request ORRHES to concur in the ATSDR responses to the public and agency comments and request ATSDR include these responses in the final PHA document.

MS. KAPLAN: I just asked what exactly that means to concur in these comments.

MR. CRAIG: Well, the way I understood it, and this is the exact language that came out, I hope you were at that meeting, that we, as a subcommittee, concur that ATSDR has responded to the agency and public comments that were made on the draft and that their comments are sufficient.

MS. KAPLAN; But it’s not saying we necessarily agree with everything they say; it’s just saying we agree they have addressed them sufficiently.

MR. CRAIG: That was my understanding of what the feeling of the working group was. So, we’re essentially saying that ATSDR has responded to the comments, each and every one of them, and we concur in their responses on the final PHA document.

MR. MALMQUIST: I’ll second the motion.

DR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Pete. We may have to reword this just a little bit because this will have to be ORRHES concurs with and remove the part about PHAWG.

MR. CRAIG: Right.

DR. DAVIDSON: Because it’s a recommendation now coming from ORRHES.

MR. CRAIG: Right, ORRHES concurs with the responses, ATSDR responses to the public.

DR. DAVIDSON: And so it will read: ORRHES concurs with ATSDR’s responses to the public and the agency comments and requests ATSDR include these responses in the final PHA document.

MR. CRAIG: Correct.

DR. DAVIDSON: That’s the way it reads now.

MS. KAPLAN: That still implies to me that we all buy into every single comment.

DR. DAVIDSON: No, I think we are saying that we agree that the, I mean if you want to change it to read that they’ve adequately addressed the comments.

MS. KAPLAN: I think that should be the wording rather than we concur.

MR. CRAIG: Is that an amendment or would you like–

DR. DAVIDSON: ORRHES agrees that ATSDR has adequately addressed the comments and that they should be put in the public health assessment document. It’s just kind of a different wording but an explanation of the recommendation.

MR. CRAIG: As the motion, if that’s ok with me and if it’s ok with Robert’s Rules and with the seconder..

DR. DAVIDSON: Is it ok with the person who second the motion?

MR. MALMQUIST: Yes.

DR. DAVIDSON: So, the motion reads that ORRHES agrees that ATSDR has adequately addressed responses to the public and agency comments and requests ATSDR include these responses in the final PHA document.

MR. MALINAUSKAS: I was questioning the word agrees, agrees with who? That would be ORRHES recognizes that ATSDR has responded satisfactorily to the comments as opposed to we agree.

DR. DAVIDSON: That’s fine. That’s ok. ORRHES recognizes that ATSDR has adequately addressed the comments blah, blah, blah, blah, blah til the end. I won’t go back and read it over.

MR. CRAIG: That’s ok with the motioner and the seconder, I presume.

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok, everybody ready to vote? Those in favor raise your plaques please. Fifteen. Those opposed? So, there are fifteen for; we’ve got no one against and no one abstaining. You may continue, Bob.

MR. HILL: We had one that didn’t vote. That’s not abstaining?

DR. DAVIDSON: Well, in the subcommittees I’ve been on, you know, because people will abstain because of conflict of interest and they will get it, or for personal reasons.

MR. HILL: I think we had one that abstained.

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok, we may continue.

MR. CRAIG: Recommendation number three, PHAWG requests ORRHES to concur in the ATSDR findings of “no apparent public health hazard” for the ORR Y-12 uranium releases and that this finding be conveyed to the ORR public in an appropriate manner. That’s in the form of a motion.

DR. DAVIDSON: Do we have a second?

MR. MALMQUIST: I’ll second.

DR. DAVIDSON: Thanks, Pete.

MR. CRAIG: Now, let’s wordsmith it.

DR. DAVIDSON: I don’t know who raised their plaques first. We’ll just start from that end and go around.

MS. KAPLAN: I think this motion is inappropriate.

DR. DAVIDSON: Why?

MS. KAPLAN: I just think that we are not here to agree with what they say; we are here to make recommendations and they do with it what they wish, but I just think we are not here to go rubber stamping this because probably not everyone on this committee buys into this.

MR. CRAIG: That’s fine; don’t vote for it. I think exactly our role is to say that we’ve been here all along and we concur in what they say and what their findings are; we’ve reviewed the data. That’s my opinion and that’s why I’ve made the resolution.

MS. KAPLAN: However, we had EPA who did have some disagreements with the past but they won’t step forward now.

MR. CRAIG: No, and I think Jack has adequately to my technical level said that there is no effect in my opinion. I don’t get to call; the Chairman gets to call.

MR. MALINAUSKAS: Oh, I’m just doing a little word smithing and say ORRHES concurs with the ATSDR findings of no apparent public health hazard and encourages ATSDR to convey this finding to the ORR public, etcetera, etcetera.

MR. CRAIG: That’s ok with the motioner.

DR. DAVIDSON: I think what Tony has read is that ORRHES concurs with ATSDR’s finding of no apparent public health hazard for the ORR Y-12 uranium releases and encourages ATSDR to convey the finding to the Oak Ridge public in an appropriate manner.

