of the Hanford EnvironmentalDose Reconstruction Project

Technical Steering Panel

Published: December 1995

Native American

Working Group

December 1990 - December 1995

NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP

Coordinator / Facilitator

Warren A. Bishop, Facilitator

Native American Working Group Members

Leslie G. Spino / J.R. Wilkinson, Confederated Tribes of the

Umatilla Indian Reservation

Madelaine Queahpama, Warm Springs

Barbara F. Aripa, Colville

Fred Alt, Couer d'Alene

Victoria Bowman, Kalispel

Guy Hopkins, Kootenai

Carl Basford, Nez Perce

David Ernst, Spokane

Moses Dick Squeochs, Yakama

ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................ 1

INTRODUCTION . . . . .............................................................................. 2

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES.............................................................. 2

ACCOMPLISHMENTS.................................................................................2

APPENDIX A:

MEETING SUMMARIES: NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP /

INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS ................. A-6

APPENDIX B:

OPERATION PLAN FOR THE INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD

HEALTH PROJECTS ....................................................................... B-88

APPENDIX C:

BY-LAWS FOR THE INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD

HEALTH PROJECTS .......................... C-96

APPENDIX D:

NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP DATA AND DOCUMENT

RELEASE POLICY........................................................................ D-106

APPENDIX E:

NATIVE AMERICAN DATA COLLECTION FOR THE HANFORD

ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT -

STUDY PROTOCOL ................................................................ E-113

APPENDIX F:

REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL FOR REINSTATEMENT... F-143

APPENDIX G:

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET APPROVAL.................. G-179

- ii -
APPENDIX H:

NATIVE AMERICAN DATA COLLECTION FOR THE HANFORD

ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT -

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE............................................................. H-181

APPENDIX I:

NATIVE AMERICAN LIFESTYLE AND DEMOGRAPHY DATA

COLLECTION / VOLUMES 1 AND 2 ................................................... I-243

- iii -
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Native American Working Group (now called the Inter-Tribal Council on Hanford

Health Projects) was formed to provide coordination and continuity for tribal research

associated with the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project. This group is

made up of representatives of each of the nine tribes involved in the Project, TSP

members, and staff from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Indian Health

Service, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory and the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study.

The council meets regularly to coordinate tribal research.

Because of the unique lifestyle and dietary habits of Native Americans, it was recognized

thatthe exposure to Tribal members of radioactive material released from Hanford would

likely be different from that of other populations. The TSP and Battelle staff determined

at the beginning of the Project that the tribes should be directly involved in collecting data

regarding Native American diet, lifestyle, and populations. This work began in 1991.

Additional data collection is on-going. Dose calculations will be made for each of the nine

tribes.

The nine tribes involved in the Project are: Yakama, Colville, Kalispel, Spokane, Coeur

d'Alene, Nez Perce, Umatilla, Warm Springs and Kootenai.
INTRODUCTiON

The Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project was carried out by the Pacific

Northwest Laboratory (PNL), a National Laboratory operated by Battelle-Pacific Northwest

Laboratories. To direct and guide the Project, a Technical Steering Panel (TSP) was

formed. The TSP was given the responsibility and authority to direct, modify and approve

research methods and procedures.

From the outset of the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, it was clear

that involvement of the eight Columbia Basin tribes was essential. Since the beginning of

the Project one tribe has been added, the Kootenai Tribe. A total of nine tribes are

involved in the Project; Yakama, Colville, Kalispel, Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, Nez Perce,

Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Kootenai. It was realized that members of the Native

American tribes may have been uniquely exposed to the radioactive material released

from Hanford. Many Indian people migrated from their reservation homes to potentially

higher exposure areas for hunting, fishing, or food gathering. Some worked in fields or

lived, at least part of the year, out of doors where radioactive materials settled on plants

or on the ground. Others lived all or for long periods of time in Columbia River fishing

settlements. A number of the tribe's members lived on a "traditional" diet, which included

game, plants, fish, and berries. These food sources were eaten fresh from potentially

contaminated areas.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES

The TSP and Battelle researchers determined at the beginning of the Project that the tribes

must be directly involved in collecting data regarding Native American diet, lifestyle, and

populations during the study period. This was deemed necessary to insure both tribal

members and the public know that legitimate concerns and accurate tribal information are

addressed in the study.

The Native American Working Group (NAWG), now known as the Inter-tribal Council on

Hanford Health Projects (ICHHP), is composed of Tribal representatives, TSP members,

staff from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Indian Health Service and

research-technical persons from Battelle and the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS) -

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center. It was formed early in the Study to provide

coordination and continuity for tribal research. The Inter-tribal Council is a major link

among the tribes and the TSP, and provides a basis for meaningful involvement of the nine

potentially exposed tribes. The council meets regularly to coordinate tribal research.

ACCOMPLISHMENTS

During 1991-92 and early 93, the original eight tribes under contract with Battelle Pacific

Northwest Laboratories collected preliminary information about the identification of food

-2-
types and quantities of foods consumed by its members. The tribal researchers also

developed information about the make-up and grouping (by age and sex) of their

populations, and determined life style patterns ofthe population groups during the releases

of radioactive materials.

Also during this period the Working Group/lnter-tribal Council developed and the TSP

approved, a proposed statement of Native American Data and Document Release Policy.

This policy provides a basis for the TSP to support Native American confidentiality while

making a special effort to include special tribal concerns in this dose reconstruction work.

The Working Group/lnter-tribal Council also developed a survey questionnaire instrument

and template protocol design. This will be used by the nine tribes in the final stages of

research to collect specific tribal information necessary for both the Project and Hanford

Thyroid Disease Studies. The tribes are doing this work under contract with the Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Native American Working Group/lnter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects has

identified the scope of technical work that will be required for the nine tribes to complete

their inquiries regarding members' potential exposure to Hanford releases of radioactive

materials. The additional efforts that will be necessary within this scope of work are

included in contracts being entered into between the tribes and the Centers for Disease

Control.

Following is a summary outline ofthe scope of work completed and additional efforts that

are being projected for the remainder of the Project.

REVIEW, REFINE AND CLARIFY DATA SUMMARIES DEVELOPED IN EARLIER

STAGES OF WORK:

- ► Dietary and demographic data reduction to computer inputs

- ► Evaluation of dose model outputs and revision for output enhancement

- ► Participate in sensitivity analysis performed on these data inputs

- ► Review of preliminary Hanford Thyroid Disease Study results

- ► Selection of specific dietary, demographic, and lifestyle patterns requiring additional

data collection, based on clearly defined dose-and-culturally-relevant criteria

-3-
SECONDARY STAGE OF DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

- ► Produce detailed work plans for CDC contract

- ► Sample Survey design and refinement

- Sampling frame development

- Definition of "representative individuals"

- Development of strategy for selecting sample survey respondents

- Instrument development and pilot testing

- Development of editorial control and data entry procedures

- Survey administration

• - Data entry and analysis

- ► Oral History/Life History interviews

- Respondent selection criteria

- Question path development

- Data records and storage

- Interview administration

- ► Narrative report of findings from sample survey and history interviews

HISTORICAL DOCUMENT (ARCHIVES) REVIEWAND DATA RETRIEVAL:

- ► Identification of relevant source materials

- ► Review of published literature regarding food consumption and mobility patterns for

historical periods in question

- ► Review of unpublished data sources (e.g., community health representatives'

records, nutrition program records, agricultural commodities distribution program

records)

- ► Narrative report comparing accuracy and precision of primary data with published

and unpublished existing accounts.

GENERAL SUPPORT ACTIVITIES:

- ► Participation in Public Health Practice Training Program Sessions for Project

coordinators and tribal interviewers

-4-
- ► Attendance at TSP meetings, Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects

meetings and Workshops and Program Status Review meetings

— ► Development of Tribal and Public Information materials and communication with

Tribal community members

The Inter-Tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects has established the following

proposed objectives for the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project:

• Tribes complete secondary data analysis to detail residential locations of tribal

members

• Tribes complete primary and secondary data analysis to estimate consumption of

resident fish by location in the early 1960s

• Tribes complete analysis and summary of primary food consumption survey data to

provide input to dose estimates

• Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects oversees definition of "representative

individual" range for each tribe based on resident location or lifestyle

• Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects supervises production of detailed

representative individual doses for both air and river pathways

• Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects and the TSP Communications

Subcommittee produces material for distribution among the involved tribal communities

to explain the study and the meaning of its results for the Indian people of the region

• Tribes seek to publish results either singularly or in collaboration with one another

• Seek to integrate tribal research for the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study with tribal

research for the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

-5-

APPENDIX A

MEETING SUMMARIES:

NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP /

INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

A-6

TECH. ’ICAL STEERI. ‘G PA. ’EL

OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group Meeting

Pasco

(List of attendees at end)

December 9-10, 1991

Tribal Status Reports: Seven of the tribes will require extensions of their current

work orders to complete the collection and compilation of preliminary food

consumption data. Spokane and Coeur D'Alene are awaiting feedback from

Battelle regarding their earlier submittals before defining their next work activities.

Warm Springs is just about ready to receive authorization to proceed.

Collaboration Statement: A revised statement describing the commitment to

collaboration between HEDR, HTDS, and the IHS Public Health Practice Training

program was circulated for one last round of comments before adoption and

recommendation to the TSP. Battelle will need to check and make sure that

deliverable deadlines reflect current HEDR work plans.

HTDS data requirements were identified, and two categories appear to be beyond

the scope of current data collection activities: information about school milk

programs, and information about dietary patterns of persons ages 5-14 in the

period 1944-47. Costs associated with collecting this information are likely to be

covered under contract with the CDC, when such contracts are established with

the tribes.

FY-92 Research and Planning: Five main activities are contemplated for a

subsequent series of work orders that will carry each tribe through the end of the

current fiscal year:

1) Preliminary Food Consumption Data Refinement, input, Analysis, and Review:

Tribes generally agreed they would like to have this "hands-on" opportunity to

work closely with the Battelle dose modelling staff, but did not react specifically

to the proposal or alternatives presented by Shipler. It was pointed out to them

that for purposes of estimating level of effort and costs associated with this

activity, they would have to reach agreement about the specific way they'd like

to see this work proceed. It was also pointed out that this effort is currently not

included in Battelle's budget, and would need to be approved by the TSP.

2) Define the Scope of Long-Term Follow-On Research: The menu of potential

scoping topics was discussed, and the group asked Liebow to recommend items

of higher priority along with items that should be reassessed after preliminary

data are complete and some model simulations are conducted. Liebow said he

will recommend, in general, that additional work on food consumption and

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept, of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581

®°^^=>’8
preparation should await the results of model simulations, while work on tribal

populations, especially more detailed analysis of residential location and

mobility, should become a key focus of scoping activities. This information will

contribute to a discussion of "representative individual cases" and their

distribution within each tribe.

3) Workshops and Meetings: The group would like Napier (or someone from

Battelle) to make a presentation at a meeting on January 16-17 (probably in

Spokane) regarding the specific assumptions made in the model that potentially

affect Native American dose estimates. The group agreed that two other

workshops, February 19 (Pasco) and April 15 (Pasco), would be organized to

discuss technical issues that will help prepare group members for the Sensitivity

Analysis and Model Validation Workshop that Battelle is organizing for May,

1992. At the February workshop, Houck will talk about some basic statistics

concepts, and Simpson (or someone else from Battelle) will begin to talk about

models and approaches to validation. Topics for the April workshop are yet to

be determined. Liebow will help organize these workshops.

4) Training: Houck offered the group the resources of the IHS training staff,

asking that the group identify its training needs. He will consider organizing an

abbreviated format of the sessions planned for the 2-year Public Health

Practice Training program, with the addition of topics like on-line bibliographic

database searching, life history interviewing, and survey quality control

procedures. It is not clear whether this activity should be identified in the work

orders under the contracts with Battelle or as part of the new contracts with

CDC.

5) Long-Term Research P/ans: The content of these plans will depend on the

results of the preceding activities, but it is expected that the plans will be

complete by September 30, 1992.

Work Orders: Rutherford helped take away some of the mystery surrounding the

Indefinite Quantity Contracting process, and some remaining questions about

invoicing were addressed. By December 20, the tribes will receive specific

information as a planning basis for activities to be covered by the next work orders.

These work orders will probably run through the end of the fiscal year, and contract

modifications necessary to accommodate this schedule will be discussed on a caseby-case basis.

Establishing the contracts with the CDC will proceed on a separate track, with the

type of contract and other details yet to be determined. There is a good chance

that these contracts will run concurrently with the Battelle contracts, through the

end of FY-92. Many of the tribes are hoping to avoid the basic ordering agreement

format.

-2-
Data and Document Release Policy: With some clarifying wording changes

recommended by the Umatilla, and assuming that recommended changes expected

from Nez Perce early next week are also of a clarifying nature, this policy statement

will be ready to recommend to the TSP for adoption at its February meeting.

Action Items:

• Bishop will recommend work order extensions to Shipler where necessary

• Shipler's office will initiate contract modification discussions with Nez

Perce to reflect reduction in indirect rates and increase in labor rates

• Liebow will draft guidance concerning statements of work for the next

series of work orders

• Liebow will contact Napier regarding presentation on modelling

assumptions; Battelle has committed to delivering annotations on Air

Pathways Criteria document with specific reference to Native Americans

• Liebow will contact Houck and Simpson regarding workshops in

preparation for the Sensitivity Analysis and Model Validation workshop

• The Working Group will formulate a response to Houck's offer regarding

training opportunities available from IHS

• Battelle will provide tribes with expanded study area maps that can be

used in data elicitation and scoping activities showing reservations and

other relevant study area features.

• Liebow will consult with HTDS and IHS to develop "master task schedule"

reflecting main activity periods and milestones for remainder of FY-92.

Working Group members will submit any remaining comments regarding

the HTDS/HEDR/IHS collaboration statement to Amundson by December

17

• Working Group members will submit any comments regarding the draft

Fact Sheet text to Power by December 17

Attendees:

Warren Bishop, Deward Walker, Allen Slickpoo (TSP)

Joe Stohr, Max Power (Ecology)

Barbara Aripa, Adeline Fredin (Colville)

Delano Saluskin, Wayne Hanson (Yakima)

Dusty Saylor (Coeur D'Alene)

Donna Powaukee, Herman Reuben, Chris Webb (Nez Perce)

Vicki Pierre (Kalispel)

Betty Van Pelt, Cecilia Bearchum (Umatilla)

David Ernst (Spokane)

Madeleine Queahpama (Warm Springs)

Peter Houck (IHS)

Bruce Amundson (HTDS)

Dill Shipler, Dan Rutherford, Ed Liebow, Tracy Ikenberry, Phil Minthorn (Battelle)

-3 -
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
 TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

 DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group Meeting

Spokane

(List of attendees at end)

January 15, 1992

Tribal Status Reports: The Coeur D'Alene submitted to Battelle their supplemental

data regarding agricultural practices, food preparation, and other lifestyle factors.

They are waiting for Battelle feedback on the adequacy of this information. They

have not yet submitted invoices for this supplemental work.

The Colville have completed their food consumption interviews and expect to have

results tabulated and submitted to Battelle by the end of February, along with

population totals. Data from 1951 membership rolls and per capita payment rolls

have provided the basis for 1944-47 population estimates. Battelle has been

invoiced through July, 1991, and the subsequent status of this account will be

straightened out this month. The HEDR Project staff have had to move out of the

Tribes' Environmental Trust offices, and would benefit from having the use of a

personal computer. Liebow will see if some equipment can be made available.

The Kalispel have completed their supplemental food consumption interviews, and

are inputting the results into the computer. They have not received a work order

extension notice from Battelle. Liebow will check with Ship/er on the work order

extension's status.

The Nez Perce have two remaining interviews to complete; only 4 of 15 interviews

will cover the earlier time period. Interviews and data compilations will be

completed by the end of January. Invoicing for the Nez Perce is current. They

received their work order extension, but need Battelle to attend to their request for

a contract modification to reflect current direct and indirect labor rates. Liebow will

ask Rutherford what can be done to respond to this request.

The Spokane submitted their work and a final invoice in August. They have not

received feedback on the adequacy of their data, and they have not been paid. The

Tribal Council's interest in continuing in this project is "flagging," largely due to

what they regard as Battelle's untimely response to their preliminary work efforts.

Liebow and Ikenberry will discuss data adequacy issues with the Spokane project

staff in the next two weeks, and find out what needs to happen to pay the August

1991 invoice.

The Umatilla Tribesare completing their preliminary data tabulations, and have

assigned the HEDR project to the Tribes' General Manager, Gary George. After

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
assessing the current status of their progress to date, George will be making project

management recommendations to his Board of Trustees.

The Warm Springs Tribes have experienced a great deal of difficulty in getting their

work program in place, but a work order is expected in the next week or two. TSP

members Bishop and Walker have become extremely frustrated with Battelle's appar

ent inattention to the problems associated with executing this work order.

The Yakima have created a sampling frame, reconstructing the 1944-47 population

based on 1951 enrollment data, and are mailing out letters to 320 members (25%

of the eligible age groups—Hanson still thinks we are overlooking an important

cohort of nursing mothers under 20 years old), seeking their participation. The aim

is to interview at least 160 of these eventually, although a much smaller sub-sample

will be completed for preliminary data collection purposes. The YIN set up a project

account at the end of December, 1991, and are currently reconstructing expenses

to be able to submit their first invoice to Battelle.

Statement of Principles Regarding HEDR/HTDS Coordination: Some clarification on

the role of the Public Health Practice Training program was reguested, and the

statement will be rewritten to emphasize the Indian Health Service's commitment to

make training available for HEDR Tribal Project staff members as reguested. The

revised statement will be submitted for consideration at the February TSP meeting.

Pathways Model Status and Assumptions of Interest to Indian Tribes: As reguested

at the previous Working Group meeting, Napier gave a detailed presentation of the

Air Pathways model, summarizing the structure of the source term, atmospheric

transport, environmental accumulation, and individual dose models. Placing much

of his emphasis on the environmental accumulation and individual dose models,

Napier discussed parameter selection, data sources, and uncertainties. He also

briefly outlined the logic of sensitivity analyses, and how this will help in further

defining the parameters for which additional information is needed. He indicated

that the Sensitivity Analysis and Model Validation peer review meeting is now

scheduled for the week of June 22. At the end of his presentation, Napier touched

on the River Pathways modelling effort to date, reporting that the extent of this

effort will be determined after presenting some preliminary results at the TSP's

February meeting and expecting the TSP to determine the scope of additional work

at its April meeting.

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Status Update: Potential pilot study participants (N

= 500) will be randomly selected from on basis of mother's place of residence at

birth by searching birth records in six eastern Washington counties (Benton,

Franklin, Walla Walla, Okanogan, Stevens, and Ferry). This sample will not be

stratified with respect to ethnic background, and the same instrument will be

administered to all respondents. Amundson pointed out that this sample design is

intended to serve as a parallel effort to the work of the Tribal Working Group. The

-2-
total number of participants in the full-blown study will depend on the pilot study's

results.

Fact Sheet: The TSP Communications Sub-Committee is meeting Friday, and Power

asked to have any

additional comments regarding the text of the Fact Sheet regarding tribal

participation in the HEDR Project to him in time for this meeting.

John Till's Remarks: Till congratulated the group on undertaking this

unprecedented inter-tribal collaborative effort, and reaffirmed the TSP's commitment

to completing this research, maximizing the opportunities for Indian people to do the

work itself, and to leaving a lasting legacy from this project. He also urged the

group to think carefully about how we proceed, given the critical juncture in the

project's progress we have reached, and the financial resources we have available.

WorkrOders--"Generic" Statement of Work: It will probably be another six months

until CDC is in a position to administer contracts with the Tribes, according to

Sewell, so it is reasonable to proceed with work planning that extends through the

end of FY-92. The "period of performance" issue in Battelle's contract will have to

be addressed. A lengthy discussion of the "generic" statement of work followed,

and the group reached a general agreement that this approach would provide a

framework for each Tribe's activities over the next several months. Several tribal

representatives said they were pleased to see a more detailed specification of

milestones and deliverables in this proposed work statement. In the interests of

time and effort required to formulate a proposal, Till and Walker suggested that

Liebow revise the "generic" statement of work to make it more understandable, and

to specify the demographic and lifestyle parameters that are to receive highest

priority during the period of performance. Once the revised statement of work is

approved by the Battelle, it will be sent to the Tribes for them to respond with

technical and cost proposals. Tribes do not have to wait until the Working Group

crafts a revised statement of work if they already have a clear notion of the work

they propose to complete between now and September, 1992.

Action Items:

• Liebow will see if the Colville Confederated Tribes can be provided with a

personal computer

• Liebow will check with Battelle Contracts regarding the status of Nez Perce

request for a contract modification

• Liebow will check with Battelle HEDR Project Management regarding the

status of the Kalispel work order extension

• Liebow will check with Battelle HEDR Project Staff regarding status of

Spokane data, and arrange to provide comments to Spokane Tribal HEDR

staff

-3-
• Liebow will check with Battelle Contracts regarding status of Spokane

invoice from August, 1991

• Bishop will check with Battelle Contracts regarding measures that can be

taken to execute Warm Springs work order

• Liebow will revise "generic statement of work" to clarify and specify

recommended activities

• Liebow will send Sewell an ASCII file containing tribal leaders' names and

mailing addresses for all federally recognized tribes

• Houck will prepare training session for February 19 in Pasco regarding

issues relevant to Sensitivity Analysis and Model Validation

• Amundson will revise HEDR/HTDS Collaboration statement to reflect

meeting discussion regarding role of IHS Training program. When this

statement is revised, it will be submitted for consideration by the TSP at its

February meeting.

• Bishop will submit the Data and Document Release Policy Statement for

consideration by the TSP at its February meeting.

• Power will revise text of "Fact Sheet" to reflect comments received on

earlier drafts

Attendees:

John Till, Warren Bishop, Deward Walker, Allen Slickpoo (TSP)

Joe Stohr, Max Power (Ecology)

Barbara Aripa, Adeline Fredin (Colville)

Wayne Hanson (Yakima)

Dusty Saylor (Coeur D'Alene)

Donna Powaukee, Herman Reuben, Chris Webb (Nez Perce)

Vicki Pierre, Betty Jo Pigngkham (Kalispel)

Bill Burke, Gary George (Umatilla)

David Ernst (Spokane)

Peter Houck (IHS)

Mike Street (USPHS)

Lee Ann Sewell (CDC)

Bruce Amundson (HTDS)

Ed Liebow, Bruce Napier (Battelle)

-4-
 TECH. ’ICAL STEERL ’G PA. ’EL OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group Workshop

April 22-23, 1992

Tribal Work Status

• Kalispel submitted supplementary data to Battelle in March, 1992, and are

waiting for Battelle evaluation

• Coeur D'Alene submitted supplementary data to Battelle several months

ago, and are waiting for Battelle evaluation

• Nez Perce received their contract modification; they have completed their

15 interviews, and are ready to begin entering these interview data in a

database management system based on the CDC EPI-INFO software. Are

still in process of compiling their population data, and found their trip to

the Sand Point Archives in Seattle to be be quite productive. Food

consumption data summaries will be submitted to Battelle by May 30.

• Yakima have completed 63 interviews, and the project consultant has

received the database from which to compile population data. Further

progress on data entry and population data compilation has been hampered

by staffing problems. Food consumption data summaries will be submitted

to Battelle by May 30 (Liebow suggests starting with 18, three from each

age/sex group).

• Colville are currently keying in interview data for initial 18 interviews (out

of 100 completed), and have completed their population data compilation.

Food consumption data summaries will be submitted to Battelle by May 30.

• Umatilla are currently keying in interview data for their 9 interivews, and

have completed their population data compilation. No CTUIR representative

attended the meetings, so no submittal date was identified.

• Warm Springs have team together and are ready to start work. Technical

assistance from Battelle project staff will be welcome during this start-up

period.

Scope of Work and Work Orders for Remainder of FY-92

• A "generic" statement of work was circulated for review, indicating four tasks

from which tribes would be asked to select the specific activities that they

consider most appropriate in light of their progress to date.

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
• TSP member Bishop plans to transmit this statement of work to Battelle,

requesting that Battelle issue work orders to each tribe (except the Warm

Springs) to cover the period that ends September 30, 1 992.

• Battelle Sub-Contracts Manager Dan Rutherford outlined the contracting steps

that would occur: Battelle issues a request for proposals, Battelle staff visit

each tribe's headquarters to answer technical and contracting questions, each

tribe prepares a response, seeks the necessary tribal reviews and approvals,

and submits their response to Battelle. Battelle will review the response and

issue a work order. Depending on the time required for tribal response, this

could take as little as three weeks from the time Battelle issues the RFP until a

work order is issued.

• The Nez Perce, Yakima, Colville, and Kalispel representatives indicated their

governing bodies would need to review their response to the RFP. The Coeur

D'Alene council will not, and no representatives were present from Umatilla

and Spokane to indicate whether such a review was needed.

• Data collected to meet Hanford Thyroid Disease Study needs should be

deferred to after October 1, 1992, unless a tribe had already collected these

data upon specific request from the HTDS. The HTDS is working with CDC

and the Colville to cover the Colvilles' costs incurred in responding to an earlier

HTDS request for pilot-phase data.

• There was some discussion about whether tribes will receive payment from

HTDS for work performed on the HEDR project that benefits the HTDS.

Memorandum of Understanding Between CDC and Individual Tribes

• Responding to concerns expressed by some tribal representatives about the

nature of the relationship between CDC and tribal governments, CDC has

indicated its willingness to establish with each tribe a Memorandum of

Understanding that is intended to outline what, in practice, the "governmentto-government" relationship entails. A rough draft of this MOU was circulated

for discussion.

• While an MOU would be established between CDC and each tribe, the CDC

has no intention of excluding the Technical Steering Panel from its role in

directing the technical work of CDC contractors, including the tribes.

• Several tribes indicated that they felt such a document would not be

necessary, that a contract with the CDC would effectively define this

relationship.

-2-
• For those tribes that would like to consider establishing an MOU, developing

the document's specific language should be completed at the same time that

the CDC contracting process goes forward. It was suggested that the

governing body consider adopting the MOU at about the same time it reviews

the proposal to CDC.

CDC Contracts Directly With Tribes Beginning in FY-93

• Mike Donnelly, CDC's newly-installed Hanford Projects Manager, described the

organization of his office (including himself, the "tribal coordinator" position

that is currently being filled, and Peter Houck directing the Public Health

Practice Training program and other training activities).

• CDC intends to award sole source, cost-reimbursable contracts. Tribes should

think about a two-year performance period beginning in FY-93 (October,

1992). Payment can be via "line-of-credit" arrangements for those tribes with

already approved lines-of-credit established.

• Donnelly outlined the contracting process that CDC intends to follow:

Develop Work Requirements and Statement of Work for CDC Contracts

Send CDC Contracts a Request for Contracts (Donnelly estimates that it

typically takes 5-6 months from this point to have CDC issue awards)

Contracts Office provides sole source justification and develops /

distributes a Request for Proposals

CDC holds pre-proposal workshop to clarify proposal preparation

requirements

Each tribe responds to RFP with technical and cost proposals

CDC evaluates tribal response and begins negotiations with each tribe

Based on negotiations, tribe is asked to submit a "best and final" offer

to CDC

"Best and Final" offer is reviewed, accepted, and a contract is awarded

• A rough outline of the work requirements was proposed; in its present form it

focuses on general data collection and analysis activities, without specific

reference to particular hypotheses to test, questions to answer, or products to

deliver.

• There was a great deal of discussion about how specific the CDC request for

proposals would be, and about how specific CDC would expect the tribes to

be in their technical proposal responses. With most of the tribes still in the

process of completing their preliminary data collection and analysis, it is

difficult to specifically define the scope of subsequent inquiries. The proposal

-3 -
evaluation and contract negotiation process needs to remain flexibility to

accommodate this uncertainty.

• Coordination of tribal activities with the Hanford Health Information Network

may be included in the proposals to CDC, to the extent that such coordination

is relevant to the conduct of HEDR/HTDS/Public Health Practice Training work.

Since HHIN is paying for meeting-related travel, Mike Sage doesn't have any

difficulty in regarding staff time costs for meeting attendance as relevant to

the CDC scope of work.

• Before the Native American Working Group delivers its suggestions to CDC

regarding the work requirements for work beginning in FY-93, specific

language should be included concerning:

culturally distinct patterns of food consumption, demography, and

lifestyle;

review of information that will help to accept or challenge the current

assumptions embedded in the dose modelling effort.

Data and Document Release Policy Implementation Guidance

• We ran out of time before we were able to discuss a draft guidance statement.

A copy of this statement will be distributed for comment. Possibly a telephone

conference among the Working Group representatives will be used to

exchange comments and reach agreement on final guidance.

Action Items

• Each tribe with preliminary data summaries yet to deliver to Battelle has

revised deadlines for doing so. The technical substance of subsequent work

depends heavily on tribes analyzing these preliminary data.

• Bishop will transmit Statement of Work and request for Battelle to initiate work

order negotiations for work to be performed by September 30, 1992.

• Battelle staff will issue requests for work order proposals to seven tribes within

a week of receiving Bishop's request. Battelle staff will plan to visit each tribe

by May 15 to help clarify the proposal preparation process.

• Battelle staff will visit the Warm Springs tribe to provide technical assistance

with beginning preliminary data collection and analysis.

• Battelle, HTDS, and Colville staff will clarify budgetary issues involving

coordination of HEDR and pilot-phase HTDS data collection efforts.

-4-
• Each tribe will review the rough draft of proposed MOU language, and inform

CDC whether it would like to establish such an MOU. Any tribe wanting to

establish an MOU with CDC should specify a timetable by which it would like

to jointly develop this agreement.

• Bishop will revise and transmit to CDC the Working Group's recommendations

regarding the work requirements to be included in CDC requests for proposals.

Copies will be distributed to the Working Group's members.

• Bishop will distribute a copy of the proposed "Data and Document Release

Policy Implementation Guidance" statement for discussion. A telephone

conference will be organized to review, revise, and approve a statement of

policy implementation guidance.

• Battelle will develop and distribute a written version of a presentation made to

the Working Group by Bruce Napier in January, 1992 regarding the

assumptions that are currently made by the dose modelling effort regarding

Native American food consumption, lifestyle, and demographic patterns.
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
TECH. ‘ICAL STEERI. ‘G PA. 'EL

OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

US Public Health Service Offices

Seattle

August 6, 1992

Attendees: W. Bishop, M. Power, B. Amundson, V. Chase, P. Houck, M. Donnelly,

E. Liebow

1. Progress on Development of Standard Protocol

Houck distributed a copy of the detailed outline he has developed, which

articulates a series of objectives to be achieved in standardizing the data

collection and analysis protocol, and identifies the work elements that have to

be planned and carried out.

Liebow distributed a copy of his representation of HTDS and HEDR data

requests, pointed out the discrepancies in the way the requested data are to be

organized, and illustrated the population, food consumption, and lifestyle data

categories that would have to be filled to meet the stated requirements of both

studies. This illustration has age- and sex-specific annual population estimates

by residential location for the period 1940-1970, and also the age/sex

categories for which food consumption information has been requested in

1945-47 and 1964-66. A matrix for "percentage of time spent outdoors" is

also included, along with topics to be covered in narrative reports (An Excel

spreadsheet is attached for those of you with Macintosh/Excel version 2.2 or

higher at your disposal; if you don't, let me know and I'll fax you a copy). This

is on/y for discussion purposes; it may be too difficult to collect all the

necessary information from available sources (especially residential location

information), and it may also require too great an effort given the resources

available.

Questions to be answered at this juncture:

• Do we need annual age/sex composition data by residential location for

ALL the years in the 1940-1970 period?

• Should we recommend detailed residential location data be compiled for

selected years first, to see if it's feasible to collect such data, or for

selected years only, if it is already apparent that collecting such data

will prove difficult?

• How are we going to compile information concerning the methods used

in the "pilot" (i.e., preliminary) studies to derive lessons for subsequent

work planning?

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
• For what foods is it absolutely necessary to collect information for dose

estimating purposes?

2. Summary of the Draft Agenda for the September 3 Preproposal Conference

Sea-Tac Radisson Hotel from 8:30 am to 7 pm on Thursday, September 3

8:30 Welcome and Introductions

8:45 CDC Request for Proposals

• General Instructions

• Proposal Evaluation Criteria

• Business Proposal

Noon Lunch

1:00 Overview of Study Design

5:00 Break

7:00 Technical Assistance Available if necessary

The aim of the afternoon session is to reach agreement about the basic

features of the study design. The Working Group Ccan have a "post-award"

meeting to focus on contracts administration.

3. Battelle's Business Relationship with Tribes

It appears today that Battelle will be prepared to provide no-cost time

extensions to the tribes through December 31, 1992 for new work orders, and

that the financial implications of doing so will not be significant, given the point

at which the work orders are likely to finally be in place.

4. Action Items

Liebow and Amundson will meet with Houck and Chase on Monday, August

10 to discuss the data requirements in further detail.

Houck will complete a draft of the standard protocol based on this input by

Friday, August 14.

Liebow will discuss this draft with Deward Walker, and get back to Houck with

any recommendations for him so he can have a revised draft ready for

distribution to the Working Group by August 18.

Liebow will talk with Battelle-Richland about invoicing assistance and status of

tribal statements-of-work.

-2-
Chase will complete scheduling for reservation visits during week of August

24, and notify participants of hotel choices.

-3-
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
 TECH. 'ICAL STEERI. ‘G PA. 'EL OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

_ DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group Meeting

Sea-Tac Radisson Hotel

September 11,1992

The main objectives of the meeting were to:

(1) Review of the Centers for Disease Control sole-source Requests for Proposals

issued to the tribes on August 28.

(2) Discuss a proposed data collection and analysis protocol to be used by all

participating tribes.

CPC Requests for Proposals:

The contemplated period of performance is two years from date of award. CDC

expects to award contracts by the end of October, 1992. This is a very ambitious

schedule for tribes to prepare their proposals, CDC to complete evaluations, request

"best and final" offers, and negotiate a contract. Staying on schedule will depend

heavily on tribes being able to submit their proposal by the end of September. At

least a few of the tribal representatives expressed some skepticism about their

ability to meet this deadline, and the CDC Contracts Specialist invited tribal

representatives to coordinate with him on an individual basis for alternative

submittal dates.

Organizationally, CDC Contracts Specialist Mark Federer will be the contract officer.

He is based in Atlanta. Project officer responsibilities will be shared by Atlantabased Paul Renard and Seattle-based Mike Donnelly.

The format for the business proposal is clearly spelled out in the RFPs. The format

for the technical proposal should follow the evaluation criteria described on p. 44 of

the RFPs, to facilitate the technical review.

If CDC negotiates deliverable dates for dose-relevant food consumption,

demographic, and lifestyle data from the tribes that are different from the March 31,

1993 date spelled out in the RFPs, this could affect Battelle's ability to meet its

internal project milestones to produce Native American dose estimates. CDC and

the tribes need to be aware of the linkages between their schedules and Battelle's,

and the TSP needs to be kept apprised of agreements with the tribes that affect

Battelle work requirements.

CDC is willing to accept quarterly, rather than monthly, financial accounting if that

accommodates a particular tribe's interests.

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
The discussion revealed that government estimates for the level of effort anticipated

for any single tribe to meet the RFPs' work requirements do not exceed $80,000 for

the entire two-year period. Tribal representatives expressed keen disappointment

with this information, judging that this funding level would not permit them to

escape the current bind they face, attempting to complete this work with part-time

staff assignments. The subject of the total amount of funds available to complete

this work, and how to achieve a suitable distribution of funds among the tribal

participants will be raised at the next TSP/NAWG meeting. In the interim, tribal

representatives said they intend to submit proposals with their best, realistic

estimates of work plans aimed at meeting the RFPs' work requirements.

Suggested Data Collection/Analysis Protocol:

Peter Houck (CDC) led this discussion, pointing out that the suggestion for

standardizing the tribes' approach to data collection and analysis grew out of

discussions at the Astoria TSP meeting in July. He emphasized that any tribe's

decision to employ this protocol is voluntary, and that the draft currently being

circulated for review reflects input from CDC, IHS, HTDS, Battelle, and the TSP.

Battelle staff committed to providing a bibliography that is relevant to the

"Literature Review" section of the protocol. HARC has been compiling citations and

copies of cited materials, and will circulate this internally through the normal review

channels prior to making it available to the TSP and CDC.

TSP member Allen Slickpoo recommended that the "study population" definition not

be restricted to a given tribe's enrolled members, but also to include non-member

Indians residing on the reservation. Slickpoo reported that the Nez Perce did not

have official membership rolls until 1948 (this needs to be verified), and that many

reservations have substantial numbers of non-member Indian residents whose

lifestyles were indistinguishable from those of tribal members. Liebow argued that

tribal governments have responsibilities to protect the health and welfare of

members, and that it is difficult to justify having information collected on behalf of

non-members.

The next draft of the protocol will attempt to reconcile these positions, and

incorporate further input from Battelle regarding core data needs, specific training

recommendations (oral history interviewing, archival records searches, memory aids

in research design, data interpretation, progress reporting, and quality control

procedures). The next draft will be prepared in time for distribution prior to the

NAWG meeting scheduled for October 7 in Pasco.

Attendees: [Clockwise] Warren Bishop (TSP), Bruce Amundson (HTDS), Deward

Walker (TSP), Dick Morrill (TSP), Glynn Caldwell (TSP), Vannette Chase (CDC),

Mike Donnelly (CDC), Mark Federer (CDC), J.R. Wilkinson (CTUIR), Joe Richards,

-2-
(CTUIR), Wayne Hanson (YIN), Peter Houck (CDC), Herman Rueben (NP), Lavina

Harrison (NP), Colleen Murray (Battelle), Donna Powaukee (NP), Madeline

Queahpama (WS), Bonnie Langeliers (WS), Ed Liebow (Battelle), David Ernst

(Spokane), Vicki Pierre (Kalispel), Dusty Seylor (CDA), Daivd Burnett (CDA), Tracy

Ikenberry (Battelle), Sally Toulouse (Colville), Cindy Hoke (CCT), Barbara Aripa

(CCT)

-3 -
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
 TECH. 'CAL STEERI. 'G PA. 'EL OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group

Kennewick & Pasco, Washington

October 7-8, 1 992

The main points of discussion included:

a review of the progress to date in drafting a standard data collection protocol;

the tribes' responses to the CDC request for proposals;

the tribes' progress in completing their preliminary data collection, analysis,

and summaries;

a review of the Environmental Transport Sub-Committee's recommendations

regarding river pathway modelling approaches.

Standard Protocol Development

While the purpose of this work is to support dose estimates and the

investigation of thyroid disease outcomes, other health studies may be needed

eventually. The "specific aims" need to recognize the other applications for this

work.

Battelle is developing a bibliography identifying some useful sources for

establishing independent observations against which primary data can be

compared. Pending internal Battelle review, this bibliography should be

available to the NAWG in the next month.

Definitions for the study population and sampling frame were ironed out:

The study will collect information concerning the following residential

location categories: (1) "on-reservation and environs," (2) offreservation but within the study area, and (3) out of the study area.

The definition of "on-reservation and environs" will be left up to the

individual tribes -- it may be the IHS "Service Area" is a useful

geographic area.

Tribes will collect food consumption and other dose-relevant lifestyle

information to develop representative individual cases for for members

whose primary residence during 1945-47 or 1964-66 was "onreservation and environs", and any other sizable concentration of

members residing off-reservation in the study area ("sizable" is

understood to mean at least 1 5-20% of the tribal membership at the

time). If this sizable concentration of members is located on another

reservation, no information will be collected, as it will be assumed that

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
their lifestyle is the same as that of the host reservation's members. If

a single tribe has salient sub-groups, more than one set of

representative cases can be developed, but the maximum number of

cases would be 5. "Primary residence" is understood to mean where

one lived for more than six months during a given year.

Ikenberry presented several recommendations about core food

consumption data requirements for the HEDR model, in order of

importance of contribution to dose:

Air Pathway River Pathway

Milk Resident fish (on Columbia below

Hanford and lower tributaries near

where they meet Columbia)

Leafy exposed vegetables Salmon, steelhead, eel

Eggs

Other Other

Other vegetables, tree fruits, berries

Meat

Grains

Important considerations for Air Pathway:

1945-47 is most important period

Local/regional produce is only interest

Fresh (as opposed to "stored") produce is of interest

Investigate and call to Battelle's attention any special foods

Model can't distinguish "traditional" from "non-traditional" foods - the

way that radionuclides are taken up by plants and animals is assumed to

be about the same for foods in the same categories

Battelle would like a narrative report covering the periods 1948-63 and

1967-72 concerning changes in food consumption patterns in these

time periods for which data are not collected

Other information about food preparation (was it washed or skinned?)

will be necessary, as will information on how chickens were fed (for

estimating concentrations in hen's eggs).

-2-
• Important considerations for the River Pathway:

1964-66 is the most important time period

Location of the fish catch is very important, especially for resident fish

Information on consumption of fresh fish is most important, but stored

fish may also be important

Try to keep track of salmon and steelhead separately

Investigate and call to Battelle's attention any special foods, e.g.

freshwater mussels, crayfish

Battelle would like a narrative report covering the periods 1948-1963

and 1967-72 concerning changes in food consumption patterns

between data collection periods.

