The Scarboro Community of Oak Ridge, Tennessee has long had concerns about the possibility of airborne contamination from the neighboring Y-12 production facility and its disposal areas. Recently, a rash of respiratory problems in juveniles has at last attracted the attention of the authorities and the Center for Disease Control has undertaken a study of the problems. At the same time, the Department of Energy is starting a public review of its monitoring efforts and what more should be done to ensure the radiation levels in the Scarboro Community are as low as previously found and that the Scarboro Community can be assured that Y-12 is or is not the source of the problem. This paper tries to place these events in perspective.

The Location of the Scarboro Community (Updated March 2000)
The Air Monitoring and Aerial Survey Programs
Summary of Scarboro Aerial Surveys 1986 - 1992
The Air Dispersion Model Results
The Scarboro Monitoring Site
Conclusions from Survey and Monitoring Programs
Conflicting Community Concerns
Resolution of Scarboro's Concerns
Addendum - 1/8/97 - A CDC Survey Planned
The Scarboro Meeting of September 16, 1998
The Next Steps
The Scarboro Meeting of September 22, 1998 Soil Sampling - Updated 3/00
TDEC DOE-O Environmental Monitoring Report - 1997
The ORHASP Connection - Dose Estimation In the Real World
Scarboro Citizens Respond - Required reading for those who would understand.
CDC/TDH Report on the Children - Meeting of 1/7/99
What's Next (Updated March 2000)
The Scarboro Community Assessment - Household Survey Added March 2000
What Does "It's Contaminated" Mean? Added March 2000
EPA Soil Sampling in the Scarboro Community Added March 2000

The question of "why any residential community was located 'just over the hill' about 1/2 mile from a nuclear production facility that discharges emissions through monitored stacks" is frequently asked. Further, it is asked, Why a black community? The answers, not necessarily completely satisfactory, lie in the history of Oak Ridge and its changing mission. The wartime mission of Y-12 was the separation of uranium isotopes by the electromagnetic method. This method, combined with the shortage of uranium, did not produce large quantities of uranium dust as did the later Y-12 weapons activities. During the war, the area now occupied by Scarboro was then occupied by the "white hutments". There were "black hutments" located in or near what is now Woodlawn. Both hutment areas were at best primitive, temporary housing not fit for post war use.

At the time the hutments were replaced, it was not evident that the Y-12 mission would come to present an image of health risk, if not an actual health risk. Therefore, it seemed reasonable to locate some housing at the white hutment site, using the existing infrastructure. At that time, the army and AEC had a community development policy that was less than noble: it would not force social change on the community. Of course, this was euphemistic for "integration". The then acceptable solution was to raze the white hutments, build a segregated black community at that location and then replace the empty black hutments with the Woodland development. Unfortunately, this established for Oak Ridge a severely segregated community and to this day contributes to the community problems. As unfortunate and regrettable as these decisions were in the bigger social scene, there is no evidence that anyone anticipated an airborne pollution concern for this area.

Update (March 2000)

Since the above was written, a 1945 map of Oak Ridge has been located. The area referred to above as the "white hutment" area is identified as the "Gamble Valley Trailer Camp". The "white hutment" area was to the northeast near the intersection of the Turnpike and old Scarboro Road. The trailer camp was white and "trailers" were considered one or two levels above "hutments". The author apologizes for the error.

The following is excerpted from the January issue of The OREJConnection:

Why Scarboro is in Gamble Valley.

By Kathleen Stephens

Nelson and Kathleen Stephens moved to Oak Ridge in the Fall of 1955 and, as all Negroes did, settled in the Gamble Valley area. That was the only area set aside for Negroes to live in at that time.

We became very much interested in the community. Why did people decide to come to Oak Ridge in the first place'? What kind of life style did they have prior to coining here'? Why did Negroes live in this area where there was only one way in and one way out'? The answer came during our conversations with Melvin and Margaret Phillips, Eleanor Redmond and others. Those persons responsible for making it possible for Negroes to have permanent housing in Oak Ridge had as their first choice, the East Village area. They consulted with Rev. C. C. Fuller, pastor of Mt. Zion Baptist Church, Rev. Alonzo Sims, pastor of Oak Valley, Baptist church, Mr. Bob Sanders and Mr. Watson whom they considered to be leaders in the Negro Community. This group in voicing their opin-ion preferred that the permanent housing be placed in Gamble Valley and so it was.

At the request of the residents in the 1960's the name was changed from Gamble Valley to Scarboro.