MR. MALINAUSKAS: That’s correct.

DR. DAVIDSON: Herman.

DR. CEMBER: I would like to get back to weasel-wording and I would like it to say have found no threat to the health of the public, or something like that, rather than apparent public health hazard.

MR. CRAIG: As the resolver, I recognize ATSDR’s need to use the official language so I would suggest that we then put a comma after that meaning that there is no threat to the public or something. Ok?

DR. CEMBER: It’s ok with me, but are we required to use that official language?

MR. CRAIG: In the document but not here, but see, we’re kind of quoting what they say in the document.

DR. CEMBER: Yes, but the public doesn’t know what apparent health hazards are.

MR. LEWIS: That’s true, but I agree with the concept of threat. That category is what I mean.

DR. CEMBER: Well, if this language must be used I would like to add parenthetically.

MR. CRAIG: Or just say thus there is no effect on human health, no threat to human health, thus there is no threat to human health. I thought what we got was comma, that’s after the quote, thus there is no threat to public health.

DR. DAVIDSON: I will read what I have with the word smithing. What I have is that ORRHES concurs with ATSDR’s finding of no apparent public health hazard, comma thus there is no threat to public health, comma for the ORR Y-12 uranium releases and encourages ATSDR to convey this finding to the public in an appropriate manner.

DR. CEMBER: Before we go on I have a question. We have this letter that says the EPA agrees that there’s no threat to the health of the public; however, they disagree with something or other in there. Will that letter appear in the public domain with the EPA disagreeing with something?

DR. DAVIDSON: No, it’s already in the public; it was passed out to the subcommittee. That puts it in the public domain. It’s already in the public domain.

DR. CEMBER: Can we do anything about having the EPA change its wording so that they might say something like; we’ve arrived at the conclusion, both of us arrived at a conclusion that there’s no threat to the public health; however, we arrived at it by different paths.

DR. DAVIDSON: We can’t require that they do that, but–

DR. CEMBER: Have we asked them to do that?

DR. DAVIDSON: When we have the conference call with them and I hope it’s when I’m not out of town that will be one thing that I could ask them to do.

DR. CEMBER: And I’m just trying to avoid or prevent the use of the word we disagree, which is in that letter.

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok, I’m not sure; I think Jeff was next.

MR. HILL: I have a concern with concurs just as we did in whichever section it was earlier, one or two. Is there another word other than concur; understand, even agree to me is saying we’re in full agreement with everything they’ve said. And with the EPA putting a shadow on it, I guess I’m looking for a weasel-word other than concur, that we understand what they’re saying; we want that information out to the public.

DR. DAVIDSON: Concur is more weasel than agree.

MR. HILL: Yeah, that’s why I wasn’t saying agree. I was saying we understand or acknowledge, because that gives me a little bit more comfort with some of the debates that have gone on today. And maybe I’m the only one; that’s why we’re a committee.

DR. DAVIDSON: I guess the thing is is that are the subcommittee members comfortable with the conclusion themselves. Forget about what EPA has said, because EPA may not ever come back. I can tell you right now, they may never come back and give resolution to this. And so there may never be resolution on it. So, do we want to be held hostage to an agency that may not bring closure. Lewis?

MR. LEWIS: Well, I have a more basic question. How do we vote on something we haven’t reviewed or read. Do we accept a word? How do you vote on something you physically have not read or reviewed?

MR. CRAIG: Excuse me, we have been through the document for a year. We just saw the conclusion on the viewgraph machine.

MR. LEWIS: The modified version I have not–

MR. CRAIG: We are concurring with the findings.

DR. DAVIDSON: The conclusion.

MR. CRAIG: The conclusions that were on the screen after a year of detailed evaluation and analysis and comment on the development of this document.

MR. HILL: I would say, I would be comfortable with acknowledge, but I’m not comfortable with concur and that’s fine.

MR. CRAIG: The resolution, the motion that was put forward contains the word concur.

DR. DAVIDSON: We can vote on it as it is and then we’ll go from there. And I will read it again so that everyone understands what it says. ORRHES concurs with ATSDR’s finding of no apparent public health hazard, comma thus there is no threat to public health, comma by the ORR Y-12 uranium releases and encourages ATSDR to convey this finding to the public in an appropriate manner. All those in favor, please raise your plaques. Seven. All those opposed? Nine. So, the motion did not pass. There was seven for and nine against.

MS. SONNENBURG: Madam Chair?

DR. DAVIDSON: Yes?

MS. SONNENBURG: Excuse me, but an important vote like this needs a two-thirds vote, does it not?

DR. DAVIDSON: It didn’t pass; it didn’t get a majority.

MS. SONNENBURG: I know, but I’m just asking would it need a two-thirds vote?

DR. DAVIDSON: Yes.

MS. SONNENBURG: Ok, thank you.

DR. DAVIDSON: Jeff?

MR. HILL: I’d like to make a motion that we accept it, take the word concur out and replace it with acknowledge.

DR. DAVIDSON: Was there a second for that motion?

