UND LAsorice explosive “single-shell” high-level nuclear waste storage tanks and other major hazards within the plant, and of contamination of the Columbia River and groundwater reservoirs was followed by a DOE admis- nah River Site.t!+* At Mound,‘ in Miamisburg, Ohio, investigators discovered that a pipe carrying high-level waste burst, and plutonium seeped into irrigation ca- I-131 had been released to the atmosphere during the Ridge,***” the Nevada TestSite,** the Pantex plant,“ the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in Califor- sion that hundreds of thousands ofcuries of radioactive 1940s and 1950s, with the possible exposure of up to 13,000 children, some of them to doses as high as 70 rads. 35-40 Widespread environmental contamination, danger- ous reactor accidents and a threat of explosions in waste storage tanks were also idennfied at the Savan- nals and water supplies for several years afterward. Contamination was extensively documented at Oak nia. A conservative preliminary estimate of the cost of “cleanup,” a task expected to take decades and generate new potential health risks, exceeds $100 billion.” By the spring of 1988, all of the DOE’s nuclear Office of Technology Assessment’s Report on the Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons Production Congress asked its Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) to evaluate what is known about the contamination and public health problemsat the Nuclear Weapons Complex and to investigate technological and other approaches to solutions. In February of 1991, OTAreleased its final report, Complex Cleanup! The report includes an analysis of research on the health effects of the DOE weapons complex on off-site populations and observations on basic problems in the organization and conduct of DOE epidemiologic research. Complex Cleanup questons the DOE’sclaim that current contamination from weapons production poses “no immediate threat” and no “near-term risk” to public health. The authors conclude that such claims are “largely unsubstantiated” and “also somewhat misleading.” °? The OTA report explains that the DOE’s effort to surveysite contamination is critical in determining the health risks of weapons production. Complex Cleanup concludes thatin this process crucial public health concerns have not been investigated adequately.** Responsibility for conducting site-specific studies is scattered throughout several federal and state agencies, and such efforts are under-funded. Important health objectives may beslipping through the cracks because there is no single agency or coordinating bodyresponsible for this work.** The OTA report reinforces many of the Secretarial Panel for Evaluation of Epidemiologic Research Activides (SPEERA) findings, noting that basic structural problems are at the heart of the DOE?’s failure to adopt a health-based approach to cleanup of the Weapons Complex. Complex Cleanup points our that the “DOE has recognized thatits current organizational structure for investigating possible off-site health impacts of the nuclear weap- Onssites is in need of improvement.” ®° 24 | Complex Cleanup reports that DOE research has been kept away from open scrutiny. Those in charge of the DOE have not fostered adequate health re- search, in part, because there is an inherent conflict of interest between their primary mission of weapons production and their simultaneous responsibility to protect worker and community health. The OTA points out that under the DOE’s proposed reorganization ofits health research program: [No] ‘unsolicited proposals’ would be funded by the [DOE] Office of Health. Howsuch arrangements would differ from present practice ofarrang- ing for scienusts at the DOEnationa! laboratories to conduct the bulk of DOE-funded epidemiologic studies is not discussed.*° In examining the process of determining off-site health effects, the OTA report finds thar: Available studies do not afford a comprehensive survey of contamination present throughout the Weapons Complex; information abouttoxic chemicals is especially lacking. Noris reliable information available regarding human exposure routes and dose range.°” The OTAattributes this problem to the DOE’s lack of an aggressive health research agenda. They find that public health concernsarestill not being investigated adequately by the DOE orother government agencies. Complex Cleanup concludesthat: Published reports and available data can neither demonstrate nor rule out the possibility that adverse health effects have occurred or will occur... .. Investigations beyondthose already com- pleted will be necessary to pursue questions about the occurrence ofoff-site health effects and to pro- duce the information required to identify the most pressing cleanup priorities.** DEAD RECKONING REP Aeer #3 ky!! i