Editors Note: The history of black housing in Oak Ridge as described in City Behind A Fence. by Johnson, C. W. and Jackson, C. O., 1999 is consistent with the above account. The reference is quite critical of the Army, as the wartime history of black housing is one of promises made and promises broken. Not until the current housing was built did blacks have decent living quarters. Even then segregation was a dominant characteristic of the decision

The Air Monitoring and Aerial Survey Programs

As the Y-12 as well as the X-10 and K-25 programs developed and as the scientific community became more aware of the nuclear health hazards, DOE (then AEC) adopted comparable monitoring and survey programs to ensure that airborne emissions were kept at a negligible health level. This was particularly important at Y-12 due to its proximity to the community. These measurements are also necessary on the ORR proper for purposes of land management.

As instrumentation improved, it became possible to obtain both aerial survey data and point monitoring data. As computer models improved, it became possible to estimate the human exposure from the stack monitoring data and the wind pattern data. As time went by these methods have been thoroughly tested and standardized by the Environmental Protection Agency. The DOE methods conform to these standards. The data is available as public reports. As is typical of EPA methods, the results tend to be conservative, that is, they predict more exposure than is usually measured.

The Aerial Surveys have been of two types:1) Broad area surveys flown at 300 feet and 2) Focused surveys flown at 150 feet. Both surveys are capable of detecting significant soil contamination but not buried sources, self-shielding sources, or small, weak spot contamination. The analysis of the gamma spectra obtained allows for the estimation of the radioactive isotopes that must have been man-made, i.e., the background has been identified and removed. The survey does reveal spots that result from the underlying geology, namely, the exposed Chattanooga shale known to contain uranium. It also detected the fly ash pits at Bull Run power plant. Examination of the mapped data from the April 1992 focused survey includes about half of Scarboro. This survey was intended to examine the contaminated Lower East Fork Poplar Creek and only parts of residential Oak Ridge were involved. The Country Club Estates, another close residential area to the Y-12 site, also were not included.

The Terrestrial Gamma Exposure Rate for Scarboro (8-13 microroentgen/hour) is within the range of typical background (5 to 20). There is no distinctive difference between Scarboro and other comparable parts of Oak Ridge included in this survey. There is some suggestion that the highest (but still within background range) areas follow Lower East Fork Poplar Creek but there are numerous exceptions.

The Man-Made Gross Gamma Count Rate for Scarboro as well as all of Oak Ridge was at the lowest level, <1000 counts / second.

1992 Survey Conclusions

Examination of the Aerial Survey Data shows no significant levels of radiation that cannot be accounted for by natural sources or known ORR operations. Further, there is no downwind footprint that would be expected if Y-12 were the source of significant airborne pollution for the Scarboro Community.

Summary of Scarboro Aerial Surveys 1986 - 1992

The following is from the "Summary of Radiological Data - Scarboro Community in the City of Oak Ridge, TN - ORF 50907" by D. Carden & Jim Donnelly, October 1996
 

Year	Type	Scarboro	Total Gamma Level	Background
1959	BROAD	Yes	700-1000 counts/sec (a)	200-1200
1973	Broad	Yes	4 - 6 (b)	9.3
1974	Focused	No
1980	Broad	Yes	11.8 - 20	9.3
1986	ORNL	No
1989	Broad	Yes	8 - 14	9.3
1992	Focused	Partial	8 - 13	9.3

(a) The equipment used in 1986 did not allow for conversion to microroentgen/hour. Regional background ranged from 200 - 1200 counts per second.

(b) The subsequent data is in microroentgen/hour and should be compared to the EPA background of 9.3 for several cities.

From this data, the Scarboro radiation levels have been typical for those of the region.

These results, based upon the monitored stack emission rates and the approved EPA air dispersion model (CAP 88), have fallen within the permitted EPA ranges and have generally been greater than the monitored results. These results include contributions from all of the significant DOE ORR stacks. For the most part, the Y-12 winds carry the emissions up and down the valley toward the east and west Y-12 monitors. Only 8% of the time do the winds blow toward the residential areas. The results of these measurements and modeling are summarized with the Scarboro Monitoring results below.

As a part of the monitoring program, a station (PAM 46) was placed in the center of the Scarboro Community. Although the location of the site recently has been questioned, the community was consulted and that, given the need to avoid the sheltering effect of trees and buildings, the location was acceptable at the time of decision. In addition, some soil and vegetable samples were taken over the years. The Scarboro Monitor is part of a far-reaching annual study that covers the whole of the ORR and its environs. The following results for the Scarboro Community are summarized from the ORR Annual Site Environmental Report for 1996.

It is important to remember that the typical total background exposure rate for this portion of the country is about 360 millirem per year. This includes natural radiation sources as well as medical and dental X-rays and medical treatments. The external gamma background exposure as determined by EPA for several cities is about 9.3 microroentgen/hour. The NESHAP standard for the exposure of off-site individuals is 10 millirem/year. The DOE monitoring station (PAM 51), located at Norris Dam, is taken as a comparison site.