MR. CRAIG: I’ll second that motion.

DR. DAVIDSON: So, what I have with the changed wording, and let me know if this is correct, ORRHES acknowledges ATSDR’s finding of no apparent public health hazard, comma thus there is no threat to public health, comma for the ORR Y-12 uranium releases and encourages ATSDR to convey this finding to the public in an appropriate manner. I have a question. When the public asks you what does it mean to acknowledge, what are you going to say?

MR. HILL: We are aware of it. We have read it; we understand it.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: We recognize that they have made some findings.

DR. DAVIDSON: That’s not really saying anything. That doesn’t really say anything; it doesn’t mean that you’ve read it.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It does say thus there is no threat to public health.

DR. DAVIDSON: Jerry?

MR. PEREIRA: I just can’t sit down any longer about this. I’m really confused and I want you guys to help me. We sat down, most of us here, for over a year or more talking about Y-12 uranium, talking about the work that’s been done. EPA writes one letter without any substance and we’re waffling. Now, I don’t care how you vote. I really don’t care how you vote, but we sat down with Henry Falk the day before Thanksgiving to go over this stuff and we have his backing to go forward with this health assessment. And I’m shocked to see what I’m seeing here. If you’re telling me that all you can do is acknowledge I’ve read it, I’ve seen it; if that’s your comfort level with this, then we’ve not done our job here. The agency has not done its job and/or EPA, the eight hundred pound gorilla, is flexing its muscles far more than it deserves to, in my personal opinion. I’m not talking for the agency now. I’m sitting here baffled at what I’m seeing, personally; I’m not talking for the agency now. I don’t know what more ATSDR can do relative to this document and the work that was put in it. Now, if you don’t want to acknowledge it, accept it, concur with it, that’s fine, but I want to know what is it that you want ATSDR and the COWG and the NAWG to tell the community. If we can’t get your backing on this we’re done; there’s nothing more we’re going to do. So, I mean, think about it, talk about it some more, and I’ll be more than glad to, you know, answer any questions that I have about this, but I’m confused by what’s been going on for the years that we’ve been talking about this and the work that’s been put in it at the PHAWG and at this session.

DR. DAVIDSON: George?

MR. GARTSEFF: To put Jerry’s mind at ease, I voted against the resolution because I didn’t like the language of it.

MR. PEREIRA: Ok, that’s fine.

MR. GARTSEFF: And I’m a little puzzled by all the attention on concur. I concur with it, personally. I have trouble with adding the phrase thus there are no effects. We’re so worried about agreeing with it on the front end of the statement and then we add this clarifying phrase that blesses the technical conclusion in scientific language. So, which is it? Do we either agree with it or not? I think concurs is a safe word; I think we don’t need to clarify the categorical description of no apparent health effects. And perhaps, if we just identified it as a category for the conclusion that might satisfy it.

DR. DAVIDSON: Barbara? I have something to say after we get –

MS. SONNENBURG: Well, I just wanted to say that I wasn’t ready to approve it yet for two reasons and I’m thinking of making a motion to table it rather than defeat it.

DR. DAVIDSON: The thing about it if we don’t come to a conclusion today on this it would not be here for us in February.

MS. SONNENBURG: Well, it could be brought back.

DR. DAVIDSON: To take any action.

MS. SONNENBURG: It could be brought back.

DR. DAVIDSON: No, the document will be out before then.

MS. SONNENBURG: Well, I was concerned about what Herman said earlier about EPA. I really listened; you sort of retracted from the position, but what you said–

DR. CEMBER: I didn’t retract, I–

MS. SONNENBURG: A couple hours–

DR. CEMBER: I do not wish to see disagreement between two government agencies.

MS. SONNENBURG; Well, you also said it would really be hurtful in this community and they’d probably listen to EPA more than us.

DR. CEMBER: No, I didn’t say that. I didn’t say that. But from other experience in other places that when two government officials disagree about anything whatever they say people don’t believe either one of them.

MS. SONNENBURG; Well, I think that’s very important and I think we need another month to work on EPA. And I also would appreciate having another month to get these cancer statistics which we should have at our next meeting because they might–

DR. DAVIDSON: But that’s not part of this document.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: They may not be here; they may not be here until April.

MS. SONNENBURG: Well, maybe. She indicated maybe.

DR. DAVIDSON: James? And then I have something to say.

MR. LEWIS: My point was real simple and it is that as an exposure evaluation you probably have done a pretty good job. I would like for at least Falk to understand that. My gripe has been is whether or not it is complete. Does it have the other components in it? And they may be minor in the eyes of some, but I think it is crucial for the public’s benefit that that may be added, but I think a lot of good work has been done. I think it is the missing component that bothers me in voting for it. And it may, like I said, it may not be worth a whole lot.

DR. DAVIDSON: I’m going to let Susan speak and then I have something.

