North Marshall Islands Advisory Group Meeting on June 21, 1979

Page 1

NORTH MARSHALL ISLANDS ADVISORY GROUP MEETING Hilton Airport Inn San Francisco, California Purpose of Meeting: Review and discuss with LLL scientists their draft report and future efforts on the post cleanup dose assessment of the Enewetak Atoll. These notes typed July 6, 1979.

Page 2

Bai r: LLL people will arrive about 9:30 am. Before they arrive Machholz will bring us up to date on developments and we should make a list of issues to discuss with LLL people. Wachholz: New Marshall Islands Government Political situation in the North Marshall Islands is becoming more confusing. Negotiations are underway new Marshall Islands government. On May 16 there was a meeting between between U.S. government and members of the new government, Ruth Clusen, other DOE people, Admiral Monroe (and staff), Tony DeBrun and others. The new government wants outside groups to review the whole situation. They are concerned about radiological contamination of the islands. Confusion exists regarding results from the 13 Atoll Survey. They are questioning why only 13 atolls were sui-veyed. They feel that unless we can prove an island is not above background then the U.S. should be required to give medical care, etc., indefinitely. on one of to know (a) what’s the current situation, (b) what is the assessment and (c) what were survey has been conducted by the North Marshall islands. the government wants to know However, the validity of the survey is people exposed to in 1954 from the Marshall Islands government Various illness symptoms were if they are radiation related. in doubt. DOE will probably do other mdical surveys in the islands. The attorney for the Bikini people has replied to Clusen’s May 15, 1979 letter to the Departmnt of Interior regarding the possible return of the Bikini people to Eneu. He asked why the U.S. governmnt once said Biki~i was “safe” but now we say differently. He has a lot of questions regarding how doses wouid be changed by e.g., removing various amounts of soil (many other questions). There was a meeting

Page 3

last week in Washington, DC, with Bikini people. They will get - their own advisors (perhaps from Japan) to review the radiological Ted Mitchell (Counselor to the Enewetak, Rongelap, and Utirik people) Ted asked Wachholz for the present draft of the LLL post cleanup dose assessmnt. He or his consultants also wanted to attend this meeting of the Advisory Group. Wachholz did not give him the present draft because it is in too rough a form and quite incomplete. Ted felt it would he~p avoid a lack of confidence if he got the present LLL draft. DOE is discussing the possibility of providing a later, more complete LLL report to Ted, the same one that will be distributed to other government agencies. On June 13 a cable from Ted Mitchell to Clusen was received. He wants a dose assessment conference during late July or August to discuss e full report on radiological status of Enewetak Atoll, l latest dose assessments, risk evaluations, l possible resettlement schemes, l master plan for development, l discussion of dose assessment methods. A second cable from Mitchell was received June 20. a Sept. 18-25 meeting to discuss the feasibility of on Enjebi island. He wants the LLL dose assessment to be availableto anyone who would like to see it. A return cable from DOE to Mitchell will be sent explaining that DOE can’t meet with them during September 18-25 due to prior corrunitments. Charter for Advisory Group There is no charter at the present time. Chet Richmond called Wachholz several times this month urging a charter be developed. Wachholz admits he just hasn’t got to that job due to other

Page 4

0 DOE legal council advised that contracts between DOE and the labs should point out that DOE has requested this assistance (from the Advisory Group) and that assistance is being provided. The scope of this Advisory Group’s activities is the important point. What are our responsibilities? This should be documented. Our impact and role should be documented for the historical record. Different forms of charter are possible: l We don’t need a “formal charter” that would put us under the Advisory Act. o A “formal charter” is neither necessary or desirable. o Wachholz should put together a letter for Ruth Clusen “ which is outlined the reasons for the groups existence the key people are, their responsibilities, etc. Suggests that Wachholz discuss this matter with Clusen while on the way to Enewetak this weekend. We can avoid the Advisory Act if members are acting as individuals. It was not the intent of DOE to set up an advisory group that Would be under the Advisory Act. How limiting and precise should the Wants a general charter; one that’s not restricted to a specific area of concern. Feels this Advisory Group overstepped its bounds when we “set” the 40, B(), 160 pCi/g limits for the cleanup of Enewetak. Discussion of LLL Draft Post Cleanup Dose Assessment (beforeLLL scientists arrived) McClellan: Draft is not well written. It must reach many different audiences. Wachholz: DOE is committed to getting a LLL dose assessment document to DOI