Scarboro Radiation Exposures - 1996
 

Location	Average Total External Gamma	EDE measured at PAM 46	EDE Calculated by CAP 88
Scarboro	7.9	0.17	0.45
Norris Dam	8.5	NA	0.08
NESHAP Limit		10	10
Background	9.3	360	360

Total External Gamma is in microroentgen/hour.

EDE = Effective Dose Equivalent (mrem/year).

From this data, Scarboro radiation levels appear typical and well below the allowable limits for off-site exposure.

Scarboro Total Ambient Air Uranium Concentrations 10^-15 Microcuries/milliliter
 

Location	1993	1994	1995	1996
Scarboro	0.13	0.06	0.038	0.043
Norris Dam	0.058	0.018	0.016	0.016

Measured at the PAM 46 and 51 stations. This is an extremely small amount of exposure some of which may be due to uranium in the soil, fertilizers and weapons testing.

Dose due to Vegetable Consumption - 1996
Average of all monitor stations (mrem/year)
 

Vegetable	Total	Corrected for natural 40K
Tomatoes	1.8	0.00078
Lettuce	0.6	0.00085
Turnips	1.7	0.003
Total	4.1	0.005

The Scarboro monitoring station did not differ significantly from the typical station. Most (99.9 %) of the radiation is due to natural potassium-40. National average intake of potassium-40 from milk and meat is about 21 mrem/year.

Conclusions from Survey and Monitoring Programs

The survey and monitoring of the Scarboro Community shows:

• Typical background levels and variations.
• No evidence of man-made radioactivity arising from ORR.
• Radiation levels are not significantly different than other parts of Oak Ridge.
• Radiation levels are well below the allowed levels for off-site exposure.

Conflicting Community Concerns

Even within the Scarboro community, there are conflicting concerns. Most frequently the concerns are about the children and the proximity of Y-12 but there is a small element who believe the health problems are not unusual and that the adverse publicity is harmful to the community. Outside the Scarboro community, there is a group of ill workers who, with some justification, see the letters of Senator Thomson and Dr. Menke as applying to them as well as Scarboro. As of yet they do not see their concerns on any firm CDC agenda.

This problem is not about science, it is about people. None of the above will allay the concerns of the Scarboro community for its children. Too long, DOE addressed this problem in the context of their own understanding and within the legal requirements. They do not appear to have been negligent in this but they have failed to address the problem within the concerns and beliefs of the Scarboro community. If DOE wishes to avoid these confrontations, they must address the concerns of the people in a mode or modes that are understood by the community. Even if it is true, it is not enough to say, "We're looking out for you".

The Scarboro program must include as a minimum:

1) Attention to the ill children, both cause and treatment, if possible.
2) Explanation of the problem and data in terms this lay audience can understand.
3) Additional testing to address the questions raised by the community.
4) Above all, establish credibility with the community.

To address the concerns of the sick workers, the DOE and CDC must clearly state their intent and place these concerns on a firm agenda. This community does not need the incipient divisiveness that is now developing.

Based on the meeting of the Scarboro Community Environmental Justice Oversight Committee held 1/8/97, the CDC study in the Scarboro Community seems to be well underway. At the meeting, CDC presented background information and a proposed plan which was followed by many good public comments and an air of unity. CDC also committed to extensive stakeholder participation. The PROPOSED CDC plan is to start by studying the 16 sick children and surveying the entire Community for health abnormalities. This plan will be discussed by the Oversight Committee, is subject to their modification and approval. It will be carried out with the assistance of local residents.

After this phase this is complete and analyzed, the further direction of the CDC effort will be determined. It may include further respiratory studies and an extended range of illnesses in Scarboro. Also at this time the extension of the CDC effort to include other areas of Oak Ridge will be considered. It appears this method provides reasonably immediate attention to the sick children, provides an information base for further planning, and the promise of a broader study into a nuclear community if necessary. In as much as the other major health problem, i.e., the K-25 workers, is receiving attention and a current study is being concluded, the Scarboro planning seems prudent.

The Scarboro Meeting of September 16, 1998

At this meeting the CDC was to present the results of their survey of the Scarboro Community regarding health concerns a the presence of childhood respiratory illness (asthma, etc.). Many members of the Scarboro Community anticipated that there would be a definitive answer to the perennial question, "Are Scarboro residents suffering ill-health due to the close proximity of the Y-12 Production Facilities?"

Unfortunately, the survey could not and did not answer this question. What is more unfortunate, the survey was never intended to answer this question and the Scarboro were not aware of this. This does not imply Scarboro residents were misinformed but that the information supplied did not overcome the long standing belief that Y-12 activities are the cause of health problems. Nor did it adequately explain the complexities and difficulties of addressing the problem of health effects and causes, especially environmental causes. This education will take more than several meetings planning an elusive goal and a minimal number of meetings providing the background information of the problem. Especially when meetings are weakly attended by the people directly involved, the Scarboro residents.