MS. KAPLAN: Although I do think it’s inappropriate to put us in this position to have to give a yes or no on this, because basically we’ve become a PR mechanism for the agency, but also asking us to do this before we’ve read the final document, I think, at minimum we should wait until February until we’ve had a chance to look at what you’ve done with it. The other thing is people are never going to totally agree with what you’ve done, because you have a mandate to write a report without going and doing the sampling that is truly needed to answer the questions. No, you haven’t gone and tested downwind of Y-12, basically, to see if your hypothesis is correct that that’s where it went. No, you haven’t gone and done sampling in the other communities around, and that is because that’s what the government has told you to do as its arm of doing this. So, it’s not your fault, but is the report adequate, in my opinion? No, it isn’t. There are a lot of holes. Have you done a good job given the constraints? Yes.

MR. PEREIRA: If you’re holding out for EPA to have concurrence at the national level with this issue that – brought up, I just heard from Al Brooks; it ain’t going to happen, folks. I would be shocked if it happens.

DR. DAVIDSON: So would I.

MR. PEREIRA: They have their system and their approach and we have ours, and never the twance on me, we use the terms of today; it’s not going to happen.

DR. DAVIDSON: What I was going to say is that I think it would be best not to have anything, for the subcommittee to be silent than to put out recommendation that acknowledges that you have read the document; that’s worse. I know, but I’m just making this, the subcommittee can vote the way that they, this is another motion that’s on the floor. The first one was voted down, but when the public asks the subcommittee about this and the best we can come up with is that we have read the document; that does not speak well for the year of work that we have put into it. Peggy?

MS. ADKINS: I’d like to go a little further than saying that we’ve read the document and add the words thus far or to date or something like that in this to show that with the findings thus far, you know, we agree with the findings thus far, but it isn’t complete.

DR. DAVIDSON: I’m going to get Bob and then to Don.

MR. CRAIG: Just to respond to James and Susan. This is not a vote on the document or that we’ve read the final document, we agree with the final document; we’ve been involved in a process for well over a year; we’ve heard the way they’ve evaluated the data; we’ve seen the data; we’ve heard their arguments; we know how they develop their criteria; we saw their screening; all we’re doing is now that we’ve gone through all of this very, very painstakingly in many, many PHAWG meetings and here that we agree with their final conclusion, that there is no apparent public health hazard. And EPA agrees with that as well. All we’re doing, we’re not agreeing with the document necessarily, we’re agreeing with the final conclusion, and that’s all that’s being put forward here, that the final conclusion, and we’ve been there arm in arm, shoulder to shoulder, all the way through this for a year. And I think Jerry is right, if we say no now, let’s disband this.

DR. DAVIDSON: I want to hear Don, because Don doesn’t speak up much and I will always like to hear what he has to say.

MR. BOX: I think one of the most profound statements that have been made here tonight, in my opinion, is that if we can work into the document the statement that even though we’ve arrived at the conclusion by different methods, we do agree on the final conclusion that there are no health effects. I think if we can work this in, if ATSDR could work this in it would knock down a lot of this bad news that we’ve been getting from it.

DR. DAVIDSON: That’s what it is.

MR. BOX: I think maybe if we worked this into recommendation number three it might help too.

DR. DAVIDSON: We can see how we could do that. Let me hear from Al.

MR. BROOKS: As the actions stand right now, you have passed a motion, essentially it was a vote of no confidence in the report. In other words, you had a motion to accept or whatever word and you turned it down. If that’s the final action, that’s what goes on the record. If you wish not to leave it in such a prejudicial fashion the proper thing to do is to make a motion to reconsider that motion and then table it. Otherwise, you are leaving in the official public record that you didn’t have sufficient confidence in ATSDR to accept their work. So, I beg of you, don’t leave it where it is; put it in limbo and where it cannot come back to bite you.

MS. SONNENBURG: I had indicated earlier I would like to make that motion.

MR. BROOKS: Jon Roberts is twirling in his grave.

MS. SONNENBURG: Madam Chairman?

DR. DAVIDSON: Yes?

MS. SONNENBURG: As a member who voted with the majority I have the right to ask to reconsider the vote and I move to reconsider the vote for the purpose of either tabling it or further amending it. And I hope my fellow members won’t just reconsider and push it through; that’s just a comment, but I’ll make the motion to reconsider our vote and bring it back to the table.

DR. DAVIDSON: A motion?

MR. WASHINGTON: I’ll second that motion.

MR. BROOKS: We’ve got another motion on the floor.

MS. SONNENBURG: What was the previous motion?

MR. BROOKS: The previous motion was we acknowledge.

MS. SONNENBURG: Oh, that was, you said no we couldn’t. I don’t know what happened to that.

MS. KAPLAN: It’s still on the floor.

DR. DAVIDSON: That motion is still on the floor. Jeff?

MR. HILL: I was trying to feel the hand in my back. In the world I live in when EPA and another agency disagree and the other agency has contacts with DOE and it’s pushed through and there’s still a gray area, the news media can have a field day with you. I don’t want to see us get in that position, but I will ask to withdraw my motion.

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok.

MS. SONNENBURG: May I make one further comment?

DR. DAVIDSON: Yes.

