Letter to Rogers, Subject: the Termination of the Mancuso Contract (Draft)

Page 1

This is il: resp oc seto your l e ' utero f 1.q- 4,1978, octhe findir.gs rii22e tythe Subconi,ittee on Realth an6 the Environeent with regard tothe * temin ation of the contract wit-i the University of Pittsburgh, t o rerredy pro b lens identified by the Subcotamittee during the hearing. Before providing the answers t o your questions,I wokld like t o coixeLt on facts m covered by the Subcom:.ittee and correct a number of misrepresentations of facts and errors in the material cibed i n support of these fa facts: Your letter states that the testirscny o f Dr. James L. LivLrman and other DOE staff ' isnot suppogrted by the infornAtiori that was provided. tothe Subcccrnittee. This position i s 1argErly based on perceived. inconsistencies in their Lter preta tion o f documer.ts cited. The matter of the un fort mate use ofthe phrase states that ari ir,terr,al meEorandurr, places this defense of the 8h.ncuso terD,ination/5 i n doubt. Reference i s nlade to praise for Dr. lfancuso for not"prenature1y publisbfng earlier positive findings of increased cancer mong Hmford workers". The referred to4 h0 f reads He has also rei'raified. fror;, arawir;g re nature conclusions I 1when early re3i;lta have indic zte d that soux effects nay be prs a ent. He has also properly acc q ted those results es leads for further

Page 2

public stic Ecf cLata o r even 'to the rr.ntt.er o f whether the rm&w+al we+k.&&-kr increased cancer or changes ir, longevity.Publications second probler. has been there lp uc tz n ce by the investigators to publish. Ee Gas not, as yet,published any papers in edited jourr--als." As a Eat ter of fact, tiie ssud;; has yetto be peviewed for public z tion in are ler reed.journal, wi urilortur.ate fact that I does r-ot deserve prs is e. IC the sae context, your state Kent on DCZ's rec i rd on disserrLnating the results of DOE funded research is unsupported and even if tr fue ca&bwse&4wsR:port-T)f conti nu lag .Q.f-substan d md research programs. The fact of the rcatter is that specifically in the area of the effects of low level radiation on man, DCE su>i.orted research is v t$arxnsn results constitute per hags the a ost iuiportant dxckxhc body of data vital :-'t4e w J ,~,6~~Ak,j considerations of the XIJSCUR, KCIIP, ICRT, BEIR and othGrs. Your Letter reflects a,&m are nark able inability to perceive the seriousness of the coii.ri,ents offered by tke L,eer reviewers. It i s *rue' that one ofthe revkiewers stated tha5 " their consensus was the t the study ought t o reuiainwnder I:Iancuso's direction " . The fact of th cLatter is that the cover letter by one ofthe reviewers states clearly that "Evidently,our several reports will sirr.ply have t o be taken as a series of individual Evie xs " + & cor.tinues "It occurs tome that it night be useful to you t o have the review group ri,eet together once ciore t o attec,pt t o identify a comon position " . Despite tce statement b,r one reviewer i t 1s ir.coi;.ect and E is lead i Lg to in ply that there h'as a consensusa Further su!.iJoprt for tnis car. be oStninecl by Aa-her axa lysis of

Page 3

are s0L.e aspects of the study as conducted to data which are di stub igg and which ri,ajr well be the cause for considering an alternate contractor.',' one recoraend conti Eu ation without as dressing the issue of contractor assor&recomr.ends transfer of the contract to a different investigator. four out five commented by xhxkusing the following phrases,; paucity of results,failed to produce and "?he Lost a i parent weakness of the study at this date is the failure although nota consensus, provided unequivocal guidarxe with regard to the scientific n ; erit,the zdequacy and the productivity of the study. u *.-rataxre, Zhese coLcer,ts by his peers identify subst a it ive deficiencies in the study conducted by Dr. bkncuso. and do not support the view ;hat they " actually recornended continuation 'of the 1;~ancusos tudy at Pittsburgh " as stated in your roi it in ely comezits fror.. seer reviewers to ir,Y vest i gators. If available, Buch a request was never Kade by Dr. b!ancuso. l-fa

Page 4

- Additional findings by the Subcomittee concern the adequacy . of 'the management o f the health and mortality study and the legality of transferring i t from the University of Pittsburgh to another contractor. Again, the Subcommittee's position i s based on several errors and misrepresentation of fact and cannot be supported by the documentation that was made avai lab1 eto your subcomi ttee. In your letter you state that "DOE now i s having PNL conduct the analysis of health effects among Hanford workers." Among the documentation i n your possession a n d one which was the subject of extensive discussions during the hearings, is a letter dated October 11, 1977, t o Dr. P.A,Fuqua, Medical Director of the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation. It states "the health and mortality studies of the Hanford workers isto be continued a tHE HF as an independent study closely coordinated w i t h the health and mortality studies conducted a8 by OWU." I t was brought outin the hearings that the HE HF is an X ~ depdm PNL's role i n the health and mortality study isto lend support to HEHF with their computational facilities and statistical expertise 27,The i I)+. Sidney Marks i s not responsible for the supervision of the HEHF effort,butis involved as a co-investigator o f the study. The exg~!xkXx expansion of the health and mortality study a tHE HF to include the resp on - sibi lit y and analyses of the data was not achieved by transfer of K0KkKaKhaK cnntracts but by change o f scope of the KH F program that

Page 5

‘ - The allegations made by the Subcommittee t h a t ”termination of the original contractor arose from Dr. Mancuso arrived at findings imidcal t o DOE and PNL intereste?” documentation that was made available t o the Subcommittee. again cannot be supported by the as 1972, Tr the time of the contract renewal w i t h the University of P i ttsburgh,concerns relating to the adequacy of the research effort by Dr. Mancuso were raised and documented. At that tirn%%bility of replacing Dr. Mancuso as principal investigator was ser,iously That position was based not only on the opinions provided by peer reviewers but also on evaluations by DOE staff.this position is also cms is tent With opinions o f his peers that were provided on two occasions after the Internal decision t o termirr;te the contract was

Page 6

The subject of the hearings o f your Subcommittee as defined by you -was the health effects resulting from low level radiation. In the course of the hearing i t became apparent that in perception of the/commi ttee ''there were serious questions with regard t o the validity of current guidelines f o r occupational exposures. This concern was based on recent " f i n d i n g s " by Dr. Mancuso and coworkers alleging low level radiation t o be more effective than previously estimated. Dr. J . Liverman i n his testimony brought t o the attention of the Subcommitte that findings i n the Hanford study were not i n consonance with current knowlde- Several witnesses testified the fact and extensive&&mc documentation was provided t o the Subcommittee that the findings by Dr. Mancuso mi clearly the result of inept application o f inappropriate statistical methodology. Again this position i s supported by scientific evidence which i s the sole basis on which important issues of this nature can be evaluated. findings presented by Dr. Mancuso and coworkers the Subcommittee has publicly raised serious concerns i n the public conception on the adequacy By failing to recognize the dubious quality of the of occupational radiation guide1 ines without a sound basis.