After a year, the survey established what was already known: 1) A lot of Scarboro children have asthma and other respiratory diseases, 2) Scarboro residents have general health concerns, and 3) they are concerned that Y-12 has had an adverse effect on their health.

If the agencies involved wish to resolve this problem, they must do better. They need to gain credibility with the Scarboro residents. This is done, not by talking to, but by talking as individuals with individuals. It means drinking coffee and breaking bread. It means tailoring the technical explanations in lay terms and repeating them as needed. It means doing what one can and admitting one weaknesses. It takes a lot of time but they need to act promptly with a sense of urgency. One must ask, "DOE did this for the white community, why not for the black community?"

There are several next steps underway:

1) A meeting to describe the results of the soil testing and sampling. This needs to be done well with a lot of background explanation. It can be a good move. This meeting has come and gone. It was not well-done. See the following posting.

2) Diagnosis of the children's health problems. Don't let this fail over small things like transportation or misunderstandings about who pays.

3) Subsequent training for the parents of asthmatic children concerning the management of this incurable disease. These face to face meetings have got to be good.

4) A concerted effort to have the involved agencies present the best that they can do to uncover and answer to the fundamental question, "Is the proximity of Y-12 to Scarboro a probable cause of any health problems?" This effort needs to include education of the community about the background information and data as well as about the ability of lack of ability of epidemiology to definitely answer such questions. Residents must have a reasonable expectation of the outcome. Properly conducted, and even if indecisive, such an effort can be useful in resolving the problem.

This author, after having studied a lot of the background information on contamination in Scarboro, at Y12 and knowing of the limited capability of single-study epidemiology to resolve a causation hypothesis, seriously doubts that the effort will resolve the question. Nevertheless, he believes that the effort needs to be made and should address all aspects of the problem. He also believes that Scarboro deserves the best explanations and answers that science can give.

As I have bluntly told the DOE, if this meeting was intended to explain to a lay audience what the DOE soil sampling study revealed, it was a failure. It discussed the results in technical jargon which was at times confusing to the professional and which was entirely inappropriate to the intended audience. There were two serious presentation errors: 1) failure to explain the reasons for and implications of having used a high-side biased sampling of the Scarboro soils, and 2) failure to answer the forthright and legitimate question, "Is Scarboro a Love Canal?" This Internet posting will try to address these points.

The following are excerpts from the Scarboro Community Environmental Study:

Tab A - Executive Summary

"In an effort to increase the likelihood of identifying soil samples with the greatest potential to contain radionuclides above background, often soil samples were taken from locations with the highest relative count rate on a given property as determined from the radiological walkovers. These samples tended to be located on the ground beneath eaves of roofs or near foundations."

"Mercury concentrations obtained in this study ranged from 0.021 to 0.30 mg/kg. These values are generally within the range of values given in the BSCP report."

Tab D [Background] Radiation Dose Survey Results

As stated in the USEPA "Environmental Radiation Report #55", the average background for a city in the united States is 9.3 microrem/hour [Range: 5.8 - 15.3 ] The Scarboro readings are within the range of these 23 cities [and somewhat less than Knoxville, TN; 11.5].

Tab E - Radiation Dose Assessment Page 3

Results

"Dose estimates were computed for each sample location as well as for the average and maximum concentrations values in the sample population for each analytical method used. The results of this evaluation ... indicate that potential doese under all scenarios would be well below all guidelines for exposures of members of the public. The potential maximum dose to current or future [human] receptors is estimated well below 1mrem/year in all cases, with a range of 0.08 to 0.3 mrem/year."

Comments by the Author on the Results:

1) High-side Biased Sampling: This means that, using a radiation counter, the samples were selected from the spot on the designated property which, from a radiation standpoint, was the worst spot. This is perfectly legitimate in order to determine if a problem exists but, since it is not a random sample, the results can not be used to calculate valid averages nor to compare to other averages such as the average background of uncontaminated soils of a similar nature which were sampled randomly.

It is not at all surprising that the Scarboro data was high for some radioactive substances; it was selected to be high. It would have been disturbing if the Scarboro data had not been high. It would have meant that the backround selected was unusually high or Scarboro was unususlly low. Having choen to use high-side biased sampling, one cannot draw the valid conclusion that the average Scarboro soil is worse than the comparison soil.

The choice of a comparison soil from Bethel Valley (Background Soil Characterization Project Report; DOE/OR/01-1175/V2, October 1993) was questioned but from the ancillary comments it seems probable that the comparison soils were not appreciably contaminated However, if questions of environmental Justice are being addressed, one could make a case that other residential property could have been used as a comparison.

2) The high isotopic ratio of U235/U238 of about 1.2 to 1.4 percent found in a few samples and the range of 0.66 to 0.95 for most samples was not adequately explained. It clearly means that some uranium came in to Scarboro from man-made sources, probably from Y-12 although the trends in the Scarboro data with wind patterns were not well presented.