MS. SONNENBURG: I think it might work if we say that ORRHES concurs with ATSDR’s and EPA’s findings, because both of them had the findings of no apparent public health hazard, didn’t they?

DR. DAVIDSON: Well, EPA doesn’t have any official capacity to actually–

MS. SONNENBURG: But if we put that in there it wipes out all this business about, well, alright; it was just a comment.

DR. DAVIDSON: Pete.

MR. MALMQUIST: Do we have a motion to reconsider?

DR. DAVIDSON: Yes.

MR. MALMQUIST: Either vote on that or let it die; that’s the first thing we have to do.

DR. DAVIDSON: I will take a voice vote. All those who are in favor of reconsidering the vote please say aye. Opposed? The motion is back on the floor. Pete?

MR. MALMQUIST: I have a comment, not about the motion, I have a comment, kind of agree with Jerry. We’ve sat here for a year, we’ve attended PHAWG meetings, we’ve done all this. We have seven more things to go through and we have one year, plus a cancer incident report. We have eight things to consider in roughly four meetings. At this rate, we’re going to get one done. Now, we either vote on it and go on or go home, but we cannot fight over every word in every report for the next seven things. We’re never going to finish this thing. And we’ve been told a year from now we have to be done and get the conclusion done. Either agree with it or go home. I’ve attended a lot of meetings; I don’t agree with everything in there, but I think that there’s enough evidence in there to concur or agree with what ATSDR has said about this report. There is no apparent health hazard from Y-12 uranium releases. That’s all. It doesn’t say anything about anyplace else, K-25, any other releases, or any other contaminant. But we have to come to some conclusion and end them. We can come back in February and talk about the same thing.

DR. DAVIDSON: Yes, we do have to come to a final conclusion. You’re right, we have to come to a final conclusion and move on, because we can’t have this continuing to hang over our head.

MS. SONNENBURG: We could table it. I’ll make the motion to–

DR. DAVIDSON: We are tabling it for what purpose?

MS. SONNENBURG: Because some people are not ready to vote on it at this time.

DR. DAVIDSON: Well, it won’t do any good to vote on it at the next meeting; the document will be out.

DR. CEMBER: The fact is do we agree or not agree that there’s no health hazard.

MR. CRAIG: That’s right.

DR. DAVIDSON: What evidence do we have that there is a health hazard?

MS. ADKINS: Discussion time?

DR. DAVIDSON: Yes.

MR. ADKINS: Alright, I buy everything according to what’s been done so far, but I don’t think everything, every channel hasn’t been evaluated, and I don’t know if it ever will. I would be very willing to support this if we had the words thus far or if we had the words to date or given the research that’s available. So, ok, then I move–

DR. DAVIDSON: We can amend the motion.

MS. SONNENBURG: Well, she was about to.

MS. ADKINS: Do you want to say something then I’ll amend it?

MS. KAPLAN: I think EPA made the comment this is a report that’s about Scarboro. I would agree to the statement limiting the report to Scarboro, but to say it didn’t find the uranium. Where did it go? It had to go somewhere. So, yeah, I’ll say that about Scarboro. This report is about that community; it didn’t find the uranium.

MR. BROOKS: It fell out in the Y-12 plant. MR. CRAIG: What uranium are you talking about? DR. DAVIDSON: I think we’ve had a discussion on that as well. Is that uranium, you know, it does not travel very far.

MS. SONNENBURG: Could we hear Peggy’s motion to amend?

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok.

MS. ADKINS: I move that the resolution say ORRHES concurs with the ATSDR findings to date, or findings of no apparent public health hazard, comma to date, for the etcetera.

DR. DAVIDSON: So, the amendment is to add to date after findings. So, what I would like to do is just for us to go ahead and take a vote on that.

MS. SONNENBURG: I’ll second it to make it official.

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok, those who are in favor of adding–

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could you say that again please?

MS. ADKINS: ORRHES concurs with the ATSDR findings to date, comma of no apparent public health hazard for the etcetera, finish it the way it was.

DR. DAVIDSON: And what we’re voting on is to add the words to date. Those who are in favor of doing that please just say aye; we won’t take a plaques vote on this. Opposed? Oh, we need the plaques. Raise your plaques for–

MR. CRAIG: We went to a vote immediately, couldn’t we have a little discussion?

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok.

MR. CRAIG: The point is this is a final report. We’re not coming back to this issue again. The whole point to having ATSDR here is to evaluate all the data they go through to make a public health assessment and then to tell the public very clearly and straightforwardly whether there is or there isn’t a public health threat. We need to move on; we need to find is there a threat out there. We’re wasting all of our time on milking mice and trying to find it on something where there is no impact at all. Let’s go find the one where there could be an impact. Is it at White Oak? Is it one of our other contaminants of concern? Let’s move on; we’re done with this and we’re not coming back to it. Don’t leave the impression in anybody’s mind that we are; we’re not; it’s over. ATSDR has come and it’s going to go and we’re done.

DR. DAVIDSON: Ok, those who are in favor of, oh, George, I’m sorry.