Include information on what parts of the fish were consumed, as

different radionuclides are concentrated in different parts of the fish.

• Data entry (possibility of using EPI-INFO), introducing the study to respondents

through use of a booklet modelled after the HTDS interview guide, and

payment to respondents for their participation were also discussed.

Tribes' Response to CDC Request For Proposals

• None of the tribes had submitted a proposal to CDC as of October 8. Donnelly

strongly recommended that the tribes notify Contracts Officer Mark Federer of

their intent to submit proposals. Liebow suggested the tribes consider

organizing their technical proposals according to the evaluation criteria

contained in the RFP.

• The Yakima proposal is assembled and submittal is awaiting a decision

regarding what sort of tribal government review and approval is needed.

• The Nez Perce proposal will be submitted to CDC by October 19.

• The Warm Springs proposal will be submitted to CDC by October 12.

• The Kalispel, Spokane, and Umatilla proposals will be prepared for submittal by

the end of October.

• The Coeur D'Alene proposal will be submitted to CDC shortly after the next

Battelle work order is in place, which is scheduled for the week of October 12.

• No Colville representative attended the Working Group meeting, but Barbara

Aripa reported earlier in the week that the proposal is complete and ready for

review by the tribal council.

Tribes' Progress on Preliminary Data Collection and Analysis

• Nez Perce data entry will be completed and data summaries ready for delivery

to Battelle by October 16.

• A meeting of the Yakima project staff and consultant will take place next week

to discuss project status.

-3 -
• The Umatilla follow-on data collection effort is ready to begin.

• Colville data summaries are ready for review by the tribal council.

• Coeur D'Alene and Spokane work orders are to be executed in the next week.

• Warm Springs population data summaries and food consumption interview

development are underway.

Recommended Approaches to River Pathway Modelling

• TSP member Walker reviewed for the group the recommendations to the TSP

that grew out of an Environmental Transport Sub-Committee meeting held in

Seattle on September 4. Of greatest interest to the Working Group are: (1) the

question of how to identify locations for which concentrations in water and fish

should be estimated, and (2) what additional information is needed concerning

anadromous species. Identification of traditional fishing locations is complicated

by dam-building and the creation of in lieu sites, and by competing tribal claims

about the use of these locations.

ACTION ITEMS:

• Battelle will provide a bibliography to the Working Group members by the 1st

week of November, pending internal review and clearance

• Reuben will send Bishop a copy of the Columbia River Inter-tribal Fishery

Commission's recent fish consumption survey for distribution to the Working

Group members.

• At the earliest possible time, all tribes will notify the CDC Contracts Officer of

their intent to submit proposals in response to the RFP.

• The Working Group will schedule a series of training sessions for project

coordinators and interviewers concerning implementation of the standard study

protocol. For this training, tribes will prepare a summary of their preliminary

efforts, focusing on problems encountered and solutions tried.

• Houck will coordinate the revision of a protocol, to be sent to Bishop for

distribution to the Working Group members.

• Houck will coordinate drafting a questionnaire and interviewer training guide for

review and pilot testing by the Working Group members.

• CDC will provide clarification on whether subject payments/honoraria are

allowable under the terms of the anticipated contracts.

• CDC will provide clarification regarding the need for clearance from the Office

of Management and Budget for tribal surveys proposed in the standard study

protocol.

• Walker or a CRITFC representative will summarize existing information

regarding fishing locations along the Columbia River for discussion at the next

Working Group meeting.

-4-
ATTENDEES

Betty Pingkham, Vicki Pierre (Kalispel), JR Wilkinson (CTUIR), Moses Dick Squeochs

(Yakima), Herman Reuben (Nez Perce), Madeline Queahpama (Warm Springs), Dusty

Seylor (Coeur D'Alene), David Ernst (Spokane), Warren Bishop, Deward Walker

(TSP), Van Chase, Mike Donnelly, Peter Houck (CDC), Max Power (Wa Ecology), Al

Conklin (Wa Health), Alan Parham (ATSDR), Bruce Amundson (HTDS, for second

day), Ed Liebow, Tracy Ikenberry (Battelle). The Colville Confederated Tribes were

not represented. Also attending on the second day were Steve Shoemaker

(Battelle), and Ron Sim (Stoel, Rives, Boley, Jones and Grey; United Nuclear is his

client).

-5-
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
 TECH. ‘ICAL STEERI. 'G PA. 'EL

OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

 DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Meeting at Seattle CDC Offices

June 15,1 993

Attendees: Bishop, Power, Chase, Donnelly, Houck, Amundson, Ikenberry,

Liebow

• Status of Tribes' Preliminary Data Submittals to Battelle

Spokane, Umatilla, and Kalispel have preliminary data in to

Battelle, along with instructions for their initial disposition

Colville, Coeur D'Alene, and Nez Perce will probably have

data in by June 30

Status of Yakima data will be reviewed in a June 24 mtg

Warm Springs has only four completed interviews to date; June 30

deadline will be difficult to meet; will reassess weekly till then.

• Battelle Dose Estimates and Process for Discussing with Tribes

PNL meeting on Thursday (June 17) to review dose estimates and

discuss process for discussing with tribes

Present plans:

Range of values (mean, 5th and 95th percentile doses), for one

year (1945), air pathway only

One representative adult dose range to thyroid, one representative

child dose range

Assess contributions to dose by non-traditional diet, traditional

diet, immersion, ground-shine, and inhalation

PILOT code being used, not the more elaborate code, for these

preliminary doses

Will invite tribal project coordinator to PNL to review and

discuss appropriate way to approach governing body

Some question about how acceptable a single "representative

individual case" will be - this should be understood as a

"scoping" calculation that will help plan and sharpen focus

of further investigations.

• Additional Fish Consumption Data for River Pathway Modelling

Walker will be proposing for group's consideration a cooperative effort

to determine what records are available relating to fish consumption in

the 1960s, to help reduce the uncertainty of river pathway doses.

Questions of timing, and how this activity will fit into tribes' scope of

work need to be discussed with the Working Group.

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206) 407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
Review of available records needs to be explicit about consumption of

"resident" fish (cf. anadromous species).

• Status of Tribes' Contracting Arrangements with CDC

All tribes who have submitted proposals have conducted negotiations by

phone or in person with CDC, except for Colville, who have a phone call

scheduled for this week.

Warm Springs and Spokane appear closest to having contracts awarded.

Umatilla, Coeur D'Alene, and Yakima taking longer to respond with Best

and Final offers. Kalispel just had phone negotiations this past week.

Nez Perce were sent a letter via fax requesting by June 30 an indication

of whether (and when) a response to the RFP would be forthcoming.

The Nez Perce response is receiving active attention.

• Status of 0MB Review of Data Collection Protocol

Seattle-Hanford Projects Office currently responding to comments by

CDC Office of Program Planning and Evaluation.

After CDC-OPPE approves, it will be passed along to the Public Health

Service for review, the to DHHS, and then to 0MB.

Payment of a participation fee is identified as the single greatest

potential obstacle to 0MB approval, but it is not clear what contingency

planning is needed if approval is not granted to the present protocol.

Pressure has been applied at the Congressional level to make sure the

review is expedited.

• Update on Progress of HTDS Pilot Studies

Reassuring view emerging that basic design features are working, with

performance indicators better than expected.

Of 1500 subjects, 62% have been located; of those located to date, an

overall participation rate of 82%, which varies slightly by region.

300 people have had clinical examinations to date, very low no-show

rate once appointments are made; extremely cooperative subjects when

fine-needle aspiration is requested for further tests on nodules

encountered.

Two physicians have been added for the clinical work, and pilot phase

completion has been pushed back to Summer of 1994.

The data for the first individual dose calculations are due to be

transmitted to Battelle shortly.

• Tribal Involvement in Proposed ATSDR Work

Tribal representatives left the June 11 workshop on community

involvement strategy development in state of confusion over their role

and relationship of ATSDR plans to ongoing HEDR and HTDS activities.

-2-
An ATSDR representative should be invited to attend the July 14

meeting.

• CDC/IHS Plans for Training Tribal Staff Members

Two Seattle-based sessions are anticipated, one week-long course for

project coordinators (probably in August or September) and one 3-day

interviewer training course once OMB clearance has been obtained and

interviewers are recruited.

Possible addition of modules on "ethnographic" research methods and

basics of radiation discussed.

Possible training exercise to review availability of records regarding fish

consumption.

• Agenda for July 14 Native American Working Group Meeting in Idaho

Some aspects of most topics discussed here will be included. Other

suggestions should be directed to Bishop and Power.

• Arrangement for Tribal Travel Expense Reimbursement to July 14 Mtg

Donnelly expects contracts to be in place for four tribes.

For tribes not yet under contract with CDC, Battelle has said it will be

willing to write "workshop agreements" with tribes who still have not

obligated all of the funds authorized under their Battelle contracts.

If a tribe (other than the Nez Perce, who are so late with their response

to the RFP) is not yet under contract with CDC and has no remaining

unobligated funds under the Battelle contract, Donnelly will consider an

"invitational travel" mechanism to cover their expenses.

• Conversation With Bill Burke (CTUIR)

Burke admonished Bishop not to lose sight of some of the original goals

of involving the tribes in the Hanford studies, including training tribal

members and creating a database useful for tribal health studies.

Efforts just underway by the ATSDR and Hanford Healthinformation

Network may help achieve these goals.

-3-
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
TECH. 'ICAL STEERI. 'G PA. ‘EL

OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Summary of Native American Working Group Meeting

Post Falls, Idaho

July 14, 1993

Progress Reports:

Battelle Work Orders:

• Spokane - completed Work Order, reviewed preliminary dose calculations with

Battelle, have scheduled a work session with Tribal Council

• Umatilla - completed Work Order, reviewed preliminary dose calculations with

Battelle, have questions about availability of information regarding river pathway

contribution to dose

• Kalispel - completed Work Order, need to review preliminary dose calculations

• Coeur D'Alene - received comments requesting clarification of food consumption

summary; once clarification is provided, Work Order will be considered complete

• Colville - received comments requesting clarification of food consumption

summary; once clarification is provided, Work Order will be considered complete

• Nez Perce - no cost time extension granted on Work Order; food consumption

summaries will be provided to Battelle within ten days

• Yakima - no-cost time extension granted on Work Order; Council committee

approved release of food consumption summaries to Battelle

• Warm Springs - no-cost time extension granted on Work Order; final interviews

to be completed this week, and food consumption summaries to be prepared and

delivered to Battelle within a month.

Battelle would like to have final invoices for all of these work orders received by the

end of August at the latest, so they can be processed and the contracts closed-out by

the end of the Federal fiscal year.

CDC Contracting Arrangements:

• Spokane - final contract processing currently underway

• Warm Springs - final contract processing currently underway

• Umatilla - Best and Final Offer sent to CDC

• Kalispel - Best and Final Offer sent to CDC

• Colville - Best and Final Offer sent to CDC

• Yakima - telephone negotiations complete; Best and Final Offer not yet sent to

CDC

• Coeur D'Alene - telephone negotiations scheduled for week of July 19

• Nez Perce - initial proposal sent to CDC; awaiting technical review and telephone

negotiations

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
If any tribal staff have questions or problems, they should feel free to phone Erica

Clarke at CDC in Atlanta. The delay in establishing contracts will not affect the longterm program goals for the Native American work. Tribal projects should still anticipate

a 1 5-month timeline.

Preliminary Dose Estimates and Discussions With Battelle:

The main purpose of calculating these doses is to help tighten the focus of subsequent

studies. The preliminary calculations are limited: they are just for the 1940s; just one

adult and one child are considered to be representative individuals for each tribe; only

one feeding regime is considered for dairy cattle; only doses to the thyroid gland

estimated. Battelle can distinguish the contributions made by "non-traditional,"

"traditional," and "other" pathways, and can compare these estimated doses with a

dose value calculated for a non-lndian living at the same place.

If possible, Battelle would like each tribal project coordinator to schedule a visit to

Richland to review these estimates and help prepare an appropriate presentation for the

tribal governing body.

Hanford Health Information Network:

The Working Group reviewed the purposes for which the Network was formed under

the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991:

• providing information to individuals about their potential exposures, and to health

care professionals about the effects of exposure to radiation

• creating mechanisms to refer individuals who may have been exposed to radiation

to knowledgeable health care professionals

• evaluating, and if feasible, putting into place the means for registering and

monitoring the health status of persons who may have been exposed to Hanford

releases.

A main Resource Center is operated by Seattle-based Cedar River Associates, and their

work is guided by a Resource Center Advisory Board. Each participating state expects

to implement a service center to be guided by a local advisory board. A special tribal

service center is to be set up under the guidance of the Tribal Advisory Board.

To date, the Tribal Advisory Board has helped establish the tribal service program by

determining the scope of this program, preparing a Request for Proposals for the

operating service program, and selecting Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board

has been selected to negotiate a contract for providing the requested services.

Additional Data Needs For River Pathway Dose Estimates:

-2-
Deward Walker proposed further work on the contribution made by the river pathway

to Native American doses.

• The contribution made by the river pathway to Native American doses is an issue

of major importance to the participating tribes, but has received only a secondary

emphasis to date; uncertainties regarding doses from the river pathway must be

reduced as much as practicable.

• The questionnaire being reviewed by OMB does not elicit specific enough

information regarding (1) locations from which fish, especially resident fish, are

taken for fresh consumption, and (2) consumption by species, especially resident

species.

• Although releases to the river peaked in the 1960s, Walker believes we should be

interested in fish consumption in the 1940s because fish consumption may have

been enough greater that its contribution to dose may not be trivial, even with the

relatively low volume of radionuclide releases.

• Before trying to specify fish consumption by species and catch location, an

exploration needs to be completed to determine whether information is available

to do this work.

• Each tribe has the option to decide whether and how (e.g., who from a particular

tribe) it will take part in this exploratory work. Walker will make a written request

to each tribe's HEDR Project Coordinator to seek the tribe's authorization to

explore sources of information on fish consumption of particular species caught

at specific locations.

• It is important to approach this undertaking with an eye toward the training

benefits that each tribe's HEDR project staff will receive from taking part. It is

hoped that this work can be completed by September.

Update on HTDS Pilot Studies:

• A reassuring view emerging that basic design features are working, with

performance indicators better than expected. Of 1500 subjects, more than 60%

have been located; of those located to date, an overall participation rate of more

than 80%, which varies slightly by region.

• A small number of Native Americans have been included in the pilot studies, as

they are encountered in the sampling procedures.

• More than 300 people have had clinical examinations to date, very low no-show

rate once appointments are made; extremely cooperative subjects when

fine-needle aspiration is requested for further tests on nodules encountered.

• Two physicians have been added for the clinical work, and pilot phase completion

has been pushed back to Summer of 1994.

• The data for the first individual dose calculations have been transmitted to

Battelle.

• The Colville Confederated Tribes have requested that one of the advisory board

members be removed from his position.

-3-
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry:

The agency was created 10 years ago to evaluate health effects at sites included in a

national list of contaminated sites with the highest priority for cleanup. Hanford has

four such "National Priority List" sites, and the agency is following its mandate by

beginning health studies. The agency would like to develop an advisory board to help

it communicate more effectively with interested constituencies about the results of its

ongoing analyses.

At Hanford, there are three types of analyses the agency will undertake, the most

elaborate of which is called a Public Health Assessment. Four of these will be

completed at Hanford, starting with one at the 1100-Area, to be followed by

Assessments of the 100, 200, and 300 Areas. It takes about two years to complete

one of these Assessments, and there is a 30-day public comment period on the

preliminary findings prior to its final release.

A second type of analysis, an Evaluation, is to be undertaken for groundwater and the

Columbia River, as these are two exposure pathways common to all four National

Priority List sites at Hanford. No formal consultation requirement is associated with the

Evaluations.

A third type of analysis, a Consultation, is nearly completed. The consultation, jointly

undertaken by two divisions of the agency, examines such questions as whether there

are people who need help to understand potential exposures, is there a perception of

present and past exposure associated with the site, and is there an indicated or

perceived connection between adverse effects and exposures from the site? A

consultation isn't circulated for public comment.

CDC/IHS Training Plans:

Two HEDR-related training sessions are anticipated for the Fall, 1994: First will be a

week-long course for tribal project coordinators covering basic topics in public health

research. Second will be a three-day course for interviewers, to be scheduled when

OMB clearance is obtained and interviewers have been hired. It will focus on

implementation of the survey and practice with the survey instrument.

Overall Project Timetable:

Key dates to bear in mind:

• July - December, 1993

Preliminary food consumption and population data summaries to be

completed

Preliminary 1940s dose estimates for representative individuals onreservation to be provided to tribal governing bodies

-4-
January - June, 1995

Representative individual doses for each tribe to be provided by TSP

Population doses will be provided by the TSP for each tribe that requests

such information

A generic work scheme was presented to explore the circumstances under which it

would be possible for tribes to complete the scope of work covered in their contracts

with CDC within the 1 5-month performance period. It was agreed that this is tight

schedule, and that it is not intended for each tribe to be forced to work at the same

pace.

ACTION ITEMS:

Each tribe will submit their final invoice and close-out papers to Battelle no later than

the end of August.

Walker will submit a written request to each tribe's project coordinator regarding an

exploratory look to see if information is available for further specifying fish

consumption by species and catch location.

Liebow will provide the citation for the report that contains the 1945 dose distribution

maps: Napier, B.A., and S.F. Snyder. 1992. Determination of the Feasibility of

Reducing the Spatial Domain of the HEDR Dose Code. BN-SA-3678-HEDR.

Liebow will report to the group about what information Battelle is currently authorized

to make available concerning river pathway contributions to dose.

ATTENDEES:

J.R. Wilkinson, Umatilla

Dusty Seyler, Coeur D'Alene

Barbara Aripa, Colville

Adeline Fredin, Colville

Madeline Queahpama, Warm Springs

Vicki Bowman, Kalispel

J. Herman Reuben, Nez Perce

Stuart Harris, Nez Perce

Russell Jim, Yakima

David Ernst, Spokane

Warren Bishop, TSP

Allen Slickpoo, TSP

Deward Walker, TSP

Max Power, Washington-Ecology

Donna Manders, HHIN

Mike Donnelly, CDC

Van Chase, CDC

Jo Freedman, ATSDR

Greg Thomas, ATSDR

Bruce Amundson, HTDS

Ed Liebow, Battelle

-5-
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
 TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

 DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group Meeting

Richland, Washington

October 6, 1993

Status of CDC Contracts and OMB Clearance for Data Collection Protocol

Spokane and CTUIR contracts have been awarded. Colville, Warm Springs, Kalispel

contracts have been signed by the tribes and are awaiting official award notice from

CDC. Coeur D'Alene is still in negotiations. Nez Perce is scheduled to complete a

telephone conference based on their original submittal the week of October 18. The

Yakima have yet to respond to last May's telephone conference with a Best and Final

Offer.

The Public Health Service has completed its review of the proposed Data Collection

Protocol and forwarded the clearance application to the Office of Management and

Budget. If OMB does not act on the application within 90 days of receiving it,

clearance is automatically granted. A Senate Indian Affairs Committee staff member

indicated to Warren Bishop some additional progress in the OMB review, but this needs

to be confirmed.

Work Planning Under the CDC Contracts

Van Chase distributed a format/content guide for the first deliverable requested under

the CDC contracts: a detailed work plan. A draft of this work plan is due 30 days after

the date of contract award. Van's office is willing to review earlier drafts prior to this

submittal deadline. A June 1, 1994 deadline has been identified for tribes to submit all

of their population and food consumption data summaries. The Working Group feels

the rationale for having all data submitted by June 1 needs to be revisited. CDC staff

was asked to be mindful of substantial differences between the tribes with respect to

when they will complete their work.

Deward Walker asked the CDC staff to determine whether the "Data and Document

Release Policy" created by the Working Group and adopted by the Technical Steering

Panel has been incorporated into the CDC's contracts with the tribes.

Virgil Peavy, a CDC statistician, will be available for consultation in Seattle on Monday

and Thursday, October 18 & 21. CDC staff will send a notice to each HEDR

coordinator to remind them of this opportunity.

Warren Bishop recommended to CDC that it consider circulating a brief project update

to the Working Group, perhaps as often as bi-weekly at first, as regular and frequent

communication is key to the success of the Working Group members' efforts.

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
Plans for Training

Peter Houck will lead two training courses, one a week-long session for HEDR Project

Coordinators, and the other a three-day session for each tribe's data collectors. The

Coordinators' training session has been tentatively scheduled for the week of

November 1-5 in Seattle, and the Data Collector's session is tentatively scheduled for

the week of January 10, also in Seattle. In response to the topics suggested by Peter,

some involvement by Battelle will be requested for the Coordinators' session in

November to cover such topics as "data quality objectives," "uncertainty," and, more

generally, how data are going to be used in calculating doses. Topics to be added to

Peter's outline in the training for data collectors include: use of food models in

interviewing, quality assurance, data entry and background on the database

management system, "Epi-lnfo," and special sensitivities involved in interviewing tribal

elders.

Preliminary Dose Calculations and Progress on River Pathway Modelling

Tracy Ikenberry and Bill Farris outlined two key pieces of technical work in progress

at Battelle: (1) scoping calculations based on food consumption summaries provided

by the tribes, and (2) river pathway modelling, including the assumptions used in

modelling the river pathway, and the specific ingestion pathways that appear to make

the greatest contribution to dose. The scoping calculations indicate the relative

contribution of different food categories to a representative individual's dose, and these

indications should guide tribal project activities in increasing the accuracy,

completeness, and precision of information regarding consumption of food in the

categories making the greatest contribution to dose. In the river modelling, it is now

apparent that it is very important to know about the time of year and the location at

which resident fish were taken for fresh consumption, and the species of fish

consumed. For salmon, however, the location where they were taken from the river

does not appear to have a significant effect on the dose received from eating them.

For illustration's sake, Bill Farris estimated the river-borne dose that would have been

received by an individual between January 1960 and December 1967 if he consumed

the following:

• 60 liters of untreated Columbia River water / month (almost 2 quarts / day)

• 5 kg (11 lbs) of fish /month year-round (species mix varies by season)

• 2 kg (4.4 lbs) of waterfowl / month between October and December each

year

• 2 kg (4.4 lbs) of Willapa Bay oysters / month (year-round)

• 100 kg (220 lbs) / yr of salmon (33 kg in May, and 66 kg in AugustSeptember)

• Spent 10 hours / month boating and swimming on the river.

-2-
This leads to a dose over the 8-year period:

60% of dose

18%

17%

2%

2%

(540 millirem)

(150 mrem)

(140 mrem)

TOTAL

(10 mrem)

(16 mrem)

860 mrem

resident fish and waterfowl

Willapa Bay oysters

Columbia River drinking water

salmon

external exposure

(This compares with an estimated background/eve/ ofabout 100 mrem/yr, or 800

mrem over the period covered by this rough dose estimate. The TSP's "dose

decision /eve/" is 100 mrem / year, so this "high use" individual wou/d exceed the

dose decision level.)

Action Items

• CDC and the Coeur D'Alene, Nez Perce, and Yakima need to complete contract

negotiations.

• CDC will confirm the status of the OMB review

• CDC will review and communicate with the tribes about the rationale for having

all data submitted by June 1.

• CDC will determine whether the "Data and Document Release Policy" has been

incorporated into the CDC's contracts with the tribes.

• CDC staff will send a notice to each HEDR coordinator about Virgil Peavy's visit

to Seattle the week of October 18.

• CDC staff will consider circulating a brief project update to the Working Group,

perhaps as often as bi-weekly at first.

• Battelle staff will coordinate with CDC regarding participation in November and

January training sessions.

Attendees

JR Wilkinson (CTUIR)

Les Spino (CTUIR)

Madeline Queahpama (Warm Springs)

Barbara Aripa (Colville)

David Ernst (Spokane)

Dusty Seyler (Coeur D'Alene)

Cliff Sijohn (Coeur D'Alene)

Herman Reuben (Nez Perce)

Warren Bishop (TSP)

Deward Walker (TSP)

John Till (TSP)

Max Power (Washington-Ecology)

Bruce Amundson (HTDS)

Greg Thomas (ATSDR)

Peter Houck (CDC/HCFA)

Van Chase (CDC)

Dill Shipler (Battelle)

Bill Farris (Battelle)

Tracy Ikenberry (Battelle)

Ed Liebow (Battelle)

Marc Witkowski (Battelle)

-3 -
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Meeting Regarding Native American Working Group

CDC Offices, Seattle

December 9, 1992

(Attendees: V Chase, D Lyons, M Donnelly (CDC), P Houck (HCFA), B Amundson

(HTDS), W Bishop, M Power (TSP), T Ikenberry, E Liebow (Battelle)

Status Updates:

Contracts

• Nez Perce have yet to arrange a telephone conference with CDC Contracts

Office to complete negotiations.

• Bishop and Liebow attempting to arrange a meeting at Yakima Nation to

discuss Yakima concerns about continued participation in the study.

• Coeur D'Alene contract to be awarded momentarily.

• Draft work plans received to date have indicated that the June 1994

deadline for providing data is going to be difficult to achieve for some

tribes.

QMB Clearance

• The application for clearance was sent to OMB on September 24; if no

determination is made by December 24, then the clearance is automatically

granted. Donnelly will apprise the group of further developments.

HTDS

• At the October, 1 993 meeting of the HTDS Advisory Committee, a draft

set of criteria were proposed for deciding whether to proceed with a Native

American Thyroid Disease Study. These criteria are based on statistical

power, or the ability to generalize from a sample to the population from

which it was drawn. The same power thresholds applied in decisions about

the main study are proposed for deciding about whether to proceed with

a Native American Thyroid Disease Study.

• Although literature reviews have not uncovered any basic research

concerning distinctive features of Native American thyroid functioning,

additional searches are possible.

• The timing and adequacy of the HEDR work is absolutely central to

decisions about proceeding with a Native American Thyroid Disease Study.

• If the study proceeds, a common definition for the study population will

need to be developed and agreed to.

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
Preliminary Dose Estimates

• Preliminary data summaries have been received from 7 tribes, one (Nez

Perce) still needs corrections before doses can be estimated.

• Air pathway dose estimates have been calculated for 6 tribes

• The Umatilla have requested a river pathway dose (in addition to the air

pathway). Ikenberry has recently received the river pathway code, and can

now proceed with this request.

• Presentations have been made to the Colville and Spokane councils. A

presentation scheduled for the Kalispel council was attended by staff only.

Presentations to the Coeur D'Alene, Warm Springs, and Umatilla governing

bodies will be scheduled for January and beyond.

Interfaces with Hanford Health Information Network and ATSDR

• Northwest Area Indian Health Board will be especially useful in facilitating

communications among the tribes on Hanford-related matters, but is not

expected to be a source of technical assistance to the tribes.

• ATSDR will be establishing a site-specific health advisory board for its

Hanford studies, and the criteria for board membership appear to lead to

two Native American representatives. This advisory board may come

under the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which spells

out procedures for selecting members, giving public notice and records of

meetings.

Training:

HEDR Project Coordinators Training

• 5 tribes were initially represented at the training, 4 had representatives

stay for the entire training. 3 evaluation forms were received, which all

assessed the workshop favorably.

Interviewer Training

• Some concerns expressed about forging ahead with the training scheduled

for January 10-12. Instructors from Atlanta may have a difficult time

rescheduling, but several of the tribes may not have interviewers on staff

by then. Assuming 0MB clearance is obtained, four tribes would be

delayed in their interviewing if the training is rescheduled.

• Alternative instructors may be available from Fred Hutchinson; CDC will

talk to the project coordinators and determine whether another location

beside Seattle would likely increase attendance.

Technical Assistance After May, 1994:

• The Native American Working Group will have to make recommendations

to the TSP regarding the need for technical assistance and potential

sources from which this assistance could be sought.

-2-
NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP

January 19, 1994

PASCO RED LION INN

2525 North 20th

Pasco, Washington

PROPOSED AGENDA

9:00 a.m. Status Updates

• CDC Contract Negotiations

• OMB Clearance of NAWG Protocol-Survey Questionnaire

• Completion of Battelle Contracts: Presentation of Preliminary

Dose Calculations and Tribal Review

9:45 a.m. Hanford Thyroid Disease Study: Native American Feasibility Decision

10:30 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m. Hanford Health Information Network Activities — IncludingHHIN

Tribal Service Program Briefing

11:15 a.m. Tribes Work Planning and Implementation

• Need for Projected Schedule Adjustments

• Project Coordinators and Interviewer Training: Critique

and Evaluation

12:15 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

• Study Organization and Structure — Progress

• Native American Representation on ATSDR - Hanford Health

Advisory Board

2:00 p.m. Technical Assistance

• Scoping Effort to Reconstruct Tribal

Population Distribution Within HEDRP Study Area: Time Frame

• Special Source Document Location

• Providing Quality Assurance

• Database Management: Structure for Coding Interview Responses

• Opportunity for Technical Consultation

3:00 p.m. Break

3:15 p.m. Presentation on River Pathway Modeling

• Concentrations of Radionuclides at Different Locations Along

Columbia River and Its Tributaries

• Bioconcentration Factors: Resident Fish - Salmon - Steelhead

- Other River Aquatic Species

• Significance for Process of Collecting Data

4:30 p.m. Adjourn

-1 -
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL

OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group

Pasco, Washington

January 19, 1994

1. Draft Guidelines for Recommending A Study of Thyroid Disease

• Drs. Amundson and Kopecky presented a draft of a discussion paper that

proposes a process for deciding whether to go ahead with an

epidemiological study of thyroid disease among tribal members. CDC will

make this decision, but the Working Group will be expected to provide

advice. The draft guidelines propose that this decision be based on

scientific grounds, with special attention to adequate statistical power

(mainly as a function of sample size). This decision will need to be made

near the end of the year.

• Kopecky told the Working Group a little about statistical power and about

how to calculate necessary sample sizes, based on information concerning

tribal populations and representative individual dose calculations now being

prepared.

• If an epidemiology study is recommended, respondents to the HEDR survey

can expect to be re-contacted for additional information, and possibly for

a health status assessment.

• Working Group members should provide comments regarding the draft

guidelines directly to Amundson or other HTDS management team

members.

• Tribes that haven't consulted with CDC statistician Virgil Peavey about

sampling approaches are urged to do so now, while they are completing

their work plans.

• Working Group members are urged to attend meetings of the HTDS

Advisory Board. The next one is scheduled for April, 1994, in Spokane.

CDC will provide more specific meeting information as it becomes

available.

2. CDC Contract Management and Training Update

• Six tribes are now under contract with the CDC (all but Nez Perce and

Yakima).

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
• OMB approved the study protocol earlier this month, and CDC has

provided each project coordindator with specific guidance concerning

compliance with the terms and conditions of this approval.

• CDC will provide Working Group members with a summary of the contents

of the OMB clearance application. The "Data and Document Release

Policy" is included as part of the approved protocol.

• CDC will provide electronic copies of the protocol, questionnaire, and EPIInfo data entry routines to tribal project staff who requested these items.

• If the June 1994 deliverable date for tribal primary data summaries appears

increasingly difficult to meet, tribes should report this to CDC Contract

Specialist Erica Clarke (copies to CDC-Seattle), along with a proposed

alternative date by which the deliverable could be submitted.

• Concern was expressed for improving the mechanisms for identifying and

overcoming obstacles to adequate progress.

• CDC will be sending out a questionnaire to training participants asking an

evaluation of the training sessions.

• Dick Lyons would like each tribe to report back to him in the next two

weeks regarding their specific computer hardware/software situation, and

whether available equipment and software are adequate to complete each

tribe's work requirements.

3. Hanford Health Information Network Tribal Services Program

• Andy Ross introduced his staff, Health Education specialist Ruth Jensen

and Information Systems specialist Laura Cailloux. He outlined program

plans in the health education, training, database management and intertribal communication areas, and urged Working Group members to provide

specific advice on how the program can best meet their needs.

4. Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry Hanford-Related Work

• Greg Thomas reported that initial feedback from public groups has led the

agency to seek to create full-fledged Advisory Committees for all DOEcomplex Superfund sites around the nation. This will require an exemption

from the current administration's Executive Order placing a moratorium on

new committees authorized by the Federal Advisory Committee Act. It

could easily take more than a year to have a FACA-authorized advisory

board in place. Thomas would like feedback on how best to incorporate

tribal representation on the Hanford Advisory Board. The status of tribal

rights and interests is distinct from those of public interest gorups, and this

-2-
distinction should be reflected in the agency's interactions with tribal

representatives.

• Technical studies are proceeding. A "public health assessment" has been

drafted for the 1100 Area at Hanford, the first of four National Priority List

sites for which such assessments are to be undertaken. This draft is

currently undergoing internal agency review before it will be available for

public comment. A public health assessment of the 200-Area is slated to

start in the 2nd quarter of FY94. The agency contemplates site-wide

evaluations for groundwater and for the Columbia River, but doesn't know

whether these will be undertaken as "public health assessments" or as

less formal "consultations." It is not clear how input regarding the public

health assessment/consultation decision is to be solicited, especially in the

absence of a functioning advisory board.

5. Special Scoping Study on Tribal Residential Distribution

• For the purposes of calculating doses from preliminary tribal data

summaries, a simplistic assumption has been made regarding the

residential location for representative individual cases. Liebow suggested

that data are available from research done by Deward Walker and others

indicating that for some tribes, representative individual dose calculations

should eventually be made at more than one residential location. Several

years ago, the Working Group had agreed that information should be

gathered to permit profiles for a number of different lifestyles tied, in part,

to where tribal members lived. Collecting such information may extend

beyond the scope of current CDC contracts, however. Tribal researchers

are encouraged to keep an eye out for information sources that will help

construct residential distributions for their membership, while examining

archival records for other contractually-specified purposes. A discussion

paper will be drafted for further review by the Working Group.

6. Columbia River Pathway Modelling

• Ikenberry presented an overview of Battelle's efforts to model the

Columbia River pathways, and explored the implications of this approach

to modelling for Native American data collection. In this context, the most

important emphasis in data collection should be placed on resident fish

consumption and location of river-related food-consumption and lifestyle.

• The data collection instrument will need to be reexamined to assure its

questions correspond with river pathway modelling data input

requirements.

-3-
7. Action Items

• Distribute HTDS Study Protocol (May, 1993 version) to tribal Project

Coordinators (Amundson)

• Distribute Donnelly's presentation overheads regarding contents of OMB

clearance application to meeting attendees (Donnel/y/Chase)

• Distribute electronic copies to those requesting the following materials

(Donnelly/Chase) :

OMB-Approved Data Collection Protocol

Survey Instrument

EPI-Info data entry templates (requires providing value ranges to

CDC)

• Distribute training program evaluation questionnaire (Lyons/Chase)

• Provide CDC with identified computer hardware/software/training needs

(Tribal Project Coordinators)

• Provide CDC with information regarding need for anticipated changes in

project schedules (Tribal Project Coordinators).

• Produce study area maps (including river segment locations) for interview

props after consulting with each tribe about their specific requirements

(Liebow).

• Re-examine data collection instrument to assure its questions correspond

with river pathway modelling data input requirements (Chase/Liebow).

• Provide comments to HTDS managementteam regarding "Draft Guidelines"

paper (All)

• Prepare discussion paper regarding scoping study on tribal residential

locations (Walker/Liebow).

• Next Meeting (Bishop to determine date in late February / early March).

Agenda will revisit "Draft Guidelines" for thyroid disease study and need

for residential location study.

8. Attendance List

Warren Bishop, TSP

Deward Walker, TSP

Max Power, Washington-Ecology

Mike Donnelly, CDC

Van Chase, CDC

Dick Lyons, CDC

Yolanda Rocha, Kalispel

Vicky Bowman, Kalispel

Barbara Aripa, Colville

JR Wilkinson, Umatilla

Les Spino, Umatilla

Moses Squeochs, Yakima

David Ernst, Spokane

Dusty Seyler, Coeur D'Alene

Margaret Coffey, D'Alene

Madeline Queahpama, Warm Springs

Melva Tanewasha, Warm Springs

Jo Ann Friedman, ATSDR

Greg Thomas, ATSDR

Ken Kopecky, TSP & HTDS

Bruce Amundson, HTDS

Andy Ross, HHIN-Tribal Srvcs

Ruth Jensen, HHIN-Tribal Srvcs

Laura Cailloux, HHIN-Tribal Srvcs

Tracy Ikenberry, Battelle-PNL

Barbara Harper, Battelle-PNL

Ed Liebow, Battelle-HARC

-4 -
NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP

Wednesday, April 29, 1994

PASCO RED LION INN

2525 North 20th

Pasco, Washington

PROPOSED AGENDA

9:00 a.m. Status Updates

• CDC Contract Negotiations

• Completion of Battelle Contracts and Voucher Submittals

• Presentation of Preliminary Dose Calculations and Tribal Review

• Questions Regarding Release of Tribal Dietary Data

9:45 a.m. CDC Contract - Workplan Implementation

• Outstanding Contractual Issues

• Need for Projected Schedule Adjustments

10:30 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m. Hanford Thyroid Disease Study: Native American Study Feasibility Determination

(see attached DRAFT GUIDELINES)

11:15 a.m. Tribal Service Program - Hanford Health Information Network

• Briefing and Update of Activities

12:00 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. Technical Assistance

• Scoping Effort to Reconstruct Tribal i

Population Distribution Within HEDRP Study Area: Time Frame

• Database Management - Data Entry and Analysis

• Providing Quality Control

• Emerging Training and Technical Assistance Needs

• Need for a Technical Workshop - Nature and Structure for Workshop

• Other

2:30 p.m. Break

2:45 p.m. ATSDR - Hanford Health Effects Council Formation — Native American Involvement

3:30 p.m. Plans for Future Native American Research Support and Technical Assistance

CDC Plans for Future Dose Calculations and Reporting Results

4:30 p.m. Adjourn

- 1 -
 TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

 DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group Meeting

Pasco, Washington

April 20, 1994

Status Updates

Contracts with CPC and Battelle

• Contracts are in place with 6 tribes. Negotiations continue with the Nez Perce

and Yakama.

• Battelle sub-contracts have been closed out for the 6 tribes. Close-out is nearly

complete with the Nez Perce, and Yakama close-out awaits invoicing from the

tribe.

• If tribes do not think they will be able to meet the contractually stipulated June 1,

1994 deadline for delivering interview data summaries to CDC, they should submit

to Andrea Stokes (CDC-Atlanta) a request for a "no-cost extension" for this

deliverable, along with a justification. Van Chase can make prompt suggestions

about the justification's language, if tribes fax her a draft of such requests. If

there are other schedule changes resulting from this delay, they should also be

included in the extension request. Budget or scope changes should be anticipated

before 75% of the contract funds have been obligated.

Treatment of Preliminary Data

• Presentations have been made to 5 tribes' governing bodies, and a presentation

to the Coeur D'Alene Council will be scheduled for May. The decision requested

in these presentations is whether to include the preliminary data summaries and

resulting representative individual dose estimates in the project record, where they

are publicly available.

• Several tribes expressed concern that limitations of the preliminary data (especially

small samples) make it imperative that public availability of data summaries and

preliminary dose estimates be carefully controlled.

• The Data and Document Release Policy statement is inconsistent with the

"Implementation Guidance" for this policy regarding whether a tribe's decision to

withhold its data summaries and preliminary dose estimates from the project

record automatically results in the tribe's withdrawal from further studies.

• Procedures for handling requests for preliminary tribal data summaries have yet

to be finalized.

-2-

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
• Whether it is appropriate for analysis purposes to combine preliminary data with

data collected with the second, more extensive dosimetric assessment

questionnaire is also an open question that can only be answered when the

second wave of data collection is complete.

• A proposal will be presented to the TSP to modify the Data andDocument Release

Policy statement so that careful control is maintained for preliminary data

summaries without jeopardizing tribal participation in further studies.

Native American Thyroid Disease Study Feasibility Decision

• The HTDS study team has circulated for review and discussion a draft set of

recommendations concerning the process and criteria for deciding whether to

conduct an epidemiology study of thyroid disease for Native Americans.

• The timing of this decision may be affected by delays in the progress of tribal data

collection and analysis, and by uncertainties in the process by which tribal data

will be used to prepare dose estimates. Delaying the decision too long may make

it difficult to keep the whole thyroid disease study team together, however,

especially the clinical team that has been established to complete medical exams

in the area.

• Several group members expressed concern about the possibility that a statistical

power analysis may determine an infeasibly large number of interviews are

.needed, and the epidemiology study won't take place. If this happens, some of

the health intervention benefits that could also come from the study may also be

lost.

• A small group will report back to the Working Group's next meeting about study

design options that would be scientifically credible and preserve the health

promotion benefits that result from a thyroid disease study among Native

Americans.

• The next meeting of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study advisory committee will

be Friday, May 13, in Spokane.

Hanford Health Information Network Tribal Services Program

• Visits to each tribe over the past two months have introduced the Tribal Services

Program staff and discussed tribal perspectives on Hanford health-related

concerns. Additional visits are planned to assist tribes in installing the EPI-Info

data entry and analysis files, and to discuss the Tribal Services Program's role in

community outreach activities.

• A "resource kit" is currently being reviewed by the Tribal Advisory Board;

computer equipment is being ordered for each tribe, and a bulletin board system

-3-
is being established to promote electronic information exchange among tribal

project staffs.