Update: Recent estimates of U-238 and U-234/235 activities in Scarboro air given by the ORHASP Task 6 Report Page 3-21 allow the calculation of the U235 enrichment ratio in Y12 emmissions. The result is 3.27 % .  The mass balance calculation shorws hat the Scarboro residential area received about 5% of its soil uranium from Y-12 and Pine Ridge received about 17 %.  None of this indicates a serious problem.

Since Y-12 has processed uranium ranging from depleted all the way up to bomb grade, it is next to impossible to determine from the ratio alone if the amount of uranium from Y-12 was significant. It also requires very accurate data and uranium background data to attempt to calculate what the isotope ratio and source of the incoming uranium was.

3) Of much more significance to health questions is the radiation dose a human would receive from the uranium found in the soils. This is discussed on page three of Tab E. The typical background dose in East Tennessee is 300 millirem per year and many areas are higher, as much as 1200 mrem/year. The accepted level of allowed non-occupational exposure is 100 mrem/year. The exposure due to the uranium in Scarboro soil samples ranges from 0.08 to 0.3 mrem/year. Therefore, the highest level in the high-side biased soil sample was 300 times smaller than the allowed limit, 1000 times smaller than the typical local background level and 4000 times smaller than the worst areas of the world background. It is difficult to see how such a small increases could account for a detectable health effect even by the best methods available.

4) No one pointed out that Sample SCSSS038 which was high in lead, zinc and pesticide residues was very different from any other sample. Nor did they point out that the most important source of lead is paint, old gasoline and car batteries. Clearly the contamination of this sample was from some other source than the other samples. The sample was taken from under the drip line of the roof. The use of pesticides and a lead flashing is a possible explanation. Since lead is a very serious contaminant, this sample area should receive further examination.

5) Although one of the stated objectives was to verify the fly-over data by ground samples and the limited range of the fly-over pattern was a point of contention in the Scarboro community, the validity of the fly-over data was not discussed at the meeting nor was the reason for the limited pattern explained. There appears to be no reason that the fly-over data should be questioned.

6) There was no attempt made to reconcile the results of the current study with previous studies of the Scarboro area nor with the monitoring station in Scarboro.

7) There were two questions from the audience that were avoided or given little attention. These were:

a) "Is Scarboro a LOVE Canal?' The answer is no and some of the reasons are stated above but the speakers did not give an informative answer to this question.

b) "Was the pond in the west end of Scarboro used as a dump?" I do not know the answer to this but I certainly would have said, "We will find out if the pond was so used and if it is contaminated."

Scarboro studies and meetings seem to leave fundamental questions unanswered with the promise that the next meeting will reveal all. And, the next meeting does the same. If DOE wishes to dispel the myths surrounding the ORR in general and Scarboro in particular, they will have to do better. They will have to face and discuss hard questions with truly concerned people. They also should seek advice from those who know the Scarboro Community.

In conclusion, there is nothing in this study or report that says there should be a concern for contaminant levels in Scarboro. It is time to look elsewhere for the cause of Scarboro's elevated respiratory illnesses.

This recent report includes monitoring data for the Scarboro community. As in previous years, there is no indication of a health risk in Scarboro from past or present DOE operations. In fact, even the perimeters of the active DOE sites are free of contanination at serious levels. The serious student of ORR off-site health hazards should read this report availabe at 1-800-891-8332.

The Oak Ridge Health Agreement Studies Panel (ORHASP), administered by the Tennessee Department of Health and funded by a grant from the DOE, was to give attention to ORR health questions raised by the community. They have opted to perform retrospective dose estimations concerning the historic ORR releases of the past. Some citizens that to do this exclusively is not their intended purpose. In addition, the dose estimation, while intended as a research exercise, is easily confused with statements about real people and, worse, becomes fodder for the inflammatory press. This is especially true since the dose estimation has a Level I phase that is intended to be an extremely conservative screen for the second level which, while claiming to be unbiased, is also frequently very conservative.  Presumably after sufficient iterations the process will produce accurate predictions about real people.

Meanwhile, the conservative estimates purport to show that there may be harmful effects with the expected results that the target populations are deeply concerned, feel they have been harmed (sometimes deliberately) and believe the government owes them medical care. Newspapers , seeing the results, cry out, "Toxic fallout" and other dire headlines. The researchers claim , "Foul, we included a disclaimer". This is like crying, "Fire" in a crowded theater and then whispering "April Fool". The agencies and researchers have a responsibility not to harm the population they intend to protect.

What does this have to do with the Scarboro Community? Scarboro is one of the target populations and the ORHASP Task 6 Study - Uranium Releases predicts harm to Scarboro.  The study is claimed to be accurate and unbiased but a close examination of the draft report will show several questionable assumptions or areas where the data used is not consistent with known Scarboro environmental measurements. The results are conservative and the predicted hazards are larger than the real negligible risks. However,  we are probably in for another round of dire claims and predictions in the press.