MR. GARTSEFF: The language from the EPA letter says: in accordance with the milestones of the Federal facility agreement the Department of Energy will complete a preliminary assessment/site investigation of offsite areas pending completion of the ATSDR PHA’s. Any necessary follow on activities will be addressed during this assessment. Reading that that implies to me we don’t have to mention anything about to date ,that the report is complete as it stands and there is a process in place to capture missing information.

DR. DAVIDSON: Those who are in favor of adding ‘to date’ raise your plaques. This is a simple majority vote. Five. Those who are opposed? Ok, five, eleven. Ok, so we won’t add ‘to date’; so, the motion goes back as before. Don, you want to speak? Oh, you’re plaques is up. I think we’ve heard, you know, quite a bit of discussion on this issue. One, the public health assessment to go out will be a final document. It will not be redone. There can be additional follow-up actions, you know, at a later time, but this is it. For this we offer this document.

MR. JERRY PEREIRA: One more point and I know everyone wants to go home. This is not the first time that ATSDR and EPA has not necessarily reached a consensus on approach or even decision-making processes. Depending on what the agency and COWG and NAWG and PHAWG do, along with Jack’s assistance and Paul’s assistance, to put this on the street, the document is going to stand on its own, notwithstanding EPA’s vague comments. With or without that letter the document is going to stand on its own and it depends on how we put that on the street, how we convince people that the document is meaningful to them in a manner that they understand. That’s the key; that’s the approach, and I want to apologize for being upset before but I kept on saying we didn’t do our job here because we didn’t convince you guys, at least not sufficiently enough, but that’s what the point is. I just wanted to make the point about the EPA part and our part. This stands alone. We don’t need EPA to be on our shoulder with this.

DR. DAVIDSON: I think one thing that James, I just want to mention that when we did our evaluation of this document when we got the red cover version we did not disagree with the final conclusions of that document. It only became recent.

MR. LEWIS: I guess I am very adamant. First of all, there’s a lot of good work that’s been done here and I tell you that my argument has to do with the failure to you laying out the process. I think it is a sound document; I think we’ve done a lot of good work here. I think that the problem is, and I’m going to say it in words that I understand, and apologize, we’ve gotten into a bastardized approach to this effort. We broke this thing up into mini PHA’s. We came in and what we’ve done is decided that we’re going to do this health outcome data separately. We’ve gotten ourselves in a quagmire tied to somebody getting out a bean. My point is this is a sound document. I believe in this document, but what I’m having a problem with and I know that that is very small over there, but I do think we need to try to work through this. I hate to trash something that so much good work has been put into. Now, that is my personal opinion and there should be some way we could work through this.

DR. DAVIDSON: Well, James, you are talking about the health outcome thing but I think we have already discussed that before and I think, you know, that has been turned over to Pete.

MR. LEWIS: The EPA is not that much to me because I think there’s always going to be something. I’m just sharing my opinion. There’s going to be some disagreement. I think we can come up with a way on this table to get this through and I would like to see us get it through with some kind of caveat and I would make one other statement. If you open the document and you read through it, under the concerns, we have a comment there that we’re going to address that as a part of something else. So, what Peggy is saying is if something else trips you’re going to go back to it. Somewhere in here is a way to work through this issue because you’ve got it captured in that document and I am not against the document. I want you to understand that. Do you hear what I’m trying to say? The words are in there but you’ve taken a system that you never explained to us, you’ve brought it before us, we asked you about the components, we’re looking at the components. Let’s try to work through this and, Bob, I’ll turn it back to you.

DR. DAVIDSON: I should also mention that we’re not voting on the document; we’re only voting on the conclusion, not the document. We’re voting, because our motion is the conclusions from the document, not the document, and I’d like to clarify that to the subcommittee members. You’re voting on the conclusion. Lynda, do you have something?

MS. LYNDA LEWIS: Yes, something very brief actually. I am convinced, I have kind of watched the process from afar. I was more involved at the beginning than I am at this point and I have spoken with Melissa and Bill and I’ve tried to maybe kind of coming in on the end get back in touch with what’s going on, but I will say that I think that credibility is going to be an issue because there is so much dissension and whether you agree or disagree, and I think I’ve said once before, you can have conflict without hostility and sometimes it appears that there is so much of that that even though you have very dedicated members of the subcommittee what appears is somewhat chaotic. There is a statement; if you don’t have the time to do it right, when will you find the time to do it over. If you want to keep credibility or at least increase it, because there is a problem with credibility, then I believe that it’s going to be necessary to look at how you will publicize, how you will disseminate the information in this report. And if everyone agrees that the conclusions are sound, I think that there needs to be something that would deal with how you are going to convince other people that the process has been sound as well. And if they think it’s been something that is forced, if they think it’s something that people are grudgingly going along with, then you’ve wasted the time that you’ve spent. So, I would simply say to whatever extent you can spend your energies, once you get past this approval of the final conclusions of the document, your time would probably be well spent to look at how you are going to handle dissemination of this. The two things people remember are primacy and recency, the first and the last. If this is the first thing that they’re going to get to see as a product of what your efforts have been, then I would just suggest, in whatever ways you can, work to have a smoother dissemination of information and try to look at as many different ways as you can to reach as many different audiences as you can so that the rest of your work that you have a year to complete will go more smoothly. I was given an opportunity to fill out the questionnaire that went with the brochure and I had to put in some areas that I was not convinced, it’s not that I had evidence to the contrary, but there was some ways in which I was not convinced because there were things I believed you could say with certainty, which you did, about recent incidences. There were things that I thought were said with such certainty when the only thing you could do would be speculate and when you have those two things, it calls into question the accuracy of the latter if you feel that there has been in some ways playing a bit loosely with the earlier information. So, that’s all I have to say. I am in and out of town; I would like to follow more closely what is going on. I do commend the members of the subcommittee because I am convinced of the dedication and conscientiousness. I have not met anyone involved in this process that I feel is not well motivated, but I will say I think that the credibility that you and the ATSDR enjoy probably needs some bolstering.