• The Kootenai Tribe of Idaho has accepted an invitation to join the Tribal Advisory

Board.

• A request to extend HHIN for three years at a cost of $8.9 million has been

presented to Congress, with 9% of the funding request to be allocated to the

participating tribes and Tribal Services Program.

• Negotiations are being completed with the Foley Library at Gonzaga University to

create an archive of Hanford-related information that would allow for remote

access via computers.

Technical Assistance

• A final version (April 15, 1994) of the questionnaire was distributed, along with

the study area maps to be used as interview props. Electronic copies of the

questionnaire will be distributed by the end of April. The EPI-Info data entry

package is nearly complete; distribution is expected the first week of May.

• Additional technical assistance will probably be most productive if provided to

each tribe on an individual basis, rather than by organizing a group workshop.

Some uncertainty remains about sources of assistance to which project

coordinators should turn.

• Although not included in the current scope of tribes' contracts with CDC, it may

be appropriate to recommend that more information be produced about the

residential distribution of tribal membership during the study period, so that dose

estimates for representative individual cases more accurately reflect where people

were living. When first recommended to the TSP, this was assigned a relatively

low priority.

ATSDR Hanford Health Effects Council

• The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) is forming

advisory groups at each of 6 DOE sites, including Hanford, to provide advice on

studies of health effects associated with environmental contamination. These

groups are to be chartered with the authority of the Federal Advisory Committee

Act (FACA). Development of the Hanford council is furthest along of any of the

groups. Nominations for the Hanford council will be received until April 25, and

the agency intends to select council members in time for an inaugural meeting in

June.

• The nature of Native American participation in the Hanford Health Effects Council

remains to be determined. A number of questions regarding the agency's plans

-4-
and procedures for honoring a "government to government" relationship with

Indian tribes need to be answered, and the relationship of this new council to the

Native American Working Group needs to be clarified.

• A special meeting will be held in Spokane on May 12 to decide how to organize

Native American participation in the Hanford Health Effects Council.

Action Items

CDC-Seattle staff will contact CDC-Atlanta to request that face-to-face contract

negotiations with the Nez Perce be completed in Lapwai at the CDC's earliest

convenience.

Tribes should prepare requests for schedule changes if the June 1 deliverable does not

appear feasible.

NAWG convenor Warren Bishop will request TSP approval for a modification of the

Data and Document Release Policy statement.

CDC will propose procedures to the Working Group for how it will respond to public

requests for access to preliminary data summaries.

Bruce Amundson will distribute copies of the final HTDS protocol to the tribal project

coordinators.

Bruce Amundson will distribute information to the Working Group members about the

May 13 HTDS Advisory Committee meeting in Spokane.

Barbara Aripa, JR Wilkinson, Herman Reuben, Andy Ross, and Deward Walker will

work with Bruce Amundson to identify credible options for a Native American thyroid

disease study design, and report back to the Working Group by the next meeting.

CDC will distribute electronic file copies of the final survey instrument and EPI-Info data

entry package by the first week of May. The HHIN Tribal Services Program will visit

each tribe and provide assistance in installing the EPI-Info package and training staff

to operate it.

Deward Walker will draft a proposal describing the need for and approach to producing

more information about tribal population distribution and mobility for discussion at the

next Working Group meeting.

Greg Thomas will provide information to tribal project coordinators about the May 12

meeting to discuss tribal participation in the Hanford Health Effects Council.

-5-
JR Wilkinson, Barbara Aripa, and Ed Liebow will prepare and distribute a discussion

draft about the role of the Native American Working Group and its relationship to the

Hanford Health Effects Council and other Hanford-related consultations with tribal

governments.

Attendees:

Barbara Aripa, Colville Confederated Tribes

Louanna Francis, Colville Confederated Tribes

Sherri Luzon, Nez Perce Tribe

Vicki Bowman, Kalispel Tribe

JR Wilkinson, CTUIR

Bill Burke, CTUIR

Dusty Seyler, Coeur D'Alene Tribe

Melva Tanawasha, Warm Springs

Deward Walker, TSP

Chuck Smith, USPHS

Donna Manders, Hanford Health Info Network

Joanne Freedman, ATSDR

Andy Ross, HHIN Tribal Svcs Prg

Ruth Jensen, HHIN Tribal Svcs Prg

Al Conklin, Washington Dept of Health

Ed Liebow, Battelle

Deb Louie, Colville Confederated Tribes

Herman Reuben, Nez Perce Tribe

David Ernst, Spokane Tribe

Guy Hopkins, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Les Spino, CTUIR

Margaret Coffey, Coeur D'Alene Tribe

Madeline Queahpama, Warm Springs

Warren Bishop, TSP

Allen Slickpoo, Sr., TSP

Van Chase, USPHS

Greg Thomas, ATSDR

Paul Schar, ATSDR

Laura Cailloux, HHIN Tribal Svcs Prg

Norma Guardipee, HHIN Tribal Svcs Prg

Bruce Amundson, HTDS

-6-
Native American Working Group

Ridpath Hotel, Spokane, Washington

May 11, 1994

Attending:

Tribal Representatives:

Vickie Bowman Kalispel (206) 445-1147

David Ernst Spokane (509) 258-4581

Madeline Queahpama Warm Springs (503) 553-3252

JR Wilkinson Umatilla (503) 278-5205

Leslie Spino Umatilla (503) 278-5207

J. Herman Reuben Nez Perce (208) 843-7375

Margaret Coffey Couer d'Alene (208) 686-1800

Barbara Aripa Colville (509) 634-4711

Guy Hopkins Kootenai (208) 267-3519

Technical Steering Panel Members, staff:

Warren Bishop TSP/NAWG (206) 407-7119

Max Power WA Ecology (206) 407-

7118

Alan Slickpoo TSP (208) 843-2253

Deward Walker TSP (303) 492-6718

Hanford Health Information Network:

Donna Manders HHIN (206) 705-6059

Andy Ross Tribal Services (503) 228-4184

Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry:

Greg Thomas Seattle Office (206) 553-2113

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

Vanette Chase Seattle Office (206) 615-2505

PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION:

Meeting began 10:15 AM:

1. TSP Community Meetings:

Warren Bishop reported that the first TSP community meeting went very well last

night. There were in attendance. Educational Services District #101

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
Satellite Downlink in Spokane will be used in this evening's broadcast where the

smaller communities in the Hanford Study Area are linked to the Satellite via

telephone/speaker phone systems through their various high schools. The link will

be with approximately 15 stations.

2. NAWG "Data Document Release Policy":

final draft was distributed for review; to be considered at next NAWG meeting.

3. Travel Charge:

V. Chase stated that CDC Tribal contract travel funds can be used for attending

this NAWG meeting; any adjustments to travel budget can be made later on in the

 contract.

4. Agenda for the meeting:

The following agenda items were proposed by JR Wilkinson to serve as a guide

for today's discussion:

I. Introductions

- review agenda

- modify, make changes

II. Goals and Objectives

- purpose of this review exercise

- current NAWG value to other "boards"

- what aids protect tribal interests

III. NAWG Draft Charter

- policy versus technical aspects

- additional needs

- responsibility of NAWG representatives

- responsibility of agencies

- modify draft charter

IV. Eventual treatment of Draft Charter

- endorsements by tribal resolutions

- agency signatures requirement

MORNING DISCUSSION: (Questions asked, followed by discussion)

QES: "Why is there a need for this (charter)?"

This is the NAWG's first real effort to begin discussion on the national

interface between the tribal representatives and their relationships with

the various agencies involved with Hanford. Since there are so many

-2-
QES:

QES:

QES:

QES:

QES:

QES:

boards, panels and committees being developed, it is important that

NAWG, which has a long evolving history, to be the organization to

discuss this transition once the HEDR activities are completed.

"Are we going to continue into another "umbilical cord" relationship as

the NAWG has had with the TSP?"

It should be considered more of a viable involvement. In evaluating what

has been going on in local, regional and national meetings in "community

involvement" and the ATSDR, it has been noted that tribal involvement

has been very limited. The levels of discussion has not properly reflected

tribal needs; this has caused a great concern that tribal participation and

sovereignty are not being protected.

"Will ATSDR be here today? There is a problem that ATSDR may not

fund future meetings."

We will include this problem in our minutes to indicate our concerns. We

certainly will promote our interests in continuing and therefore get

funding.

"Do you all agree that this 'coalition' is on track and that it is important

to develop this intercommunication initiative? Does anyone feel

uncomfortable with this?"

It is very important that the NAWG facilitate communication and share

common issues between the NAWG and other agencies and

organizations.

That also applies to the HHIN Tribal advisory Board.

"Where do you want to see the NAWG go?"

For instance the HTDS uses the NAWG as a sounding board.

"Under whose auspices are we trying to be chartered?"

We are trying to interface with all groups, we have to open and keep

open communications with everyone interested in Hanford.

"How do you see NAWG functioning?"

For instance, the NAWG already has developed and maintains

relationships with other Hanford-related organizations:

-3-
• the 9 tribes already interact with state and federal governments on

a government-to-government basis and bring those concerns to the

NAWG's attention as they relate to Hanford

• HEDR, "TSP/NAWG," has been the link between the technical

panel and the tribes, this has been an unspoken relationship

• HTDS, the "research team" has an undefined relationship with

NAWG by soliciting input on a possible "Native American Thyroid

Disease Feasibility Study" as well as sharing valuable information

on the conduct of their interviews, etc.

• so we see that the HHEC as expediting ATSDR to carry out their

Congressional mandated health effect studies and policies with

tribes in regional and national DOE sites.

We should consider the NAWG as a "model" which facilitates the

exchange of technical information to and from the tribes.

We should, therefore, develop a "charter", this may not be the best word,

but, on the purview that we all understand; that is, it is imperative that

cross-communication be open and free with HHIN and other boards which

may be developed in the future.

QES: "A key question here, does CDC, HHIN or any other organization want to

take over the NAWG activities; to undertake the functions that NAWG

now performs?"

With regard to HHIN, the objectives and activities for the HHIN and its

Tribal Advisory Board are much different than those for the CDC.

(NOTE: at this point Max said something that I didn't get in my notes relating to this

issue, there were so many conversations going on, I couldn't hear what he said)

It is important to note that the CDC is focused on 3 areas - research,

training, and technical assistance; the TAB provides service and

information to the tribes; the NAWG is a working group which discusses

Hanford issues and is an advisory sub-committee to the Demographic

Committee of the TSP. The TAB provides advice to the HHIN, not to

HEDR or CDC.

The HHIN/TAB must not be absorbed by anyone !

It is important not to take away anything from either board. They both

provide important functions.

-4-
QES: "HHIN has a great concern about this draft Charter and the Mission

Statement, are we to understand that our organization will be included as

a supporting agency for this?" We are not funded through CDC and are

not considered as a federal agency; we have been mandated by

Congress to undertake our activities in conjunction with viable community

boards, and that is what we are doing. We are not an advisory board to

any federal agency. We are also different in that we are supervised by

and are directly associated with the 3 States of Washington, Idaho and

Oregon and their Departments of Health.

It seems what is important is to coordinate, consolidate, and link tribes

to all information sources, that is what we should focus on. As a

member on both the TAB and the NAWG, the Spokane tribe has no

problem serving both organization's objectives.

It must be understood, that HHIN is totally separate from CDC and

ATSDR.

QES: "What will happen when the HEDR contracts are all completed?"

It is understood that all tribal contracts with CDC will be continued until

completed. In the near future, other organizations who will be interested

in health studies, environmental health issues and so on must have a

mechanism to be formally involved with the States and tribes and nations

of this region. Definitions are required; we must find a way to define all

of our concerns now while we have the opportunity.

QES: "What kind of advice are you talking about? How can you advise a sick

patient or someone who has been affected by Hanford? What good will

an advisory board do for that patient? Advise to whom, and on what?"

No one is thinking about the people who have died, suffered and are not

informed!

An organization such as the NAWG and its tribal representatives provides

overall advice to the tribal councils who then in turn advise their

communities.

We need to present a unified position, especially with ATSDR, as they are

proceeding down the road !

Break: Resumed meeting 1:05 PM

-5-
Greg Thomas of ATSDR and the HHEC provided clarification on what is

happening with the nomination process to the HHEC.

- nominations are being reviewed now

- the council membership may be around 25-27

- first meeting to be scheduled for mid-to-late July, place undetermined

at this time

- it is very important for the tribes to participate, and a decision on their

numbers must be made soon; time is short; tribes must set plans

so that the ATSDR can incorporate tribal input and provide funding

to attend meetings.

SEVERAL PROPOSALS WERE CONSIDERED AS TO HOW TRIBAL PARTICIPATION

WOULD BE DETERMINED FOR THE HHEC:

Proposal A

HHEC

TSP_________ MOU_________ HHIN

NAWG TAB

Activities: Research Services

Training Education

Technical Assistance Information

Relationships: (Federal - Tribes) (States - Tribes)

Proposal A was presented by H. Reuben, Nez Perce. The idea was to have a

Memorandum of Understanding be drafted between the TSP and the HHIN in

agreeing how many representatives would be selected from each organizations

and how the reps would report back to each organizations.

Proposal B

ATSDR

Board

NAWG HHEC TAB

-6-
(THHEC)

Proposal B was presented by V. Bowman, Kalispel tribe. The idea was to have

a separate Tribal HHEC be created from the NAWG, the regular HHEC and the

TAB would all have representation on the ATSDR Board.

It was believed this proposal would split the effectiveness of the tribal

participation.

Proposal C

HHEC

NAWG

HHIN (rep)

Proposal C was presented by D. Manders, HHIN, who saw that having a TAB

representative be on the NAWG would encourage communications

It was decided at this point that the HHIN and its TAB be removed from further

discussion. In that since it had its own mandate, that it not be considered a

supporting agency.

Some language must be included in this document so there would be

information exchange.

Keep it simple.

Perhaps an MOD between the NAWG and the TAB should be drafted where a

proactive involvement in information exchange between the two advisory boards

would be encouraged.

Proposal D (current proposal)

ATSDR

HHEC

-7-
(FACA Board)

Greg Thomas discussed the current construction of the local HHEC; it is a FACA

board with its own charter which has been accepted by the FACA board.

Proposal E

ATSDR

THHEC HHEC

Proposal E was suggested by JR Wilkinson, Umatilla, it would create a Native

American FACA. In light of President Clinton's directive to all departments to

work with tribes, this could be a "first", a contemporary proposal that would

recognize that tribes have a unique relationship with the federal agencies and

recognizes the importance of having a separate track for input into

environmental health, restoration, and other issues affecting tribes, past, present

and future.

One of the problems should be considered about this proposal - for example

States have ex-officio status with FACAs, they have no vote; this may be the

same way tribes may be handled.

This is really a whole new concept that we will have to look into.

DRAFT CHARTER WAS EXTENSIVELY REVIEWED:

The draft charter was reviewed. Many changes in language, structure, format

were made.

ACTIONS ITEMS:

1. JR Wilkinson, Ed Liebow, and Barbara Aripa will take all comments on the

charter review and send out a clean draft within the next week for review

and comment. A final clean draft should be sent to W. Bishop within the

following week. To be discussed at the July NAWG meeting.

2. Encourage all to read "Future Native American Research", the long term

TSP plan for tribes, before the next NAWG meeting

3. Greg Thomas will look into a "NATIVE AMERICAN FACA" and report

back to the NAWG.

-8-
Written and Submitted by: Vanette Chase 5/12/94

-9-
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Native American Working Group

Pasco, Washington

July 13, 1994

Status Updates

• Nez Perce contractual negotiations with CDC may require a face-to-face meeting

to resolve remaining issues.

• . Some renewed interest in negotiating a contract has been expressed informally

by Yakama representatives.

• Negotiations have been completed with several tribes to extend the deadline for

delivering primary data summaries.

• Battelle has closed out seven of the tribal sub-contracts, and will shortly close

out the contract with the Yakama.

• Nez Perce Tribal Executive Council will soon consider a resolution concerning

the disposition of data summaries and preliminary dose calculations presented

by Battelle near the end of May.

• The Yakama data summaries were delivered near the end of June, and Battelle

will be preparing preliminary dose estimates to share with the Yakama Tribal

Council shortly.

• Informal conversations between CDC and the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho have been

inconclusive to date; a formal request submitted by the tribe for CDC

consideration is needed to resolve the question of whether the tribe will be

included in the HEDR studies.

• Copies of all documents in Battelle files relating to the tribal sub-contracts are

being prepared for shipment to the relevant tribes.

• All data collected to date are simply being stored in "hard copy." The EPI-Info

data entry program is being beta-tested in Atlanta by a CDC computer services

contractor. The Kalispel have agreed to submit their data to a field test, and

assuming this test works, the programs will be ready for distribution within a

matter of a few weeks. HHIN Tribal Services Program will provide assistance in

analysis.

-1 -
Native American Working Group Operations

• A group like this is needed to continue coordination among tribes and supporting

agencies on technical issues. Wording of the draft operations plan will be

revised and distributed for each tribe's governing body to consider endorsing.

• ATSDR has indicated it will be in a position to pay for travel expenses for the

group's members.

• A name change was recommended: The Inter-Tribal Council on Hanford Health

Projects.

HTDS Feasibility Decision for Native American Thyroid Disease Study

• A small group held a couple of conference calls to discuss the advantages and

disadvantages of several alternative study designs, and came to the conclusion

that a cohort design better suits the primary purpose of the study. Questions

remain concerning whether adequate data are available and also whether such

a study would be logistically feasible.

• HTDS team will present analyses of statistical power and feasibility to the CDC,

and the CDC will decide whether to proceed, in consultation with the HTDS,

tribes, and Advisory Committee.

• If the sample size required for adequate statistical power proves infeasibly large,

then HTDS will have to consider other designs and what specific, answerable

questions could be addressed by these other designs.

• To make the power calculations, information from the preliminary dose estimates

will be needed; HTDS will ask tribes for permission to use these estimates for

calculating statistical power.

Hanford Health Information Network Tribal Services Program

• August 22-24 workshop on Health Research in Tribal Communities

• September 9-11 workshop on "Radiation Health Effects and Hanford: A

Conference for Concerned Citizens and Health Care Providers"

• The Tribal Services Program is planning a mailing to tribal members in the near

future to let people know where they can find out more about Hanford and the

HHIN Tribal Services Program.

Scoping Work on Tribal Population Distribution

• A single geographic point for dose calculations may not produce adequately

representative individual doses for tribal members; more information about

-2-
where tribal members resided at key historical points would be needed to

improve assumptions incorporated into dose calculations.

• IF the Technical Steering Panel agrees that such studies are needed, and it is

determined that the necessary data can be obtained feasibly, the endorsement

of tribal governing bodies would still be needed.

ATTENDEES:

Guy Hopkins, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Laura Cailloux, Portland Area Indian Health Service Advisory Bd

Barbara Aripa, Colville

David Ernst, Spokane

Dusty Seyler, Coeur D'Alene

Joe Richards, CTUIR

Les Spino, CTUIR

JR Wilkinson, CTUIR

Herman Reuben, Nez Perce

Alfreda Peters, Yakama

Vicki Bowman, Kalispel

Madeline Queahpama

Allen Slickpoo, TSP

Warren Bishop, TSP

Deward Walker, TSP

Chuck Smith, CDC

Van Chase, CDC

Max Powers, Washington-Ecology

Ellen Hartman, Washington-Health

Dana Ward, DOE-Richland

Bruce Amundson, HTDS

Scott Davis, HTDS

Ed Liebow, Battelle-PNL
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP

October 16,1994

RED LION INN AT THE QUAY

100 Columbia Street

Vancouver, Washington

PROPOSED AGENDA

9:00 a.m. Status Updates

• CDC Contract Negotiations

• Status ofCDC - Workplan Implementation

• Completion ofBattelle Contracts and Closeout Process

9:45 a.m. Hanford Thyroid Disease Study: Native American Study Feasibility Determination

10:00 a.m. Tribal Service Program - Hanford Health Information Network

• Briefing and Update Activities

10:30 a.m. Break

10:45 a.m. Washington/Oregon/Idaho Health Departments / Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC) Cooperative Agreement Briefing

11:00 a.m. Research Support and Technical Assistance General Review and Discussion ofData

Collection Work Underway

• Database Management - Data Entry and Analysis

• Emerging Technical Assistance Needs

• Procedures for Providing Quality Control

• Survey Questionnaire - Participant Selection - Questions That Need To Be

Addressed

• Workplan Schedule Adjustments

12:00 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Briefing and Observations /

Hanford Health Effect Council First Meeting

1:45 p.m. Implementation ofInter-Tribal Council on Hanford Projects

• Review ofApproval by the Governing Authority ofthe Nine Tribes

• Discussion ofProposed By-Laws

• Process for Implementation

- 1 -
2:30 p.m. Break

2:45 p.m. Continuation ofImplementation Process

3:30 p.m. General Discussion ofFuture Activities

• Plans for Native American Research Support and Technical Assistance

• Future Workplan Scheduling - Examination ofRemaining Work

• CDC Plans for Future Dose Calculations and Reporting Assistance

4:30 p.m. Adjourn

-2-
 TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL

 OF THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group Meeting

Vancouver, Washington

October 26, 1994

Status Updates:

Contract Negotiations: CDC officials are meeting this week with representatives from

the Kootenai, Coeur D'Alene, Nez Perce and Yakama.

Technical Work: Interviews and data entry are proceeding; specific guidance is needed

from CDC on how data are to be analyzed for model input, and clarification is needed

from CDC on elements of work remaining within existing work scopes after data

collection is completed. Current contracts end December 31; if they are to be

extended and additional funds made available, administrative actions to accomplish this

need to be initiated as soon as possible.

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Feasibility Determination: HTDS Study Management

Team's request to tribes for population and preliminary dose data is to complete

statistical power calculations. CTUIR was prepared to provide these data today, but

no Study Management Team representatives were present; Colville had provided

demographic data earlier, but will provide again along with preliminary dose estimates.

CDC and the HTDS Study Management Team will be urged to examine research design

issues that attend to small populations and address tribes' specific epidemiological

issues.

HHIN Tribal Service Program Update: The first year of activities has been completed,

with a focus on education, information/outreach, and technical assistance. Overall,

Congress authorized a 3-year extension for HHIN, and appropriated FY-95 funds. The

Tribal Advisory Board was presented with a proposal to review IHS and clinical

databases to examine the prevalence of thyroid diseases in different IHS Service Units.

A pharmacy database and the patient core component database would be reviewed;

Service Unit information managers will be contacted to get their input on the

advisability of conducting this study. Questions about where the results of such a

study would reside remain to be answered. Two main objectives for the education /

outreach activities include (1) expanding outreach and responding to the concerns

expressed by people already contacted (through electronic bulletin boards, school

programs, posters, brochures, and an information archives), and (2) training for health

care providers. The next Tribal Advisory Board meeting will be in Portland on 1/18/95,

timed to coincide with the meeting of the Northwest Area Indian Health Board meeting.

State Health Agencies/CDC Cooperative Agreement: A three-year cooperative

agreement was established with Oregon, Idaho, and Washington state health agencies,

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206) 407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
with first-year funding of $244,000. Main activity areas include (1) developing the

capability to provide individual dose assessments; (2) identifying mechanisms for

providing individual dose estimates to citizens, including an assessment of special

needs of Native Americans, in coordination with HHIN, and (3) evaluating the need for

a Hanford Health Effects Review Working Group.

Hanford Health Effects Council & Intertribal Council on Hanford Health Projects: The

central issue is how to assure that each tribe's interests are properly represented in

ATSDR decision-making (your faithful notetaker was out of the room for the review of

the HHEC meeting in Richland). Tribal representatives are in strong agreement that an

inter-tribal forum is necessary for coordinating with one another on technical issues,

and for making tribal representatives to the TSP and HTDS Advisory Board more

accountable to the tribes whose interests they purport to represent. At the same time,

many tribal representatives are very concerned about the need for ATSDR to have

government-to-government relations with each tribe, and want to have a position on

the Hanford Health Effects Council reserved for a representative from each of the 9

tribes. Some longer-term arrangement with the Public Health Service is also needed to

support each tribe's participation in Hanford health research and activities, even after

CDC & ATSDR's present Hanford-related objectives are completed. It was pointed out

that in a world of infinite resources, this would be ideal: long-term cooperative

agreements with each tribe, a position on HHEC for each tribe, and agency support for

the inter-tribal technical coordinating forum. However, if resources are limited, tribal

representatives may have to choose which of these to reduce or eliminate. ATSDR will

be asked for an informal reading on the feasibility of including 9 tribal positions on the

HHEC, and the by-laws for the Intertribal Council on Hanford Health Projects will be redrafted for informal agency comment.

Action Items:

• The Native American Working Group will make a written request to CDC and the

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Management Team to consider providing support

for an exploration of alternative research design strategies that attend to small

populations and address tribes' specific epidemiological concerns.

• The Native American Working Group will make a written request to the CDC, the

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study Management Team, and the HTDS Advisory

Board to hold their meetings in the Northwest, where they can better attend to

tribal interests.

• The tribes will respond to the HTDS request for preliminary dose estimates and

demographic data as inputs to the feasibility determination for a Native American

Thyroid Disease Study.

-2-
ATSDR will distribute copies of the paper, "Inconclusive by Design," and the

agency's published rejoinder.

Battelle will send information on internet sites to the HHIN Tribal Services

Program, along with an electronic file copy of the Environmental Justice RFA

from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. These files will be

made available on the HHIN Tribal Services Program bulletin board system.

Washington Department of Health will distribute copies of its special report,

"Columbia River Sediments and Health Effects," along with its recent annual

environmental report and a copy of the CDC cooperative agreement.

Washington Department of Health will provide a briefing at the next meeting of

the Native American Working Group.

CDC will be asked to clarify elements of work remaining for tribal projects upon

completion of the data collection. Immediate clarification will be requested on

when an analysis routine will be provided by CDC to the tribes. Clarification is

also requested concerning assignment of responsibility for calculation of doses

based on information the tribes are producing. Clarification is also requested on

the need for changes in scope, schedule and budget for tribal work if any further

delays are anticipated in the availability of analysis routines from CDC.

ATSDR will provide an informal response to the tribes' expressed wish for nine

positions on the Hanford Health Effects Council, one for each tribe.

An ad hoc committee involving JR Wilkinson, Barbara Aripa, and Ed Liebow will

re-draft the proposed By-Laws for the Intertribal Council on Hanford Health

Projects, based on today's discussion.

ATSDR will be asked to informally review and comment on the re-drafted ByLaws prior to the next NAWG meeting.

-3-
Attendees:

Barbara Aripa, CCT

Les Spino, CTUIR

JR Wilkinson, CTUIR

Guy Hopkins, Kootenai

Madeline Queahpama, Warm Springs

Moses Squeochs, YIN

Dave Ernst, Spokane

Sherry Lozon, Nez Perce

Warren Bishop, TSP

Glyn Caldwell, TSP

Van Chase, CDC

Greg Thomas, ATSDR

Max Power, Washington-Ecology

Al Conklin, Washington-Health

Ellen Haars, Washington-Health

Ann Watanabe, CRITFC

Andy Ross, HHIN Tribal Srvcs Program

Laura Cailloux, HHIN Tribal Srvcs Program

Ruth Jensen, HHIN Tribal Srvcs Program

Kaylin Anderson, Battelle

Ed Liebow, Battelle

-4-
NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP

February 15,1995

Yellowhawk Conference Center

Confederated Tribes ofthe Umatilla Indian Reservation

Mission, Oregon

9:00 a.m.

PROPOSED AGENDA

Status Updates

9:45 a.m.

• Tribal Work on Data Collection and Entry — Tribal Representatives

• CDC Database Assistance - Chase and Liebow (CDC)

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study: Native American Study Feasibility Determination

10:00 a.m.

- Amundson (HTDS)

Tribal Service Program - Hanford Health Information Network

10:30 a.m.

• Briefing and Update Activities — Ross and Staff(IHB)

Break

10:45 a.m. Discussion

11:30 a.m.

► Adoption of Operations Plan for the Intertribal Council on Hanford Health

Effects

Washington State Department ofHealth — Haars (WA DOH)

12:00 p.m.

• Briefing on the Development of an "Individual Dose Assessment" Process

Lunch

1:30 p.m. Telecommunications Proposal / National Telecommunications Infrastructure

2:00 p.m.

Administration — Smith (CDC)

Discussion ofthe Relationship ofTribes and Intertribal Council with ATSDR

4:30 p.m.

• Department ofHealth and Human Services

Commitment for Government-to-Govemment Relations

• ATSDR Plan for Action to Honor Commitment for Government-to-Government

Relations

Adjourn
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP

Thursday, May 4,1995

Richland Tower Inn

1515 George Washington Way

Richland, Washington

9:00 a.m.

PROPOSED AGENDA

Status Updates

9:45 a.m.

• Tribal Work on Data Collection and Entry — Tribal Representatives

• CDC Database Assistance - Chase and Liebow (CDC)

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study: Native American Study Feasibility Determination

10:00 a.m.

• Update regarding Tribal Transmittal ofData

Tribal Service Program - Hanford Health Information Network

10:30 a.m.

• Briefing and Update Activities — Ross and Staff(IHB)

Break

10:45 a.m. Discussion

11:30 a.m.

► Adoption of Proposed By-Laws for the Intertribal Council on Hanford Health

Effects

Telecommunications Proposal / National Telecommunications Infrastructure

12:00 p.m.

Administration — Briefing on Recent Developments

- Andy Ross and Laura Cailloux

Lunch

1:30 p.m. Washington State Department ofHealth -- Haars (WA DOH)

2:00 p.m. Discussion ofthe Relationship ofTribes and Intertribal Council with ATSDR

4:30 p.m.

• Draft ATSDR Government-to-Government Policy Statement

• Review of Draft Cooperative Agreement in Development for Proposed

Arrangement between ATSDR and Tribes

Adjourn
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL OF

THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Native American Working Group

Richland, Washington

May 4, 1995

Administrative Announcements:

Changes in meeting dates, places: May 15-16 at Portland (OR) Hilton, July 26-28 at

Pasco Red Lion, September 27-29 in Boise, and November 29-December 1 in Seattle.

Status of Tribes' Technical Work:

Kalispel: Completed preliminary analysis and now drafting report.

Spokane: Complete preliminary analysis and now drafting report.

Coeur D'Alene: Data collection completed, awaiting tribal approval for Fred Alt to

join staff to supervise analysis and report preparation.

Colville: Data collection completed, data entry and analysis underway.

Warm Springs: Awaiting renewal of OMB clearance to complete data collection

and subsequent tasks.

Umatilla: Awaiting renewal of OMB clearance to begin interviewing.

Nez Perce: Work plan completed, secondary data collection underway,

awaiting OMB clearance to begin interviewing.

Yakama: Best and Final Offer is to be submitted to CDC-Contracts in a

matter of days.

Kootenai: Authorization for a sole source contract has been requested within

CDC, and once received, NCEH will send tribe the Work

Requirements and request for proposal.

Van Chase distributed a "technical notes" handout reviewing a number of data entry

and analysis suggestions. This is expected to be followed periodically by other brief

reviews of technical issues.

Van also asked for project coordinators to get caught up in their monthly progress

reporting.

The Microsoft Access data entry and automated Epi-lnfo record conversion routines

have been completed, and will be provided to the tribes along with direct assistance

on how to install and operate these routines.

A question was raised about what happens to the data summaries and other report

findings provided by the tribes. The reports will be evaluated by CDC as to their

technical acceptability, and the data summaries will be used to produce dose estimates

for representative tribal individuals. Charlie Miller will be invited to the June meeting

of the Intertribal Council to discuss the options he faces in deciding how to use the

tribes' data summaries for dose calculations.

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, . WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
Hanford Thyroid Disease Study: Native American Study Feasibility

Tribal representatives were encouraged to provide the data requested by the Fred

Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in June, 1994, to help in determining the

feasibility of undertaking a cohort study of Native American thyroid disease. Further

attention should be directed to how Native American thyroid disease can be studied

if an adequate cohort study is not feasible.

Hanford Health Information Network Tribal Services Program:

The Program's new health educator, Linda Pratt, was introduced. Since the

information concerning health effects of Hanford radiation releases is lacking at this

point, Linda will focus on presentations informing tribal communities about what went

on at Hanford, and about the studies' progress to date. These presentations will

include outside speakers, and not just the Tribal Services Program staff.

Technical assistance is available for training on the use of the Microsoft Access

software. Andy Ross is completing a review of the IHS Patient Care Component

database, examining thyroid illnesses by service unit and patients' age and gender.

The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board submitted a grant application to the

National Telecommunications and Information Infrastructure Agency to expand access

to the "Circle of Health" information service by placing it on the Internet and enhancing

tribal capabilities for using the Internet for health-related purposes.

Intertribal Council on Hanford Health Projects:

After reviewing comments received from Herman Reuben, the By-Laws were adopted

by unanimous approval of the Members present (an extra page will be added showing

the signatures of those approving).

Nominations for officers were taken, and the following persons were selected by

unanimous approval of the Members present:

Chair: Les Spino (Umatilla)

Vice-Chair: Madeline Queahpama (Warm Springs)

Secretary: Barbara Aripa (Colville)

Warren Bishop was asked, and agreed to serve as facilitator for the ICHHP.

Ed Liebow was asked, and agreed to serve as technical advisor for the ICHHP.

The officers, along with Margaret Coffee and Ed Liebow, will form an ad hoc

committee to develop recommendations concerning financial assistance for the ICHHP.

Individual Dose Assessment System for General Population:

A CDC cooperative agreement with 3 state health agencies (WA, OR, and ID) is

supporting the development of a user-friendly computerized dose assessment capability

for individuals interested in receiving more information about their radiation dose.

Individuals will complete a phone interview, have a questionnaire mailed to them, mail

-2-
the completed questionnaire to the Hanford Health Information Network, and receive

an individual dose report along with additional health-related information.

Among the outstanding issues yet to be resolved: What steps need to be taken to

ensure privacy of individuals, and what information should be included in the individual

dose report (e.g., planners are dealing with how to provide information concerning

where one can go for more information about health, what is risk associated with this

estimated dose, what do we do with self-reported data of questionable validity?)

The three state health agencies are available to work with the ICHHP. Ellen Haars will

send each HEDR project coordinator a copy of the questionnaire being drafted for the

general population, and she will ask Cathy Fox-Williams to prepare a presentation to

the ICHHP at its June meeting.

Status Update on ATSDR Policy Development and Cooperative Agreement Programs:

The revised draft policy statement was well-received by senior ATSDR staff, and will

now undergo a legal review with CDC. It will then be distributed for comment to all

federally recognized tribes. A revised version that incorporates input from tribal

representatives will be published in the Federal Register. An optimistic timetable for

finalizing this policy statement is by the Fall, 1995.

ATSDR normally establishes cooperative agreements in program areas that have been

defined by a formal "Program Announcement." The agency is currently preparing its

Program Announcements for FY96, and anticipates that the current complement of 24

programs will be reduced to 8, one of which would cover all activities related to Native

Americans. Jim Carpenter requested that in the next several weeks, ICHHP Members

provide him with suggestions for items to be considered within the scope of these

cooperative agreements.

A mechanism is needed to cover the staff time for tribal participation in HHES

activities; while it does not require a cooperative agreement to pay for tribal

transportation costs to attend HHES meetings, payment for staff time is another

matter.

Jim said he would look into the question of whether the ICHHP itself would be legally

eligible to enter into a cooperative agreement, and continue this discussion at the May

15 meeting in Portland.

Action Items:

CDC Have Charlie Miller or someone else with knowledge about the use of

tribal data summaries make a presentation at the June ICHHP meeting.

-3 -
Haars Provide copies of draft Individual Dose Assessment questionnaire to HEDR

project coordinators.

Have Cathy Fox-Williams make a presentation at the June ICHHP meeting

about data input requirements and output alternatives currently being

considered for the general population, so Members can discuss how such

efforts might be appropriately tailored to the tribal community members.

Carpenter Provide feedback to Members at the May ICHHP meeting about paying for

tribal staff time to participate in HHES meetings, and about ICHHP's

• eligibility to enter into cooperative agreements with ATSDR.

Members Get caught up on monthly progress reporting to CDC (as needed)

Submit suggestions to ATSDR for items to include in scope of anticipated

cooperative agreements

Attendees:

Les Spino, CTUIR

Madeline Queahpama, Warm Springs

Barbara Aripa, Colville

David Ernst, Spokane

Sandy_ , Spokane

Margaret Coffee, Coeur D'Alene

Sherri Lozon, Nez Perce

Carl Basford, Nez Perce

Allen Slickpoo, TSP

Deward Walker, TSP

Warren Bishop, TSP

Greg Combs, Washington-Ecology

Ellen Haars, Washington-Health

Van Chase, CDC

Chuck Smith, CDC

Jim Carpenter, ATSDR

Greg Thomas, ATSDR

Andy Ross, HHIN Tribal Services Program

Linda Pratt, HHIN Tribal Services Program

Gay Ann, University of Washington

Graduate School of Public Affairs

Ed Liebow, Battelle

-4-
INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

Monday, June 19,1995

Ramada Inn

621 21st Street

Lewiston, Idaho

9:00 a.m.

PROPOSED AGENDA

Status Updates

9:45 a.m.

• Tribal Work on Data Collection and Entry — Tribal Representatives

• CDC Database Assistance and Demonstration - Chase and Liebow (CDC)

Tribal Service Program — Hanford Health Information Network

10:00 a.m.

• Briefings and Activities Update - Ross and Staff(IHB)

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study

10:30 a.m.

• Briefing and Update — Dr. Bruce Amundson

• Native American Study Feasibility Determination

Break

10:45 a.m. Discussion ofthe Relationship ofTribes and Inter-Tribal Council with ATSDR

12:00 p.m.

• Review ofDraft "Elements for Scope of Cooperative Agreements"

• Discussion of Arrangements for Interim Financial Support for Tribal Involvement

and Participation in Hanford Health Related Projects

• Status ofDraft Government-to-Government Policy Statement

Lunch

1:30 p.m. Development ofthe Individual Dose Information Form

2:15 p.m.

• Briefing and Update -- Dr. Pat McGavran (TSP)

Break

2:45 p.m. TSP/HEDR Briefing and Update

4:00 p.m.

• Program Structure for Continuation and Completion ofthe HEDR Study

-- Bishop

• Evaluation ofthe Present HEDR Model Related to Transfer Factors in Fish

-- Briefing on Scope of Study -- Dr. Deward Walker (TSP)

Adjourn
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL OF

THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL

DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Intertribal Council on Hanford Health Projects

Lewiston, Idaho

June 19, 1995

1. Update on Status of Tribal Projects

• OMB Clearance Renewal Application submitted to 0MB as of June 19

• Yakama Nation's Best and Final Offer delivered to CDC

• Kootenai received request for proposals, requested time extension to

prepare response

• Native American Lifestyle and Demography database installed at five tribal

project offices; remaining to be completed shortly, as tribes request

• Training on basic use of Access database management system, and on

specific use of NALD database available on request

2. Update on Hanford Health Information Network

• Tribal Environmental Health conference planned for October, probably in

Yakima

• Tribal Services Program proceeding with plans to develop a video on tribal

perspectives regarding Hanford; many details concerning the content of

the video and the process by which the participating tribes will review

and approve its production have yet to be decided.

3. Update on Hanford Thyroid Disease Study

• Full study of general population has been approved and will be underway

shortly

• Population and dose estimates have been provided to Fred Hutchinson

Cancer Research Center by four tribes; still waiting for information from

Nez Perce, Kalispel, Coeur D'Alene, and Yakama. Power calculations and

feasibility determination for cohort study cannot proceed without this

information.

• Any further decisions about study design cannot be considered until the

feasibility determination is made.

4. Update on Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry Activities

• Status of Government-to-Government Policy Statement Development

Internal review comments are due to the Office of Federal

Programs by June 26

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
Revisions to the statement responding to these internal comments

will be incorporated into a version to be published in the Federal

Register and, at the same time, mailed to all Federally-recognized

tribes, hopefully by end of July

• Interim Financial Support

ATSDR feels it is not in the spirit of "government-to-government"

relations to provide financial assistance for tribal government

representatives' time spent at HHES meetings; it is not legal to

have meeting time paid for as a "speaker's fee," and the

appropriate mechanism for supporting this activity is a cooperative

agreement, the program announcement for which is anticipated in

several months.

• Suggested Elements of Cooperative Agreement Program

The ICHHP suggestions have been forwarded to ATSDR staff

working on drafting a program announcement, which will be

completed in July. The announcement's release is planned for

October or November, and it is not clear whether one or two

application deadlines will be included.

Awards are anticipated by the end of FY-96 for work to be

completed in FY97. ATSDR will consider the suggestion that the

agreements be available for more than a single year.

ICHHP asked ATSDR to clarify how it will determine the eligibility

and priority of tribal requests, with special attention to ways of

reducing competition between tribes working toward a common

goal.

5. Update on Individual Dose Assessment Program

• Comments are requested on three interim printed products:

The data record form

A memory tool to help prompt individuals providing information

about residence and food consumption

The accompanying instructions

• A workshop is planned for Fall, 1995 to test the products that have been

developed to that date

6. Uses of Tribal Survey Data

-2-
• CDC proposes to meet with each tribe as they complete their data

collection and analysis to review data and recommend dose estimating

procedures for representative individuals. For tribes that have already

completed their data collection and analysis, these meetings will occur

before September 30, 1995.