These questions may be aired in the ORHASP meeting of 11/16/98. Check this space for comments.

The recent ORHASP meetings have raised a new set of complex questions which will be addressed as the reports become available and are analysed.

In the Oak Ridger of December 2,  3 and 4, 1998 are three long Opinion articles by three residents of Scarboro: L. C. Gipson,  L, C. Manley and Al Chambles.  It is an able defense of Scarboro's reputation as a desirable community. They present in a very personal and poignant manner the damage false interpretation of facts can do to a community and its residents.  It is required reading for all who wish to better understand, the impact of the media and, indirectly of scientific studies, on a community and on people. The authors raise a very interesting point, "Why uncontaminated black Scarboro when other white contaminated areas of Oak Ridge are not repeatedly covered?"  The articles are an objectively presented balance between the personal, community, social and scientific aspects of this complex problem. The Oak Ridger is to be congratulated for devoting the space to this topic.

The articles are in the Archives of the Oak Ridger for December 2,  3, and 4, 1998, look under OpEd.

Dec 2, 1998: http://www.oakridger.com/stories/120298/opE_1202980007.html
Dec 3, 1998: http://www.oakridger.com/stories/120398/opE_1203980003.html
Dec 4, 1998: http://www.oakridger.com/stories/120498/opE_5.html

The principle activity of the meeting was the TN DH report by Dr. Irwin on the medical examinations of 23 children. Earlier the CDC had surveyed the community and identified 119 Scarboro children and their parents. From this survey, 36 children were identified that had a sufficient history of or symptoms resembling respiratory illnesses to warrant a medical examination. Of the  36 selected, 23 consented to participate. These received blood tests, breathing tests (as able), a medical exam and x-rays as determined by the examining pediatrician.  The results are summarized below:

1) No children were found to require immediate treatment or immediate further examination. There were no surprises.
2) The children were generally healthy allowing that they were selected based on respiratory symptoms.
3) Respiratory illness (RI) includes colds, sinus infection, sore throat, bronchitis, asthma, and other lung diseases. Asthma is classed as a lower RI.
4)Results of Mediacl Examinations

Children examined	23
Children diagnosed as having mild RI	22	No wheezing
Children having no symptoms	1
Cases showing current lower respiratory disease	1
Cases having some degree of uncertainty on diagnosis, severity or medical treatment	17
Cases of past/present, well-contolled RI	5

5) Results of BreathinfgTests

Breathing tests administered- total	19
Children showing symptoms of RI   Normal pattern - 7   Asthma pattern - 5   Indeterminate    - 3	15
Well controlled, past/present RI ( normal pattern)	4

It was disappointing that the experts seemed reticent to make any firm statement about the incidence of asthma among the Scarboro community. Not surprising, not everyone was satisfied with the results of the study. Some felt that symptoms had been missed. This is possible as asthma is difficult to detect when overt symptoms are not occurring. Nevertheless, in the face of the alleged cause of the asthma being the proximity to Y-12, it would have been instructive to try to give an estimate of the Scarboro incidence of childhood asthma.

Somehow, after one year and costs in excess of $330,000, one would expect more than: the kids seem normal and have the normal number of colds.  Perhaps the final report, due in about three months, will try to place this very urgent community question into perspective.  At least discuss the problem as it will not just go away.

There are three events in the offing:

1) The final Report of the Current Study in about three months
     Update March 2000 - The CDC Report has not yet been issued. A final draft was found to contain
     factual errors in the historic background and went back for corrections. Be patient.
2) The ongoing study on environmental justice and socioeconomic impact issues in Scarboro by the Center for Political and Economic Studies. Are you participating? What are the detailed plans?
     Update March 2000 - Aside from a controversial survey, the Joint Center has done little to help the
     Scarboro community and has received much criticism. In their defense, they did not understand the
     intense political battles in the community and unavoidably became bogged down in them. As for
     participation, all the attempts of the white comunity to help were rejected.
     Most people would just as soon see the Joint Center leave.
3) An Oak Ridge non-occupational health study by CDC, ATSDR, TN DH, EPA, etal
     Update March 2000 - After a long and controversial birthing process, an Oak Ridge Reservation
     Health Effects Subcommitte has been started. (See the ORRHES pages).

Do you ever feel you can be studied to death? YES!!!

The Scarboro Community Assessment - Household Survey

Excerpted from the January issue ff The OREJConnection:

The Scarboro Community Assessment conducted by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies was conducted in October 1999 in the Scarboro community including the Fairview apartments. The survey covered 266 household units and can be considered to be a fair representation of community opinion. The results contain some interesting and somewhat surprising information to non-residents. Perhaps the most surprising are the results of two open-ended, complimentary questions, 5, "What would you say are the weaknesses of the Scarboro community?", and 6, What are your primary concerns about the Scarboro community?. The more frequent responses to these two questions are tallied below in a rough priority order.
 