DR. DAVIDSON: Thank you, Lynda. I think the large portion of our credibility will have to come from us and what we do after this document goes public, because we can either support our own credibility or we can blast our own credibility. We have one more person here.

MR. CHARP: Bob Craig mentioned that the document is going final and it won’t be revisited. That’s not necessarily true. ATSDR has always considered its health assessments to be quote living documents and in many cases we’ve had to go back after a health assessment has gone final and re-open the document because new information has come to light and that’s the same case is going to happen here at Oak Ridge. So, just because the Y-12 document is going blue cover, or what we would call final, it’s not final. More data could come in on Scarboro, maybe somebody would dig a pit in Scarboro and all of a sudden hit uranium metal, you know. So, the documents aren’t final; they’re just called final. They’re always open for reinterpretation and re-evaluation of new data. I wish I could tell you how many times I’ve had to go back and look at stuff and one site comes to mind that I first got involved with in 1988 and I’m still occasionally having to look at it. So, the documents aren’t final; they’re just called final. They always can be reopened and re-evaluated in light of new information.

DR. DAVIDSON: I wanted to get our vote before Susan leaves. Are you getting ready to leave? Why don’t we go on and take our vote. You can say what you have to say while she’s going to her seat.

MR. MALINAUSKAS: I was just going to say that maybe one way out of the impass is to modify the wording just slightly that ORRHES concurs with the present ATSDR findings of no apparent health hazard. But we concur with your present findings.

DR. DAVIDSON: Is that an amendment?

MR. MALINAUSKAS: I’ll make that an amendment, yes.

DR. DAVIDSON: Second?

MR. WASHINGTON: I’ll second.

DR. DAVIDSON: All in favor say aye.

MS. KAPLAN: And again we never really put to bed the EPA issue of the past and that was what was floating around is that headquarters disagreed with the word past.

DR. DAVIDSON: No, not the past; they disagree with the assessment for the past exposure, but the way they did it was they just didn’t agree with the conclusion.

MS. KAPLAN: Of the current, wasn’t it?

DR. DAVIDSON; No, they were having problems with our methodology for the past exposure. Ok, so, why don’t we go ahead and take our vote on this. Oh, for the word ‘present’. All iN favor say aye. Opposed? How many no’s did I hear. Four no’s. Ok, the ayes have it. So, it reads ‘with the present findings.’ ORRHES concurs with ATSDR’s present finding of no apparent. So, all those in favor of the motion. We’re going to go ahead because everybody is ready to go home. Please raise your plaques. This motion is ORRHES concurs with ATSDR’s present finding of no apparent health hazard for the ORR Y-12 blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, all the way out to the end. Thirteen. Opposed? Three oppose. Ok, what’s our percentage. Oh, that was fourteen for. Did I miss one. Two-thirds are here when we have quorum. Ok, so, the vote passed. So, we are finished with that. I would like to thank everybody for working through this. We just have a couple more things to do and we will be, yes. That concludes the PHAWG report. We just have a couple more things here. Jerry’s update; and then Lorine will give us some information regarding committee membership.

MR. JERRY PEREIRA: I am handing out a before and after, the light blue background is the original time line, and I’ll just review where we’re behind. Mercury was due December 3rd; this is the one that Bill is doing. Because of approach and how he is working with the PHAWG and other folks, that’s going to probably be in third quarter 04, the Mercury public health assessment. White Oak Creek slipped one quarter to the second quarter of 04; and to clarify the point about the iodine, if you remember the original was the approach and data search that Paul talked about last time. We hope to have on the project plan for the next meeting an actual time line for PHA for iodine. We’re going to determine that; Sandy is going to get with the FFAB staff folks and actually have a time line for the next ORRHES meeting for iodine. Everything else should still be on track. So, mercury is behind, White Oak Creek is behind a quarter. That’s primarily because of review issues, all the goings on with Y-12, and the review issues back in Atlanta. As far as I know, Sandy, White Oak Creek is up at Henry’s office, right? Dr. Falk’s office? Ok, so, but it’s still, we’re still going to be slightly late with White Oak. I said more than I wanted to say before.