Page 5

General Identifying topics for discussion with LLL during rest of the day. Thompson: The document should stop at dose assessment, i.e., it should not make comparisons with guidelines. Francis: Will there be a document that indicates what the cleanup actually accomplished in terms of reducing radionuclide levels? Gilbert: Expressed his general concern about inadequate discussion of statistical aspects in the draft report. LLL Scientists Arrive: Robison, Mount, Phillips, and Clegg Robison handed out the following: Historical and Cultural Background of the People of Enewetak written by Bob Kiest (U. of Hawaii). Revised pages 8 and 9 of the LLL post cleanup dose assessment. Memos dated May 15 and 23, 1979 from Michael Pritchard to Robison and Mitchell regarding the Ujelang diet survey. Two summary tables of diet survey information. Revised Appendix A to dose assessmnt report (external doses). Robison gives a review and update Diet: A 12 oz. coke can was used to indicate foc~ intake - “how many cans worth of a given food do you eat?” How frequently would you eat that much in week? This information was extrapolated to a month and year basis. Approximately 150 people (=25% were interviewed. The diet results for adult males were summarized first (this went into the first draft). Next they summarized the kid diets, then the females. It turns out - that adult females eat more than adult males (according to the diet survey). Hence, the female diet rather than the male diet is limiting. Based on casual observation by LLL scientists, it is reasonable to believe that Enewetak females eat more than males (they are fatter and get less exercise). The gram intakes estimated from the diet survey

Page 6

This terminology is used by the Enewetak people. Imported foods are now considered the normal way of life. They would import foods using cash if the Department of Interior didn’t provide it. Robison read from an unpublished paper and thesis by Lawrence Carruchi that substantiates the use of the word “famine.” Robison indicated that it is not true that the diet of the hlarshallese will revert to “famine” conditions when the U.S. leaves. The people’s normal diet changed in the 1930’s. Jack Tobin did a diet survey several years ago. His results indicated slightly greater intake of food than the present diet survey. His study was not as extensive as the present survey. Janakiram (Jan) Naidu (Brookhaven) has recent diet data that was given to Wachholz June 19. Jan went into people’s homes, took food home and measured quantities. He also took pictures of people eating meals. Was increased intake of coconuts during extreme hot weather taken into account in the diet survey? Have you data for radionuclide concentrations in coconut fluid versus that in coconut mat? Not at the present ti~, but this information will be available Have you attempted to put error limits un the average diet intakes? Not yet! We are still summarizing the data. We are looking at the data in different ways. We are going to get each individuals total

Page 7

diet intake (all foods combined) so we can get a distribution (histogram) of intakes by individuals. Should look at this distribution for different population groups. Are the diet results biased? The results of the different diet studies (Jan’s versus the present diet survey) don’t vary a great deal. Are we spending too much time worrying about the diet? The Advisory Group should review the diet data handed out today. What are the potassium levels in samples? We are looking at the data. The calcium concentrations in native foods has been measured. It’s about 0.8 g/day on Enewetak. It’s Planting Coconut Trees Robison: Doesn’t feel it makes any difference whether coconut trees are planted on the northern islands. If a person lives on Enjebi then he will plant and eat coconuts from Enjebi If coconuts are planted on other northern islands, the concentration in those coconuts will be less than those on Enjebi. To the extent these coconuts are eaten the average radionuclide intake would decline. If people live on the southern islands, they won’t go all the way to the northern islands to get those coconuts. Robison: We are using 3~as an indication of the maximum probable dose to’an There are three major places of uncertainty in dose calculations: diet, radionuclide concentrations in food, and uncertainties in