Rank	Weakness/Concern	#5	#6
1	Crime, drugs & violence	98	82
2	Children/youth	42	62
3	No weaknesses/concerns	21	33
4	Safety & security	18	32
5	Recreation - places, activities	25	29
6	Pollution & contamination	8	23
7	Health	2	14
8	Community Decline		7
9	Loitering	11	6
10	Noise	10	6
11	Employment	9	3
12	Community togetherness	13

At first glance the results do not seem to be surprising although health and employment seem to be low. The surprise comes when one considers the attention given by the media over the last two years concerning Scarboro based solely on anecdotal evidence and proximity to y-12. They would lead one to believe the major concerns are pollution and resulting health problems. Yet pollution and health rated sixth and seventh in the rankings even below the No Concerns category. The news media appear to be reflecting the content of the numerous Scarboro meetings that have been focused on these topics. Apparently the agenda of these meetings do not express the agenda of the broader community. Or perhaps the broader public accepts that the many soil samples indicate that the pollution levels are within the range of background or do not constitute a real threat to their health.

However, the question of contamination cannot be so lightly dismissed. Survey questions 11 through 15 deal directly with environmental contamination and its effect on the health of Scarboro residents. Questions 34 through 43 deal with living close to the Y-12 Plant. While the majority of residents (186 out of 266) rate the environment as fair or better, 105 residents believe there is environmental contamination. Of these, 94 residents believe it is a threat to the Scarboro environment and 90 believe it is a threat to the health of Scarboro residents. Respiratory problems are of the most concern. Regardless of whether this belief is based on fact or not, the very real concerns of this number of residents deserve to have complete and candid answers to their questions. The entire Oak Ridge community would be well served if the responsible agencies, in methods acceptable to the residents, would supply the data, the informational meetings and other means that would accurately describe the Scarboro environment. The responsibility for this lies mainly with DOE, assisted by EPA and ATSDR. CDC needs to speak strongly to the issue of causes in their final report.

At the same time, the several top ranking Scarboro concerns need to be addressed by the City, State and federal agencies where applicable. The first step may be to detail these concerns so that specific plans can be laid to address them in a constructive manner. The first four concerns are largely the responsibility of local government with assistance by the state. Some of these are long-standing and common to all neighborhoods. The city should take the initiative to see that progress is made and Scarboro receives its fair share of the available resources and in proportion to the problems that exist. Health is largely a federal/state effort implemented at the county level. Every effort should be made to ensure that Scarboro residents can take advantage of all the available health programs. Loitering is a law enforcement problem that can be addressed along with concerns for crime, drugs and violence once the root causes are addressed under recreation for children and youth. Improved code enforcement (including noise, etc) was recently promised to the Scarboro community.

Employment is a major concern for the Oak Ridge area. Steps should be taken to see that Scarboro residents receive the necessary training and are granted every reasonable opportunity to enter the job force and progress according to their ability.

Last but not least, the Scarboro residents must work with the City and other agencies to improve their community. They must present a cohesive and united front, which will help the city to understand its needs and to implement remedies. They must recognize the necessity of their cooperation in bringing a successful conclusion to these problems and that volunteer effort will be required. The first step is to create an organization that truly represents Scarboro, is dedicated to its improvement and is willing to reach out to the greater community for assistance.

The dictionary or every day meaning of contaminate is " to make impure by contact or mixture". This is of little help since few things in nature are really pure and there are many trace impurities, some of which are harmful at sufficient concentration, and some of which are not. Not only is the level of an impurity important but also its chemical form and the dose received over a period of time. Many modern analytical methods can detect extremely small quantities of chemicals. For these reasons, the simple statement that contamination is present is almost without any significant meaning.

For instance most soils contain, in addition to their main components, traces of many minerals derived from eroded rocks as well as fallout of airborne industrial pollutants.. Many of these would be harmful at high concentrations, which can occur especially near ore-bearing rocks. Many combustion products such as sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, and particles of ash contaminate air. Some of these have traveled many miles. Uranium, thorium and arsenic contamination results from burning most coals. Volcanoes emit vast quantities of airborne impurities including heavy metals. Water is contaminated by nitrates and phosphates from excessive use of fertilizers and by the use of pesticides. Some of these pollutants, such as lead, are very old (2-3000 years), many are extremely wide-spread and are observed in ice cores from arctic ice caps.

To discuss contamination in a meaningful manner, one must state the level of the contaminant, its chemical form and what the effective dose to the human or environmental species is. Two levels of contamination are of particular interest: background and risk-based chronic exposure.