• A workshop is planned for later in the year to discuss issues related to

the use of effective dose, organ dose, collective dose, epidemiology

studies, risk analysis and communication; a special meeting for tribal

concerns related to these issues is anticipated.

7. Review of Remaining HEDR Tasks

• The Technical Steering Panel expects to complete its work by the end of

1995.

• Work underway by the contractor will likely extend beyond this date.

• One task of special interest to the ICHHP, a scoping study of transfer

factors in fish, was approved in Mid-May.

TSP member Deward Walker and Frank Half Moon (Nez Perce tribal

fish biologist) are examining whether original modelling

assumptions about the bioaccumulation of radionuclides in

anadromous fish species are supported in the professional literature

on radiation biology and fish biology.

The scoping study will include some review of literature concerning

"resident" fish species as well.

A progress report is due to the TSP by July 1, and a draft report

on the study's findings is due by August 1; the draft will be

subject to peer review, and the ICHHP will receive regular updates

on the progress of this effort.

Action Items:

• ICHHP Members that have not yet provided Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research

Center with population and preliminary dose estimates for the determination of

whether a Native American thyroid disease study is feasibility will do so as soon

as possible.

• ICHHP and ATSDR will jointly explore other options for interim financial support.

• ICHHP will provide ATSDR with some additional suggestions regarding the

desired elements of a Cooperative Agreement Program for Native American

health activities.

-3-
• ICHHP Members will provide Dr. Pat McGavran (TSP) with comments concerning

the Individual Dose Assessment program's interim products.

• ICHHP Members will schedule meetings with CDC staff to determine dose

estimates to be calculated for each Member Tribe.

• Scoping study on transfer factors in fish will provide a progress update at the

next ICHHP meeting.

Attendees:

Les Spino, Chair (Umatilla)

Madeline Queahpama, Vice Chair

(Warm Springs)

Barbara Aripa, Secretary (Colville)

Carl Basford (Nez Perce)

Vicki Bowman (Kalispel)

David Ernst (Spokane)

Guy Hopkins (Kootenai)

Moses Squeochs (Yakama)

Warren Bishop, Facilitator (TSP)

Allen Slickpoo (TSP)

Deward Walker (TSP)

Del Barth (TSP)

Chuck Smith (USPHS)

Van Chase (CDC)

Jim Carpenter (ATSDR)

Greg Combs (Washington-Ecology)

Max Power (Washington-Ecology)

Steve West (Idaho State Health Dept)

Pat McGavran (TSP)

Bruce Amundson (Hanford Thyroid Disease

Study)

Andy Ross (HHIN Tribal Services Program)

Linda Pratt (HHIN Tribal Services Program)

Al Conklin (Wash State Health Dept)

Ellen Haars (Wash State Health Dept)

William Willard (Wash State Univ)

Robert Mull (Wash State Univ)

Mary Katherine Duffie (Wash State Univ)

Sherri Lozon (Nez Perce Tribe)

Sharon Stevens (Nez Perce Tribe)

Stan Sobczyk (Nez Perce Tribe)

Herman Reuben (Nez Perce Tribe)

Ed Liebow (Battelle)

-4-
 TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL OF

THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Intertribal Council on Hanford Health Projects

Pasco, Washington

July 26, 1995

1. Status of ATSDR Policy Statement Development

The draft policy statement that is slated for Federal Register publication in the

next several days was circulated. Once it is published, ATSDR also intends to

send a copy to all federally recognized tribes, and to selected intertribal

organizations, for comment. The group recommended that the announcement

be accompanied by a letter briefly summarizing the history of the policy

statement's development, and emphasizing the agency's interest in tribal

comments. The group also recommended that language changes to the draft

before publication to include mention of the federal trust responsibility. A

DHHS-wide policy is also being formulated, but the timetable for completion is

uncertain.

2. Status of Financial Support Issues

Completion of the OMB review of renewal application is expected near the end

of September. Interview activities are on hold until this approval is renewed.

CDC can make no new funding obligations for the remainder of FY-95 (through

September 30), holding up the contract award to the Yakama, and potentially

delaying the award to the Kootenai of Idaho. Requests for additional funding of

existing contracts cannot be honored during this period either. Several projects

needed to complete the HEDR project, under the management of Radiological

Assessment, Inc. are also held up until CDC can obligate funds.

No changes have occurred in the ATSDR position on near-term financial support

for tribal staff time associated with Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee

participation (i.e., no support forthcoming). ICHHP will send a letter to ATSDR,

asking that the two HHES vacant positions reserved for Native American

representatives be eliminated, and that ATSDR turn its attention to providing

financial assistance for the staff time involved in participation by tribal

government liaisons. ICHHP will acknowledge a resolution enacted in 1994 by

the National Congress of American Indians pointing out the barriers to

government-to-government relationships posed by tribal participation in Federal

Advisory Committee Act-authorized activities. ICHHP will also acknowledge the

ground-breaking enterprise in which the tribes and the agency are engaged.

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581

®«^^>H
3. Suggested Scope of Cooperative Agreement Program

ATSDR intends to review its decision in the next several days concerning

whether a single cooperative agreement program can be developed for Native

American Health Activities. The agency has made a strong commitment to

creating a separate funding pool for tribes with geographic, historical, cultural,

and legal ties to contaminated federal facilities, as the ICHHP recommended.

Multi-year funding for these agreements is possible, consistent with another

ICHHP recommendation.

Equipment purchases, recommended as part of the technical capacity building

scope element, must be limited to less than $5,000 per request, or a complex

set of financial assistance rules apply.

It was recommended that the scope of the agreements be structured in such a

way that support for inter-tribal coordination through the ICHHP is allowable,

even if the ICHHP does not enter into an agreement on its own (for a variety of

reasons, ICHHP may not be incorporated in a way that allows it to receive

federal funds).

Drafting a Program Announcement is not expected to begin until mid-October;

once the announcement is issued, ATSDR expects to offer to hold a workshop

to provide guidance regarding the application process. Proposals, once

submitted, are subject to an Objective Review before agreements are negotiated.

This whole process is expected to take well into FY-96.

It would be to the tribes' advantage to begin to anticipate the application

process.

4. Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP)

The group heard a brief presentation about a new effort underway with funding

from the DOE Office of Environmental Management aimed at setting risk-based

cleanup standards with participation from a wide range of interested parties, not

just technical risk assessment specialists. The consortium involves researchers

from the University of Washington, Rutgers University, and a number of other

institutions. Its efforts will focus on DOE's Hanford and Savannah River sites.

More detailed information about the consortium and its plans will be mailed to

ICHHP members.

5. Status of Tribal Proposal to the Telecommunications and Information

Infrastructure Agency

-2-
The proposal submitted in April by the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health

Board will be reviewed in the next several days, and winners will be asked to

negotiate awards sometime in mid- to late August.

6. Meeting Schedule

Technical Steering Panel

HHES

HHES

Technical Steering Panel

Sept 6-8, Pasco

Sept 27-29, Boise

Nov 29-Dec 1, Seattle

Dec 5-7, Richland

7. Action Items

ICHHP will send a letter to ATSDR asking for closure on the issue of the HHES

vacant positions and directing its attention to near-term financial assistance

issues.

The Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation will provide

more information concerning its work plans to the ICHHP.

Attendees:

Les Spino - CTUIR

Madeline Queahpama - CTWSIR

Moses Squeochs - YIN

Guy Hopkins - KTI

David Ernst - SPO

Fred Alt - CDA

Chris Young - CCT

Warren Bishop - TSP

Jim Carpenter - ATSDR

Marie Murray - ATSDR

Del Barth - TSP

Greg Thomas - ATSDR

Chuck Smith - USPHS

Van Chase - CDC

Holly Morris - DOE-RL

Mike Mihalek - HHES

Gay Ann - CRESP

Ed Liebow - Battelle

-3-
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
INTER TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

Wednesday, September 6,1995

Red Lion Inn

2525 North 20th Street

Pasco, Washington

PROPOSED AGENDA

9:00 a.m. Status Updates

• Survey Questionnaire--OMB Review

• Contract Extensions and New Contracts

• Workplan Requirements — Monthly Reports

• Hanford Thyroid Disease Study — Native American Study Feasibility

Determination

9:45 a.m. Tribal Service Program -- Hanford Health Information Network

• Briefings and Activities Update -- Ross and Staff(TSB)

10:15 a.m. Break

10:30 a.m. Development ofthe Individual Dose Assessment Process

-- Kathy Fox-Williams, WA Department ofHealth

• Individual Dose Information Form

• Instructional and Informational Booklet for filling out IDA Form

12:00 p.m. Lunch

1:30 p.m. Evaluation of the Present HEDR Model Related to Transfer Factors in Fish TSP Research

Project

• Briefing and Progress Report — Dr. Deward Walker (TSP)

2:15 p.m. TSP/HEDR Briefing and Update — Bishop

2:30 p.m. Break

2:45 p.m. Discussion ofICHHP -- ATSDR (Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee) Relationships

• Interim Financial Support for ICHHP Members ofthe HHE Subcommittee

• Projected Risk Assessment Workshops

4:00 p.m. Adjourn
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
 TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL OF

THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Intertribal Council on Hanford Health Projects

Pasco, Washington

September 6, 1995

There was not a quorum for this meeting; only three Members were present (Nez

Perce, Umatilla, Spokane).

Status Updates:

QMB Review of Data Collection Protocol: Approval expected by September 28.

Members are urged make preparations to proceed as soon as notice of approval is

received.

Contract Extensions, Modifications, and New Contracts: Once DOE funding

uncertainties are clarified, award notice to Yakama and continued negotiations with

Kootenai are expected to proceed swiftly. Umatilla scheduled for September 12

telephone conference with CDC to discuss contract extension. The need for

extensions and modifications for other tribes should be brought to CDC's attention

promptly. Tribal representatives are urged to attend more closely to monthly progress

reporting requirements in their contracts; the possibility of changing this requirement

to quarterly may be discussed in the context of contract modifications.

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study: A determination of the feasibility for a cohort-design

Native American thyroid disease study cannot be made without information that three

tribes have yet to provide. For those tribes that have submitted this information, the

ICHHP will ask the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to write a letter indicating

that it appears infeasible to do a cohort-design epidemiological study for an individual

tribe, and that FHCRC would like to retain the data provided by the tribe to determine

the feasibility of a Native American epidemiology study. TSP Member Walker

encouraged the ICHHP Members to examine the advisability of proceeding with an

epidemiology study, even if it is determined to be feasible to do so. ICHHP Convenor

Bishop was asked to write letters to each of the three tribes from whom information

has not yet been received encouraging them to provide this information.

Hanford Health Information Network Tribal Services Program

"Our Land, Our Health" Conference set to begin with Hanford Tour on September 7.

A rough-cut of a video on tribal perspectices regarding Hanford is to be screened at the

September 26 meeting of the HHIN Tribal Advisory Board. No word has yet been

received concerning the status of the application to the Telecommunications and

Information Infrastructure Agency. The Northwest Area Portland Indian Health Board

has approached CDC about assuming responsibility for the Public Health Practice

Training program, for which no plans have been announced about continuing it beyond

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
its current session. The ICHHP Chair expressed concern about conflicts posed by the

HHIN-Tribal Services Program meetings schedule.

Individual Dose Assessment Development Process

Kathy Fox-Williams, from the Washington Department of Health Services, outlined

progress to date in developing the Individual Dose Assessment tools for the general

population. Focus groups are planned to test the IDA process, and several people

recommended that plans should be made for examining how this process can be made

more sensitive to tribal information needs. The ICHHP Chair asked Washington

Department of Health Services to prepare a letter outlining difficulties encountered in

getting the "EXPAND" automated routines to operate properly. Battelle will send Ms.

Fox-Williams a copy of the Native American Lifestyle and Demography (NALD)

database and technical documentation.

Transport Factors in Fish

TSP Member Walker reported to the group on his effort to date to evaluate the PNL

river pathway modelling with respect to the use of professional literature on transport

factors and bioaccumulation of radionuclides in fish. A progress report is due to the

TSP by the end of September, and Walker requested comments on his draft. Upon a

brief review of the incomplete draft, Walker was encouraged to make several revisions

that(1) relate his recommendations to the literature reviewed, (2) describe the criteria

by which the "relevance" of source material was determined, and (3) take a different

tone in characterizing the appearance of bibliographic sources that were not cited in

earlier river pathway modelling documentation. This report, when completed, will be

subject to peer review by the Technical Steering Panel and CDC.

Update on TSP/HEDR Project Status

Projects that have been delayed by funding uncertainties will not be completed until

after the TSP ends its work at the end of 1995. Tribal work on the HEDR Project will

retain its high priority, and plans are underway to clarify the oversight role of the three

states (Washington, Oregon, and Idaho) in remaining HEDR Project work.

Recommendations to CDC that are to be made through the TSP must be forthcoming

in the next 4 months.

ATSDR and Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee

The comment period for draft policy statement closed on September 1, and a review

of the comments received will be presented at the September 26 HHES meeting in

Boise.

A letter requesting agency attention to interim funding issues has been received from

ICHHP, and Carpenter reported that he has received assurances that if DOE funding is

approved, and the plan to create a single Native American Cooperative Agreement

program does not suit ICHHP Member needs, a separate cooperative agreement

program can be put in place that is more suitable. ICHHP Members were told not to

-2-
expect anything to be in place until after DOE funding is approved, which will probably

not occur until December.

A series of workshops is planned by the Public Health Activities working group of the

HHES to solicit input on medical monitoring issues. The first of these workshops will

be held in Seattle on November 8-9, and it will focus on radiation risks. Three other

workshops will follow, probably after the first of the year, focusing on the other 8

content areas identified by the Public Health Activities working group. Plans for ICHHP

member participation will have to be worked out at the September 26 meeting, but

ATSDR currently envisions a limited workshop invitation list, with official invitations

extended to 2 HHES members and 1 ICHHP Member.

The HHES Health Studies working group has recommended to ATSDR a specific study

of birth outcomes related to radiation exposure, along with the creation of an exposure

registry, and a scheme for prioritizing further health studies.

Gerry Poje, visiting from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, took

this opportunity to inform the group of the Federal interagency working group on

environmental justice, and the efforts of this Interagency Working Group's Native

American Task Force, which is just about to release a document the ICHHP may find

relevant concerning environmental justice executive order compliance in Indian

communities. Poje will provide the ICHHP with copies of this document when it is

available. Poje will also provide the group with a point of contact for the DHHS

Environmental Health Policy Committee, whose membership is drawn from several HHS

agencies that could be important sources of ongoing support to the ICHHP.

Action Items:

• ICHHP will ask the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center to write a letter

indicating that it appears infeasible to do a cohort-design epidemiological study

for an individual tribe, and that FHCRC would like to retain the data provided by

the tribe to determine the feasibility of a Native American epidemiology study.

• Facilitator Bishop was asked to write letters to each of the three tribes from

whom information has not yet been received encouraging them to provide this

information.

• The ICHHP Chair requested Washington Department of Health Services to

prepare a letter outlining difficulties encountered in getting the "EXPAND"

automated routines to operate properly.

• Battelle will send Ms. Fox-Williams a copy of the Native American Lifestyle and

Demography (NALD) database and technical documentation.

-3 -
Gerry Poje, NIEHS, will provide the ICHHP with copies of a document from the

Native American Task Force of the Interagency Working Group on Environmental

Justice, when it is available.

Poje will also provide the group with a point of contact for the DHHS

Environmental Health Policy Committee.

Attendees:

Les Spino, ICHHP Chair

Carl Basford, Nez Perce Tribe

David Ernst, Spokane Tribe

JR Wilkinson, CTUIR

Warren Bishop, TSP and ICHHP

Facilitator

Del Barth, TSP and HHES

Deward Walker, TSP

Chuck Smith, PHS

Van Chase, CDC

Jim Carpenter, ATSDR

Lou Stone, HTDS Advisory Committee

Greg Thomas, ATSDR

Greg Combs, Washington-Ecology

Kathy Fox-Williams, Washington Health

Services

Andy Ross, HHIN Tribal Services Program

Gerry Poje, National Institute on

Environmental Health Sciences

Ed Liebow, Battelle

-4-
TECHNICAL STEERING PANEL OF

THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Meeting with Spokane Tribe

CDC/NCEH Radiation Studies Branch

Atlanta, Georgia

September 14, 1995

Several Radiation Studies Branch staff, representing both the

Dosimetry and Epidemiology divisions, met with David Ernst and

Sandy Wyncoop to establish a process for developing dose

estimates based on the data collected and analyzed by the Spokane

Tribe.

The meeting reviewed:

• The tribal data collection efforts and preliminary dose estimates prepared for

representative individual members of the Spokane Tribe

• The tabulated summaries from the preliminary and follow-up data collection and

analysis.

• The availability of records and summary output in electronic and hard-copy

formats.

• Points where coordination with the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study and

Individual Dose Assessment process are needed.

• The paramount need to interpret the dose reconstruction and related health

studies in terms that are meaningful and relevant to the Tribe's governing body.

Follow-up Actions:

1. Data Pooling

CDC (Mellinger) will compare the tabulated Phase I and Phase II food

consumption summaries by age/gender cohort to see if there appear to

be noticeable differences in mean consumption values.

Depending on the results of this comparison, Mellinger will either (a)

suggest the best way of pooling these data for purposes of constructing

CIDER diet files to be used in reference individual dose estimates, (b)

request more information from Phase I individual records to complete a

Nuclear Waste Program • Dept. of Ecology

P.O. Box 47651 • Olympia, WA 98504-7651 • (206)407-7100 • Toll free 1-800-545-5581
more detailed test before determining whether (and how) to pool Phase

I and Phase II data.

2. Dose Calculations

Dosimetry staff will review the tabulated food consumption summaries,

and begin to construct reference individual scenario files.

Dosimetry staff will conduct sensitivity analyses on key food categories

to determine the extent to which dose estimates are affected by use of

non-traditional transfer factors as surrogates for traditional foods (e.g.,

beef cattle for elk, carrots for roots).

Dosimetry staff will construct reference individual cases, and explicitly

articulate the assumptions that are used to do so.

CDC will ask the Spokane Tribe to review these reference cases and

accompanying assumptions.

If the reference cases appear to the Tribe to capture the range of tribal

members' experience, CDC will prepare a set of dose estimates for

reference individuals.

CDC will present these results to the Tribe and be available to help

interpret their meaning.

3. Information Exchange and Communications

CDC will send a letter to the Spokane Tribe by October 15 outlining a

timetable for completing the dose calculations outlined in (2) above.

CDC will brief the Intertribal Council on Hanford Health Projects, the

Technical Steering Panel, the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, and the

Washington State Department of Health Services on the process

established as a result of today's meeting.

CDC will help the Spokane Tribe establish a data file exchange capability,

probably through the remote access utility package called "CDC-Wonder."

-2-
Attendees:

Mike Donnelly

Elizabeth Donnelly

Bob Whitcomp

Leann Denham,

Felix Rogers

Chuck Smith

Charlie Miller

Van Chase

Ann Mellinger

Alfredo Vergara

David Ernst

Sandy Wyncoop

Ed Liebow

-3 -
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX B

OPERATION PLAN FOR THE INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL

ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

B-88
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
OPERATION PLAN FOR THE

INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL

ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

(August 1994)
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................... 2

Background..........................................................................3

Scope of the Problem.............................................................4

Tribal Sovereignty.......................................................... 5

Mission Statement for ICHHP....................................................5

Inter-Tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects ...............................5

Membership ........................................................................6

Coordinating Agencies or Activities..............................................6

Coordination of Activities .........................................................7

By-Laws .............................................................................7

1 of 7
 ALBERTSONS

LIBRARY BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
OPERATION PLAN FOR THE

INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

(August 1994)

INTRODUCTION

The Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Project's (ICHHP) Operation Plan (Plan)

provides a common, basic framework for coordinating technical activities of member tribes

or nations and federal/state agencies facing health issues related to Hanford. The broad

goal is to establish this framework for the ICHHP with attendant by-laws.

The ICHHP By-laws, to be developed at a later date, will outline procedures in coordinating

tribal/federal/state activities relevant to ICHHP activities and interests. These by-laws, in

turn, will guide the long-term functions of the ICHHP. By-laws by their very nature evolve

as issues demand functional change. The Operation Plan and By-laws should increase

the efficiency whereby member tribes and agencies can conduct various Hanford healthrelated studies and programs.

The ICHHP will, under this Plan and By-laws, consist of technical representatives from

each of the member tribes. The ICHHP would provide technical assistance in coordinating

Hanford health-related activities with the various agencies/organizations involved in doing

such research. The ICHHP does not establish policy for member tribes, nor does it alter

any tribes'/nation's sovereignty. Policy and contract issues are determined by the

governing organization of each member tribe.

Section outline: •

. INTRODUCTION

- Provides an introduction to the ICHHP

• BACKGROUND

- What is Hanford? Why is there this need?

. SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

-- What is the scope of the problem?

. TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY

- Introduction to government-to-government relations

2 of 7
. MISSION STATEMENT FOR ICHHP

- - Represents core ICHHP philosophy

. INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

- - Background History of the ICHHP

. MEMBERSHIP

- Outlines member Tribes/Nations

. COORDINATING AGENCIES OR ACTIVITIES

- - List of affected agencies

. COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES

- Maintaining scientific credibility

. BY-LAWS

- - Drafts under consideration

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Government in 1943 scouted locations to site a facility for the Manhattan Project.

This facility, later known as the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Southeastern Washington

state, was to be the cornerstone of the nation's nuclear weapons plutonium production for

nearly 50 years. Hanford nuclear operations were kept secret from the American people

until the mid-1980's.

Hanford operations discharged tremendous amounts of radioactive materials and

hazardous chemicals into the air, water, and soil during its operations. The magnitude of

those releases, the movement of the contaminants through various pathways and the

potential of the contaminants to cause adverse human health impacts are currently being

researched and will continue into the foreseeable future.

Regardless, Northwest communities have become aware of the deleterious effects of

radiation through the declassification of sensitive materials and studies and are now

demanding that the potential link between adverse health patterns and Hanford emissions

be explored. This demand creates legitimate health research and health care delivery

needs. Several federal and state government agencies currently are sponsoring initiatives

researching these health issues.

3 of 7
The Native American tribes located in the Pacific Northwest, downwind or downriver from

the Hanford facility, are especially aware of the potential health effects their communities

may have experienced from the five decades of exposure to Hanford operations.

Because of the unique dietary, lifestyle, and demographic characteristics of Native peoples,

answering the following question is critical: Were tribal members, as a population subset,

at greater risk to the effects ofradiation than the non-Native peoples due to their unique

culture and lifestyle?" One currently established organization focused on this question is

the Inter-Tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects (ICHHP).

SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM

Various health studies and programs currently underway or proposed are being sponsored

or funded by the following agencies:

• US Public Health Service

-- Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)

- "Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project" (HEDRP)

- "Hanford Thyroid Disease Study " (HTDS)

-- Agencyfor Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)

- Hanford health research and public health assessments

-- Indian Health Service/CDC

- "Public Health Practice Training Program"

• State/Federal Emergency Services Agencies

• State Health agencies of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho

• US Department of Energy (DOE)

-- Office ofEnvironment, Health, and Safety

• National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

It is highly recommended that each agency or program noted above coordinate policy

development, research design, equipment utilization, and technical assistance with the

ICHHP tribes to avoid duplication of services, unnecessary activities, or missed

opportunities to provide targeted and desired services. The justification of the ICHHP, in

preparing this Operation Plan and By-laws, is not only to coordinate technical activities

between member tribes and various agencies, but to protect tribal sovereignty and to

maintain scientific credibility.

4 of 7
TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY

Cognizant federal agencies need to acknowledge and fulfill their trust responsibilities to

tribes or nations as defined by respective Treaties, executive orders, federal laws, and

federal/tribal Court rulings. The trust responsibility produces an additional responsibility

which is distinctly different from an agency's responsibilities to the general public. The

government-to-government relationship must be maintained.

One component of the trust responsibility is that federal agencies must acknowledge that

each tribe has the right to control information pertaining to the location and use of natural

or cultural resources, demographic information, and other aspects of its memberships' diet

and lifestyle that may result from Hanford-health research.

MISSION STATEMENT FOR ICHHP

To protect the sovereignty of participating Tribes, to maintain the scientific credibility

representing sensitive cultural information, and to support the govemment-to-govemment

relationship on a technical level.

INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

The Native American Working Group (NAWG) was convened in 1991 to coordinate tribal

participation in the activities of the Technical Steering Panel (TSP). The TSP directs the

Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project (HEDRP).

The NAWG functioned without a formalized charter, guidelines, or memoranda since its

original inception. Because of the 1994 reformulation ofthe TSP and the impending work

associated with the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, it became apparent to tribal

representatives that there is value in continuing the NAWG. The members of the NAWG

agreed, without dissent, that the NAWG is the best available forum for representing tribal

technical interests to federal and state agencies. However, because of the increase in the

scope of work that NAWG representatives would like to address, a new name was agreed

to: the Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Projects (ICHHP).

Today, the ICHHP faces major decisions concerning research:

• Design for health studies (i.e., the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study)

• Training and equipment support for dose reconstruction

• Risk assessment methodology and application

• Encompassing concerns about the presentation of research project results

5 of 7
These challenges, along with a recent initiative by the U.S. Public Health Service (PHS)

to form a Hanford Health Effects Council (HHEC), are confronting Native American

communities.

The HHEC, with authority under Federal Advisory Committee Act, is to provide community,

Tribal, and local governments an opportunity for involvement in the various health studies

and programs managed by two PHS agencies: the Agency for Toxic Substances and

Disease Registry (ATSDR) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

This initiative, and others, has challenged ICHHP members to review their options.

The Operation Plan is the direct response of the ICHHP representatives placing a

significant value on continuing to coordinate their technical activities through the

established ICHHP. This action will aid in protecting tribal interests, rights, and

responsibilities while maintaining scientific credibility.

MEMBERSHIP

The ICHHP consists of technical representatives from each tribe/nation listed below. Each

tribe will appoint a representative and an alternate to participate in the ICHHP's regular or

special meetings. The tribes listed below are the proposed members of the ICHHP:

Coeur dAlene Tribe

Colville Confederated Tribes

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation

Kalispel Tribes

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Nez Perce Tribe

Spokane Tribe

Petition for membership to the ICHHP will be established in the ICHHP By-Laws.

COORDINATING AGENCIES OR ACTIVITIES

The members of ICHHP will coordinate their involvement with the following, including but

not limited to, state and federal agencies:

Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry

Center for Disease Control and Prevention

Department of Energy

Hanford Health Information Network-Tribal Advisory Board

6 of 7
ALBERTSONS

LIBRARY BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX C

BY-LAWS FOR THE INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON

HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

C-96
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
BY - LAWS FOR THE

INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL

ON HANFORD HEALTH

PROJECTS

(Approved: May 4,1995)
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preamble .............................................. 2

ICHHP By-Laws ................................... 3

I. Name of the Organization .................................................3

II. Mission of the Organization...............................................3

III. Membership and Sponsoring Agencies................................. 3

IV. ICHHP Affiliations ..........................................................4

V. Officers ............................................................. 5

VI. Preparing Technical Statements andRecommendations ............ 6

VII. Meetings .... ............... 6

VIII. Financial and Technical Support for ICHHP Activities................ 7

IX. Quorum............................... 8

X. Voting Procedures..........................................................8

XI. Amendments to These By-Laws ............................... 8

XII. Procedures ............................................... 8

XIII. Adoption .................................................................... 8

XIV. Subcommittees .............................................................8

XV. ICHHP “Sunset”...................... 9

1 of 9
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
BY - LAWS FOR THE

INTER-TRIBAL COUNCIL ON HANFORD HEALTH PROJECTS

(Adopted May 4, 1995)

PREAMBLE

Tribal governments in the area potentially affected by the Department of Energy Hanford

facility, responsible for protecting the health and welfare of their membership, have taken

an active part in efforts to determine Hanford's possible public health effects. Numerous

efforts are underway currently, sponsored by the Department of energy and a number of

agencies of the U.S. Public Health Service.

Tribal participation in Hanford-related public health studies are guided by the principles of

coordination, tribal sovereignty and scientific credibility.

Derived from the principle of sovereignty are the need for:

• federal, state and other agencies to fulfill their trust and other responsibilities by working

with each involved tribe on a government-to-government basis; and

• each tribes right to control the distribution of information concerning the location and

use of natural resources by its members, and other aspects of its members diet and

lifestyle that may result in Hanford-related health effects.

From the concept of scientific credibility comes the need for:

• technically sound methods, adequate control over the quality of data collection and

analysis; and

• consistency and coordination among tribes in the design and implementation of

Hanford-related health research and public health activities.

These goals are consistent with:

• the needs of member tribes;

• President Clinton’s Administrative Order on the tribal/federal government-togovernment relationship (59 FR 22951, May 4, 1994);

• the Clinton Executive Order (12898, February 11, 1994) on environmental justice, and

the trust responsibility doctrine.

Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), which is a prime sponsor of numerous

studies directly related to the ICHHP, promulgated an Indian Policy (DOE Order Series

1230.2, April 8, 1992). The Executive Order and the DOE ‘s Indian Policy are two

examples of the unique status Indian tribes have relative to working with the federal

government.

2 of 9
Approved: May 4,1995

ICHHP BY-LAWS

I. Name of the Organization

A. The Inter-tribal Council on Hanford Health Project (ICHHP) will be the name of

the organization. The membership can change the name ifthey see the need

to do so.

B. The ICHHP has evolved directly from the Native American Working Group

(NAWG), which was formed in 1991 to coordinate technical activities associated

with the collection and analysis of Native American data for the Hanford

Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, under the guidance of the

Technical Steering Panel (TSP).

II. Mission of the Organization

A. The ICHHP is a consortium of sovereign nations. Its tribal representatives are

authorized to act on technical matters, but sole authority to decide policy matters

remains with each tribes’ governing bodies, unless a governing body explicitly

delegates his authority to its ICHHP representative.

B. The ICHHP will provide a technical forum in which participating tribes can

coordinate Hanford-related research and health activities, protect their

sovereignty, and maintain the scientific credibility of work representing tribal

members’ lifestyles, dietary habits, and health status.

C. The main purpose of the ICHHP is to coordinate tribal activities in research

design, training, and technical issues on behalf of member tribes. This

coordination should increase efficiency in the delivery of services and reduce

conflicts.

III. Membership and Sponsoring Agencies

A. Members of the ICHHP will include:

Coeur d’Alene Tribe

Colville Confederated Tribes

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation

3 of 9
Approved: May 4,1995

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Indian Reservation

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian Nation

Kalispel Tribe

Kootenai Tribe of Idaho

Nez Perce Tribe

Spokane Tribe

B. Adding new membership to the ICHHP, with corresponding terms, shall be

determined by quorum (Section IX) and voting procedures (Section X).

C. Support agencies will include, but not be limited to:

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Department of Energy

Hanford Health Information Network, Tribal Advisory Board

Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, - Technical Steering Panel

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study

U.S. Indian Health Service, Portland Area Office

State Health Agencies of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho

State of Washington Department of Ecology

Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board

D. Representative from these supporting agencies and research project

organizations will be invited to attend regular and special scheduled meetings

of the ICHHP.

IV. ICHHP Affiliations

To increase accountability of (and assure appropriate interaction with) other advisory

groups to the member tribes, the ICHHP will affiliate with these groups in the manner

listed below. Affiliation with these advisory boards does not replace the need for

direct, government-to-government interactions with the agencies that sponsor and

benefit from the advisory boards’ activities.

A. Hanford Health Effects Subcommittee (sponsored by Agency for Toxic

Substances and Disease Registry)

1. Each member ofthe ICHHP will have a government liaison position on the

subcommittee to ensure that ICHHP interests are brought to the

subcommittee’s attention.

4 of 9
Approved: May 4,1995

2. The subcommittee will recognize the ICHHP as the organization

responsible for coordinating technical aspects of tribal involvement in

Hanford-related health studies and other public health activities.

B. Hanford ThyroidDisease StudyAdvisory Committee (sponsored by U.S. Centers

for Disease Control and Prevention

1. The ICHHP will request that it be assigned the responsibility to nominate

tribal representatives to the Advisory Committee.

2. The ICHHP will request regular updates from the tribal representative(s) to

this committee.

C. Technical Steering Panel, Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

(sponsored by U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)

1. The ICHHP will request regular updates from the tribal representative(s).

D. Hanford Health Information Network - Tribal Advisory Board (sponsored by U.S.

Department of Energy grant to the health agencies of Washington, Oregon, and

Idaho)

1. The ICHHP will request regular updates from representatives.

V. Officers

A. The ICHHP membership will elect/appoint a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and a

Secretary.

B. Each officer will serve a two-year term.

C. The Chair will preside at all meetings of the ICHHP, appoint temporary officers

in the absence of officers or vacancies; prepare the agendas for meetings; and

carry out all duties assigned at any Regular or Special Meetings of the ICHHP.

D. The Vice-Chair will act in place of the Chair in the event of the Chair’s absence

or at the Chair’s request, and will succeed the Chair if, for any reason(s), the

Chair is unable to serve the full term of office.

5 of 9
Approved: May 4,1995

E. The Secretary will maintain correspondence and files, distribute meeting

announcements, provide minutes of each meeting to the ICHHP membership,

and track activities designated as “action items” at ICHHP meetings.

F. Vacancies will be filled by appointment as determined by the ICHHP

membership. Such appointees will serve the remainder ofthe term for the office

filled.

VI. Preparing Technical Statements and Recommendations

A. Technical statements and recommendations on behalf of the ICHHP shall

represent the consensus of tribal representative. These statements will be

issued on behalf of the ICHHP, and not the member tribes, unless explicitly

stated.

B. The ICHHP will review and, if appropriate, adopt the current Amended Data and

Document Release Policy (April 23, 1994) in use by the NAWG to address the

current HEDRP study.

C. The ICHHP will review and provide recommendations concerning proposed

research design and related decision-making criteria; specifically for determining

the feasibility of undertaking a Native American Thyroid Disease Study. This

may also involve other proposed activities that may be conducted in the future.

D. The ICHHP will identify the need for (a) additional study, research and tribal

health activities, including delivery of services when these services may be

Hanford related, based on findings from work currently underway; and (b)

resources required to participate in these studies and other health activities.

E. Adoption of ICHHP technical policy statements and recommendations will meet

the requirements of quorum (Section IX) and voting (Section X).

VII. Meetings

A. The ICHHP will establish an annual meeting schedule to seek information and

to provide direction and guidance to the agencies responsible for conducting

various Hanford-related health research and tribal health activities.

6 of 9
Approved: May 4,1995

B. Regular meetings will include reports from supporting agencies (Section III [C])

and affiliated advisory boards (Section IV) on each organization’s current,

proposed, or anticipated activities and efforts to address issues that were

brought to their attention at previous ICHHP meetings.

C. Special meetings of the ICHHP may be called by a quorum vote or by the Chair

polling the membership in the event an issue demands immediate consideration.

VIII. Financial and Technical Support for ICHHP Activities

A. The ICHHP will review and provide recommendations to supporting agencies

concerning:

• Training and technical assistance needed by tribal projects’ staff to ensure

the highest quality in Hanford health-related data collection and analysis

undertaken by participating tribes. The ICHHP expects supporting

agencies to coordinate the provision of training and technical assistance.

• Training needed for agency personnel concerning relevant aspects of

Native American culture, history, and political structure that will enhance

“government-to-government” interactions.

• Supporting agencies’ plans for providing the financial and technical

resources necessary for ICHHP members to undertake Hanford-related

health research and tribal health activities.

• The needs of the ICHHP to adequately and fully meet its organizational

requirements. This may include financial assistance for full-time ICHHP

support staff. Any funding for ICHHP will not affect any member tribes’

current or future funding opportunities.

• The presentation of research results to tribal members, to the general nonIndian public, to public health researchers, practitioners, and

administrators.

• Information that should be made available to tribal members concerning

appropriate Hanford-related information and health care services that might

be available.

7 of 9
Approved: May 4,1995

IX. Quorum

A. A quorum of the ICHHP shall consist of six (6) ofthe nine (9) tribes represented.

X. Voting Procedures

A. Unanimous consent will be the goal in developing ICHHP technical policy

statements or other matters that require a vote. If a formal vote is required, a

two-thirds majority vote is needed to support a particular recommendation.

XI. Amendments to These By-Laws

A. Amendments to the By-Laws can be proposed at any Regular or Special

meeting by any tribal representative, and must be approved by a two-thirds

majority of affirmative votes of the membership.

XII. Procedures

A. In the absence of specific instructions from the By-Laws, the ICHHP will follow

the parliamentary procedures spelled out by the Robert’s Rules of Orders.

XIII. Adoption

A. The adoption ofthese By-Laws shall be approved by unanimous consent of the

ICHHP membership.

XIV. Subcommittees

A. Subcommittees will be convened at the desire ofthe ICHHP membership. The

ICHHP shall establish deliverables, timetables, and membership of such

subcommittees.

B. Subcommittees may convene appropriate meetings in concert with, or separate

from, the main ICHHP body. Subcommittee members are eligible for

appropriate funding to complete its assigned activities.

8 of 9
Approved: May 4,1995

XV. ICHHP "Sunset"

A. The ICHHP can be disbanded with the unanimous consent of the members of the

ICHHP.

Kalispel Tribe of Indians

Nez Perce Tribe

Indian Reservation

9 of 9
APPENDIX D

NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP DATA and

DOCUMENT RELEASE POLICY

D-106
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY

ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY

ALBERTSON’S LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP

DATA AND DOCUMENT RELEASE POLICY

POLICY STATEMENT

(As Last Amended, April 23,1994)

A. INTRODUCTION

In order to begin to address the distinctive cultural and lifestyle differences of Native

Americans in the Dose Reconstruction Project, tribal researchers have been asked

to gather and report population, diet, and lifestyle information. Use of these data will

be important in determining both individual radiation doses for Native Americans and

collective impact on the eight tribes and tribal confederations that reside in the Intermountain Northwest. The Technical Steering Panel of the Dose Reconstruction

Project must have sufficient high-quality data to estimate Native American

doses.

Collection, compilation, analysis, and comparative use of these data pose several

issues. These issues, illustrated below, require a carefully thought out policy and

process to control access to, use and evaluation of, and reporting about the data. For

historic and cultural reasons, some of these issues are quite different from those

affecting the general population.

B. THE ISSUES

Tribal Sovereignty: Treaties, federal laws, and state policy all recognize the

governmental separateness and sovereignty of the tribes and tribal confederations.

Data and document review and release issues involve government-to-government

relationships for the tribes and for involved state and federal agencies.

Collective vs. Individual Focus: The overall objective of the Dose Reconstruction

Project is to provide a means to estimate individual doses that may have resulted

from Hanford releases. Individual Native Americans must have equal access to such

estimates. In addition, however, tribes are culturally and politically distinctive. Tribal

governments have responsibility for the health and welfare of enrolled members.

They may pursue questions of effects, liability, compensation, etc. on behalf of their

members collectively. Tribal representatives, therefore, need to consider both the

individual and the collective validity and implications of HEDR information.

2 of 6
Written vs. Oral Culture: In order to participate in the HEDR Project, the tribes are

committing to gather culturally sensitive information that might otherwise be retained

and protected in an oral tradition. The written nature may make it accessible to and

subject to manipulation by persons who would not otherwise have access.

Specification of Types of Native Foods and Medicines: For example, in order to

see whether dietary differences from the surrounding culture led to differences in

doses, information is needed on foods--game, plants, seeds, roots, etc.--consumed

by Native Americans. Specific information about which things were consumed, for

which purposes, and where they were found, however, may divulge cultural or

religious information the tribes wish to keep confidential. Such information is

protected under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act. The information may

also feed commercial exploitation of materials and sources against the wishes of the

tribes.

Confidentiality of the Location of Culturally Sensitive Sites: The tribes

participating in the HEDR project also have concerns that these studies may reveal

the location of sites where important cultural and archeological resources are

situated, which resources may be subject to exploitation or raiding in the event their

location is made public.

Confidentiality of Informants: Another example of the importance of oral culture

relates to confidentiality of informants. Much of the dietary and lifestyle information

needed to assess whether Native American doses are different from those to the

general population will come from interviews with tribal members. In order to protect

traditional family knowledge about sources of various materials and to prevent

exploitation by non-lndian researchers, guarantees of confidentiality need to be clear

and reliable.

C. TYPES OF INFORMATION

In order to develop a policy and process to deal satisfactorily with these issues, it is

helpful to delineate the different kinds of information involved:

• Raw data-e.g. records of interviews, completed questionnaires, tribal rolls;

• Compiled data-e.g. tables in which raw data are summarized;

• HEDR Project calculations or conclusions developed from compiled data-e.g.

preliminary estimates of individual or group radiation doses; ranges of possible

doses by category of persons; comparisons of possible doses;

3 of 6
• Cultural or other studies not related directly to radiation dose calculations but

utilizing raw or compiled data gathered in the HEDR Project; and

• Others' calculations or conclusions developed from data compiled for the HEDR

Project-e.g. independent scholarly analysis; governmental studies; media

analyses.

D. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED FOR EACH TYPE OF INFORMATION

A policy and process to protect and balance the rights and needs of individuals,

tribes, researchers, and the public must address questions like the following for each

of the above types of information:

• How is the information to be used?