Page 8

estimates of parameters in the dose nmdels. It’s possible some of the data are lognormally distributed. They are checking that out. General discussion by all about using the 3~ approach. Is there reasonto believe the metabolism of cesium is different for We are using a 15% reduction in body and organ weights (compared with Reference Man) to make dose estimates. This appears to be about correct from available data if you exclude the two fattest men. ICRP recommended parameter values should not be used if data applicable to the Enewetak people indicate other estimates are preferable. Can easily change the computer code to get new dose estimates if estimated parameters change (e.g., concerning short and lo”ng term retention of cesium in the body). DOE must have a revised LLL dose assess~nt by July 15 to send to DOI so they can make a decision whether or not coconuts should be planted on the northern islands of the Enewetak Atoll. making a “limiting” run where a child is born after the period when planted coconuts will start producing, then him for 70 years. Could also look at the fetal dose. The marine pathway is included in the present draft document but not Cistern water pathway is not ncluded, but it will contribute very little

Page 9

Noshkin (Health Physics, 1974) reported ground (well) water exceeded People use surface water. The Bikini people have raised the question of well water. We will include well water in dose calculations. DOE does not want another Bikini situation, i.e., returning people to the islands, then pulling them out. Future measurements may be taken under situations where the model is inappropriate and a dose exceeding guidelines (on a short term basis) may result. Then DOE will be in hot water again. Should the dose assessment paper discuss such scenarios? Questions will be asked as to what changes (in diet, living patterns, etc.) can be made that would change dose estimates. Get much lower doses if coconuts are not consumed. General discussion of coconut intake. \ Francis: - Is Cobalt-60 a problem? There is quite a bit of CO-60 in soil, but the uptake of CO-60 is very low. Some CO-60 was reported in rats in Robison: CO-60 contribution to dose is very

Page 10

What additional data will be available for making dose assessments? We don’t intend to use the 50 meter grid soil data. We think the 100 meter grid data presently being used is adequate. On Enjebi we intend to look at the soil data by Watos (parcels of land). The NW quadrant has the highest concentrations of the four quadrants on Enjebi and it is owned by one individual. We will also be looking at well water concentrations in an area denuded of vegetation. Two major points J. What is the purpose of the dose report? How will it be used? IS it a reference mark for future monitoring? Is it a document that really assembled all of the data? Should dose estimates be compared with guidelines? What should the flavor Presumably the results reflect “our best other procedural estimation options that detailed should the appendices be? What will it take to get it done? of the document be? do we want and how long 2. We must have a clear established position on what should be done with all the data, output, and details. We need an institutional memory so that all this information can be dug up. DOE! But, DOE can delegate that responsibility to a laboratory. Should estimate~ doses be compared with guidelines in the LLL report? This report is not a DOE position paper.

Page 11

Healy: Disagrees! This LLL report will be looked upon as a DOE position Wachholz could write a letter to LLL outlining what guidelines LLL should use in their dose assessment if such a comparison is wanted in that paper.

Page 12

The July 15 deadline is too early to get a “final” dose assessment. Will the document needed by July 15 be identified as a preliminary document to be followed by updated versions? The July 15 document is not a final version. LLL has given no written response to DOE outlining what would be done by July 15. This paper is evolling over time. For example, resuspension material was inadvertently left out of the present version. The minimum things this July 15 report can address should be identified. The expectations of the Enewetak people makes the July 15 data We should be realistic as to when an adequate assessment can be prepared and tell it like it is. Wachholz: At the December 1978 Enewetak Atoll meeting Joe Deal gave a commitment that DOE would have a dose assessment by May 1979. The date now proposed is September 1979. The cost of planting coconuts goes up about 1 million dollars after August 1, 1979. Perhaps the Enewetak people could plant the coconuts to reduce cost. DOI data won’t be available for months. Discussion of Risk Richmond: Some agency has to do a risk assessment, an assessment that goes beyond the current LLL dose assessment effort. An assessment of non-radiological risks should also be included. He doesn’t see

Page 13

Wachholz: Ted Mitchell’s people will be in on the evaluation of the next LLL dose assessnmt draft. Bair: We should make a list of the immediate and long term issues we need to discuss this afternoon. Robison: Offers to give a summary of the present data status: Status of Present Data The data base is essentially in. This consists of EG&G 50 meter grid IMP data for Enjebi and all northern …