Background Level: This is the level that one would find in a similar environmental situation in the absence of an effect of a specific, man-made source. It may include a manmade contribution that is found everywhere. Back ground levels vary greatly around the world, some times by a factor of ten or more. One must be careful to choose a background, which is truly representative of a region, and to exclude unwanted or unknown sources of pollution. Generally it means choosing a similar soil or other medium located at some distance from the suspected site.

Risk-based Chronic Exposure Level: This is the level at which a lifetime of exposure by all reasonable exposure paths would result in a stated level of risk or reference dose. This level depends on the chemical form of the pollutant, how easily it is transmitted to the recipient and how toxic it is to humans. For chemical toxins, the Environmental Protection Agency publishes reference doses which are the maximum chronic daily dose believed to be safe for even very sensitive individuals. For carcinogenic contaminants, they publish a slope factor that allows the calculation of lifetime risk, which is also conservative. A lifetime risk of less than one in a million is considered safe, above one part in ten thousand is considered cause for concern with reason for precautions or cleanup depending on circumstances and the area involved.

Once a site is determined to be contaminated and the source of the pollution is sough,t one must be sure to look at all the potential sources not just the nearest source for it may not be the biggest source. In Oak Ridge, one should consider that East Tennessee soils have a high mineral content. There are two large coal-fired power plants and several metal processing plants in the neighborhood with known large release rates. PCBs and mercury are volatile and are found everywhere not just on the ORR. Lead from gasoline is along every street and highway and in paint on old house. To find the true source of a pollutant will require a consideration of all the facts.

Some time ago the Scarboro Community Environmental Justice Council requested the EPA to resample and analyze the Scarboro soils as a check on the DOE study. EPA proposed to resample 10 of the DOE locations as a validation study. At a public meeting, everyone from all the differing factions told EPA this was not what was wanted and was a waste of resources. This may be the only time all the public was in agreement as were the other government agencies (ATSDR and DOE). Many concerns were clearly and loudly stated. The following letter from OREJC contains details. Other public groups sent very similar letters. EPA appears to be determined to proceed.
 

October 12, 1999

Mrs. Cheryl Walker Smith
EPA - Waste Management Div.
61 Forsyth Street
Atlanta, GA 30303

Dear Cheryl:

Subject: Comments on EPA EIB-HWS Proposed Sampling and Analysis Plan for the Scarboro Community July 28 1999 SESD # 99-0351 (R1)

Based upon the attached summary (A Comparison of Scarboro and Lower East Fork Poplar Creek Environmental Contaminants) of Scarboro and other residential soil data, we do not believe that further sampling of the Scarboro community is warranted on purely objective grounds to respond to the questions of environmental justice and public health. A cursory examination of the scarce sediment and water data seems to indicate the same conclusion.

However, there is a strong perception on the part of a few residents and many citizens outside of Oak Ridge that our soils, sediments and surface waters are sufficiently contaminated as to be seriously hazardous to human health. These perceptions deserve consideration.

The concerns that one hears most frequently are that the past sampling:

1) did not include all the desired locations,
2) was not core sampling,
3) did not include samples from neighboring residential areas,
4) was not conducted by an objective agency, and
5) did not establish whether it was safe or not to raise vegetables.
6) did not find the Scarboro community to be contaminated and hazardous.

Some of these concerns were conveyed to EPA in the sampling request.

The current EPA proposal to validate twenty percent of the prior DOE samples by re-sampling ten of the same locations by the same sampling protocols satisfies none of these concerns except perhaps, and only perhaps, number 4. At best, they can only validate the Florida A&M University and Oak Ridge National Laboratory analytical work, subject of course to the vagaries of heterogeneous sampling.

Perhaps nothing will alleviate the concerns of some citizens, but certainly the above concerns (except 6) are valid in view of the manifold objectives among the residents. If EPA undertakes a broader sampling program, they would be well advised to involve some residents in the actual sampling process as well as the choice of locations.

After the program is complete, there should be a special effort(s) made to convey the results to the Scarboro residents in lay terms and to review the total sampling history at that time including the monitoring data at Station #46, the radiological fly over data (their purposes, and processes), and the radiological walkover data. Further, EPA can not be successful if it ignores the complex social environment in which this apparently simple problem is embedded.

EPA representatives were made aware at the Scarboro Sampling Plan public meeting 9/16/99 that the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) is proposing a broader sampling program of the Oak Ridge environment, and you may want to coordinate your effort with them. There is also one other proposal by ORNL.

In any event, the next study should be designed to be capable of providing definitive results and answers to the question of whether or not the soils, sediments, and surface waters in Scarboro and other neighborhoods of Oak Ridge are sufficiently contaminated to be hazardous to human health and the environment. To settle the questions of environmental justice, neighborhood comparisons must be possible. To do otherwise is to do a great disservice to the Oak Ridge community.