• Who reviews it?

• How is the information distributed?

• What approvals are necessary for access to it?

E. PARTIES TO CONSIDER

The following parties in the process need to be considered:

• Tribal researchers

• Tribal members

• Tribal officials

• Native American Working Group

• TSP members

• Battelle researchers

• Other researchers

• News media

• General public

4 of 6
F. POLICY STATEMENT

The following policies are proposed to govern use of tribal data and calculations

based on them. These policies balance legitimate tribal concerns about protection

of individual and cultural rights and resources, the importance the TSP assigns to

having complete, quality data and techniques used in the Dose Reconstruction

Project, and the TSP's commitment that all of its work be open to public and

independent scrutiny.

1.

2.

3.

Each tribe retains sole possession and control ofraw data collected by the

tribe. This includes completed survey forms, questionnaire responses, audio

tapes, and working notes.

a. In order to meet requirements for quality assurance and verification of data,

the TSP may request that its members or their designees be permitted to

independently review raw data. The reviewer(s) will agree not to remove,

release or disclose raw data.

b. Tribes should take reasonable measures to protect confidentiality of

informants. They will provide informed consent information and assurances

of confidentiality to all persons interviewed.

Once tribal data are collected and compiled into summary tables, tribal

governing authorities (e.g. Council, Board of Trustees) have the authorityto

decide whether to transmit the data to HEDR researchers. A tribal governing

body may request that dose estimates be calculated based on the compiled

preliminary data before deciding to release the summary data to the TSP. If the

tribal governing body does not approve release of the compiled preliminary data,

calculations based on the preliminary data will not be made a part of the TSP

record, and the TSP will not initiate further calculations based on the preliminary

data. Unless otherwise provided for through negotiations involving the TSP and

that tribe, no further effort will be made by TSP to produce dose estimates based

on tribe-specific preliminary data.

Once a tribal governing authority has approved release of compiled data, it

may request further analysis ofthat data. All further analyses and calculations

based on the approved data will be submitted to the tribal governing authority and

to the Native American Working Group before being transmitted to the TSP and

becoming part of the public record. The tribal governing authority and the Working

Group may make comments that will be attached to the calculations and become

an integral part of the record.

5 of 6
4. Once TSP receives approved compiled data and/or calculations, they

becomepublicinformation, consistent with TSPpolicy. Tribal governing body

and Native American Working Group comments, if any, will be directly attached.

A notice will also be attached, warning that the data and calculations should be

referenced or reproduced only with appropriate acknowledgement of tribal

comments.

5. Independentresearchers may use the compileddata, calculations, analyses,

and comments thus released by the TSP. They will be expected to abide by

the requirement that tribal comments be acknowledged. Use of this information

provides no claim to access to raw data, which is controlled by the tribal

Governments.

6. Each tribe will be encouraged and supported as required in providing

information about compiled data or calculations to its own people and to the

news media. TSP and the Native American Working Group will assist any tribe

that so requests to prepare materials for briefing tribal governing bodies or tribal

members. TSP will make no press announcement or release, nor prepare

documents summarizing compiled data or calculations regarding an individual

tribe or tribes without the written request or concurrence of tribal governments.

6 of 6
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX E

NATIVE AMERICAN DATA COLLECTION FOR THE

HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION

- STUDY PROTOCOL

E-113
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

(HEDR)

NATIVE AMERICAN WORKING GROUP

PROTOCOL

AND

SOLE SOURCE CONTRACT (EXAMPLE)

DECEMBER 1992
ALBERTSONS LIBRARYBOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE

SECTION B - SUPPLIES OR SERVICES AND PRICES/COSTS.................................. 2

B.l COMPENSATION (COST-REIMBURSEMENT)............................. 2

SECTION C -DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/WORK STATEMENT........................... 3

SECTION D -PACKAGING AND MARKING............................................................... 8

SECTION E -INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE........................................................ 9

E.l 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE (JUN 1988) . 9

E.2 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE ..................................................... 9

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE....................................................... 10

F.l 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BYREFERENCE (JUN 1988). 10

F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE................................................... 10

F.3 DELIVERY SCHEDULE ................................................................... 10

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA ................................................ 12

G.l INVOICE SUBMISSION.................................................................... 12

G.2 NEGOTIATED INDIRECT COST RATES.............................................. 12

G.3 REIMBURSEMENT OF COST............................................................ 12

G.4 PROJECT DIRECTOR...................................................................... 13

G.5 CO-PROJECT OFFICERS ................................................................ 14

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS................................................ 15

H.l KEY PERSONNEL........................................................................... 15

H.2 INCORPORATION OF TECHNICALPROPOSAL ... ................................. 15

H.3 OFFICE EQUIPMENT....................................................................... 15

H.4 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA............................................................ 15

H.5 DATA COLLECTION APPROVAL........................................................ 15

H.6 CONTRACT FINANCIAL REPORT..................................................... 16

H.7 METHOD OF PAYMENT - LETTER OFCREDIT................................... 16

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES......................................................................... 19

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES ...................................................................... 19

1.1 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988). 19

1.2 52.203-9 REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATE OF PROCUREMENT . . 20

INTEGRITY—MODIFICATION (NOV 1990)

1.3 52.203-10 PRICE OR FEE ADJUSTMENT FOR ILLEGAL OR. ... 22

IMPROPER ACTIVITY (SEP 1990)

1.4 52.203-12 LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN . 23

FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS (JAN 1990)

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS .... 29

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS.................................................................. 29
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Section C

SECTION C - DESCRIPTION/SPECIFICATIONS/WORK STATEMENT

STATEMENT OF WORK

I. BACKGROUND

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is sponsoring two

major environmental and health impact studies, relating to operation of 

U.S. Government facilities at the Hanford Site, in Washington State.

These studies are generally known as the Hanford Environmental Dose

Reconstruction (HEDR) Project, and the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study

(HTDS).

The HEDR project is funded as part of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the CDC. The primary purpose

of the HEDR Project is to reconstruct doses to offsite members of the

public resulting from radionuclide releases since 1944. The HTDS is

funded directly through Congress; its primary purpose is to determine if

individuals exposed to radioactive Iodine released from the Hanford

facility have an increased incidence of thyroid disease.

Eight Native American Indian Tribes (Coeur D'Alene, Colville, Kalispel,

Nez Perce, Spokane, Umatilla, Warm Springs, and Yakima) have reservation

lands within the study area and are participating in the HEDR and HTDS

projects, as further discussed below. Success of both the HEDR and HTDS

projects depends significantly upon the quality input of data which is

unique to these Native American Tribes.

II. PURPOSE

The purpose of this contract is to identify, collect, record, evaluate and

deliver data, unique to the Tribe of Indians, as appropriate for

input into the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, and

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, which are currently being conducted under

separate CDC sponsored contracts.

III. TASKS

Independently, and not as an agent of the Government, the contractor shall

furnish personnel, materials, supplies, and equipment to identify,

retrieve, evaluate and deliver data, unique to the Tribe of 

Indians, as appropriate for input into the Hanford Environmental Dose

Reconstruction Project and the Hanford Thyroid Disease Studies. These

data will include, but not be limited to, dietary, lifestyle, and

demographic data.

More specifically, the contractor shall accomplish activities, as outlined

below. During the course of the contract, it is contemplated that the

Co-Project Officers will coordinate the availability of specialized

technical expertise as appropriate to ensure successful attainment of

coordinated contract objectives. From time to time, the Co-Project

Officers may require the contractor to meet with the Government and/or CDC

contractors to discuss and resolve areas of common concern.

Page 3 of 29
Section C

A) Primary Data Collection and Analysis

Study Design

The contractor shall develop a tribal-specific study design, using

the study protocol outline developed by the Native American Working

Group (NAWG) and approved by the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), for review and approval of the Government. The study design

shall address how information would be collected to ensure quality of

the data, as well as describe how the contractor will:

o Develop a sampling frame that lists those Tribal members alive

today who were alive during the periods being studies by the

HEDR and HTDS projects

o Develop a sampling strategy to select a subset of those people

listed in the sampling frame who reflect a representative

individual for which radiation doses will be calculated

o Develop procedures to administer the questionaire

o Develop a set of procedures to review each completed interview

record for completeness, accuracy, and range of values

o Describe a set of procedures for accurately creating an

electronic record of the information contained on the interview

record

o Conduct oral and life history interviews, including the

development of an interview guide and procedures for creating

and storing information received from the interviews

o Develop a narrative report summarizing findings from primary

data collection.

Upon approval of the study design, the contractor shall commence data

collection activities, and implement a tribal survey, using the study

protocol outline developed by the NAWG and approved by the OMB, as

outlined in the approved study design.

B) Historical Document Review and Retrieval

The contractor shall develop a plan for establishing a data base of

historical documents pertinent to the HEDR and HTDS projects, for

review and approval of the Government. The historical document

review and retrieval plan shall:

o Describe methods for ensuring the identification and review of

relevant source materials

o Describe procedures for ensuring the confidentiality of

sensitive information obtained from historical document review

o Describe data base development including data entry and quality

control procedures

o Describe methods for providing complete hard copy and

computerized documentation

o Describe procedures for providing a narrative report of findings

Page 4 of 29
Section C

Upon approval of the historical document review and retrieval plan,

the contractor shall commence data base development activities, in

accordance with the approved plan.

Upon completion of the contract, the Government will be provided with

complete documentation of any computer data bases utilized to meet

the data collection requirements of the contract.

C) Accuracy and Precision Measurement Plan

The contractor shall develop a plan to seek independent measures of 

accuracy and precision of the primary data being collected, subject

to review and approval of the Government. The plan shall include,

but not necessarily be limited to, the following:

o Procedures to ensure the review of available published

literature regarding food consumption and mobility patterns for

defined historical periods.

o Procedures to ensure the review of unpublished data sources

(e.g. community health representatives records, nutrition

program records, agricultural commodities distribution

program records, etc.)

o Describe procedures for developing a narrative report comparing

accuracy and precision of primary data with other published and

unpublished accounts.

Upon approval of the plan, the contractor shall commence activities

to ensure accuracy and precision of the primary data collected in

accordance with the approved plan.

D) Review and Refinement of Data Inputs

The contractor shall provide a plan to be available, when requested

by the Government, to provide clarification and consultation to other

HEDR and HTDS researchers regarding the entry of all primary data and

sensitivity analyses.

E) Training

The contractor will ensure that project personnel receive training as

appropriate to ensure successful completion of contract activities.

During performance of the contract, the Co-Project Officers will be

available to assist the contractor in the identification of

training needs, and provide advice on the availability of programs to

meet those needs.

F) Contractor Attendance at Meetings and Workshops

The contractor shall provide appropriate representation at CDC/IHS

Public Health Practice Training Program Workshops, Technical Steering

Panel (TSP) meetings, Native American Working Group (NAWG) meetings

and workshops, and periodic contract status meetings as may

be determined appropriate by the Co-Project Officers.

Page 5 of 29
Section C

G) Public Information and Communication

Significant to the success of this project is the involvement of

tribal members, and dissemination of appropriate information to

ensure that they are periodically appraised of the status and results

of both HEDR and HTDS projects. Acting in coordination with the

Government and its primary contractors for these studies, the

contractor will be responsible for development and dissemination of

materials as appropriate to ensure accomplishment of this objective.

IV. DELIVERABLES

A. Draft Study Design

The contractor shall provide a draft study design for meeting the

requirements of this contract within 30 days of the award of this

contract. This draft study design will be submitted for the approval

of the Government and will describe specific methods for meeting the

requirements described in Section III of the Statement of Work. The

contractor shall provide five (5) copies of the draft study design.

B. Final Study Design

The contractor shall provide a final study design, incorporating the

Government's review comments on the draft study design within 21 days

of receiving the Government's written comments. The contractor shall

provide five (5) copies of the final study design.

C. Monthly Progress Reports

The contractor shall provide monthly written progress reports,

detailing the current status of ongoing contract activities. The

reports shall be narrative in form and include a summary of progress

toward completion of each contract task, and an assessment of

any perceived problems that might impede performance. Monthly

reports shall be delivered no later than the 20th of each month

immediately following the reporting period. The contractor shall

provide three (3) copies of each monthly report.

D. Summary of Primary Data Collection

The contractor shall provide to the Government by June 1, 1994, a

summary of all primary data collected, in the format specified in the

study protocol outline developed by the NAWG and approved by the OMB.

E. Draft Final Report

The contractor shall provide a draft final report no later than 45

days prior to the expiration date of this contract for review by the

Government. The report shall summarize data collection and

historical document review and retrieval findings, as well as a

summary of accomplishments in meeting all other tasks specified in

this contract. The contractor shall provide five (5) copies of this

report.

F. Final Report

Following review of the draft final report by the Government and

receipt by the contractor of the Government's written comments, the

Page 6 of 29
Section C

contractor shall provide a final report on or before the expiration

date of the contract. The contractor will provide five (5) copies of

this report.

Page 7 of 29
Section D

SECTION D - PACKAGING AND MARKING

THERE ARE NO CLAUSES INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION

Page 8 of 29
Section E

SECTION E - INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

E.l 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same

force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the

Contracting Officer will make their full text available.

NUMBER DATE TITLE

52.246-5 APR 1984 INSPECTION OF-SERVICES - COST-REIMBURSEMENT

E.2 INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

Inspection and acceptance of all work performed under this contract shall be by

the Contracting Officer or a duly authorized representative.

Page 9 of 29
Section F

SECTION F - DELIVERIES OR PERFORMANCE

F.l 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same

force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the

Contracting Officer will make their full text available.

NUMBER DATE TITLE

52.212-13 APR 1984 STOP-WORK ORDER Alternate I (APR 1984)

F.2 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The performance period shall be 15 months from the contract award date.

F.3 DELIVERY SCHEDULE

The contractor shall deliver to the Co-Project Officers, Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, National Center for Environmental Health, Radiation

Studies Branch, 4770 Buford Highway N.E., Building 101, Room 3146, Atlanta,

Georgia 30341-3724 and U.S. PHS-CDC, Region 10, 2201 Sixth Avenue, M/S RX-22,

Seattle, Washington 98121, the following items, within the timeframes specified

below.

In addition, one (1) copy of the Monthly Progress Reports, and one (1) copy of

the Final Report the shall be furnished to the Contracting Officer, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention, Procurement and Grants Office, Program

Acquisition Branch, Section B, 255 East Paces Ferry Road N.E., Room 507,

Atlanta, Georgia 30305.

A. Draft Study Design

The contractor shall provide a draft study design for meeting the

requirements of this contract within 30 days of the award of this

contract. This draft study design will be submitted for the approval of

the Government and will describe specific methods for meeting the

requirements described in Section III of the Statement of Work. The

contractor shall provide five (5) copies of the draft study design.

B. Final Study Design

The contractor shall provide a final study design incorporating the

Government's review comments on the draft study design within 21 days of

receiving the Government's written comments. The contractor shall provide

five (5) copies of the final study design.

C. Monthly Progress Reports

The contractor shall provide monthly written progress reports, detailing

the current status of ongoing contract activities. The reports shall be

narrative in form and include a summary of progress toward completion of

each contract task, and an assessment of any perceived problems that might

impede performance. Monthly reports shall be delivered no later than the

Page 10 of 29
Section F

(Continued)

20th of each month immediately following the reporting period. The

contractor shall provide three (3) copies of each monthly report.

D. Summary of Primary Data Collection

The contractor shall provide to the Government by June 1, 1994, a summary

of all primary data collected, in the format specified in the study

protocol outline developed by the NAWG and approved by the OMB.

E. Draft Final Report

The contractor shall provide a draft final report no later than 45 days

prior to the expiration date of this contract for review by the

Government. The report shall summarize data collection and historical

document review and retrieval findings, as well as a summary of

accomplishments in meeting all other tasks specified in this contract.

The contractor shall provide five (5) copies of this report.

F. Final Report

Following review of the draft final report by the Government and receipt

by the contractor of the Government's written comments, the contractor

shall provide a final report on or before the expiration date of the

contract. The contractor will provide five (5) copies of this report.

Page 11 of 29
Section G

SECTION G - CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION DATA

G.l INVOICE SUBMISSION

(a) The Contractor shall submit an original and four copies of contract

invoices/vouchers to the address shown below:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), PGO

Program Acquisition Branch

Attn: Contracting Officer

255 East Paces Ferry Road, N.E., Room 507

Atlanta, Georgia 30305

(b) The Contractor agrees that its invoice/voucher shall adhere to the

guidelines set forth in the instructions entitled 'Billing Instructions

for Negotiated Cost Type Contract,' which are attached hereto.

G.2 NEGOTIATED INDIRECT COST RATES

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of the clause entitled Allowable Cost and

Payment in Section I, Contract Clauses, allowable indirect costs under this

contract shall be obtained by applying negotiated overhead rates to bases

agreed upon by the parties, as specified below.

(b) The Contractor shall be reimbursed for allowable indirect costs at the

following rate(s):

TYPE BASE

EFFECTIVE PERIOD

FROM TO RATE

Fixed Carryforward

Contract

Award

9/30/94 34.0% (a)

Provisional 10/01/94 until

amended

34.0% (a)

Base:

(a) Total direct costs less capital expenditures, directly funded

indirect programs, and any passthrough funds. Passthrough funds are

normally defined as major subcontracts, payments to participants,

stipends to eligible recipients, and subgrants, which normally

require minimal administrative effort.

Treatment of Fringe Benefits: Fringe benefits applicable to direct salaries

and wages are treated as direct costs; fringe

benefits applicable to indirect salaries and

wages are treated as indirect costs.

G.3 REIMBURSEMENT OF COST

(a) For the performance of this contract, the Government shall reimburse the

Contractor the cost (hereinafter referred to as allowable cost) determined

by the Contracting Officer to be allowable in accordance with the clause

Page 12 of 29
Section G

G.3 (Continued)

entitled Allowable Cost and Payment in Section I, Contract Clauses, and

included in but not limited to the following:

(1) All direct materials and supplies which are used, in the performing of

the work provided for under the contract, including those purchased

for contracts and purchase orders.

(2) All direct labor, including supervisory, that is properly chargeable

directly to the contract, plus fringe benefits.

(3) All other items of cost budgeted for and accepted in the negotiation

of this basic contract or modifications thereto.

(4) Special expenditures which, upon request from the Contractor, the

Contracting Officer approves as being an allowable cost under this

contract.

(5) All travel costs plus per diem or actual subsistence for personnel

while in an actual travel status in direct performance of the work

and services required under this contract. These costs will be in

accordance with the Contractor's policy and subject to the following:

(a) Air travel shall be by the most direct route using 'air coach'

or 'air tourist' (less than first class) unless it is clearly

unreasonable or impractical (e.g., not available for

reasons other than avoidable delay in making reservations, would

require circuitous routing or entail additional expense

offsetting the savings on fare, or would not make necessary

connections).

(b) Rail travel shall be by the most direct route, first class with

lower berth or nearest equivalent.

(c) Costs incurred for lodging, meals, and incidental expenses shall

be considered reasonable and allowable to the extent that they

do not exceed on a daily basis the per diem rates set forth in

the Federal Travel Regulations.

(d) Travel via privately owned automobile shall be at $0.25

per mile.

(6) Consultant services in an amount not to exceed $

(b) Except as stated herein, the Contractor shall not incur costs unless the

prior written authorization of the Contracting Officer has been obtained.

When without such prior authorization, incurrence with the intent

of claiming reimbursement as direct costs shall therefore be at the

Contractor's own risk.

G.4 PROJECT DIRECTOR

Work and services will be conducted under the direction of The

Government reserves the right to approve any necessary successor to the Project

Director.

Page 13 of 29
Section G

G.5 CO-PROJECT OFFICERS

Paul G. Renard and Mike Donnelly are hereby designated as the Co-Project

Officers for this contract. The Co-Project Officers are responsible for

guiding the technical aspects of the project. The Co-Project Officers shall

not make any commitments or authorize any changes that affect the contract

price, terms, or conditions; any such changes shall be referred to the

Contracting Officer for action.

Page 14 of 29
Section H

SECTION H - SPECIAL CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

E.1 KEY PERSONNEL

The key personnel cited below are considered essential to the work being

performed under this contract. If these individuals leave the Contractor's

employ or are reassigned to other programs, the Contractor shall notify the

Contracting Officer reasonably in advance and shall submit justification

(including proposed substitutions) insufficient detail to permit evaluation of

the impact on the program. No diversion or replacement shall be made by the

Contractor without the written consent of the Contracting Officer.

Personnel Title

Project Director

Researcher

H.2 INCORPORATION OF TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

The Contractor's technical proposal dated , as revised by the

best and final offer dated __________ _, submitted in response to RFP

200-92-0558(P), is hereby incorporated into the contract by reference. The

Contractor shall perform the work substantially as set forth in the technical

proposal. Any revisions to the technical proposal that would significantly alter

the technical approach must be approved in writing by the Contracting Officer.

In the event of a conflict between Section C, Statement of Work, and the

Contractor's technical proposal, Section C shall take precedence.

li. 3 OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Notwithstanding any other provision of this contract, the Contractor shall not

purchase or lease under this contract any items of office equipment, including

office furniture or machines. Recovery of the cost of such items shall be

allowable only to the extent that it is properly includable in the indirect

cost charged to this contract.

II.4 IDENTIFICATION OF DATA

The Contractor shall identify the technical data delivered to the Government as

required by this contract with the number of the contract and the name and

address of the Contractor or subcontractor who generated the data.

H..5 DATA COLLECTION APPROVAL

This contract is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, requiring the

Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget (ASMB) and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) to approve the action. The Contractor is not

authorized to expend any funds or take any action whatsoever in soliciting data

from any of the public respondents until the Contracting Officer has notified

the Contractor that ASMB and OMB final approval has been obtained. The

Contractor shall provide the Project Officer with all information necessary to

Page 15 of 29
Section H

H.5 (Continued)

obtain final clearance.

H.6 CONTRACT FINANCIAL REPORT

(a) Financial reports on Form HHS-646, Financial Report of Individual

Project/Contract, shall be submitted by the Contractor in accordance with

the instructions which accompany the form in an original and two copies,

not later than thirty (30) working days after the close of the reporting

period. The line entries for subdivisions of work and elements of cost

(expenditure categories) to be reported within the total contract shall be

stated in paragraph (d) below. Subsequent changes and/or additions in the

line entries shall be made in writing.

(b) The first financial report shall cover the period consisting of the

first full three calendar months following the date of the contract, in

addition to any fractional part of the initial month.

(c) If the final payment of this contract is to be made on the basis of a desk

audit, the Contracting Officer may require the Contractor to submit

detailed support for costs contained in one or more interim financial

reports.

H.7 METHOD OF PAYMENT - LETTER OF CREDIT

A. The contractor shall be paid with funds made available under Federal

Reserve Letter of Credit Number 1910875018A1, established by the

Department of Health and Human Services, against which the contractor will

withdraw funds pursuant to Federal Reserve Letter of Credit procedures

contained in Treasury Department Circular 1075 (31 CFR Part 205).

B. At the request of the contractor and subject to the following conditions,

the Government shall make advance payments, from time to time, to the

contractor.

1. No advance payment shall be made:

a. without the approval of the office administering advance

payments, hereinafter referred to as the 'Administering Office'

and designated in paragraph H, hereof, as to the financial

necessity therefor (except in the case of educational

institutions),

b. in an amount which, together with all advance payments made,

would exceed the funded contract amount, and/or

c. without a properly certified invoice.

2. The contractor shall:

a. initiate cash drawdowns only when actually needed for its

disbursements,

b. report timely the cash disbursements and balances as required by

the Administering office, and

c. impose the same standards of timing and amount upon any

subcontractors including the furnishing of reports of cash

Page 16 of 29
Section H

H.7 (Continued)

disbursements and balances. Failure to adhere to these material

provisions will be considered an event under paragraph F of this

clause.

C. Funds drawn by the contractor against the Federal Reserve Letter of Credit

shall be only for current allowable expenditures necessary for

performance of the contract.

D. When requested in writing by the Contracting Officer, the Contractor shall

rep^y to the Government such part of the unliquidated balance of the

advance payments as shall, in the opinion of the Contracting Officer, be

in excess of the contractor's current needs or in excess of the funded

contract amount.

E. If, upon completion or termination of this contract, all amounts obtained

by the contractor under the Letter of Credit have not been fully

liquidated by authorized charges under the contract, the balance thereof

shall be deducted from any sums otherwise due to the contractor from the

Government, and any excess funds shall be repaid by the contractor to the

Government upon demand.

F. Upon the happening of any of the following events of default;

1. a finding of the Administering Office that the contractor:

a. has failed to observe any of the covenants, conditions, or

warranties of these provisions, or has failed to comply with any

material provision of the contract,

b. has so failed to make progress, or is in such unsatisfactory

financial condition, as to endanger performance of the contract,

c. has allocated inventory to this contract substantially exceeding

reasonable requirements, or

d. is delinquent in payment of taxes, or costs of performance of

the contract in the ordinary course of business,

2. appointment of a trustee, receiver or liquidator for all or a

substantial part of the contractor's property, or institution of

bankruptcy, reorganization, arrangement of liquidation proceeding by

or against the contractor,

3. service of any writ of attachment, levy of execution, or commencement

of garnishment proceedings, or

4. the commission of an act of bankruptcy, the Government, without

limiting any rights it may otherwise have, may, at its discretion,

and upon written notice to the contractor, withhold further

withdrawals under the Letter of Credit and withhold further payments

under the contract. Payment can also be stopped for lack of

submission of timely and accurate reports, in accordance with

contract requirements. Upon the continuance of any such events of

default for a period of thirty (30) days after such written notice to

the contractor, the Government may, at its discretion, and without

limiting any other rights which the Government may have, take the

following additional actions as it may deem appropriate, under the

circumstances:

Page 17 of 29
Section H

H.7 (Continued)

a. charge interest on advance payments outstanding during the

period of any such default at the rate established by the

Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 92-41, 80

Statute 97 for the Renegotiation Board,

b. demand immediate repayment of the unliquidated balance of

advance payments hereunder, and/or

c. take possession of, and with or without advertisement, sell, at

public sale, at which the Government may be purchaser, or, at

private sale, all or any part of the property in which the

Government has a lien under the contract and, after decucting

any expenses incident to such sale, apply the net proceeds of 

such sale in reduction of the unliquidated balance of advance

payments hereunder and in reduction of any other claims of the

Government against the contractor.

G. No interest shall be charged for advance payments made hereunder, except

during a period of default, as provided in paragraph F, hereof. The

contractor shall charge interest at the rate established by the Secretary

of the Treasury pursuant to Public Law 92-41, 85 Statute 97, for the

Renegotiation Board, on subadvances or downpayments to subcontractors, and

such interest will be credited to the account of the Government. However,

interest need not be charged on subadvances on subcontracts with

educational or research institutions, provided such subcontracts were

awarded on a no-profit/fee basis and were for research, development or

experimental work.

H. The office administering advance payments under this contract is

designated as follows:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Program Acquisition Branch, Section B

Procurement and Grants Office

255 East Paces Ferry Road N.E., Room 507

Atlanta, Georgia 30305

Page 18 of 29
Section I

PART II - CONTRACT CLAUSES

SECTION I - CONTRACT CLAUSES

1.1 52.252-2 CLAUSES INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE (JUN 1988)

This contract incorporates one or more clauses by reference, with the same

force and effect as if they were given in full text. Upon request, the

Contracting Officer will make their full text available.

I. FEDERAL ACQUISITION REGULATION (48 CFR CHAPTER 1) CLAUSES

NUMBER DATE TITLE

52.203-1 APR 1984 OFFICIALS NOT TO BENEFIT

52.203-3 APR 1984 GRATUITIES

52.203-5 APR 1984 COVENANT AGAINST CONTINGENT FEES

52.203-6 JUL 1985 RESTRICTIONS ON SUBCONTRACTORS SALES TO THE GOVERNMENT

52.203-7 OCT 1988 ANTI-KICKBACK PROCEDURES

52.209-6 NOV 1992 PROTECTING THE GOVERNMENT'S INTEREST WHEN

SUBCONTRACTING WITH CONTRACTORS DEBARRED,

SUSPENDED, OR PROPOSED FOR DEBARMENT

52.215-1 FEB 1993 EXAMINATION OF RECORDS BY COMPTROLLER GENERAL

52.215-2 FEB 1993 AUDIT - NEGOTIATION

52.215-31 SEP 1987 WAIVER OF FACILITIES CAPITAL COST OF MONEY

52.215-33 JAN 1986 ORDER OF PRECEDENCE

52.216-7 JUL 1991 ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT

If the contract is with an educational institution, the clause, 52.216-7,

ALLOWABLE COST AND PAYMENT, will be modified by deleting from paragraph (a)

the words "Subpart 31.2" and substituting for them 'Subpart 31.3.' If the

contract is with a State or local government, the clause will be modified by

deleting from paragraph (a) the words "Subpart 31.2" and substituting for

them 'Subpart 31.6.' If the contract is with a nonprofit organization other

than an educational institution, a State or local government, or a nonprofit

organization exempted under OMB Circular No. A-122, the clause will be

modified by deleting from paragraph (a) the words 'Subpart 31.2' and

substituting for them 'Subpart 31.7.' (Reference FAR 16.307(a))

If the contract is with a hospital (profit or nonprofit), the clause will be

modified by deleting from paragraph (a) the words 'Subpart 31.2 of the

Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR)' and substituting '45 CFR part 74

Appendix E.' (Reference HHSAR 316.307(a))

52.216-11 APR 1984 COST CONTRACT - NO FEE

52.219-8 FEB 1990 UTILIZATION OF SMALL BUSINESS CONCERNS AND SMALL

DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS CONCERNS

52.219-13 AUG 1986 UTILIZATION OF WOMEN-OWNED SMALL BUSINESSES

52.220-3 APR 1984 UTILIZATION OF LABOR SURPLUS AREA CONCERNS

52.222-2 JUL 1990 PAYMENT FOR OVERTIME PREMIUMS

52.222-3 APR 1984 CONVICT LABOR

52.222-26 APR 1984 EQUAL OPPORTUNITY

52.222-35 APR 1984 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR SPECIAL DISABLED AND VIETNAM

ERA VETERANS

52.222-36 APR 1984 AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR HANDICAPPED WORKERS

52.222-37 JAN 1988 EMPLOYMENT REPORTS ON SPECIAL DISABLED VETERANS

AND VETERANS OF THE VIETNAM ERA

52.223-2 APR 1984 CLEAN AIR AND WATER

52.223-6 JUL 1990 DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE

Page 19 of 29
Section I

52.225-11 MAY 1992 RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN FOREIGN PURCHASES

52.227-1 APR 1984 AUTHORIZATION AND CONSENT

52.227-2 APR 1984 NOTICE AND ASSISTANCE REGARDING PATENT AND COPYRIGHT

INFRINGEMENT

52.227-14 JUN 1987 RIGHTS IN DATA - GENERAL

52.232-17 JAN 1991 INTEREST

52.232-20 APR 1984 LIMITATION OF COST

52.232-23 JAN 1986 ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIMS

52.232-25 SEP 1992 PROMPT PAYMENT

52.232-28 APR 1989 ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER PAYMENT METHODS

52.233-1 DEC 1991 DISPUTES

52.233-3 AUG 1989 PROTEST AFTER AWARD ALTERNATE I JUN 1985

52.242-1 APR 1984 NOTICE OF INTENT TO DISALLOW COSTS

52.242-13 APR 1991 BANKRUPTCY

52.243-2 AUG 1987 CHANGES - COST-REIMBURSEMENT Alternate I (APR 1984)

52.244-2 JUL 1985 SUBCONTRACTS (COST-REIMBURSEMENT AND LETTER CONTRACTS)

52.244-5 APR 1984 COMPETITION IN SUBCONTRACTING

52.249-6 MAY 1986 TERMINATION (COST-REIMBURSEMENT)

52.251-1 APR 1984 GOVERNMENT SUPPLY SOURCES

52.253-1 JAN 1991 COMPUTER GENERATED FORMS

II. DEPARTMENT

REGULATION

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ACQUISITION

(HHSAR)(48 CFR CHAPTER 3) CLAUSES

NUMBER DATE TITLE

352.202-1 APR 1984 DEFINITIONS Alternate I (APR 1984)

352.228-7 DEC 1991 INSURANCE-LIABILITY TO THIRD PERSONS

352.232-9 APR 1984 WITHHOLDING OF CONTRACT PAYMENTS

352.233-70 APR 1984 LITIGATION AND CLAIMS

352.242-71 APR 1984 FINAL DECISIONS ON AUDIT FINDINGS

352.249-14 APR 1984 EXCUSABLE DELAYS

352.270-6 JUL 1991 PUBLICATIONS AND PUBLICITY

352.270-7 APR 1984 PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT

1.2 52.203-9 REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATE OF PROCUREMENT

INTEGRITY—MODIFICATION (NOV 1990)

(a) Definitions. The definitions set forth in FAR 3.104-4 are hereby

incorporated in this clause.

(b) The Contractor agrees that it will execute the certification set forth in

paragraph (c) of this clause when requested by the Contracting Officer in

connection with the execution of any modification of this contract.

(c) Certification. As required in paragraph (b) of this clause, the officer

or employee responsible for the modification proposal shall execute the

following certification:

CERTIFICATE OF PROCUREMENT INTEGRITY—

MODIFICATION (NOV 1990)

(1) I, (Name of certifier] _____________________ ____ , am the officer

or employee responsible for the preparation of this modification

proposal and hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge and

belief, with the exception of any information described in this

certification, I have no information concerning a violation or

possible violation of subsection 27(a), (b), (d), or (f) of the

Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act, as amended* (41 U.S.C.

Page 20 of 29
Section I

(Continued)

423), (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as implemented in the

FAR, occurring during the conduct of this procurement (contract and

modification number).

(2) As required by subsection 27(e)(1)(B) of the Act, I further certify

that to the best of my knowledge and belief, each officer, employee,

agent, representative, and consultant of [Name of Offeror]

 ____________________ who has participated personally and

substantially in the preparation or submission of this proposal has

certified that he or she is familiar with, and will comply with, the

requirements of subsection 27(a) of the Act, as implemented in the

FAR, and will report immediately to me any information concerning a

violation or possible violation of subsections 27(a), (b), (d), or

(f) of the Act, as implemented in the FAR, pertaining to this

procurement.

(3) Violations or possible violations: (Continue on plain bond paper if

necessary and label Certificate of Procurement

Integrity—Modification (Continuation Sheet), enter NONE if none

exists)

[Signature of the officer or employee responsible for the

modification proposal and date]

[Typed name of the officer or employee responsible for the

modification proposal]

* Subsections 27(a), (b), and (d) are effective on December 1, 1990.

Subsection 27(f) is effective on June 1, 1991.

THIS CERTIFICATION CONCERNS A MATTER WITHIN THE

JURISDICTION OF AN AGENCY OF THE UNITED STATES AND THE

MAKING OF A FALSE, FICTITIOUS, OR FRAUDULENT CERTIFICATION

MAY RENDER THE MAKER SUBJECT TO PROSECUTION UNDER TITLE 18,

UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1001.

(End of Certification)

(d) In making the certification in paragraph (2) of the certificate, the

officer or employee of the competing Contractor responsible for the offer

or bid, may rely upon a one-time certification from each individual

required to submit a certification to the competing Contractor,

supplemented by periodic training. These certifications shall be obtained

at the earliest possible date after an individual required to certify

begins employment or association with the contractor.- If a contractor

decides to rely on a certification executed prior to the suspension of 

section 27 (i.e., prior to December 1, 1989), the Contractor shall ensure

that an individual who has so certified is notified that section 27 has

been reinstated. These certifications shall be maintained by the

Contractor for a period of 6 years from the date a certifying employee's
Section I

1.2 (Continued)

employment with the company ends or, for an agency, representative, or

consultant, 6 years from the date such individual ceases to act on behalf

of the contractor.

(e) The certification required by paragraph (c) of this clause is a material

representation of fact upon which reliance will be placed in executing

this modification.

1.3 52.203-10 PRICE OR FEE ADJUSTMENT FOR ILLEGAL OR

IMPROPER ACTIVITY (SEP 1990)

(a) The Government, at its election, may reduce the price of a fixed-price

type contract or contract modification and the total cost and fee under a

cost-type contract or contract modification by the amount of profit or fee

determined as set forth in paragraph (b) of this clause if the head of the

contracting activity or his or her designee determines that there was a

violation of subsection 27(a) of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy

Act, as amended (41 U.S.C. 423), as implemented in the FAR. In the case

of a contract modification, the fee subject to reduction is the fee

specified in the particular contract modification at the time of

execution, except as provided in subparagraph (b)(5) of this clause.

(b) The price or fee reduction referred to in paragraph (a) of this clause

shall be—

(1) For cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts, the amount of the fee specified in

the contract at the time of award;

(2) For cost-plus-incentive-fee contracts, the target fee specified in

the contract at the time of award, notwithstanding any minimum fee or

*fee floor* specified in the contract;

(3) For cost-plus-award-fee contracts—

(i) The base fee established in the contract at the time of contract

award;

(ii) if no base fee is specified in the contract, 30 percent of the

amount of each award fee otherwise payable to the Contractor for

each award fee evaluation period or at each award fee

determination point.

(4) For fixed-price-incentive contracts, the Government may—

(i) Reduce the contract target price and contract target profit both

by an amount equal to the initial target profit specified in the

contract at the time of contract award; or

(ii) if an immediate adjustment to the contract target price and

contract target profit would have a significant adverse impact

on the incentive price revision relationship under the contract,

or adversely affect the contract financing provisions, the

Contracting Officer may defer such adjustment until

establishment of the total final price of the contract. The

total final price established in accordance with the incentive

price revision provisions of the contract shall be reduced by an

amount equal to the initial target profit specified in the

Page 22 of 29
Section I

1.3 (Continued)

contract at the time of contract award and such reduced price

shall be the total final contract price.

(5) For firm-fixed-price contracts or contract modifications, by 10

percent of the initial contract price; 10 percent of the contract

modification price; or a profit amount determined by the Contracting

Officer from records or documents in existence prior to the date of

the contract award or modification.

(c) The Government may, at its election, reduce a prime contractor's price or

fee in accordance with the procedures of paragraph (b) of this clause for

violations of the Act by its subcontractors by an amount not to exceed the

amount of profit or fee reflected in the subcontract at the time the

subcontract was first definitively priced.

(d) In addition to the remedies in paragraphs (a) and (c) of this clause, the

Government may terminate this contract for default. The rights and

remedies of the Government specified herein are not exclusive, and are in

addition to any other rights and remedies provided by law or under this

contract.

1.4 52.203-12 LIMITATION ON PAYMENTS TO INFLUENCE CERTAIN

FEDERAL TRANSACTIONS (JAN 1990)

(a) Definitions.

'Agency,' as used in this clause, means executive agency as defined in

2.101.

'Covered Federal action,' as used in this clause, means any of the

following Federal actions:

(a) The awarding of any Federal contract;

(b) The making of any Federal grant;

(c) The making of any Federal loan;

(d) The entering into of any cooperative agreement; and,

(e) The extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification

of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement.

'Indian tribe' and 'tribal organization,' as used in this clause, have the

meaning provided in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination and

Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450B) and include Alaskan Natives.

'Influencing or attempting to influence,' as used in this clause,

means making, with the intent to influence, any communication to or

appearance before an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of

Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member

of Congress in connection with any covered Federal action.

'Local government,' as used in this clause, means a unit of government in

a State and, if chartered, established, or otherwise recognized by a State

for the performance of a governmental duty, including a local public

authority, a special district, an intrastate district, a council of

Page 23 of 29
Section I

1.4 (Continued)

governments, a sponsor group representative organization, and any other

instrumentality of a local government.

'Officer or employee of an agency,' as used in this clause, includes the

following individuals who are employed by an agency:

(a) An individual who is appointed to a position in the Government under

title 5, United States Code, including a position under a temporary

appointment.

(b) A member of the uniformed services as defined in subsection 101(3),

title 37, United States Code.

(c) A special Government employee, as defined in section 202, title 18,

United States Code.

(d) An individual who is a member of a Federal advisory committee, as 

defined by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, title 5, United States

code, appendix 2.

'Person,' as used in this clause, means an individual, corporation,

company, association, authority, firm, partnership, society, State, and

local government, regardless of whether such entity is operated for profit

or not for profit. This term excludes an Indian tribe, tribal

organization, or any other Indian organization with respect to

expenditures specifically permitted by other Federal law.

'Reasonable compensation,' as used this clause, means, with respect to a

regularly employed officer or employee of any person, compensation that is

consistent with the normal compensation for such officer or employee for

work that is not furnished to, not funded by, or not furnished in

cooperation with the Federal Government.

'Reasonable payment,' as used this clause, means, with respect to

professional and other technical services, a payment in an amount that is

consistent with the amount normally paid for such services in the private

sector.

'Recipient,' as used in this clause, includes the Contractor and all

subcontractors. This term excludes an Indian tribe, tribal organization,

or any other Indian organization with respect to expenditures specifically

permitted by other Federal law.