MR. LEWIS: Based upon what Paul said. Do you concur with what he said? You’re the manager and I’d like to see that that’s in the record verbatim.

MS. ISAACS: What Paul said about opening?

MR. LEWIS: About the final, about his definition of final.

MS. ISAACS: If new data are made available that would indicate that we need to go back and re-evaluate our conclusion category we leave that open. As a matter of fact, I started to come up to Peggy on her recommendation that we often say based on currently available data and I think that might have gotten it. But if data were to be discovered in the box or something that says hey we need to look at this, we come back. This issue came up earlier, if new studies indicate that perhaps levels that were considered safe are no longer considered safe, we go back and look at that. Are we going to do a full blown health assessment just because any new data comes up in Scarboro, we’re going to look if it’s relevant and it might impact our health call, otherwise, we won’t do a new health assessment. But I can give you an example of lead, lead at 50 micrograms at one time was considered safe; we did health assessments. New studies became available that indicated that really 10 was the level that needed to be, below ten, the values needed below ten, and we have a database that we capture the sites we’ve looked at. We immediately went back and go we need to re-evaluate to see if there’s blood levels between ten and fifty to determine if we needed to make any, put out a new document that would indicate that. So, we leave it open in that fashion, but not just any new data means we start our process over.

MS. SPENCER: Ok, I think one of the last things on the agenda is about the nominations package that everyone has received. We talked a little bit about this in October and told you would receive a nomination packet in the mail and everyone sould have received theirs. There is also some information about being nominated for the subcommittee. Everyone who is interested and remaining or coming back to the subcommittee needs to go ahead and fill out the nominations packet. If we don’t get a nominations packet from you then we cannot consider you as a member for the subcommittee. The deadline for submitting your nominations package is February 3rd, so it’s behind tab 6 and you also received it in your mailing when it came to you. So, everyone should have got it in the mailing and you also have one here behind tab 6. We do have extras here so if you know of anyone that you think would have expertise or would add to the subcommittee we encourage you to take a nominations packet with you. As we stated in October, they are really cracking down on renominating or having the same members on the subcommittee over and over again. So, we’re going to submit everyone who is interested. We will submit your names. We have no control over who is selected and who is not. That will go all the way up to Washington, so they have really cracked down. We just had another FACA at Savannah River that they turned down everybody. So, we don’t know what’s going to happen. We’re going to make a very strong case because we really don’t want to start over with new folks with so much work that’s been done and hopefully having most of it done with just a few PHA’s left to finish in the year 2005. So, we’re really going to make a strong case and I know that Dr. Falk has been very supportive of the subcommittee here in Oak Ridge so we’re hoping we can get that done, but we can’t guarantee that for anyone. Does anyone have any questions about that?

DR. CEMBER: Will we be getting more papers than what’s in here?

MS. SPENCER: No, this is it. Basically, Marilyn, do you want to tell them exactly what they need to submit?

MS. MARILYN HORTON: In the nominations packet there are five questions to answer and that’s it. It’s in the package. It’s behind tab 6. There are five questions. Send a resume that has your name and address and current information on there.

MS. SPENCER: Under nomination procedures it has, in addition to the resume; please answer these questions concerning your nominee. What would be the person’s participation add to the subcommittee, etcetera. So, those are the questions you need to answer, the nomination procedures, and then behind that is a page that says nominee attributes. So, it’s important that you read that and respond to that in some way, and it has a contact information if you have any questions about anything as well. Everybody see that?

DR. CEMBER: If we nominate ourselves do we write it in first person or third person?

MS. HORTON: Either way you think might make your application stronger; it doesn’t matter to us. Again, we do have extra nomination packets so if you do know of someone that you think adds expertise or would be very helpful to the committee and to the community we encourage you to do that.

DR. DAVIDSON: Unfinished business? Anything we need to discuss? New business? The next meeting is February 3rd.

MS. SPENCER: And I will also send in the post mailing a list of dates for the upcoming meetings for 2004, so I’ll send it out by e-mail and also in the mailing packet because I know we have at least one member that doesn’t have an e-mail address. So, if you can go ahead and put those on your calendar knowing that they’re not set in stone and things may change based on PHA’s but those are going to be the projected dates for our meetings in 2004.

DR. DAVIDSON: And I would also like for the work group chairs to use the format for submitting their reports to ORRHES just to give the subcommittee a general idea of what occurred in your meeting, and I think those were sent by e-mail attachments to each one of the work group chairs. Ok, if there is no further business for the subcommittee, I declare the meeting adjourned.

(Meeting was adjourned at 6:25 p.m.)

CERTIFICATE

I, JOAN S. ROBERTS, NOTARY PUBLIC AT LARGE FOR THE STATE OF TENNESSEE AND COURT REPORTER DO HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE FOREGOING 178 PAGES ARE A TRUE AND CORRECT TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY ME ON THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2003.

THIS THE 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2003

_______________________________________
JOAN S. ROBERTS, COURT REPORTER.

<<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. #