Handout at a Public Multi-Federal Health Agency Meeting

April 27, 1999

TO RESIDENTS OF EAST TENNESSEE, THE STATE OF TENNESSEE, AND TO RESPONSIBLE

AGENCIES:

We are transmitting two documents, which we have recently received pursuant

to the Freedom of Information Act. Both documents were disclosed in answer

to our request for all documents reflecting minutes, notes, and/or agenda

items written by the federal agency attendees at a meeting held in Atlanta,

GA, on February 2 and 3, 1999. The meeting was held to discuss agency

responses to health concerns in Oak Ridge.

The first document [Attachment 1] reflects notes created by EPA Region IV

attendees. The second document [Attachment 2] reflects notes created during

or after the meeting by unnamed writers within ATSDR. It is composed of

"bulletized" points. These notes appear to be contemporaneous and are

detailed enough for the reader to discern somewhat the context and

development of agency dialogue on various topics.

Although we requested similar documentation from all attending agencies

(DOE HQ, DOE ORO, NCEH, NIOSH, EPA, ATSDR, State of Tennessee, NIEHS,

HRSA), we have not received any responsive documents, nor, indeed, any

response at all, from any other attending agency excepting EPA and ATSDR.

To understand the importance of the discussions at the February 2-3 agency

meeting, it is helpful to understand our context:

* Over the past ten years, the affected communities in Oak Ridge have been

asking the various federal and state agencies to develop clinical

health-related studies in collaboration with the affected communities. This

will address our health concerns pertaining to the environmental and work

exposures related to activities of the federal facilities.

* We want the agencies to develop cooperative communication with each

other and with the affected communities to develop proactive strategies for

solutions.

We present recent examples of poorly done inconclusive studies with sterile

outcomes and without benefits to the populations being studied: NIOSH's

Health Hazard Evaluation on cyanide at the K-25 site, NIOSH's funding of

the affects of downsizing on employee health and organizational

productivity; DOE's refusal to adequately address requests for clinical

health evaluations for all Molten Salt Reactor Experiment occupants and

fraudulent claims that these have been offered to all relevant employees

when, in fact, they have not; DOE ORO's aerial gamma monitoring, DOE ORO's

soil sampling in Scarboro; ATSDR's volunteer fish-eaters_ serum blood

levels of PCB and mercury and the health hazard evaluation for mercury

increases related to East Fork Poplar Creek, CDC Scarboro childhood asthma

study; CDC/ State of Tennessee Pilot Study on mercury in Scarboro

residents; State of Tennessee's Governor's Blue Ribbon Panel on the TSCA

Incinerator; the lack of response on the part of the State of Tennessee and

CDC regarding the childhood leukemia increases, Oak Ridge Health Advisory

Steering Panel _s analysis of past releases, lack of follow-up to

recommendations from Drs. Bowen, Frumpkin, and Pepper, and the limited

ALS/MS study.

* On October 30-31, 1997, the CDC/DOE convened a meeting in Oak Ridge to

discuss public health issues with the community. There was a large turnout

(150+), with attendance by residents, workers, worker-residents, and

retiree-residents, union and management, as well as seven state and federal

agency representatives. The meeting was held over the course of two days

and one evening. Professional facilitation was afforded, as well as

professional recording and transcription. Good discussion led to a

distillation of points for the agencies. It has come to be known, in agency

circles, as the "Halloween" meeting. We would like to think this is because

the agencies felt "treated" to helpful input.

* The needs raised by the affected community at the "Halloween meeting"

included the following:

- clinical research which is community/worker-led, care-driven, and

directly beneficial to the study population, up to and including an

environmental health clinic in the affected community;

- commitment from agencies to a collaborative, participatory, partnership

model, where the study subjects are empowered and respected for what they

can contribute, from start to finish;

- inclusion of workers and residents in the planning stages of the research;

- studies designed to provide conclusions; i.e., studies need to address

etiology of diseases without regard to potential legal liability;

- convening of the appropriate medical specialists chosen by the community

for dialogue and planning with the affected community partners;

- respectful attention to whistleblowers_ messages;

- information for our understanding and education regarding studies being

developed at other sites, from Hanford to the Marshall Islands, from Japan

to Brookhaven, both in terms of communication/decision-making models,

scientific approach, and community concerns.