'Regularly employed,' as used in this clause, means, with respect to an

officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving a Federal

contract, an officer or employee who is employed by such person for at

least 130 working days within 1 year immediately preceding the date of the

submission that initiates agency consideration of such person for receipt

of such contract. An officer or employee who is employed by such person

for less than 130 working days within 1 year immediately preceding the

date of the submission that initiates agency consideration of such person

shall be considered to be regularly employed as soon as he or she is

employed by such person for 130 working days.

'State,' as used in this clause, means a State of the United States, the

District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, a territory or

possession of the United States, an agency or instrumentality of a State,

and multi-State, regional, or interstate entity having governmental duties

Page 24 of 29
Section I

1.4 (Continued)

and powers.

(b) Prohibitions.

(1) Section 1352 of title 31, United States Code, among other things,

prohibits a recipient of a Federal contract, grant, loan, or

cooperative agreement from using appropriated funds to pay any person

for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of

any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress,

or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with any of the

following covered Federal actions: the awarding of any Federal

contract; the making of any Federal grant; the making of any Federal

loan; the entering into of any cooperative agreement; or the

modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative

agreement.

(2) The Act also requires Contractors to furnish a disclosure if any

funds other than Federal appropriated funds (including profit or fee

received under a covered Federal transaction) have been paid, or will

be paid, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an

officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer

or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in

connection with a Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative

agreement.

(3) The prohibitions of the Act do not apply under the following

conditions:

(i) Agency and legislative liaison by own employees.

(A) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in

subparagraph (b)(1) of this clause, does not apply in the

case of a payment of reasonable compensation made to an

officer or employee of a person requesting or receiving

a covered Federal action if the payment is for agency and

legislative liaison activities not directly related to a

covered Federal action.

(B) For purposes of subdivision (b)(3)(i)(A) of this

clause, providing any information specifically requested by

an agency or Congress is permitted at any time.

(C) The following agency and legislative liaison activities are

permitted at any time where they are not related to a

specific solicitation for any covered Federal action:

(1) Discussing with an agency the qualities and

characteristics (including individual demonstrations)

of the person's products or services, conditions or

terms of sale, and service capabilities.

(2) Technical discussions and other activities regarding

the application or adaptation of the person's products

or services for an agency's use.

(D) The following agency and legislative liaison activities are

permitted where they are prior to formal solicitation of

any covered Federal action—

Page 25 of 29
Section I

1.4 (Continued)

(1) Providing any information not specifically requested

but necessary for an agency to make an informed

decision about initiation of a covered Federal action;

(2) Technical discussions regarding the preparation of an

unsolicited proposal prior to its official submission;

and

(3) Capability presentations by persons seeking awards

from an agency pursuant to the provisions of the Small

Business Act, as amended by Pub. L. 95-507, and

subsequent amendments.

(E) Only those services expressly authorized by subdivision

(b)(3)(i)(A) of this clause are permitted under this

clause.

(ii) Professional and technical services.

(A) The prohibition on the use of appropriated funds, in

subparagraph (b)(1) of this clause, does not apply in the

case of—

(1) A payment of reasonable compensation made to an

officer or employee of a person requesting or

receiving a covered Federal action or an extension,

continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a

covered Federal action, if payment is for professional

or technical services rendered directly in the

preparation, submission, or negotiation of any bid,

proposal, or application for that Federal action or

for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to law

as a condition for receiving that Federal action.

(2) Any reasonable payment to a person, other than an

officer or employee of a person requesting or

receiving a covered Federal action or an extension,

continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of a

covered Federal action if the payment is for

professional or technical services rendered directly

in the preparation, submission, or negotiation of any

bid, proposal, or application for that Federal action

or for meeting requirements imposed by or pursuant to

law as a condition for receiving that Federal action.

Persons other than officers or employees of a person

requesting or receiving a covered Federal action

include consultants and trade associations.

(B) For purposes of subdivision (b)(3)(ii)(A) of this clause,

'professional and technical services' shall be limited to

advice and analysis directly applying any professional or

technical discipline. For example, drafting of a legal

document accompanying a bid or proposal by a lawyer

is allowable. Similarly, technical advice provided by an

engineer on the performance or operational capability of a

piece of equipment rendered directly in the negotiation of 

a contract is allowable. However, communications with the

Page 26 of 29
Section I

1.4 (Continued)

intent to influence made by a professional (such as a

licensed lawyer) or a technical person (such as a licensed

accountant) are not allowable under this section unless

they provide advice and analysis directly applying their

professional or technical expertise and unless the advice

or analysis is rendered directly and solely in the

preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal

action. Thus, for example, communications with the intent

to influence made by a lawyer that do not provide

legal advice or analysis directly and solely related to the

legal aspects of his or her client's proposal, but

generally advocate one proposal over another are not

allowable under this section because the lawyer is not

providing professional legal services.

Similarly, communications with the intent to influence made

by an engineer providing an engineering analysis prior to

the preparation or submission of a bid or proposal are not

allowable under this section since the engineer is

providing technical services but not directly in the

preparation, submission or negotiation of a covered Federal

action.

(C) Requirements imposed by or pursuant to law as a condition

for receiving a covered Federal award include those

required by law or regulation and any other requirements in

the actual award documents.

(D) Only those services expressly authorized by subdivisions

(b)(3)(ii)(A)(1) and (2) of this clause are permitted under

this clause.

(E) The reporting requirements of FAR 3.803(a) shall not apply

with respect to payments of reasonable compensation made to

regularly employed officers or employees of a person.

(c) Disclosure.

(1) The Contractor who requests or receives from an agency a Federal

contract shall file with that agency a disclosure form, OMB standard

form LLL, Disclosure of Lobbying Activities, if such person has made

or has agreed to make any payment using nonappropriated funds (to

include profits from any covered Federal action), which would be

prohibited under subparagraph (b)(1) of this clause, if paid for with

appropriated funds.

(2) The Contractor shall file a disclosure form at the end of each

calendar quarter in which there occurs any event that materially

affects the accuracy of the information contained in any disclosure

form previously filed by such person under subparagraph (c)(1) of

this clause. An event that materially affects the accuracy of the

information reported includes—

(i) A cumulative increase of $25,000 or more in the amount paid or

expected to be paid for influencing or attempting to influence a

covered Federal action; or

(ii) A change in the person(s) or individual(s) influencing or

attempting to influence a covered Federal action; or

Page 27 of 29
Section I

1.4 (Continued)

(iii) A change in the officer(s), employee(s), or Member(s) contacted

to influence or attempt to influence a covered Federal action.

(3) The Contractor shall require the submittal of a certification, and if

required, a disclosure form by any person who requests or receives

any subcontract exceeding $100,000 under the Federal contract.

(4) All subcontractor disclosure forms (but not certifications) shall be

forwarded from tier to tier until received by the prime Contractor.

The prime Contractor shall submit all disclosures to the Contracting

Officer at the end of the calendar quarter in which the disclosure

form is submitted by the subcontractor. Each subcontractor

certification shall be retained in the subcontract file of the

awarding Contractor.

(d) Agreement. The Contractor agrees not to make any payment prohibited by

this clause.

(e) Penalties.

(1) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited under paragraph (a) of

this clause or who fails to file or amend the disclosure form to be

filed or amended by paragraph (b) of this clause shall be subject to

civil penalties as provided for by 31 U.S.C. 1352. An imposition of

a civil penalty does not prevent the Government from seeking any

other remedy that may be applicable.

(2) Contractors may rely without liability on the representation made by

their subcontractors in the certification and disclosure form.

(f) Cost allowability. Nothing in this clause makes allowable or reasonable

any costs which would otherwise be unallowable or unreasonable.

Conversely, costs made specifically unallowable by the requirements in

this clause will not be made allowable under any other provision.

Page 28 of 29
Section J

PART III - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS AND OTHER ATTACHMENTS

ATTACHMENT

NUMBER

SECTION J - LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

TITLE NUMBER

OF PAGES

J.l CDC Billing Instructions for Negotiated Cost-Type 7

Contracts

J.2 HHS Form 646, Financial Report of Individual 3

Project/Contract

Page 29 of 29
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX F

REQUEST FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL

FOR REINSTATEMENT

F-143
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
NATIVE AMERICAN DATA COLLECTION

AND ANALYSIS

FOR THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE

RECONSTRUCTION (HEDR) PROJECT

REQUEST FOR OMB REVIEW AND APPROVAL

FOR REINSTATEMENT

April, 1995

Submitted to: Office of Program Planning and Evaluation (OPPE)

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Office of Health Planning and Evaluation, Division

of Data Policy, Public Health Service

Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

SUMMARY OF THE SUPPORTING STATEMENT FOR

REQUEST FOR OMB REVIEW AND APPROVAL

FOR REINSTATEMENT

Native American Data Collection and Analysis for the

Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) Project

In 1986, the Hanford Health Effects Review Panel, convened by the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the request

of the Washington State Nuclear Waste Board and the Indian Health

Service (IHS), recommended that historical radiation doses from

the Hanford Nuclear Site be reconstructed. The primary purpose

of the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) Project

4s was to estimate radiation doses that people received from

Hanford Site operations beginning in 1944. Funding for the

project is provided through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

between the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of

Health and Human Services (DHHS). The CDC contracted with

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories to conduct the research.

A final dosimetric report (HEDR) was submitted by the Battelle,

Pacific Northwest Laboratories, in April, 1994. The HEDR Project

continues to be directed by an independent Technical Steering

Panel (TSP) consisting of technical experts selected by regional

university representatives, as well as individuals who represent

the states of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, regional Native

American tribes, and the general public.

In 1988, the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS) was mandated by

an act of Congress (P.L. 100-607). Its primary purpose was to

determine whether the prevalence of thyroid disease is increased

among persons exposed as young children to the releases of

radioactive iodine from Hanford facility. Information from the

HEDR Project will be employed by the HTDS study team to help

determine if a dose-response relationship exists within the study

population. Funding was appropriated by Congress to the CDC

which has awarded a contract to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer

Research Center in Seattle, WA, for conduct of the HTDS Study.

The Hanford Thyroid Disease Study received approval from OMB for

the pilot phase of its study for use through December 31, 1994,

under OMB No. 0920-0296. A full Epidemiologic HTDS study was

approved in January, 1995 to continue through December, 1997,

under the same OMB No. 0920-0296.

Since September, 1993, CDC has awarded sole source contracts to

seven of the nine Native American tribes whose reservation lands

fall within the study area. These seven include, Coeur d'Alene,

Colville, Kalispel, Nez Perce, Spokane, Umatilla, and Warm

Springs. The Yakima Nation has not completed it's negotiations

with CDC on their contract, however, it is forthcoming. The ninth

2
tribe, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, just recently expressed an

interest in submitting a request to CDC to undertake the tribal

HEDR study, and is currently preparing a proposal. The purpose of

these tribal contracts is to identify, collect, evaluate, and

deliver dietary and life-style data unique to each tribe and as

appropriate for input into the HEDR and HTDS projects described

above.

This request for reinstatement is for a period of 3 years, for

review and approval of the continued use of a study protocol

design (Attachment A), tribal questionnaire (Attachment B), and

instruction booklet (Attachment C). These documents will be used

by those remaining tribes to continue to collect the information

required for the two projects, HEDR and HTDS, once OMB clearance

has been obtained. The original OMB number for this Project was

# 0920-03335, issued December 30, 1993, and expired January 31,

1995.

3
REQUEST FOR OMB REVIEW AND APPROVAL

FOR REINSTATEMENT

Native American Data Collection and Analysis for the

Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) Project

A. JUSTIFICATION

1. Circumstances of Information Collection

The Hanford Nuclear Reservation occupies an area of

approximately 560 square miles in southeastern

Washington adjacent to the towns of Pasco, Kennewick,

and Richland. The facility was established in 1943 as

part of the Manhattan Project to produce plutonium-239

for the development of the first nuclear weapons. The

initial Hanford production reactor (B) became

operational in September 1944, and was followed by a

second (D) in December. Two chemical separations

plants, which constitutes the second phase of plutonium

production, began to operate in 1944 and 1945. By 1957

there were six additional production reactors and two

fuel reprocessing plants on the site.

In February 1986, largely as the result of repeated

requests from citizens groups and the Native American

tribes and nations of the area, as well as requests

from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC), the State of Washington, and the United States

Department of Energy (DOE) made public over 19,000

pages of documents (many of which were previously

classified) describing atmospheric releases of

radiation that occurred between 1944 and 1957. An

additional 20,000 pages were released in 1987, and

approximately 25,000 more pages have been made

available since late 1987. These documents indicate

that during the initial years of plutonium production

at Hanford, substantial quantities of radionuclides

were released into the surrounding atmosphere. A

primary component of these releases was radioactive

iodine, principally 1-131.

Although it is uncertain exactly how much material was

released from the Hanford site, it is now estimated

that about 740,000 curies of radioactive iodine were

released into the atmosphere during the years 1944-47.

(As a point of comparison, approximately 10-15 curies

of 1-131 were released during the Three Mile Island

accident). The largest releases occurred during these

4
early years of Hanford operations. Radiation

monitoring data recently made available indicate that

these atmospheric releases of 1-131 were carried by

prevailing winds and deposited in areas surrounding the

site.

Because 1-131 concentrates in the thyroid gland,

adverse health effects associated with the Hanford

radiation releases would most likely be diseases of

this organ. Human exposure to 1-131 can take place

through a number of pathways. For example, airborne

radioactive material can settle on vegetation, soil, or

lakes and rivers. Consumption of contaminated

vegetables, roots, fish, and meat are potential

pathways for human exposure. Cows may eat contaminated

grass and produce contaminated milk which is then

consumed by children and adults. (Attachments

K,L,M,and N will provide additional insight into this

process.)

The disclosure of this information prompted widespread

concern among persons living close to Hanford.

Residents questioned whether such releases in the past

may have increased their risk of developing disease,

particularly cancer. Two panels of experts and lay

persons were convened in 1986 to evaluate this

information and recommend a course of action. One

panel, convened by CDC, concluded that substantial

quantities of radionuclides, particularly 1-131, had

been released between 1944 and 1956, and that off-site

radiation exposures to the thyroid were probably high

enough to warrant further study of health effects.

Specifically, two major recommendations were made:

1) a comprehensive study be undertaken to estimate

potential radiation doses that could have been received

by individuals exposed to the Hanford radiation

releases; and

2) a study of thyroid morbidity be conducted among

persons exposed to Hanford radiation.

As a result of these efforts, a comprehensive study of

potential radiation doses was funded by the United

States Department of Energy (DOE) through a Memorandum

of Understanding (MOU) with Department of Health and

Human Services (DHHS). The CDC was directed to sponsor

the research which was completed by Battelle and

reported by the TSP on April 21, 1994, "Summary:

Radiation Dose Estimates from Hanford Radioactive

Material Releases to the Air and the Columbia River."

The objective of the Hanford Environmental Dose

5
Reconstruction (HEDR) Project was to develop estimates

of potential radiation doses that people may have

received from Hanford operations.

The initial technical work of the HEDR Project was

performed under a CDC contract with Battelle Pacific

Northwest Laboratories. The study was directed by an

independent 18 member Technical Steering Panel (TSP)

comprised of experts in radiation dosimetry and human

population studies, as well as individuals representing

the interests of Native Americans, the States of

Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the public.

Preliminary results from the HEDR Project Phase I

results released in August, 1991, provide strong

evidence that large numbers of people, particularly

children, may have been exposed to thyroid doses in the

range of several hundred rad (a measure of the amount

of radiation energy absorbed by an organ such as the

thyroid gland).

Native American populations with reservation lands in

the study area may also have been exposed to high

doses. Native American exposures may have occurred

through a variety of pathways. Many Native Americans

migrated from their reservation homes to potentially

higher exposure areas for hunting, fishing, or

gathering. Many lived, at least part of the year, out

of doors. This lifestyle may have exposed individuals

to fallout on land surfaces, lakes and rivers. Many

Native Americans also lived on a "traditional" diet,

which included game, plants, fish, and berries. These

foods were eaten fresh from potentially contaminated

areas (See Attachment N). A clearer understanding of

how Native Americans' unique lifestyle and diet may

have influenced the doses they received and the

potential health effects of these doses must still be

determined.

On November 4, 1988, the United States Congress enacted

Public Health Law 100-607 (Attachment E), mandating the

CDC to "conduct a study of thyroid morbidity of the

population (including Indian tribes and tribal

organizations) in the vicinity of Hanford, in the State

of Washington, during the years 1944 through 1957".

The Hanford Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS), being

conducted to satisfy this mandate. Funding for this

study was appropriated directly by Congress to CDC. A

contract was awarded to the Fred Hutchinson Cancer

Research Center (FHCRC) on September 19, 1989 to

conduct this research. The primary objective of the

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study is to determine whether

thyroid morbidity (including but not limited to

6
hypothyroidism, benign neoplasia, and malignant

neoplasia) is increased among persons exposed to

releases of radioactive iodine from the Hanford Nuclear

Site between 1944 and 1957, and who received a

radiation dose to the thyroid as a result, relative to

persons who did not receive radiation doses to the

thyroid from Hanford. The pilot phase was completed

January 24, 1995, "Hanford Thyroid Disease Study: Pilot

Study Final Report.” under CDC Contract #200-89-0716,

with clearance under OMB No. 0920-0296.

Nine Native American Tribes ( Coeur d'Alene, Colville,

Kootenai, Kalispel, Nez Perce, Spokane, Umatilla, Warm

Springs, and Yakima) have reservation lands which fall

within the study area of these two major projects and

therefore are involved in the research. CDC has

awarded sole source contracts to seven of the tribes to

gather data for both the HEDR and HTDS projects. Prior

to the CDC contracts, the tribes performed HEDR-related

work under a non-government contract with Battelle

Pacific Northwest Laboratories, these preliminary

studies were referred to as ’’Phase 1". The primary

purpose of "Phase One" was to determine the feasibility

of data gathering, and subsequent data analysis on a

small sample of tribal members. This information in

conjunction with HTDS methods were used to prepare the

tribal protocol and HEDR questionnaire.

Technical direction and guidance for the Native

American researchers is provided through the Native

American Working Group (NAWG), a subcommittee of the

TSP and chaired by a TSP member. The NAWG consists of

members of the TSP, the HEDR Project, HTDS, the CDC,

and representatives from each of the nine Native

American tribes.

This request for OMB reinstatement is for the

continuation of use of the tribal questionnaire and a

template protocol design developed by the NAWG which

will continue to be used by these tribes to collect the

specific tribal information necessary for both the HEDR

and HTDS studies. The tribal questionnaire was

developed using the HTDS questionnaire as a model and

is very similar in nature.

The protocol and tribal questionnaire have been

designed specifically for these Native American tribes.

They contain only those items essential in determining

for each tribal "representative individual" a thyroid

radiation dose from Hanford.

7
Changes in the tribal questionnaire were based on the

fact that these data will be used to calculate

radiation doses, which will then be used to determine

the feasibility of conducting any future studies of

health effects (including a separate study of thyroid

disease in Native Americans). Specifically, the tribal

questionnaire deleted questions regarding health

effects (i.e. medical history, medical radiation) and

also deleted questions which the HEDR computer model

cannot use (i.e. water supply). Questions on specific

Native American foods were added to customize the

instrument and respond to Native American concerns

about the effects their diets may have had on the doses

they may have received. Information regarding living

near, using, and working on the Columbia River

downstream from Hanford were included to determine what

impact a more traditional lifestyle may have had on

health effects. (Attachments K,L,M, and N may provide

additional insight on the relationship between

radiation doses and dietary/lifestyle habits.)

The data collection authority for this study is section

301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC 241).

(Attachment D)

2. Purpose and Use of Information

The purpose and use of the information remains

unchanged since the December 1993 OMB approval.

The dietary and life-style data to be collected using

the approved protocol and tribal questionnaire will be

used to estimate radiation exposure and to determine

whether Native American exposure differed substantially

from that of the general population. Exposure

estimates will then be used to determine whether a full

epidemiologic study of thyroid disease specifically in

the Native American population is scientifically

justifiable and feasible. The dosimetry reconstruction

models developed in the HEDR Project and presented by

Battelle in April, 1994 will be used to calculate

thyroid radiation doses for "representative

individuals" determined by each of the tribes. This

determination will be based on lifestyle and food

consumption data believed to be typical of individual

tribal members from each of the nine tribes.

The public health impacts resulting from operation of

the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex have been well cited,

including those contained in the 1991 report from the

United States Congress, Office of Technology Assessment

8
titled, Complex Cleanup - The Environmental Legacy of

Nuclear Weapons Production. There are no other efforts

anticipated to determine Native American radiation

doses or whether or not the anecdotal reports of

increased thyroid disease in the area are accurate, and

if so, if they are a result of Hanford radiation

releases. Additionally, the results of this data

collection may be used to justify future decisions on

whether to conduct further studies of potential health

effects the Native American population may have

experienced from Hanford radiation releases.

3. Use of Improved Information Technology

The use of improved information technology remains the

same.

The collection of data from individual study subjects

will continue to be collected by personal interview.

Because relatively few Native American households have

telephones, the Computer Assisted Telephone Interview

(CATI) used in the HTDS protocol cannot be used by

tribal researchers. To increase the efficiency of

these personal interviews and consequently decrease

respondent burden, the following procedures will be

continued:

a. Each tribal interviewer participates in a three

day training program provided by the CDC/IHS

Public Health Practice Training Program. The

training program includes: a full review of HEDR

and HTDS projects; basics of surveys; a review of

the study protocol; interviewer roles and

responsibilities; interview techniques; recording

information; a review of the tribal questionnaire;

and practice in administering the questionnaire.

b. Interviews will occurr at a site which is

convenient for the study subject, most often their

residence.

c. An Instruction Booklet was sent to each person in

advance of the interview to assist them in

preparation and to minimize the amount of time

required for the interview (Attachment C).

d. There are no legal obstacles to reduce the burden.

4. Efforts to Identify Duplication

9
There have been no substantial changes in this area

since the previous OMB approval.

An extensive review of the scientific literature has

been conducted to find other studies of health effects

from Hanford radiation releases or other similar long

term exposures. There have been no studies reported of

the possible doses Native Americans may have received

or the possible induction of thyroid disease among

Native Americans exposed to radiation releases from

Hanford. Dietary and life-style data sufficient to

estimate the radiation exposure of members of the nine

tribes are not available elsewhere.

Although studies have been conducted on the health

effects of exposure to acute high level radiation

releases, the health effects of long term exposure to

low levels of radiation have not been as well

understood. Because the radiation exposure around

Hanford occurred over a period of many years, this

study will provide unique insight into the possible

effects of this type of exposure on Native Americans.

Also, Native American populations in the area have

raised questions about whether their lifestyle and food

consumption habits may have exposed them to higher

levels of radiation than those experienced by the

general population; the results of this data collection

will help answer these questions. As previously

stated, results from this data collection will be used

to determine the need for additional studies of

radiation induced health effects in the Native American

population.

Discussions by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research

Center, Hanford Thyroid Disease Study staff with

numerous scientific experts in radiation effects, and

with persons from the Department of Energy, the States

of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, the Native American

Tribes in the region, the US Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories,

the Technical Steering Panel (TSP) of the Hanford

Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project and the

Radiation Effects Research Foundation in Japan reveal

no comparable study has been done or is being planned

currently regarding Hanford radiation releases.

As described above, there have been no previous

attempts to collect data that could be used to estimate

Native Americans' radiation exposure or to determine

whether Hanford radiation releases have resulted in

increased thyroid disease among persons exposed,

including members of the Native American populations in

10
the area. Routinely available mortality data are not

suitable for this purpose, as most of the thyroid

diseases of interest are quite treatable and seldom

result in death. There are no comprehensive population

based cancer registries covering the area, and no

registration systems that would be suitable for

tracking incidence of non-malignant thyroid disease.

5. Involvement of Small Entities

There have been no changes in this area since the

previous OMB approval.

The data to be collected by the Native American

researchers are to be obtained from individual study

subjects or knowledgeable family members. No data will

be collected from small businesses.

6. Consequences if Information Collected Less Frequently

No changes have been made in this area since the

previous OMB approval.

The data collection in this study will be performed on

a one time basis for each respondent. Re-contacting of

selected respondents will be performed for quality

control purposes only.

7. Consistency With the Guidelines in 5 CFR 132 0.6

No changes have been made in this area since the

previous OMB approval.

The results will be representative of the diets and

life styles of "typical” members of each of the nine

affected tribes. Since individual members of each

tribe may have a lifestyle and diet which differs from

that selected to represent the "typical” member, and

since these factors are significant contributors to the

potential radiation dose an individual may have

received, results will not be generalizable. However,

as mandated in Public Law 100-607 (Attachment E), this

research will determine the feasibility of conducting a

full study of the health effects, including thyroid

disease, of Hanford radiation releases on Native

American populations in the area.

Payment of a one time $50 participation fee to key

tribal survey respondents will be provided and is

justified for a variety of reasons. Since the period

11
of interest began in 1944, tribal elders will be the

principal respondents of the survey and will be asked

to recall details of daily life 50 years ago. Payment

of a participation fee will address a cultural

expectation for validating the importance of this

information exchange.

Additionally, the historical period in question has

been marked by significant dislocations and social

stress that are difficult for many tribal members to

discuss. Payment of a modest fee will convey a sense

that tribal members' insights and experiences make a

valued contribution to the dose reconstruction and

thyroid disease studies.

Finally, pilot phases of HEDR work performed by the

tribes prior to the contracts with CDC and funded

through contracts with Battelle Pacific Northwest

Laboratories provided for payment of a participation

fee. The $50 amount was based on recommendations of

the NAWG and represents an average amount provided by

tribal researchers in the earlier phases of work

sponsored by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

(prior to government sponsorship). Tribal researchers

have indicated that the community has developed an

expectation for payment based on this earlier work.

They further state that failure to pay a participation

fee will reduce the response rate.

Supporting statements from the Chairman of the HEDR

Technical Steering Panel and the Native American

Working Group (NAWG) Coordinator are included as

Attachments G and H respectively. Attachment G is a

letter sent by the TSP Chair to all the tribes which

conveys the significance of their continuing research.

Attachment H is a copy of a letter from the NAWG

Coordinator to the Deputy Branch Chief, Radiation

Studies Branch, Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, supporting payment of a participation fee.

8.a. Consultation Outside the Agency

No changes have been made in this area since the

previous OMB approval.

In conducting both the HEDR and HTDS studies,

consultations have been made with the Department of

Energy, members of the team conducting a study of

radiation fallout effects in Utah, members of the

Technical Steering Panel (TSP) of the Hanford

12
Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) Project, and

the contractor responsible for this study, Battelle

Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Research Coordinators

from each of the Native American Tribes regularly

attend meetings of the Native American Working Group

(NAWG) and the HEDR Technical Steering Panel, and have

been consulted extensively regarding alternate sources

of data and the formulation of the protocol and survey

instrument. A list of these tribal consultants is

included in section B.5 (c) of this document.

Other consultants have been used to refine the proposed

study protocol and tribal questionnaire and ensure that

only data necessary and sufficient for the HEDR and

HTDS projects will be collected.

A partial listing of these consultants include the

following:

Ed Liebow, PhD, Battelle Pacific Northwest

Laboratories, 1992 - present; (206) 528-3311.

Tracey Ikenberry, Battelle Pacific Northwest

Laboratories, 1992, (509) 375-2338.

Bob Goldsmith, PhD, Director of the Office of

Epidemiology and Health Surveillance, U.S. Department

of Energy, 1989; (301) 353-4739.

Deward Walker, PhD, HEDR Technical Steering Panel, 1992

- present; (303) 492-6719.

Warren Bishop, HEDR Technical Steering Panel, 1992 -

present, (360) 407-7119.

Max Power, PhD, Washington State Department of Ecology,

1992 - present, (360) 407-7118.

John Till, PhD, Chairman HEDR Technical Steering Panel;

Member of Study Team, Utah Nuclear Testing Exposure

Study, 1991 - 1994, (803) 536-4883.

Bruce Napier, PhD, HEDR Project Technical Coordinator,

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, 1991 - 1994,

(509) 375-3896.

Bruce Amundson, M.D., Study Management Team, Hanford

Thyroid Disease Study (HTDS), Fred Hutchinson Cancer

Research Center, 1992 - present, (206) 667-6026.

Ken Kopecky, PhD, HTDS Study Management Team, Fred

Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, HEDR Technical

13
Steering Panel, 1992 - present, (206) 667-5733.

Scott Davis, PhD, Principal Investigator, HTDS, Fred

Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1992 - present,

(206) 667-5733.

Steven Helgerson, MD, M.P.H., Indian Health Service;

presently Health Care Financing Administration, 1992,

(206) 615-2310.

Ernie Kimball, M.P.H., Public Health Service, Indian

Health Service, Portland Area Office, 1992 - present,

(206) 615-2781.

Paul Garbe, DVM, Centers for Disease Control, National

Center for Environmental Health, 1992 - present, (404)

488-7040.

Peter M. Houck, MD, 1992 - 1994, (206) 553-0502. Health

Care Financing Administration, Region X, Seattle (206)

615-2310.

8. b. Summary of Major Problems

No changes have been made in this area since the

previous OMB approval.

There have been no major problems which have not been

solved through consultation to this point.

8. c. Description of Public Comment Opportunities

There have been no changes made in this area since the

previous OMB approval.

NAWG and TSP meetings are open to public participation.

The involvement of Native American tribes in HEDR and

HTDS in general and this proposed data collection

activity in particular has been approved by the

government of each tribe, including its tribal council.

The HTDS study protocol underwent an extensive peer and

public review process in 1990. This process included

the distribution of over 150 copies of the protocol

documents to both technical and non-technical persons.

The general public was included in this process through

a series of seven public meetings held throughout the

Pacific Northwest. Extensive advertising via local

14
newspapers and radio stations was employed to inform

the general public about the meetings. Flyers were

sent to the mailing list for the HEDR project, and were

distributed at public meetings.

A fact sheet on Native American involvement in the HEDR

Project was mailed to those on the same mailing list

and is also distributed at public meetings of the

Technical Steering Panel. Copies of the HTDS study

protocol were placed in over 50 public and university

libraries in Washington, Oregon and Idaho for review by

members of the public. Public comment forms were

provided with copies of the protocol, and toll-free

numbers have been established for any one wishing to

comment on either the HTDS or the HEDR Project.

Following submission of the HTDS protocol by the

contractor to the CDC for approval, a sixty-six page

"Comment and Response Report on the HTDS Draft

Protocols" was made available to the public. This

report describes all comments received on the draft

protocols from all sources, and any modifications made

to the protocol as a result.

9. Assurance of Confidentiality

No changes have been made to this area since the

previous OMB approval.

All records with identifiable information are protected

by the Privacy Act System of Records 09-20-0136,

"Epidemiologic Studies and Surveillance of Health

Problems" and will remain the property of each tribe.

Any written records containing identifiable information

will be kept in locked files. Only those tribal

members directly involved in the study will have access

to identifying information. Only summary information,

in the form of tables, without identifiers, will be

released for inclusion into the HEDR Project model.

10. Questions of a Sensitive Nature

No changes have been made in this area since the

previous OMB approval.

No questions of a sensitive nature will be asked as

part of this tribal questionnaire.

15
11. Estimates of Annualized Cost

There have been no changes to this area since the

previous OMB approval. The total annualized cost for

the seven existing contracts is $732,325, which

includes $21,700, in federal staff time of three

employees (30%, 5% and 5%).

There will be no direct costs to the study subject or

family member respondent other than their time to

participate. Survey respondents will be offered

payment of a one time $50 participation fee. The

estimated time required of the study participant for

review of the Interviewee Guide and administration of

the questionnaire is three hours.

16
At this time, the following tribal contracts have been

awarded:

Table 1.

NATIVE AMERICAN CONTRACTS

(UPDATED: 03/28/95)

TRIBE AMOUNT

COEUR D'ALENE

COLVILLE

KALISPEL

KOOTENAI

NEZ PERCE

SPOKANE

UMATILLA

WARM SPRINGS

YAKAMA

$114,007

$104,190

$101,300

(PENDING REVIEW)

$157,768

$ 59,273

$121,880

$108,617

(negotiating Best and Final Offer)

TOTALS $767,035

12. Estimates of Annualized Burden

No changes have been made in this area since the

previous OMB approval.

Response burden was estimated from tribal research

experience using a similar questionnaire while

conducting research under a subcontract with Battelle

Pacific Northwest Laboratories and prior to government

sponsorship of the research. The number of respondents

within each tribe will vary widely, based on the tribal

membership and work already accomplished under the

Battelle subcontract. Estimates included in the

accompanying Table 2. are based on the total number of

respondents anticipated for all nine tribes. A

verification that the interview took place will be

performed on an estimated 10% of randomly selected

respondents within 1 week of the original interview

date (Attachment J).

17
Table 2.

STUDY SUBJECT/FAMILY MEMBER RESPONDENT

Estimated Respondents from

Combined Nine Tribes

Form Name

or Activity

No. of

Respondents

No. Responses

Per Respondent

Hours/Per

Response

Response

Burden

Instruction Booklet

(Attachment C)

1500 1 1 1500

Interview

Questionnaire

(Attachment B)

1500 1 2 3000

Interview Verification

(Attachment J)

150 1 5/60 13

TOTAL 4513

The proposed collection of information is included in

the 1993-1994 Information Collection Budget as exhibit

HC3-007.

13. Changes in Burden

This tribal questionnaire was a new information

collection method which was employed under the first

OMB clearance. We are requesting this questionnaire be

continued to be used through December 1998. The burden

has not been changed.

14. Time Schedule, Publication and Analysis Plans

The sampling technique for each tribe has been

determined during a consultation session scheduled with

a CDC sampling statistician, Mr. Virgil Peavy. The

consultation was held during the first month of the

study, October, 1993. Each tribe which has negotiated a

contract since October 1993 has also consulted with Mr.

Peavy.

Data collection using the individual tribal

questionnaires is scheduled to begin within one month

of OMB approval, and to conclude within six months

after that. Within one month following the end of the

data collection, verification, and analysis, each tribe

will submit a Preliminary Data Summary to CDC according

to the provisions of the "Technical Steering Panel's

Native American Data and Document Release Policy"

18
(Attachment F).

A Data Analysis Program has been developed and tested

which each tribe will use to produce their preliminary

HEDR Data Summaries. Attachment 0 provides a set of

’’user friendly” instructions to assist each tribal HEDR

coordinator in completing this section of their

contract. Also in the attachment are Table Shells on

which Preliminary Data Summaries are to be summarized

and submitted to CDC.

Preliminary data analysis will be performed by tribal

researchers aS described in Attachment A, Section

IV,B,6 i, ii, and iii, using the "Native American Data

Collection and Analysis Program” of Attachment 0 Data

will be summarized for each individual tribe and

presented in tabular form as described in Tables 1-4,

of the Protocol, with expanded info onto Tables 1-32,

pages___ of Attachment P. Primary data collected

will be compared with any unpublished and previously

published data. The precision and accuracy of the data

will be compared to other sources and summarized in a

narrative report. Additional analysis will consist of

calculation of doses for representative, tribal

specific individuals using the computer model developed

by Battelle and will be included in the final report

issued by the Technical Steering Panel. The report

will offer their interpretation of the study results

and recommendations for additional research. This

report will be issued in early to mid 1996.

Currently, Colville, Couer d'Alene, Kalispel and

Spokane tribes have completed the interview phase of

their HEDR Project. The Kalispel tribe has completed

the data analysis of their interviews and have prepared

Preliminary Data Summaries. They are preparing the

final report for the HEDR Project. They have had no

problems in completing the deliverables for the CDC

contract. The Spokane Tribe has completed their HEDR

Project and are preparing the final report. The other 2

tribes are currently validating interview records, data

entry and will be ready to analyze their data by April

30, 1995. Among the remaining 4 contractual tribes, the

Warm Springs have completed one-half of their

interviews and have been placed on hold until OMB

approval has been received. The Umatilla, Nez Perce,

Yakima, and Kootenai tribes have not yet begun the

interviews and will wait until OMB clearance has been

received.

It has been most difficult to prepare and/or project an

19
DOE/RW-0006, Rev. 11

September 1995

Integrated Data Base Report—1994:

U.S. Spent Nuclear Fuel and Radioactive Waste

Inventories, Projections, and Characteristics

Prepared for

U.S. Department of Energy

Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Office of Environmental Management

Washington, D.C. 20585

Prepared by

Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Systems, Inc., for the

U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-84OR21400
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Table 4.7. Actual 1994 cumulative storage inventory and projected average annual storage additions of LLW at DOE sites

Physical form Cumulative*3

Projected annual addition8

1995 1996-2000 2001-2030

Volume

(m5)

Activity

(Ci)

Volume

(m5)

Activity

(Ci)

Volume

(m’/year)

Activity

(Ci/year)

Volume

(m!/ycar)

Activity

(Ci/year)

Debris

Combustible 5,699 43,015 127 22 -3 -8,600 -46 0

Noncombustible and compactible 265 71 156 16 140 21 106 48

Noncombustible and combustible mixed 13,860 498,720 375 172 -387 -77,016 41 0

Activated metal/equipment/hardware 1,554 280,028 188 45,030 418 45,100 204 0

Contaminated metal/equipment/hardware 11,319 1,572^17 243 31,773 142 5^10 300 83

Filter media (as-is, solidified, dewatered) 692 13 8 3 -12 6 -1 19

Biological waste and carcasses (as-is, solidified) 707 17^50 3 0 3 0 4 0

Asbestos-contaminated waste (as-is, solidified) 646 0 19 1 7 5 2 0

Soil/sediment/rubble (as-is, solidified, dewatered) 1,646 84 154 -1 268 0 68 0

Solidified liquids/chelates/oils 1,309 983,400 -681 -969,990 -1 0 0 0

Solidified sludge/resin (dewatered, solidified) 7,447 120 -397 -4 13 0 -22 0

Sources (sealed sources, devices, and gauges) 4C 344,063c 0d 5d <le 101e 0f <lf

Paint waste 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Salt waste 161 4 0 0 0 0 0 0

Incinerator ash (solidified, as-is) 169 0 2 0 2 0 3 0

Activated carbon (charcoal) 82 0 2 0 3 0 1 0

Other inorganic particulates 1,561 49 18 0 13 -1 0 0

Other

EM-30 program waste 11,981 186,397 49 0 54 0 120 0

EM-40 program waste 67,0008-h i i i i i i i

Total 125,8901 3,925,431 268 -892,972 661 -35,175 782 151

aNegative values indicate a decrease in stored volume or radioactivity.

^Cumulative storage as of December 31,1994.

cIncluded in radioactivity value for sources are 1,085 sources with no volume estimate.

dlncluded in radioactivity value for sources are 58 sources with no volume estimate.

included in radioactivity value for sources are 189 sources with no volume estimate.

^Included in radioactivity value for sources are 20 sources with no volume estimate.

8For EM-40 program LLW, data only available for cumulative storage volume for physical form “other.” FUSRAP and UMTRAP sites are not included.

^Excludes 10,000 m3 at Fernald and 190,000 m3 at Weldon Spring of 1 lc(2) by-product material that is in storage. Total shown is rounded to two significant

figures.

'Not available.

JBased on numerical sum ofseparate site entries.
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
overall time schedule for the entire HEDR project. The

main reasons are that - several tribes took a longer

period of time negotiating their contracts with CDC and

thus began their projects at different starting dates;

internal tribal factors have impeded program managers

access to tribal rolls needed to determine the sampling

frame; other tribal activities took priority over the

HEDR project; and, many of the tribal HEDR staff, who

were hired on temporary status, have moved on to more

permanent positions. In addition, agency delays have

caused tribal delays for instance - the first OMB

approval clearance process took several months

delaying the use of an approved tribal questionnaire

which had to be revised several times to incorporate

input criteria required by the TSP; a data entry

program had to be developed and field tested prior to

tribal use; and, finally a "user friendly” data

analysis program had to be developedand tested before

such a large data base could be accomodated.

At this time, the entire CDC tribal project technical

programs have been developed and tested and are in use.

With the use of these various instruments, final

results are now being produced by 4 tribes. For the

remaining 5 tribes, yet to begin and/or complete their

projects, all instruments are now in place, therefore,

no further delays are anticipated.

B. COLLECTION OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS

No substantial changes have been made to this area since

previous OMB approval.

1. Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods

a. Respondent universe

The respondent universe will be males and females,

regardless of residence, who were alive during any of

the years 1944 through 1947 and 1964 through 1966, and

were ever enrolled as members of any of the nine Native

American tribes named earlier in this application.

b. Sampling methods

Because the populations of the nine tribes vary

substantially (from 150 to 8,000 persons), the decision

whether to employ probability-based sampling and the

sampling method to be used will be made on a tribe-bytribe basis. If probability-based sampling is not

used, then all eligible tribal members will be invited

to participate. The sampling approach for each tribe

20
receiving a CDC contract beginning October 1993 was

determined during a consultation session scheduled with

a CDC sampling statistician, Mr. Virgil Peavy, during

October, 1993, the first month after receiving the

award. It was suggested that probability-based

sampling be performed to choose individuals to

represent the study population if justified by the

number of individuals in each population subgroup of

the sample frame and the resources available to carry

out the survey. Random sampling or random-start,

systematic sampling would be the methods used.

The sampling component of the HEDR study protocol was

completed for each tribe when population and

preliminary food consumption data became available upon

the completion of Collection and collation of Phase 1

data conducted under previous non-government contracts

with Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.

It was advised that if probability-based sampling was

not used for a given tribe because of a small sample

frame for that tribe, then a survey of all members of

that tribe's sample frame should be attempted. A

sampling statistician has been consulted to assist in

finalizing sample design.

2. Information Collection Procedures

No substantial changes have been made in this area

since previous OMB approval.

a) Sample Frame

The sample frame will be a list of all members of

the study population who are currently alive and

who were alive at any time during the periods

1944-1947 or 1964-1966. A list of these

individuals will be identified as described in the

study protocol (Attachment A) section IV.B.2.a.iii (Page 4 of protocol). Tribal researchers will

develop this list using data sources which include

tribal enrollment lists, and other data files from

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) or the Indian

Health Service (IHS). Data will be sought from a

subject's older relatives (i.e., mother, father,

aunt, uncle, siblings) for years when the subject

was under 15 years of age. Methods and procedures

for finding subjects and introducing the survey

will be developed by individual tribal researchers

as described in the protocol (Attachment A)

21
section IV.B.4.c,d. (Page 9 of protocol). Survey

introductions developed by tribal researchers will

be subject to CDC review and approval. Survey

participants will be issued a statement of

informed consent developed by the individual

tribes. This statement will be similar in nature

to one presented as Attachment I of this document

and will be subject to CDC review and approval.

Statements of informed consent will include

required references to legislative authorization,

use to be made of the data, the voluntary nature

of participation, and any consequences of not

participating.

b) Stratification

The sample frame may be stratified if probabilitybased sampling is to be used and the sample frame

is of adequate size. Stratification variables

would include sex, and might include age (if

population data demonstrate sufficient

heterogeneity), and residence if other data

sources (e.g., ethnographic studies) suggest that

given residency sub-populations have diets and

life-styles that differ substantially from the

entire population.

c) Sample size and accuracy needs

If sampling is used, the sample size will be

chosen so that the proportion of respondents

answering "yes" to yes/no questions is within 10%

of the true proportion and the mean value of

responses to continuous-variable questions is

within 10% of the true mean. These criteria have

been specified as sufficient and acceptable by the

dose modelers at Battelle Pacific Northwest

Laboratories. The sample size will be calculated

using standard methods described in: Cochran, WG.

1977. Sampling Techniques, 3rd edition, Wiley, New

York, Eq. 4.2, p.75; and Gilbert, RO. 1987.

Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution

Monitoring, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, Eq.

4.12, p. 33. Sample size calculations have been

performed in conjunction with a sampling

statistician from the Centers for Disease Control.

Problems with recalling dietary information will

be minimized by using an Instruction Booklet

(Attachment C) that includes memory prompts

specifically developed for and by each tribe. In

addition, the mathematical computer model

22
developed by Battelle Laboratories assumes that

there will be dose uncertainty caused by

inaccurate recall, and therefore calculates a dose

range, rather than a point estimate.

d) Unusual problems regarding sampling

The large variation in tribal populations and the

current lack of population data for the years of

interest (1944-47 and 1964-66) make it impossible

at this time to describe final sampling designs. A

specific sampling plan has been submitted by nine

tribes presently under contract with CDC.

e. Data collection cycle

Data will be collected once from each study

subject, with the exception of selected subjects

who will be recontacted for data quality control

reasons. Survey respondents will be offered a one

time $50 payment for their participation in the

survey.

3. Methods to Maximize Response Rates

It initially was difficult to predict the expected

response rate for tribes that ultimately would use

probability-based sampling because: 1) it was not

yet known which tribes would use such sampling and

2) the sampling methods included in the study

protocol have not been employed in any of the

tribes' previous work on this project. However,

several of the smaller tribes have achieved near

complete response during preliminary field work

from subjects chosen with non-probability based

methods.

In addition, preliminary results of a similar

survey being used in the Hanford Thyroid Disease

Study (HTDS) pilot phase, have demonstrated an 83%

response rate. The response rate for the 4 tribes

who have completed their interviews has been more

than 90%.

Methods for making initial contact with subjects

will be determined by tribal researchers and based

on local resources, traditions, and conditions.

Use of an initial contact letter will be

recommended. At least five attempts will be made

to locate and enroll individuals selected for

interview. A variety of methods (e.g., letter,

23
telephone, home visit) will be used if the initial

attempt to contact is unsuccessful.

Once initial contact has been made, the project

will be explained to the subject. If he/she agrees

to participate, an Instruction Booklet (Attachment

C) will be sent prior to the interview. This book

will further explain the project, include memory

prompts, and encourage note taking so that the

interview itself will be as short as possible and

thus respondent burden will be reduced. Problems

with English-language literacy are not anticipated

in this study group.

Key survey respondents will be offered a one time

$50 payment for their participation in the survey.

Justification for this payment is included in

Section A-8 of this request.

Sample size calculations, if performed, will

anticipate non-responders. Should the expected

non-response rate be exceeded, additional subjects

will be chosen using probability-based techniques,

in consultation with a statistician.

4. Tests of Procedures

No major changes were made to this area, other than

those indicated since the previous OMB approval.

a. Pilot testing

Previous tribal experience with HEDR data

collection activities will partially substitute

for pilot testing. However, the procedure

described in the study protocol and tribal

questionnaire will be tested on nine tribal

employees who will not be included in the main

study. All tribes under contract have completed

the pilot test of the questionnaire using 9 or

fewer people. The primary purpose of doing the

pilot test was to determine how long it would take

to implement the questionnaire. Most tribes

determined it would take about two hours.

b. Use of survey instrument in previous studies

The tribal questionnaire is a derivative of the

Hanford Thyroid Disease Study questionnaire, OMB

Number 0920-0296.

Changes in that OMB approved tribal questionnaire

24
have been made for a variety of reasons.

First, this tribal research will focus on

calculating radiation doses, not on determining

health effects.

Second, questions regarding Native American food

consumption have been added to address concerns

that these unique diets may have contributed to

higher doses.

Third, some of the data asked for in the HTDS

questionnaire is not needed or cannot be utilized

in the HEDR computer model.

Specifically, alterations of that OMB approved

tribal questionnaire include: 1) deletion of a

large number of questions regarding medical

history, exposure to medical radiation, water

supply, subjects7 mothers7 diet during pregnancy

and lactation; 2) addition of questions regarding

fish consumption; 3) modification of some

questions to reflect traditional Native American

foods; and, 4) some questions were added to

determine exposure to and daily use of Columbia

River water during the study period.

c. Notification of OMB of modifications

OMB will be informed as soon as possible of any

changes in the protocol or survey instrument that

result from pilot testing.

5. Statistical Consultants

No changes have been made to this area, unless

otherwise indicated since the previous OMB approval.

a. Data collection Study Design

Peter M. Houck, MD

Initially, Radiation Studies Branch, Division of

Environmental Hazards and Health Effects, National

Center for Environmental Health, CDC. 206-553-0502

Now with HCFA, Region X Seattle, 206-615-2310.

Dr. Houck prior to moving to HCFA, developed a

rough draft of adapting the protocol to a study

design to be used by the tribes. CDC staff

25
including, Dr. Anne Mellinger and Vanette Chase,

converted the study design into a questionnaire

format, from which a workable data entry program

was developed into which the tribal HEDR

coordinators inputed their interview data.

The EpiInfo Program which was used to develop the

tribal questionnaire was too difficult to use. A

more "user friendly” program was developed by

Battelle staff, Dr. E. Liebow and Marcus Lester,

and CDC staff, Vanette Chase. Microsoft Access

v. 2 software was used to develop both a data

entry and data analysis program which the tribes

are being trained to use in the analysis phase of

their projects. The final product, Preliminary

Data Summaries, remains the same.

Statistical consultants

Virgil Peavy, MS

Public Health Practice Program Office, Office of

the Director, CDC. 404-639-0400

Kenneth Kopecky, PhD

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle,

WA. 206-667-5733

Scott Davis, PhD

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle,

WA. 206-667-2750

Marcus Lester

Computer Programmer, Battelle Human Affairs

Research Center, Seattle, 206 528-3308

Mr. Lester, with Dr. Liebow and Vanette Chase

developed a "Native American Data Analysis

Program” which the HEDR coordinators are using to

analyze their data. The resulting Preliminary

Data Summaries will be used to calculate

individual and representative doses.

Edward Liebow, PhD

Battelle Human Affairs Research Center, Seattle,

WA. 206-528-3311

Tracey Ikenberry

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland,

WA. 509-375-2338

Data collection/ Deliverable receipt

26
Mr.Fred Alt - (Data Collection)

Coeur d'Alene Tribal Headquarters (208) 274-3101

Mr. Cliff Sijohn

Coeur d'Alene Tribal Headquarters (208) 274-3101

Ms. Barbara Aripa - (Data Collection)

Colville Tribal Headquarters (509) 634-4711

Ms. Sally Ann Toulouse

Colville Tribal Headquarters (509) 634-8811

Ms. Vickie Bowman - (Data Collection)

Kalispel Tribal Headquarters (509) 445-1147

Mr. David Bonga

Kalispel Tribal Headquarters (509) 445-1147

Carl Basford - (Data Collection)

Nez Perce Tribe (208) 843-2253

Ms. Donna Powakee (Administration)

Nez Perce Tribe (208) 843-5423

Mr. David Ernst - (Data Collection and

Administration)

Spokane Tribal Headquarters (509) 258-4581

Mr. J.R. Wilkinson - (Data Collection)

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian

Reservation (503) 276-3449

Mr. Joseph Richards- (Administration)

Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian

Reservation (503) 276-3447

Ms. Madeline Queahpama - (Data Collection)

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs (503)

553-3252

Ms. Bonnie Langeliers- (Administration)

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs (503)

553-3218

Mr. Moses Dick Squeochs - (Data Collection and

Administration)

Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Indian

Nation (509) 865-5121

Mr. Mark Federer

Contracts Specialist

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

27
Ms. Erika Clarke

Contracts Specialist

Centers for Disease Control

Lisa Jordan

Contract Specialist

Centers for Disease Control

Barry Smith

Contract Specialist

Centers for Disease Control

Mr. Michael R. Donnelly

Project Officer, Atlanta, GA

Centers for Disease control

Mr. Charles Smith

Public Health Advisor, Program Field Manager

Centers for Disease Control, Seattle, WA

d. Data analysis

Bruce Napier, PhD,

Edward Liebow, PhD

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland

WA.

Bruce Amundson, MD

Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle,

WA.

Charles W. Miller, PhD

Radiation Studies Branch

Centers for Disease Control

28
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

 BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
NATIVE AMERICAN DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

FOR THE HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION

(HEDR) PROJECT

REQUEST FOR OMB REVIEW AND APPROVAL

FOR REINSTATEMENT

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment A - Study Protocol for Native American Data Collection

for the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction

Project

Attachment B - Tribal Questionnaire, dated August 15, 1994

Attachment C - Instruction Booklet

Attachment D - Copy of Legislation Authorizing Data Collection

(Section 301, Public Health Service Act)

Attachment E - Copy of Public Health Law 100-607

Attachment F - Native American Data and Document Release Policy

(with cover letter from Technical Steering Panel)

Attachment G - Copy of Letter from John E. Till, Chairman,

Technical Steering Panel (sent to all Native

American Tribes involved in Hanford studies)

Attachment H - Copy of Letter from Warren A. Bishop, Coordinator,

Native American Working Group and Technical

Steering Panel member (sent to Deputy Branch

Chief, Radiation Studies Branch, Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention)

Attachment I - Sample Statement of Informed Consent

Attachment J - Tribal Questionnaire Validation Script

Attachment K - TSP Fact sheet - "Dose Reconstruction Project

Findings Will Benefit Health Effects Research"

Attachment L - TSP Fact Sheet - "Radiation and the Thyroid Gland"

Attachment M - TSP Fact Sheet - "Radioactivity and the Food

Chain"

29
Attachment N

Attachmnet 0

- TSP Fact Sheet - "Columbia Basin's American

Indians Involved in Hanford Dose Reconstruction”

- "Native American Data Analysis Program"

Instructions; with Shell Tables

30
MEMORANDUM

Mike Donnelly

Date: August 23, 1993

From: Hanford Projects Coordinator

Radiation Studies Branch

Division of Environmental Hazards and Health Effects

National Center for Environmental Health

Subject: Cost Estimates for Hanford Related Native American

Contracts

To: Diane Roberts

Office of Program Planning and Evaluation

In response to your comments on the previously

submitted "Request for OMB Review and Approval of

Native American Data Collection and Analysis for the

Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction (HEDR)

Project", I have removed certain cost estimates from

section A-12 of the document. The specific language is

contained below:

Negotiations are ongoing and contracts have not

yet been awarded to seven of the eight Tribes,

however, the cost to the federal government is

estimated to be $650,000. Of this amount,

approximately $600,000 will be provided to the

eight tribes to cover research, travel costs, and

training. Personnel costs for federal employees

involved in oversight and/or analysis are

estimated to be $50,000.

The average annual cost for these projects is

currently estimated to be $450,000. As these are

cost reimbursable contracts, these costs could be

exceeded if actual costs are higher than

anticipated.

One contract has been awarded to the Spokane Tribe in

the amount of $59,273 for a 15 month period of

performance. The annualized cost for this contract is

$47,418.

My understanding is that you will relay this

information to OMB as part of your finalized letter.

Please notify me if you need additional information.
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Attachment J

FORM APPROVED:

OMB NUMBER: 0920-XXXX

EXPIRATION DATE:

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to

average 5 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining

the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of

information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for

reducing this burden to PHS Reports Clearance Officer; ATTN; PRA; Hubert

H. Humphrey Bg, Room 721—B; Independence Ave., S.W.; Washington, DC 20201,

and to the Office of Management and Budget; Paperwork Reduction Project

(0920-XXXX); WAshington, DC 20503.

SCRIPT:

INTERVIEW VERIFICATION

Hello, may I speak to (PARTICIPANT'S NAME)?

If the participant is unavailable, establish a time to call

back. When you confirm that you have the participant on the

line, proceed.

This is (NAME) calling from the (NAME OF TRIBE) Hanford Studies

Project (OR TRIBAL ORGANIZATION). Recently, you were interviewed

by (INTERVIEWER'S NAME). Do you remember that interview?

If yes, proceed.

If no, clarify whether the person you are speaking with is

the subject.

I am conducting a quality control check of (INTERVIEWER'S NAME)

work, and I would like to ask you a few questions about that

interview if you have just a few minutes.

If not: determine a time to call back

If so: proceed

Again, these questions are to verify that the interview took

place and clarify any remaining questions you may have. Can we

begin?

What is your (subject's) birthdate?
Page 2 Attachment J

Conduct verification of one Residence History question (#8)

two to three Food Consumption History questions (#49, #62,

#96) .

After completing this verification ask:

What other questions do you have about the study?

If questions respond as necessary and appropriate

If not complete the interview verification by saying

Again, thank you for your help with this study.
SAMPLE

STATEMENT OF INFORMED CONSENT

The (Name of Tribe) is participating in the Hanford Environmental

Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) project. This research is sponsored

by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) under

authority of Section 301 of the Public Health Service Act (42 USC

241) . The purpose of this study is to determine radiation doses

individuals may have received as a result of historic radiation

releases from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation beginning in the

1940's.

The project will interview a representative sample of people who

were tribal members during the periods 1944-1947 and 1964-1967.

You have been selected to be a part of this study. Your

participation is voluntary and you will suffer no consequences if

you do not agree to participate.

If you agree to participate, we will be asking questions about

your diet, residence history, and migration patterns or those for

other members of your immediate family. All of the responses

will be presented in a summary format and no individuals will be

identified by name in reporting any of the results.

The interview may take several hours and you will be paid a onetime $$$ fee for your participation. You may be recontacted in

the future for quality control purposes. All of the information

provided will be kept confidential by the (NAME OF TRIBE) . Only

summary information will be provided in the study results.

PARTICIPANT'S STATEMENT

I certify that the preceding has been read to me, that I have had

an opportunity to review the consent form and ask questions, and

that I understand the purpose of this research project. I

understand that if I have any questions about this research, I

may contact (NAME, TELEPHONE NUMBER of Tribal Contact). My

signature means that I voluntarily agree to participate in this

study and have received a copy of this consent form.

Signature of Participant Date

34
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY,
APPENDIX G

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT and

BUDGET APPROVAL

G-179
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Robert Polson 09/22/95

Department of Health and Human Services

Room 531-H

Hubert H. Humphrey Building

Washington, DC 20201

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB has taken the following action on

your request for approval of the reinstatement of an information collection received on

06/28/95.

TITLE: Native American Data Collection and Analysis for the Hanford Environmental

Dose Reconstruction (HEDR) Project

AGENCY FORM NUMBER(S): None

ACTION: APPROVED

OMB NO.: 0920-0335

EXPIRATION DATE: 09-30-98

BURDEN

Previous Status

New Status

Difference

Explanation of difference

Program Change

Adjustment

RESPONSES BURDEN HOURS

0 0

3,000 4,513

3,000 4,513

4,513

0

TERMS OF CLEARANCE:

This information collection is approved for use through 8/98.

NOTE: 1. The OMB Control Number must be displayed as required by 5 CFR 1320.4

and 5 CFR 1320.5.

2. You must send OMB one copy of the final version of any document being sent

to each respondent.

OMB Authorizing Official Title

James B. MacRae Deputy Administrator, Office of

Information and Regulatory Affairs
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX H

NATIVE AMERICAN DATA COLLECTION FOR THE

HANFORD ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT

- SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

H-181
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY BOISE

STATE UNIVERSITY
Native American Data Collection for the Hanford

Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

Survey Questionnaire

FORM APPROVED: 12/30/93

OMB NUMBER: 0920-03335

EXPIRATION DATE: 10/31/94

Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to

average 2 hours per response, including the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining

the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of

information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or an; other

aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for

reducing this burden to PBS Reports Clearance Officer; ATTN: PRA; Hubert B.

Humphrey Bg, Room 721-B; Independence Ave./ S.W.; Washington, DC 20201, and

to the Office of Management and Budget; Paperwork Reduction Project (0920— 03335); Washington, DC 20503.

___________ ID / Use a unique non-social security number

assigned to each respondent which will be

held in confidence by tribe

Date of attempted #

contact (mo/day/yr) Time Interviewer Result

1) /____ /__ ______________

2)___ /__ /__ _________

3) /____ / 

4)___ /__ /__ _________

5)___ /__ /__ _________

Result code:

1 Completed interview

2 Not at home at time of visit

3 Moved locally

4 Temporarily absent

5 Permanently absent

6 Deceased

7 Total refusal

8 Refusal during interview by respondent or other member of the

family

9 Respondent not competent

10 Other (specify) ___________________ _____________
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
ESTABLISHING CONTACT WITH RESPONDENT:

START BY SAYING:

Hello, my name is (interviewer name) from the (Tribe)

Hanford study program. On (date) ve ude an appointment for

an interview with you. I an here to conduct the interview.

During the interview you will need to have the Instruction

Booklet that we sent to you earlier. Do you have it with you

now?

IF "NO" SAYS

I'll be happy to wait while you get it.

IF, FOR SOME REASON, THE RESPONDENT DOES NOT HAVE THE INSTRUCTION

BOOKLET, SAY:

I'm sorry you do not have the Instruction Booklet. You will

need it during the interview, therefore we will need to

reschedule. Let we confirm your wailing address so we can

send you another booklet. I will contact you again in the

next few days to reschedule your interview.

Thank you for your patience.

IF RESPONDENT DOES HAVE THE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET, PROCEED ON TO

NEXT PAGE:

August 15, 1994 2
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY BOISE STATE

UNIVERSITY
SECTION I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

As you probably remember, this interview is part of a study

about radiation exposures from the Hanford Nuclear

Reservation from the 1940's through 1970. We hope that you

can help by supplying sone very inportant information about

yourself. you were selected to participate in the study.

The information you provide will help answer some very

important questions about how much radiation exposure people

received from Hanford.

Because the public was not aware of the radiation releases

from Hanford, you could not have known about the possible

exposure from Hanford at that tine, or the possibility of

side effects. Tour answers to the questions will not mean

that you did anything wrong, or could have prevented any

exposure by doing things differently.

Of course, it is important to remember that we are asking

about events that occurred long ago. Food supplies today

are not contaminated with radiation.

I hope you have had a chance to look over the materials and

think about the things we will be discussing today. Before

we begin the questions, there are a few things I need to

Mention:

- I want to assure you that the tribe will keep the

information you give confidential and in a secure,

locked cabinet.

- All information collected during this interview will be

combined with information from other tribal members and

no individual will be identified in any report.

- You may refuse to answer any question, or end the

interview at any time.

- Try to be as accurate and complete as possible when

giving answers. Don't feel rushed, and do not hesitate

to ask me to repeat a question. Our goal is to obtain

the most accurate information you can give. You may

not know the answers to some of the questions. Just do

the best you can.

- When answering a question, please feel free to tell me

everything that comes to mind, even if you aren't

sure it applies to that particular question.

Anything you think of may be helpful later.

- My supervisor may contact you at a later tine to be

sure that this interview was conducted properly.

August 15, 1994 3
We are alnost ready to begin the questions, but before we do

so, let's look at the Calendar of Events in the Instruction

Booklet that we sent to you. X would like you to notice a

few things about this booklet. For instance, you'll see the

date of the attack on Pearl Harbor, and other inportant

dates. We have found that this helps people during the

interview.

Have you added a few dates to the calendar that were

inportant in your own life?

Are there any other events fron the 1940's or nid-1960's

that were inportant to you? If there are, please nark then

on the calendar.

Finally, please enter your birthday on your calendar.

August 15, 1994 4
PREPARATORY INFORMATION:

1. DATE: / /_____ (month/day/year)

2. START TIME: __ __ : __ __ A.M. / P.M.

3. Interviewer ____________________________________

4. Subject's sex (M or F)

5. Is there another informant at the interview? (yes or no)

If YES, ASK OTHER INFORMANT:

6. What is your relationship to respondent?

THEN, ASK THE RESPONDENT:

7. What is your birth date?

7a. / month

7b.___ ___/ day

7c. year

7d.____ WRITE IN FULL YEAR OF BIRTH, (ex: 1899, 1917, 1932,

1951, 1964, etc.)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER DECEMBER 1947: GO TO “FOOD

CONSUMPTION HISTORY” on page 11

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN BEFORE JANUARY 1948: INTERVIEWER PROCEED:

Nov, let's begin the questions on where you used to

live.

August 15, 1994 5
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
SECTION II. RESIDENCE HISTORY

HAVE THE STUDY AREA MAP AVAILABLE

HAVE THE RESIDENCE HISTORY QUESTIONNAIRE AVAILABLE TO REVIEW

Nov I would like to review all of the locations where you

lived for periods of one month or more during the years 1944

through 1947. Let's look at your Residence History

Questionnaire.

For residence locations in our study area I will be

reviewing the dates you lived at each location and ask you

to locate that location on this map. For residence

locations outside our study area, I will be reviewing the

dates you lived in each county and state only. Are you

ready to begin?

Residence History for the years 1944 through 1947

Location 1: Is the following information correct? If not

correct, record correct information.

8a._______ /______ /__________ From: (month/day/year)

8b._______ /______ /________ To: (month/day/year)

8c. __________________________ At: (address)

8d. __________________________ (city)

8 e. ___________________ ______ (state)

8f. (county) .

If WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this nap?

8g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

Location 2:

9a._______ /____ ___ /___ ___ From: (month/day/year)

9b._______ /________ /________ To: (month/day/year)

9c. __________________________ (address)

9d. __________________________ (city)

9e. __________________________ (state)

9f. (county).

IF WITHIN THE STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this nap?

9g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

August 15, 1994 6
Location 3:

10g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE.

10a. / / From: (month/day/year)

10b. / / To:

10c. At: Address

lOd. (city)

lOe. (state)

lOf. (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this wap?

Location 4:

11a. / / From: (month/day/year)

l1b. / / To: (month/day/year)

11c. At: (address)

l1d. (city)

l1e. (state)

11f. ___ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this wap?

11g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

Location 5:

12a. / / From: (month/day/year)

12b. / / To: (month/day/year)

12c. At: (address)

12d. __ (city)

12e. (state)

12 f. ___ __ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this map?

12g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

Location 6:

13a. / / From: (month/day/year)

13b. / / To: (month/day/year)

13c. At: (address)

13d. ___ (city)

13e. (state)

13f. ___ ___ (county) information.

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this map?

13g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

August 15, 1994
Location 7:

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this map?

14a. / / From: (month/day/year)

14b. / / To: (month/day/year)

14c. At: (address)

14d. (city)

14e. (state)

14f. ___ (county)

14g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

Location 8:

15a. / / From: (month/day/year)

15b. / / To: (month/day/year)

15c. At: (address)

15d. (city)

15e. (state)

15f. ___ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this map?

15g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

Location 9:

16a. / / From: (month/day/year)

16b. / / To: (month/day/year)

16c. At: (address)

16d. (city)

16e. (state)

16f. ___ ___ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this sap?

16g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

Location 10:

17a. / / From: (month/day/year)

17b. / / To: (month/day/year)

17c. At: (address)

17d. (city)

17e. (state)

17f. ___ ___ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this map?

17g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

August 15, 1994 8
Location 11.

18a. / / From: (month/day/year)

18b. / / To:

18c. At: (address)

18d. (city)

18e. (state)

18 f. ___ ____ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA SAY: WHERE IS THAT ON THIS MAP?

18g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE.

Location 12:

19a. / / From: (month/day/year)

19b. / To:

19c. At: (address)

19d. (city)

19e. (state)

19 f. ____ ____ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this map?

19g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

Location 13.

20a. / / From: (month/day/year)

20b. / / To: (month/day/year)

20c. At: (address)

20d. (city)

20e. (state)

2Of. ____ ___ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this map?

20g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE

Location 14:

21a. / / From: (month/day/year)

21b. / / To: (month/day/year)

21c. At: (address)

21d. (city)

21e. (state)

2If. ____ ___ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this map?

21g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE.

August 15, 1994 9
Location 15:

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY: Where is that on this map?

22a. / / From: (month/day/year)

22b. / / To: (month/day/year)

22c. At: (address)

22d. (city)

22e. (state)

22f. ___ (county)

22g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE.

Location 16:

23a. / / From: (month/day/year)

23b. / / Ro: (month/day/year)

23c. At: (address)

23d. ___ (city)

23e. (state)

23f. ;__ _ ___ (county)

IF WITHIN STUDY AREA, SAY : Where is that on this map?

23g. INTERVIEWER WRITE IN GRID LOCATION CODE.

INTERVIEWER: BE SURE TO COLLECT THE RESIDENCE HISTORY

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR YOUR TRIBAL RECORDS.

PLACE THE RESPONDENT'S ID# ON THE RESIDENCE HISTORY

QUESTIONNAIRE.

August 15, 1994 10
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
FOOD CONSUMPTION HISTORY

Let's turn to page __ of the Instruction Booklet, and talk

about what you ate during the years 1944 through 1947 and

1964 through 1966.

SECTION m. MILK AND DAIRY PRODUCTS

The next questions are about fresh milk and dairy products

you consumed. When I say fresh milk, I mean any milk that

was not powdered or canned. It night have been obtained from

a dairy or a store, delivered to your hone, or obtained from

a family or neighborhood cow or goat. I an also interested

in breast milk that you consumed as a baby.

I will also need to know about any fresh dairy products. By

fresh dairy products, I mean foods like crean, butter,

buttermilk, cottage cheese, yogurt, and ice crean. I do not

want you to include aged dairy products, such as Cheddar

cheese, or other hard cheeses.

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Year of respondent's birth (MUST ENTER)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER 1947: GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 13

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN BEFORE 1948: INTERVIEWER PROCEED;

Let's start with the years 1944 through 1947:

25. Were you nursed or breast-fed at any time from 1944 through

1947?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "No” OR "DON'T KNOW”: GO TO QUES. / 30 ON PAGE 12'

26. At what age in months did breast feeding begin? months of age

27. Would that be in (month/year) ?

27a. __ _ ___ month

27b. year

August 15, 1994 11
28.

29.

29a.

29b.

30.

31.

31a.

31b.

32.

33.

33a.

33b.

34.

HAVE

35.

35a.

35b.

35c.

35d.

HAVE

How many months old were you when nursing or breast-feeding

stopped? months of age

Would that be in (month/year)?

 month

___ __ _year

How many months old were you when you first drank fresh milk

other than breast milk?

Note: A baby could be receiving both breast milk and

cow or goat milk at the same time. months of age

Would that be in (month/year)?

 month

___ ___ year

How many months old were you when you first ate foods other

than milk? months of age

Would that be in (month/year)?

 month

___ ___ year

During the years 1944 through 1947 did you ever eat or drink

fresh milk or dairy products made from fresh cow's or goat's

milk?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "N0" OR “DON'T KNOW”: GO TO (1964-66) on page 1

AN 8 OUNCE CUP AVAILABLE

On average, about how many 8 ounce cups or bottles of fresh

cow or goat milk did you drink per week during:

THE LIST OF DAIRIES

Winter January - March

Spring April - June

Summer July - September

_______ Fall October-December

AND BRANDS AVAILABLE FOR REFERENCE:

August 15, 1994 12
36. Where was this milk obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

36a. ____ Store bought

36b. (Brand or dairy) ________

36c. ____ Home delivered

3 6d. (Brand)

36e. ___ Family or neighborhood cow or goat

36f. ____ Other (Describe_____________________________)

36g. Source totally unknown

NOTE: "Other” sources might include school lunch

programs, military posts, etc.

37. On average, about how many 8 ounce servings—about a cup—of

dairy products other than milk (ice cream, cottage cheese,

etc) did you eat per week during:

37a. Winter January - March

37b. Spring April - June

37c. Summer July - September

37d. __ Fall October-December

38. Where were these dairy products obtained? (CHECK ALL THAT

APPLY)

38a. ___ Store bought

38b. (Brand or dairy) ___________________________

38c. ____ Home delivered

38d. (Brand) ___ i________ ,______ _____________’ 38e. ___ Made from milk from family or neighborhood cow or goat

38f. ___ Other (describe____________________________ )

38g. Source totally unknown

NOTE: "Other” sources might include school milk

programs, military posts, etc.

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Respondent's year of birth (HIT <ENTER>)

Let’s look at the years 1964 through 1966

The next few questions are about fresh milk and dairy

products consumed during the years 1964 through 1966.

Again, when I say fresh milk, I mean any milk that was not

powdered or canned.

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN BEFORE 1960: GO TO QUES. / 44 ON PAGE 14

39. Were you nursed or breast-fed at any time from 1964 through

1966?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO” OR "DON'T KNOW”: GO TO QUES. # 44 ON PAGE 14

August 15, 1994 13
40. At what age in months did breast feeding begin? months of age

41. Would that be in (month/year)?

41a. ___ ___ month

41b. year

42. How many months old were you when breast feeding stopped? months of age

43. Would that be in (month/year)?

43a. ___ month

43b. year

44. How many months old were you when you first drank fresh milk

other than breast milk? months of age

45. Would that be in (month/year)?

45a. ___ ___ month

45b. year

46. How many months old were you when you first ate foods other

than milk? months of age

47. Would that be in (month/year)?

47a. ___ ___ month

48a. year

48. During the years 1964 through 1966 did you ever eat or drink

fresh milk or dairy products made from raw or processed

cow's or goat's milk?

YES 1 NO 2 Don't know 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO SECTION IV; "GREEN AND LEAFY

:VEGETABLES" ON PAGE 16

HAVE AN 8 OUNCE CUP AVAILABLE

August 15, 1994 14
49. On average, about how many 8 ounce cups or bottles of fresh

cow or goat milk did you drink per week during:

49a. Winter January - March

49b. Spring April - June

49C. Summer July - September

49d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

PLEASE REFER TO LIST OF REGIONAL DAIRIES AND BRAND NAMES OF MILK.

50. Where was this milk obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

50a. ____ Store bought

50b. (Brand or dairy) _________

50c. ____ Home delivered

50d. (Brand)

50e. ___ Family or neighborhood cow or goat

50f. ____ Other (describe_____________________________) 50g. Source totally unknown

NOTE: "Other” sources might include school milk

programs, military posts, etc.

51. On average, about how many 8 ounce servings--about a cup

of dairy products other than milk (ice cream, cottage

cheese, etc) did you eat per week during:

51a. Winter January - March

51b. _______ Spring April - June

51c. _______ Summer July - September

51d. _______ Fall October-December

52. Where were these dairy products obtained? (CHECK ALL

APPLY)

THAT

52a. Store bought

52b. (Brand or dairy)

52c. Home delivered

52d (Brand) __r________ ,______ ,__________

52e. Made from milk from family or neighborhood cow or goat

52f. Other (describe ) 52g. ___ Source totally unknown

NOTE: ’’Other” sources might include school milk

programs, military posts, etc.

August 15, 1994 15
^ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
SECTION IV: GREEN AND LEAFY VEGETABLES AND

PLANTS

Next I will be asking you about green and leafy vegetables

and traditional plants you say have eaten. Examples of this

kind of vegetable include lettuce, cabbage, and spinach. I

an interested in vegetables and plants that were grown

locally or regionally within the Hanford study area (SHOW

GRID MAP OF STUDY AREA) that vere eaten fresh or stored.

Fresh vegetables and plants would have been eaten within a

few days of harvest, while stored vegetables and plants

would have been dried, hone canned, frozen, or otherwise

preserved before being eaten.

These vegetables and plants could cone from your garden,

fron a friend, neighbor, or relative's garden, a grocery

store, directly from a farmer or at a local farmer's market

or roadside stand, or collected from traditional gathering

areas. For vegetables from a market or store, I an only

interested in those that vere grown LOCALLY OR REGIONALLY.

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Respondent's year of birth (HIT <ENTER>)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER 1947: GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 17

Let's turn to page ___ of the Instruction Booklet and think

about the green leafy vegetables you ate during the years

1944 through 1947:

HAVE AVAILABLE A 6 INCH DIAMETER BOWL WHICH WOULD REPRESENT A

SINGLE SERVING:

53. Did you eat any green, leafy vegetables or plants during

these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO (1964-66) On page 17

August 15, 1994 16
54. A serving of fresh green leafy vegetables, that is, not

stored prior to eating, is equal to a small bowl full of

uncooked vegetable. On average, about how many servings of

FRESH green leafy vegetables and plants did you eat per week

during:

54a. _______ Winter January -March

54b. _______ Spring April - June

54c. _______ Summer July - September

54d. Fall October-December

55. Were these vegetables washed before eating?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

56. On average, about how many servings of STORED green leafy

vegetables and plants did you eat per week during:

56a. _ _____ Winter January - March

56b. _______ Spring April - June

56c. _______ Summer July - September

56d. Fall October-December

57. Were these vegetables washed before storage?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

Now, let’s talk about the years 1964 through 1966:

Please turn to page ___ of the Instruction Booklet and

think about the green leafy vegetables you ate during the

years 1964 through 1966:

58. Did you eat any green, leafy vegetables or plants during

these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

59. On average, about how many servings of FRESH green leafy

vegetables did you eat per week during:

59a. _______ Winter

59b. Spring

59c. Summer

59d. Fall

January - March

April - June

July - September

October-December

60. Were these vegetables washed before eating?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

August 15, 1994 17
61. On average, about how many servings of STORED green leafy

vegetables did you eat per week during:

61a.

61b.

61c.

61d.

_______ Winter January - March

_______ Spring April - June

_______ Summer July - September

_______ Fall October-December

62. Were these vegetables washed before being eaten?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

August 15, 1994 18
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
SECTION V. OTHER VEGETABLES AND PLANTS

Next I would like to talk about other fresh or stored

vegetables and plants grown locally or regionally in the

Hanford Study area (SHOW STUDY AREA GRID MAP) that you night

have eaten. These would include vegetables such as corn,

beans, squash, non-leafy traditional plants and so on.

Fresh vegetables and plants would have been eaten within a

few days of harvest, while stored vegetables and plants

would have been dried, hone canned, frozen, or otherwise

preserved before being eaten.

These vegetables and plants could have cone from your

garden, from a friend, neighbor, or relative's garden, a

grocery store, directly from a farmer or at a local farmer's

market or roadside stand, or collected from traditional

gathering areas. For vegetables from a market or store, I

an only interested in those that were grown locally or

regionally in the Hanford study area.

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Respondent's year of birth (HIT <ENTER>)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER 1947: GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 20

Let's turn to page ___ of the Instruction Booklet, and

think about the these vegetables you ate during the years

1944 through 1947:

HAVE A 6 INCH DIAMETER BOWL AVAILABLE, REPRESENTING A SINGLE

INDIVIDUAL SERVING

63. Did you eat any of this type of vegetable during these

years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF “NO” OR “DON'T KNOW”: GO TO {1964-66) ON PAGE 20

64. On average, about how many servings of FRESH vegetables did

you eat per week during:

64a. Winter January - March

64b. Spring April - June

64c. Summer July - September

64d. Fall October-December

65. Were these vegetables washed before eating?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

August 15, 1994 19
YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

66. On average, about how many servings of STORED vegetables did

you eat per week during:

66a.

66b.

66c.

66d.

_______ Winter January - March

_______ Spring April - June

_______ Summer July - September

_______ Fall October-December

67. Were these vegetables washed before being eaten?

Now, let’s talk about the years 1964 through 1966:

Please turn to page ___ of the Instruction Booklet, and

think about the vegetables you ate during the years 1964

through 1966:

68. Did you eat any of these vegetables during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO SECTION VI, "FRUITS AND BERRIES"

ON PAGE 21

69. On average, about how many servings of FRESH vegetables did

you eat per week during:

69a. _ ______Winter January - March

69b. _______ Spring April - June

69c. _______ Summer July - September

69d. Fall October-December

70. Were these vegetables washed before eating?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

71. On average, about how many servings of STORED vegetables did

you eat per week during:

71a. _______ Winter January - March

71b. _______ Spring April - June

71c. _______ Summer July - September

71d. Fall October-December

72. Were these vegetables washed before being eaten?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

August 15, 1994 20
SECTION VI: FRUITS AND BERRIES

Next I will be asking about fruits and berries grown LOCALLY

OR REGIONALLY within the Hanford study area (SHOW STUDY AREA

GRID MAP) that you Bay have eaten fresh, that is, eaten

within several days of being harvested, or after being

stored by canning, freezing, or drying.

Fruits and berries Bay have been grown on your own trees or

garden, may have come from a friend, neighbor, or relative,

could have been purchased from a farmer, farmer's market, or

grocery store, or could have been collected at traditional

gathering sites. For fruits and berries purchased from a

grocery store or farmer's market, please estimate only the

amount that was grown LOCALLY OR REGIONALLY.

The fruits we are interested in fall into two general

categories: the first category is those grown on bushes and

vines, such as berries and grapes, and the other category is

tree fruit such as apples, peaches, apricots, and cherries.

A serving of fresh tree fruit is equal to a piece of fruit,

except cherries for which a serving is equal to a cup full—

about 8 ounces. A serving of berries or grapes is also equal

to an 8 ounce cup.

Please turn to page __ of the Instruction Booklet.

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Respondent's year of birth: (HIT <ENTER>)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER 1947: GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 22

HAVE AVAILABLE AN 8 OUNCE CUP TO REPRESENT A SERVING:

Let’s start with the years 1944 through 1947:

73. Did you eat any fruit or berries during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF “NO” OR "DON'T KNOW”: GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 22

74. On average, about how many servings of FRESH fruits or

berries did eat per week during:

74a. _______ Winter

74b. Spring

74c. Summer

74d. Fall

January - March

April - June

July - September

October-December

August 15, 1994 21
75. Were these washed before eating?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

76. On average, how many servings of STORED fruits and berries

did you eat per week during:

76a. _______ Winter

76b. Spring

76c. Summer

76d. Fall

77. Were these washed

January - March

April - June

July - September

October-December

before being eaten?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

Now let’s talk about the years 1964 through 1966:

78. Did you eat any fruit or berries during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO SECTION VII, "EGG

CONSUMPTION" ON PAGE 24

79. On average, about how many servings of FRESH fruits or

berries did you eat per week during:

80. Were these washed before eating?

79a. Winter January - March

79b. Spring April - June

79c. Summer July - September

79d. Fall October-December

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

81. On average, about how many servings of STORED fruits and

berries did eat per week during:

81a.

81b.

81c.

81d.

_____ Winter January - March

_______ Spring April - June

_______ Summer July - September

_______ Fall October-December

82. Were these washed before being eaten?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

August 15, 1994 22
SECTION VII: EGG CONSUMPTION

I will now ask about eggs you ate.

I am interested in eggs from local domestic "free-range"

chickens, geese, ducks, or turkeys. That is, birds that were

allowed to roam outside. These birds nay have been in a

coop some of the time, and the area they were allowed to

roam in may have been small. I am not interested in any

eggs from birds that were always in a coop.

I am also interested in eggs collected from wild birds such

as geese, ducks, and pheasants.

Please try to include eggs used as ingredients in other

foods.

Please turn to page __ of the Instruction Booklet.