* A divergent community view was expressed concerning how Oak Ridge was

being given a "black eye" by all the health effects questions being raised

at meetings, in newspapers, in the state legislature and governor's office.

There was worry expressed that "outsiders" would naively conclude that Oak

Ridgers "glowed in the dark," and the city's economic base could not

develop further.

* At the end of the meeting, the community was told that DOE and the other

agencies intended to hold similar meetings at various other DOE

communities. Dr. Seligman said he had heard our concerns, and promised to

come back to Oak Ridge within four months to respond to our recommendations

and identify DOE's potential solutions. The agencies have never come back

for a responsive meeting with our community and have never responded to the

input given to them in October 1997. The draft meeting report was grossly

inaccurate and did not reflect all parties' statements.

* All through the course of 1998, we heard, after the fact, about "agency

only" meetings and conference calls to discuss how and when our community

concerns should be answered. In the fall, after asking for information

about these meetings and receiving inadequate responses, we requested notes

of the calls pursuant to FOIA. (DOE HQ responded with fairly cryptic notes.)

* When we asked various officials why the agencies were not coming back to

Oak Ridge, we received couched responses, which we understood as "DOE does

not want to take the lead on this." We were never given further direct

information.

* Meanwhile, throughout 1998, more and more studies were being initiated

in Oak Ridge by ATSDR, CDC, and DOE ORO, with overall confusion as to how

the studies fit or did not fit together. In all cases, we renewed our call

for coordination, clarity, and community-led discussions. We also requested

a full accounting (time-line) of all health-related studies that have been

done by all agencies with full explanations of those studies.

* In December, 1998, DOE Secretary Richardson and Assistant Secretary

Michaels came to Oak Ridge to speak with groups representing the affected

individuals, as well as with those who thought the only health-related

problem in Oak Ridge was that too many people were discussing the topic.

Assurances were given by Dr. Michaels that some actions would be taken to

resolve the policy impasse and deal with the immediate health and financial

crises.

* In January 1999, we discovered that there was to be a multi-agency

meeting in Atlanta to discuss Oak Ridge health follow-up. Our repeated

requests to attend-- either as participants or observers-- were repeatedly

turned down by DOE and HHS. We were finally told that we were being refused

by advice of legal counsel, because it would set a "bad precedent."

* On February 1, the day before the meeting, members of CHE, SCEJC, CBH,

AEHSP, and ORHL had a conference call with Dr. Seligman, who offered to

send us all written notes, agendas, and minutes of the meeting. He said

that he would make sure we had a list of attendees so we could ask for

others' notes as well.

* We informally requested, then FOIA'd the meeting notes, getting responses

from two agencies only (EPA and ATSDR).

After reading the FOIA'd notes, we make the following general observations:

* the meeting created the appearance of impropriety by excluding those

most affected from a lively discussion of how to handle the situation in

Oak Ridge;

* the meeting was a "pre-emptive strike" against community-driven solutions;

* many of the attendees at the meeting exhibited a clear hostility toward

the activist groups, the community-at-large, and the notion that health

problems could possibly be attributed to almost 60 years of DOE activity;

* the meeting was driven by "political science" rather than by "medical

science;"

* the meeting is evidence of a waste/misuse of public funds;

* some of those at the meeting sought to ignore previous community

feedback by creating an apparent fresh start;

* the invitation to the meeting was denied to community representatives in

violation of the spirit of openness and transparency in the all-important

planning process, especially in the context of the sensitive topic of a

DOE-affected community's health concerns;

* the meeting may have been illegal.

The affected communities in Oak Ridge are asking the various federal and

state agencies to develop clinical health-related studies in collaboration

with the affected communities that benefits the participants.

We want the agencies to develop cooperative communication with each other

and with the affected communities itself to develop proactive strategies

for solutions.

American Environmental Health Studies Project (AEHSP)

Coalition for a Healthy Environment (CHE)

Citizens for Better Health (CBH)

Oak Ridge Health Liaison (ORHL)

Scarboro Community Oak Ridge Empowerment (SCORE)

Cc: The White House

Governor Don Sundquist

Senator Fred Thompson

Senator Bill Frist

Secretary Bill Richardson

Secretary Donna Shalala

Congressman John Duncan

Representative Zach Wamp

Senator Randy McNally

Representative Gene Caldwell