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Respondent's year of birth (HIT <ENTER>)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER 1947: GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 24

Let’s start with the years 1944 through 1947:

83. Did you ever eat fresh eggs from local domestic "free-range"

birds during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

If "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 24

84. On average, about how many "free range" domestic eggs did

you eat per week during:

84a. Winter January - March

84b. Spring April - June

84c. Summer July - September

84d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

85. Did you eat eggs from local "wild" birds during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO Ques. #87 ON PAGE 24

August 15, 1994 23
86. On average, about how many "wild" bird eggs did you eat per

week during:

86a. Winter January - March

86b. Spring April - June

86c. Summer July - September

86d. Fall October-December

Now let’s talk about the years 1964 through 1966:

87. Did you ever eat eggs from local domestic "free-range" birds

during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO Ques. # 89

88. On average, about how many "free range" domestic eggs did

you eat per week during:

88a. Winter January - March

88b. Spring April - June

88c. Summer July - September

88d. Fall October-December

89. Did you ever eat eggs from local "wild" birds during these

years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "^-^ "DON'T KNOW": GO TO SECTION VIII, "MEAT

90. On average, about how many "wild" bird eggs did you eat per

week during:

90a. Winter January - March

90b. Spring April - June

90c. Summer July - September

90d. _______ Fall October-December

August 15, 1994 24
SECTION VIII: MEAT CONSUMPTION

Now I'd like to talk to you about fresh and stored meat that

you may have eaten. This would include domestically grown

beef or veal, pork, Mutton or lamb, and large or small wild

game. Fresh meat would have been eaten soon after the animal

was killed. Stored meat would have been dried, smoked,

canned, salted, or frozen before being eaten. I am only

interested in meat from animals raised or grown locally or

regionally within the Hanford Study Area (SHOW STUDY AREA

GRID MAP) . It could have come from a grocery store or

butcher shop, animals you or your family butchered, or game

that you or your family hunted.

Please turn to page __ of the Instruction Booklet.

A SERVING OF MEAT WOULD BE EQUAL TO 4 OUNCES, ABOUT THE SIZE OF A

REGULAR HAMBURGER. HAVE AVAILABLE A 4 OZ MEAT MODEL

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Respondent's year of birth (HIT <ENTER>)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER: 1947: GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 27

Let’s start with the years 1944 through 1947:

I AM GOING TO ASK SEPARATE QUESTIONS ABOUT "DOMESTIC" MEAT AND

WILD GAME.

91. Did you eat any fresh domestic meat during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO” OR "DON'T KNOW”: GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 27

92. On average, about how many servings of FRESH domestic,

locally or regionally grown meat did you eat per week

during:

92a. Winter January - March

92b. Spring April - June

92c. Summer July - September

92d. Fall October-December

August 15, 1994 25
93. How was the fresh meat usually prepared prior to eating?

(i.e. boiled, roasted, fried, dried & smoked, salted etc.)

94. In general, where was this meat obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

94a.___ Store bought

94b.___ Home raised

94c.___ Neighbor or friend

94d.___ Other (Describe) __________________________

94e. Source totally unknown

95. On average, about how many servings of STORED domestic,

locally grown meat did you eat per week during:

96. How was the meat prepared for storage?

95a. Winter January - March

95b. Spring April - June

95c. Summer July - September

95d. Fall October-December

97. In general, where was this meat obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

97a.____ Store bought

97b.___ Home raised

97c.___ Neighbor or friend

97d.___ Other (Describe) __________________________

97e. Source totally unknown

98. On average, about how many servings of FRESH wild, locally

or regionally hunted meat did you eat per week during:

98a. Winter January - March

98b.

98c.

_______ Spring

Summer

April - June

July - September

98d. Fall October-December

99. How was the fresh meat usually prepared prior to eating?

100. In general, where was this meat hunted?

August 15, 1994 26
101. On average, about how many servings of STORED wild, locally

hunted meat did you eat per week during:

101a. Winter January - March

101b. Spring April - June

101c. Summer July - September

101d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

102. How was the meat prepared for storage

103. In general, where was this meat hunted?

Now let’s talk about the years 1964 through 1966:

104. Did you eat any domestic or wild game meat during these

years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

If "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO SECTION IX, "POULTRY, WATERFOWL, AND GAMEBIRDS" ON PAGE 29

105. On average, about how many servings of FRESH domestic,

locally or regionally grown meat did you eat per week

during:

105a. Winter January - March

105b. Spring April - June

105c. Summer July - September

105d. Fall October-December

106. How was the fresh meat usually prepared prior to eating?

107. In general, where was this meat obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

107a.___ Store bought

107b.___ Home raised

107c.___ Neighbor or friend

107d.___ Other (Describe) __________________________

107e. Source totally unknown

108. On average, about how many servings of STORED domestic,

locally grown meat did you eat per week during:

108a. _______ Winter

108b. _______ Spring

108c. Summer

108d. _______ Fall

January - March

April - June

July - September

October-December

August 15, 1994 27
109. How was the meat prepared for storage?

110. In general, where was this meat obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

110a.___ Store bought

110b.___ Home raised

110c.___ Neighbor or friend

ll0d.___ Other (Describe) ___________________________

ll0e. Source totally unknown

111. On average, about how many servings of FRESH wild, locally

or regionally hunted meat did you eat per week during:

111a. Winter January - March

111b. Spring April - June

111c. Summer July - September

111d.___ ____ Fall October-December

112. How was the fresh meat usually prepared prior to eating?

113. In general, where was this meat hunted?

114. On average, about how many servings of STORED wild, locally

hunted meat did you eat per week during:

114a. Winter January - March

114b. Spring April - June

114c. Summer July - September

114d. Fall October-December

115. How was the meat prepared for storage?

116. In general, where was this meat hunted?

August 15, 1994 28
SECTION IX: POULTRY, WATERFOWL, AND GAME

BIRDS

Now I'd like to ask you about locally or regionally grown

fresh and stored domestic chicken, duck, or turkey, and wild

waterfowl and game bird meat that you may have eaten. Fresh

meat would have been eaten soon after the bird was killed.

Stored meat would have been dried, smoked, salted, home

canned, or frozen before being eaten. I am only interested

in birds grown locally or regionally within the Hanford

Study Area..(SHOW GRID MAP)

Please turn to page __ of the Instruction Booklet.

A SERVING OF POULTRY IS FOUR OUNCES, ABOUT THE SIZE OF A

HAMBURGER PATTY; OR ABOUT ONE DRUMSTICK AND A THIGH OF A MEDIUM

SIZE CHICKEN.

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Respondent's year of birth (HIT <ENTER>)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER 1947: GO TO (1964-66) on page 32

Let’s talk first about the years 1944 through 1947:

117. Did you eat any locally grown poultry meat during these

years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 31

118. On average, about how many servings of FRESH locally grown

domestic bird meat did you eat per week during:

eating?______________________________________

118a. Winter January - March

118b. Spring April - June

118c. Summer July - September

118d. ____ __ Fall October-December

119. How was the fresh bird meat generally prepared prior to

August 15, 1994 29
120. In general, where was this bird meat obtained? (CHECK ANY

THAT APPLY.)

120a. Store bought

120b. Home grown

120c. Neighbor or friend

120d. Other (Describe)

120e.__ Source totally unknown

121. On average, about how many servings of STORED locally grown

domestic bird meat did you eat per week during:

121a. Winter January - March

121b. Spring April - June

121c. Summer July - September

121d. Fall October-December

122. How was the bird meat prepared for storage?

123. In general, where was this bird meat obtained? (CHECK ANY

THAT APPLY.)

123a.___ Store bought

123b.___ Home grown

123c.___ Neighbor or friend

123d.___ Other (Describe) ___________________________

123e. Source totally unknown

124. Did you eat any locally hunted wild waterfowl or game bird

meat during these years?

YES 1. NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW"; GO TO (1964-66) ON PAGE 31

125. An average, about how many servings of FRESH locally hunted

wild bird meat did you eat per week during:

eating?_______________________________________

125a. Winter January - March

125b. Spring April - June

125c. Summer July - September

125d. Fall October-December

126. How was the fresh bird meat generally prepared prior to

127. In general, where was this bird meat hunted?

August 15, 1994 30
128. On average, about how many servings of STORED locally hunted

wild bird meat did you eat per week during:

128a. Winter January - March

128b. Spring April - June

128c. Summer July - September

128d. Fall October-December

129. How was the bird meat prepared for storage?

130. In general, where was this bird meat hunted?

Now let’s talk about the years 1964 through 1966

131. Did you eat any locally grown domestic poultry meat during

these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO” OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO QUES. #138 ON PAGE 32

132. On average, about how many servings of FRESH locally grown

domestic bird meat did you eat per week during:

132a. Winter January - March

132b. Spring April - June

132c. Summer July - September

132d. Fall October-December

133. How was the fresh poultry meat generally prepared prior to

eating?____________________________________

134. In general, where was this poultry meat obtained? (CHECK

ANY THAT APPLY.)

134a. Store bought

134b. Home grown

134c. Neighbor or friend

134d. Other (Describe)

134e.__ Source totally unknown

135. On average, about how many servings of STORED locally grown

domestic bird meat did you eat per week during:

135a. _______ Winter

135b. _______ Spring

135c. _______ Summer

135d. Fall

January - March

April - June

July - September

October-December

August 15, 1994 31
136. How was the bird meat prepared for storage?

137. In general, where was this bird meat obtained? (CHECK ANY

THAT APPLY.)

137a.

137b.

137c.

137d.

137e.

Store bought

Home grown

Neighbor or friend

Other (Describe

Source Totally Unknown

138. Did you eat any locally hunted wild waterfowl or game bird

meat during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW":

CONSUMPTION" ON PAGE 33

139. On average, about how many servings of FRESH locally hunted

wild bird meat did you eat per week during:

139a. Winter January - March

139b. Spring April - June

139c. Summer July - September

139d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

140. How was the fresh bird meat generally prepared prior to

eating?____________________________________

141. In general, where was this bird meat hunted?

142. On average, about how many servings of STORED locally hunted

wild bird meat did you eat per week during:

142a. Winter January - March

142b. Spring April - June

142c. Summer July - September

142d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

143. How was the bird meat prepared for storage?

144. In general, where was this bird meat hunted?

August 15, 1994 32
SECTION X: FISH CONSUMPTION

Now I'd like to talk to you about fresh and stored fish that

may have eaten. Fresh fish would have been eaten soon after

being caught. Stored fish would have been dried, smoked,

canned, pickled or frozen before being eaten.

I am interested in salmon, steelhead, and eel that were

caught anywhere in either the Columbia River or Snake River

drainages. I am also interested in other varieties of fish

that were caught in the Columbia River downstream from

Hanford or in the souths of other rivers where they meet the

Columbia downstream from Hanford.

We are not interested in information regarding resident or

non-migratory fish caught in the Columbia River upstream

from Hanford.

PLEASE TURN TO PAGE _ OF THE INSTRUCTION BOOKLET.

A SERVING OF FISH IS FOUR OUNCES, ABOUT THE SIZE OF A REGULAR

HAMBURGER PATTY; OR, A 2 INCH BY 3 INCH FILET.

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Respondent's year of birth (MUST ENTER)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER 1947: GO TO (1964-66) on page 44

Let’s start with the years 1944 through 1947

145. Did you eat any fish during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW" : GO TO (1964-66) > ON PAGE 44

146. On average, about how many servings of FRESH salmon did you

eat per week during:

146a. Winter January - March

146b. Spring April - June

146c. Summer July - September

146d. ____ Fall October-December

147. How was the fresh salmon prepared prior to

eating?____________________________________

August 15, 1994 33
148. In general, where was this salmon obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

148a. section 1 = upriver from Ringold

148b. section 2 = Ringold

148c. section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

148d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

148e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

148f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

148g. section 7 = Arlington

148h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

148i. section 9 = Deschutes River

148j . section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

148k. section 11 = Klickitat River

1481. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

148m. section 13 = lower river

148n._ section 14 = Willapa Bay

148o. Other river

148p. Source totally unknown

149. On average, about how many servings of STORED salmon did you

eat per week during:

149a. Winter January - March

149b. Spring April - June

149c. Summer July - September

149d. ____ __ Fall October-December

150. How was the salmon prepared for storage?_

151. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP

151a. section 1 = upriver from Ringold

151b. section 2 = Ringold

151c. section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

151d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

151e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

151f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

151g.__ section 7 = Arlington

151h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

151i. section 9 = Deschutes River

151j. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

151k. section 11 = Klickitat River

1511. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

151m. section 13 = lower river

151n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

1510. Other river

151p.__ Source totally unknown

August 15, 1994 34
152. On average, about how many servings of FRESH steelhead did

you eat per week during:

152a. Winter January-March

152b. Spring April - June

152c. Summer July- September

152d. Fall October - December

153. How was the fresh steelhead prepared prior to eating?

154 In general, where was the steelhead obtained? (CHECK ANY

THAT APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP

154a. section 1 = upriver from Ringold

154b. section 2 = Ringold

154C. _section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

154d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

154e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

154f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

154g. section 7 = Arlington

154h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

154i. section 9 = Deschutes River

154j . section 10 = The Dalles/ Celilo

154k. _section 11 = Klickitat River

1541. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

154m. section 13 = Lower river

154n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

154o. other river

154p. __ Source totally unknown

155. On average, about how many servings of STORED steelhead did

you eat per week during:

155a. Winter January- March

155b. Spring April - June

155c. Summer July - September

155d. Fall October - December

156. How was the steelhead prepared for storage:

157. In general, where was the steelhead obtained? (CHECK ANY

THAT APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP

157a. section 1 = upriver from Ringold

157b. section 2 = Ringold

157c. section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

157d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

August 15, 1994 35
157e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

157f. _

157g.

__ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

__ section 7 = Arlington

157h.

157i.

157j.

157k.

__ section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

section 9 = Deschutes River

__ section 10 = The Dalles/ Celilo

section 11 = Klickitat River

1571. _ 

157m.

157n.

1570.

157p.

__ section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

__ section 13 = Lower river

__ section 14 = Willapa Bay

__ other river

__ Source totally unknown

158. On average, about how many servings of FRESH eel (lamprey)

did you eat per week during:

158a. Winter January - March

158b. Spring April - June

158c. Summer July - September

158d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

159. How was the fresh eel prepared prior to eating?

160. In general, where was this eel obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

160a. section 1 = upriver from Ringold

160b. section 2 = Ringold

160c. section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

160d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

160e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

160f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

160g. section 7 = Arlington

160h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

160i. section 9 = Deschutes River

160j. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

160k. section 11 = Klickitat River

1601. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

160m. section 13 = lower river

160n._ section 14 = Willapa Bay

1600. other river

160p. Source totally unknown

161. On average, about how many servings of STORED eel (lamprey)

did you eat per week during:

161a. _______ Winter

161b. _______ Spring

161c. Summer

161d. _______ Fall

January - March

April - June

July - September

October-December

August 15, 1994 36
162. How was the eel prepared for storage?

163. In general, where was this eel obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

163a. section 1 = upriver from Ringold

163b. section 2 = Ringold

163c. section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

163d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

163e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

163f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

163g. section 7 = Arlington

163h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

163i. section 9 = Deschutes River

163j . section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

163k. section 11 = Klickitat River

1631. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

163m. section 13 = lower river

163n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

1630. other river

163p. _ Source totally unknown

For the following types of fish eaten fro* 1944 through 1947, we

want to know about fish that were caught downstream from Hanford

in the Columbia River itself, or in the rivers flowing into it.

164. On average, about how many servings of FRESH bullhead,

catfish, suckers, whitefish, chiselmouth, chub, sturgeon,

minnows, and shiners did you eat per week during:

164a. Winter January - March

164b. Spring April - June

164c. Summer July - September

164d. Fall October-December

165. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?

166. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

from mouth at Columbia

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

166a. section 1 — Hanford Reservation above Ringold

166b. section 2 = Ringold

166c. section 3 Richland and mouth of Yakima River

166d. __ section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

166e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

166f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

166g. __ section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

August 15, 1994 37
166u. Source totally unknown

166h. _ __ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

166i. _ __ section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

166j. _ section 7 = Arlington

166k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

1661. _ __ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

166m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

166n. _ __ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

166o. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

166p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

166q. _ __ section 11 = Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

166r. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

166s. section 13 = Lower Columbia River

166t. section 14 = Willapa Bay

167. On average, about how many servings of STORED bullhead,

catfish, sucker, sturgeon, chiselmouth, chub, minnows,

shiners, and whitefish did you eat per week during:

167a. Winter January - March

167b. Spring April - June

167c. Summer July - September

167d. ____ Fall October-December

168. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?

169. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

169a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

169b. section 2 = Ringold

169c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

169d. _ __ section 3u= Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

169e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

169f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

169g. _ __ section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

169h. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla R.

169i. _ __ section 6u= Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

169j. _ __ section 7 = Arlington

169k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

1691. _ __ section 8u= John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

169m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

169n. _ _ section 9u= Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

August 15, 1994 38
169u. Source totally unknown

1690. section 10= The Dalles/Celilo

169p. section 11= Mouth of Klickitat River

169q. _ __ section llu= Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

169r. section 12= White Salmon/Cascade Locks

169S. section 13= Lower Columbia River

169t. __ section 14= Willapa Bay

170. On average, about how many servings of FRESH perch, crappie,

bluegill, punkinseed did you eat per week during:

170a. Winter January - March

170b. Spring April - June

170c. Summer July - September

170d. ____ __ Fall October-December

171. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?_

172. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY):

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

172a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

172b. section 2 = Ringold

172c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

172d. section 3U= Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

172e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

172f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

172g. section 5U= Snake of Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

172h. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

172i. section 6u= Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

172j. __ section 7 = Arlington

172k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

1721. section 8u= John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

172m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

172n. section 9U= Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

172o. section 10= The Dalles/Celilo

172p. section 11= Mouth of The Klickitat River

172q. section 11U= Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

172r. section 12= White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

172s. section 13= Lower Columbia River

172t. section 14= Willapa Bay

172U. Source totally unknown

August 15, 1994 39
173. On average, about how many servings of STORED perch,

crappie, bluegill, and punkinseed did you eat per week

during:

173a. Winter January - March

173b. Spring April - June

173c. Summer July - September

173d. ____ Fall October-December

174. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?

175. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

175u. Source totally unknown

175a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

175b. section 2 = Ringold

175c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

175d. section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

175e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

175f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

175g. section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

175h. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

175i. section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

175j. section 7 = Arlington

175k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

1751. section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

• Columbia

175m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

175n. section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

1750. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

175p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

175q. section llu= Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

175r. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

175s. section 13 = Lower Columbia River

175t. section 14 = Willapa Bay

176. On average, about how many servings of FRESH bass, trout,

and squawfish did you eat per week during:

176a. Winter January - March

176b. Spring April - June

176c. Summer July - September

176d. ____ Fall October-December

August 15, 1994 40
177. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?

178. In general, where was this fish obtained? CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY

USE STUDY AREA MAP

178a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

178b. section 2 = Ringold

178c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

178d. _ __ section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

178e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

178f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

178g. _ __ section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

178h. _ __ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

178i. _ __ section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

178j . section 7 = Arlington

178k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

1781. _ __ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

178m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

178n. _ __ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

1780. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

178p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

178q. _ __ section 11 = Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

178r. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

178s. section 13 = Lower Columbia River

178t. _ __ section 14 = Willapa Bay

178u. Source totally unknown

179. On average, about how many servings of STORED bass, trout/

and squawfish did you eat per week during:

179a. Winter January - March

179b. Spring April - June

179c. Summer July - September

179d. Fall October-December

180. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?_

August 15, 1994 41
181. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

181a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

181b. section 2 = Ringold

181c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

181d. _ __ section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

181e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

181f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

181g. _ section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

181h. _ __ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mpouth of Umatilla

River

181i. _ __ section 6u = Umatilla Riveer, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

181j. section 7 = Arlington

181k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

181l. _ __ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

181m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

181n. _ __ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

181o. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

181p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

181q. _ __ section l1 = Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

181r. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

181s. section 13 = Lower Columbia River

181t. section 14 = Willapa Bay

18lu. Source totally unknown

182. On average, about how many servings of FRESH shellfish or

crawfish did you eat per week during:

182a. Winter January - March

182b. Spring April - June

182c. Summer July - September

182d. Fall October-December

183. How was the fresh shellfish or crawfish prepared prior to

eating?___ __ ______________________________

184. In general, where was this shellfish or crawfish obtained?

(CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

Columbia

184a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

184b. section 2 = Ringold

184c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

184d. section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

August 15, 1994 42
184e.____ section4 = Kennewick Pasco

184f.____ section5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

184g. section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

184h. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

184i. section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

184 j .____ section7 = Arlington

184k.____ section8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John DayRiver

1841. section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

184m.____ section 9 = Mouth pf Deschutes River

184n. section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

184o.___ section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

184p.___ section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

184q. section llu= Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

184r.____ section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

184s.____ section 13 = Lower Columbia River

184t.____ section 14 = Willapa Bay

184u. Source totally unknown

185. On average, about how many servings of STORED shellfish or

crawfish did you eat per week during:

185a. Winter January - March

185b. Spring April - June

185c. Summer July - September

185d. ____ Fall October-December

186. How was the shellfish or crawfish prepared for storage?

187. In general, where was this shellfish or crawfish obtained?

(CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

Columbia

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

187a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

187b. section 2 = Ringold

187c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

187d. __ section 3U = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

187e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

187f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

187g. __ _ section 5U = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

187h. __ section 6 Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

187i. __ section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

August 15, 1994 43
187j. section 7 = Arlington

187k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

1871. _ __ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

187m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

187n. _ __ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

187o. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

187p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

187q. _ __ section 11 = Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

187r. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

187s. section 13 = Lower Columbia River

187t. section 14 = Willapa Bay

187U. Source totally unknown

Now let’s talk about the years 1964 through 1966:

Remember, for salmon, steelhead, and eel, ve are interested in

fish caught anywhere in the Snake or Columbia river drainage

systems.

188. Did you eat any fish during these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

IF "NO" OR "DON'T KNOW": GO TO SECTION XI, "COLUMBIA RIVER

WATER EXPOSURE" ON PAGE 55

189. On average, about how many servings of FRESH salmon did you

eat per week during:

January - March

April - June

July - September

October-December

189a. Winter

189b. Spring

189c. Summer

189d. ____Fall

190. How was the fresh

eating?

salmon prepared prior to

191. In general, where was this salmon obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

191a. section 1 = upriver from Ringold

191b. section 2 = Ringold

191c. section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

191d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

191e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

191f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

August 15, 1994 44
191g. section 7 = Arlington

191h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

191i. section 9 = Deschutes River

191j . section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

191k. section 11 = Klickitat River

1911. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

191m. section 13 = lower river

191n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

1910. Other river

191p. Source totally unknown

192. On average, about how many servings of STORED salmon did you

eat per week during:

192a. Winter January - March

192b. Spring April - June

192c. Summer July - September

192d. ____ __ Fall October--December

193. How was the salmon prepared for storage?_

194. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

194a. section 1 = upriver from Ringold

194b. section 2 = Ringold

194c. section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

194d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

194e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

194f._ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

194g. section 7 = Arlington

194h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

194i. section 9 = Deschutes River

194 j. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

194k. section 11 = Klickitat River

1941. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

194m. section 13 = lower river

194n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

194o. Other river

194p.__ Source totally unknown

195. On average, about how many servings of FRESH steelhead did

you eat per week during:

195a. Winter January-March

195b. Spring April - June

195c. Summer July- September

195d. ____ __ Fall October - December

196. How was the fresh steelhead prepared prior to eating?

August 15, 1994 45
197. In general, where was the steelhead obtained? (CHECK ANY

THAT APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

197a. __ section 1 = upriver from Ringold

197b. _section 2 = Ringold

197c. section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

197d. __ section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

197e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

197f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

197g. section 7 = Arlington

197h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

197i. section 9 = Deschutes River

197j. section 10 = The Dalles/ Celilo

197k. section 11 = Klickitat River

1971. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

197m. section 13 = Lower river

197n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

197o. other river

197p. _ __ Source totally unknown

198. On average, about how many servings of STORED steelhead did

you eat per week during:

198a. Winter January- March

198b. Spring April - June

198c. Summer July - September

198d. ___ ____ Fall October - December

199. How was the steelhead prepared for storage:

200. In general, where was the steelhead obtained? (CHECK ANY

THAT APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

200a. section 1 = upriver from Ringold

200b. _section 2 = Ringold

200c. section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

200d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

200e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

200f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

200g. _ section 7 = Arlington

200h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

200i. section 9 = Deschutes River

200j. section 10 = The Dalles/ Celilo

200k section 11 = Klickitat River

2001. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

200m section 13 = Lower river

200n section 14 = Willapa Bay

200o. other river

200p. __ Source totally unknown

August 15, 1994 46
201. On average, about how many servings of FRESH eel (lamprey)

did you eat per week during:

201a

201b

201C

201d

. _______ Winter January - March

. _______ Spring April - June

. _______ summer July - September

. _______ Fall October-December

202. How was the fresh eel prepared prior to eating?_________ _

203. In general, where was this eel obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

203a.___ section 1 = upriver from Ringold

203b.___ section 2 = Ringold

203c.___ section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

203d.___ section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

203e.___ section 5 = Snake and WallaWalla rivers

203f.___ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

203g.___ section 7 = Arlington

203h.___ section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

203i.___ section 9 = Deschutes River

203j.___ section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

203k.___ section 11 = Klickitat River

2031.___ section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

203m.___ section 13 = lower river

203n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

203o. other river

203p..___ Source totally unknown

204. On average, about how many servings of STORED eel (lamprey)

did you eat per week during:

204a.

204b.

204C.

204d.

. _______ Winter January - March

. _______ Spring April - June

. _______ Summer July - September

. _______ Fall October-December

205. How was the eel prepared for storage?_________________

206. In general, where was this eel obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

206a. ___ section 1 = upriver from Ringold

206b. ___ section 2 = Ringold

206c. ___ section 3 = Richland and Yakima River

206d. ___ section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

206e. section 5 = Snake and Walla Walla rivers

August 15, 1994 47
206f. 206g.

206h.

206i.

206j . 206k.

2061.

206m.

206n.

2060.

206p.

___ section 6= Umatilla/Boardman and Umatilla River

___ section 7= Arlington

section 8 = John Day/Biggs and John Day River

___ section 9= Deschutes River

section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

___ section 11 = Klickitat River

___ section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

section 13 = lower river

___ section 14 = Willapa Bay

___ other river

___ Source totally unknown

How, for the following types of fish eaten from 1964 through

1966, we want to know about fish that were caught downstream from

Hanford in the Columbia River itself, or in the rivers flowing

into it.

207. Did you eat any fresh bullhead, catfish, suckers, whitefish,

chiselmouth, chub, sturgeon, minnows, and shiners during

these years?

YES 1 NO 2 DON'T KNOW 9

208. On average, about how many servings of FRESH bullhead,

catfish, suckers, whitefish, chiselmouth, chub, sturgeon,

minnows, and shiners did you eat per week during:

208a. Winter January - March

208b. Spring April - June

208c. Summer July - September

208d. Fall October-December

209. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?

210. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

210a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

210b. section 2 = Ringold

210c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

210d. section 3U = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

210e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

210f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

210g. section 5U = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

210h. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

210i. section 6U = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

210j. section 7 = Arlington

210k. __ section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day Rivere

August 15, 1994 48
2101. _ __ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

210m. _

210n.

__ section 9 =

section 9u =

Mouth of Deschutes River

Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

210o. _

210p.

210q.

__ section 10 =

__ section 11 =

section llu=

Columbia

The Dalles/Celilo

Mouth of Klickitat River

Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

210r. _ 

210s.

210t. _

210u. _

Columbia

__ section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

_ section 13 = Lower Columbia River

_ section 14 = Willapa Bay

Source totally unknown

211. On average, about how many servings of STORED bullhead,

catfish, sucker, sturgeon, chiselmouth, chub, minnows,

shiners, and whitefish did you eat per week during:

211a. Winter January - March

211b. Spring April - June

211c. Summer July - September

211d. ____ Fall October-December

212. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?

213. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

213a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

213b. ___ section 2 = Ringold

213c. section 3 = Richland and mouth Yakima River

213d. _ __ section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

213e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

213f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

213g. _ __ section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

213h. _ __ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

213i. _ __ section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

213j. _ __ section 7 = Arlington

213k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

2131. _ __ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mousth at

Columbia

213m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

213n. _ _ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

2130. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

213p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

213q. _ _ section llu= Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

213r. _ section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

August 15, 1994 49
213s. ___ section 13 = Lower Columbia River

213t. ___ section 14 = Willapa Bay

213U.. ___ Source totally unknown

214. On average, about how many servings of FRESH perch, crappie,

bluegill, punkinseed did you eat per week during:

214a,

214b

214c,

214d,

. _______ Winter January - March

. _______ Spring April - June

. _______ Summer July - September

. _______ Fall October-December

215. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?________

216. In general, where was this fish obtained? CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY:

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

216a. ___ section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

216b. ___ section 2 = Ringold

216c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

216d. ___ section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

217b. _______ Spring April - June

217c. _______ Summer July - September

217d. Fall October-December

Columbia

216e.

216f. 216g.

. ___ section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

, ___ section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

, ___ section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

216h., ___ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardmna, mouth of Umatilla

River

216i.. ___ section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

216j . 216k.

2161.

, ___ section 7 = Arlington

, ___ section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mousth of John Day River

. ___ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

216m.

216n.

. ___ section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

, ___ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

2160.

216p.

216q.

___ section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

___ section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

___ section llu= Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

216r.

216s.

216t.

216U.

___ section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

___ section 13 = Lower Columbia River

___ section 14 = Willapa Bay

___ Source totally unknown

217. On average, about how many servings of STORED perch,

crappie, bluegill, and punkinseed did you eat per week

during:

217a. ___ Winter January - March

August 15, 1994 50
218. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?

219. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY.)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

219a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

219b. section 2 = Ringold

219c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

219d. _ __ section 3U — Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

219e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

219f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

219g. _ __ section 5U Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

219h. _ section 6 Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

219i. _ __ section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

219j. section 7 = Arlington

219k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

2191. _ __ section 8U John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

219m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

219n. _ _ section 9U Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

2190. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

219p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

219q. _ _ section lit1= Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

219r. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

219s. section 13 = Lower Columbia River

219t. section 14 = Willapa Bay

219u. Source totally unknown

220. On average, about how many servings of FRESH bass, trout,

and squawfish did you eat per week during:

222.

220a. Winter January - March

220b. Spring April - June

220c. Summer July - September

220d. ____ __ Fall October-December

221. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?_

In general, where was this fish obtained? CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

222a.

222b.

222c.

section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

section 2 = Ringold

section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

August 15, 1994 51
222d. _ __ section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

222e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

222f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla WAlla Rivers

222g. _ __ section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

222h. _ __ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

222i. _ __ section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

222 j . section 7 = Arlington

222k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

2221. _ __ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

222m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

222n. _ __ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

2220. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

222p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

222q. _ _ section llu= Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

222r. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

222s. section 13 = Lower Columbia River

222t. section 14 = Willapa Bay

222U. _ Source totally unknown

223. On average, about how many servings of STORED bass, trout,

and squawfish did you eat per week during:

223a. Winter January - March

223b. Spring April - June

223c. Summer July - September

223d. _______ Fall October-December

224. How was this fresh fish prepared prior to eating?

225. In general, where was this fish obtained? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

225a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

225b. section 2 = Ringold

225c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

225d. section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

225e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

225f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

225g. section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

225h. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

225i. section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

225j. __ section 7 = Arlington

August 15, 1994 52
225k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

2251. _ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

225m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

225n. _ __ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

2250. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

225p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

225q. _ __ section 11 = Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

225r. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

225s. section 13 = Lower Columbia River

225t. section 14 = Willapa Bay

225U. _ _ Source totally unknown

226. On average, about how many servings of FRESH shellfish or

crawfish did you eat per week during:

226a. Winter January - March

226b. Spring April - June

226c. Summer July - September

226d. ____ Fall October-December

227. How was the fresh shellfish or crawfish prepared prior to

eating?_______________ ____________________

228. In general, where was this shellfish or crawfish obtained?

(CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

228a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

228b._ section 2 = Ringold

228c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

228d.___ section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

228e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

228f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

228g.___ section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

228h.__ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

228i.___ section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

228j._ section 7 = Arlington

228k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

2281.___ section 8u = John Day River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

228m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

228n.___ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

2280. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

228p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

228q.__ section l1= Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

August 15, 1994 53
228r.___ section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

228s.___ section 13 = Lower Columbia River

228t.___ section 145 = Willapa Bay

228u. Source totally unknown

229. On average, about how many servings of STORED shellfish or

crawfish did you eat per week during:

229a. Winter January - March

229b. Spring April - June

229C. Summer July - September

229d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

230. How was the shellfish or crawfish prepared for storage?

231. In general, where was this shellfish or crawfish obtained?

(CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

231u. Source totally unknown

231a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

231b. section 2 = Ringold

231c. section 3 = Richland and mouth of Yakima River

231d. _ __ section 3u = Yakima River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

231e. section 4 = Kennewick Pasco

231f. section 5 = Mouths of Snake/Walla Walla Rivers

231g. _ __ section 5u = Snake or Walla Walla Rivers, upstream

from mouth at Columbia

231h. _ __ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman, mouth of Umatilla

River

231i. _ __ section 6u = Umatilla River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

231j. _ section 7 = Arlington

231k. section 8 = John Day/Biggs, mouth of John Day River

2311. _ __ section 8u = John Day River, upsstream from mouth at

Columbia

231m. section 9 = Mouth of Deschutes River

231n. _ __ section 9u = Deschutes River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

2310. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

231p. section 11 = Mouth of Klickitat River

231q. _ _ section 11 = Klickitat River, upstream from mouth at

Columbia

231r. section 12 = White Salmon/ Cascade Locks

231s. section 13 = Lower Columbia River

231t. _ section 14 = Willapa Bay

August 15, 1994 54
SECTION XI: COLUMBIA RIVER WATER EXPOSURE

I would like to ask you about your use of water from the

Columbia River from Hanford to the mouth of the river at the

Pacific Ocean. This would include drinking water, bathing,

recreation, and work.

Please turn to page __ of the Instruction Booklet.

DATA ENTRY NOTE: Respondent's year of birth (MUST ENTER)

IF RESPONDENT WAS BORN AFTER 1947: GO TO.(1964-66) ON PAGE 57

HAVE AVAILABLE AN 8 OUNCE CUP FOR DEMONSTRATION.

Let’s begin with the years 1944 through 1947.

232. On average, about how many 8 ounce cups of untreated

Columbia River water did you drink per week during:

232a. Winter January - March

232b. Spring April - June

232c. Summer July - September

232d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

233. Where along the Columbia River did you get this water?

(CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

233a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

233b. section 2 = Ringold

233c. section 3 = Richland

233d. __ section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

233e. section 5 = Mouth of Snake to Walla Walla River

233f. __ section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman

233g. section 7 = Arlington

233h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs

233i. section 9 = Deschutes River

233j. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

233k. section 11 = Klickitat River

2331. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

233m. section 13 = lower river

233n. _

2330.

_ section 14 = Willapa Bay

unknown

August 15, 1994 55
234. On average, about how many 8 ounce cups of treated municipal

water did you drink per week during:

234a. Winter January - March

234b. _ Spring April - June

234c. Summer July - September

234d. ____ Fall October-December

235. On average, about how many hours did you bathe or swim in

the Columbia River per week during:

235a. Winter January - March

235b. Spring April - June

235c. Summer July - September

235d. ____ Fall October-December

236. Where along the river did this bathing and swimming take

place? (CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

236a.

236b.

__ section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

section 2 = Ringold

236c. section 3 = Richland

236d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

236e. section 5 = Mouth of Snake to Walla Walla River

236f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman

236g. section 7 = Arlington

236h. _ section 8 = John Day/Biggs

236i. section 9 = Deschutes River

236j. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

236k. section 11 = Klickitat River

2361. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

236m. section 13 = lower river

236n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

2360. _ unknown

237. On average, about how many hours did you spend boating,

canoeing, setting fish nets on the river per week during:

237a. Winter January - March

237b. Spring April - June

237c. Summer July - September

237d. ____ Fall October-December

238. Where on the river did this take place? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY)

USE STUDY AREA MAP:

238a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

238b. section 2 = Ringold

238c. section 3 = Richland

238d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

238e. section 5 = Mouth of Snake to Walla Walla River

238f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman

August 15, 1994 56
238g. section 7 = Arlington

238h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs

238i. section 9 = Deschutes River

238j . section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

238k. section 11 = Klickitat River

2381. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

238m. section 13 = lower river

238n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

2380. unknown

Lets talk about the years 1964 through 1966

Let's talk about your use of water during the years 1964 through

1966. Remember, we are interested only in exposure to the

Columbia River from Hanford downstream to the the mouth of the

river.

239. On average, about how many 8 ounce cups of untreated

Columbia River water did you drink per week during:

239a. Winter January - March

239b. Spring April - June

239c. Summer July - September

239d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

240. Where along the Columbia River did you get this water?

(CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

USE THE STUDY AREA MAP:

240a.

240b. _

240c.

__ section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

__ section 2 = Ringold

section 3 = Richland

240d. __ section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

240e. section 5 = Mouth of Snake to Walla Walla River

240f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman

240g. section 7 = Arlington

240h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs

240i. section 9 = Deschutes River

240j . section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

240k. section 11 = Klickitat River

2401. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

240m. section 13 = lower river

240n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

240o. unknown

241. On average, about how many 8 ounce cups of treated municipal

water did you drink per week during:

241a. Winter January - March

241b. Spring April - June

241c. Summer July - September

241d. ____ Fall October-December

August 15, 1994 57
242. On average, about how many hours did you bathe or swim in

the Columbia River per week during:

242a. Winter January - March

242b. Spring April - June

242c. Summer July - September

242d. ___ ____ Fall October-December

243. Where along the river did this bathing and swimming take

place? (CHECK ANY THAT APPLY)

USE THE STUDY AREA MAP:

243a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

243b. section 2 = Ringold

243c. section 3 = Richland

243d. ___ section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

243e. section 5 = Mouth of Snake to Walla Walla River

243f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman

243g. section 7 = Arlington

243h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs

243i. section 9 = Deschutes River

243j. section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

243k. section 11 = Klickitat River

2431. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

243m. section 13 = lower river

243n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

243o. unknown

244. On average, about how many hours did you spend boating,

canoeing, setting fish nets on the river per week during

244a. Winter January - March

244b. _______ Spring April - June

244c. _______ Summer July - September

244d. _______ Fall October-December

245. Where on the river did this take place? (CHECK ANY THAT

APPLY)

USE THE STUDY AREA MAP:

245a. section 1 = Hanford Reservation above Ringold

245b. section 2 = Ringold

245c. section 3 = Richland

245d. section 4 = Kennewick/Pasco

245e. section 5 = Mouth of Snake to Walla Walla River

245f. section 6 = Umatilla/Boardman

245g. section 7 = Arlington

245h. section 8 = John Day/Biggs

245i. section 9 = Deschutes River

245j . section 10 = The Dalles/Celilo

245k. section 11 = Klickitat River

2451. section 12 = White Salmon/Cascade Locks

245m. section 13 = lower river

245n. section 14 = Willapa Bay

2450. unknown

August 15, 1994 58
SECTION XII RESPONDENT'S BELIEFS/KNOWLEDGE

AND INTERVIEWER ASSESSMENT OF INTERVIEW

In this section, I an interested in learning what you

believe about the Hanford Nuclear facility.

246. Please tell me what health problems you believe may be

caused by radiation released from Hanford?

DO NOT READ THIS LIST TO RESPONDENT.

RESPONDENT MAY MENTION.

JUST CHECK ANY THAT THE

246a. ___ Underactive thyroid

246b. ___ Overactive thyroid

246c. ___ Thyroid cancer

246d. ___ Goiter

246e. ___ Leukemia

246f. ___ Breast cancer

246g. ___ Lung cancer

246h. ___ Colon cancer

246i. Skin diseases, other than cancer

246j. ___ Other cancers (________

246k. ___ Miscarriage

2461. ___ Infertility

246m. ___ Birth defects ( _______

246n. ___ Multiple Sclerosis (MS)

246o. ___ Immune system diseases

246p. ___ Allergies

246q. ___ Mental retardation

246r. Genetic defects passed on to offspring

246s. ___ Other (______________

247.

246t.

How knowledgeable

Did not know

do you feel you

—

are about radiation

released from Hanford?

(FILL IN CODE NUMBER)

1

2

3

4

5

6

= Very

= Somewhat

= Average

= Not very

= Not knowledgeable

= Don't know

IF QUESTION #247 = 5 OR 6, ASK QUESTION #248, OTHERWISE SKIP TO

1CONCLUSION OF INTERVIEW.

August 15, 1994 59
248. Why do you believe the respondent was not very knowledgeable

about radiation released from Hanford? (Check all that

apply)

248a. ___ Not interested

248b. ___ Interested, but didn't try to get information

248c. ___ Information not available

248d. ___ Tried to get information, but was refused

248e. ___ Other reason (_____________________________

248f. No reason

This concludes the interview. Thank you very much for

taking the time to provide this very important

information for the Hanford study.

August 15, 1994 60
SUMMARY:

This last section refers to the interviewer's overall

assessment of the interview just concluded .

This section is to be completed by the interviewer only

after completion of the interview. It should be completed as

soon as possible after the interview. None of the

information should be solicited from the respondent.

249.

250.

251.

252.

253.

What was the quality of this subject's responses? (indicate

one only)

_____ (FILL IN CODE NUMBER)

1 = High Quality (SKIP TO QUESTION 251)

2 = Generally Reliable (SKIP TO QUESTION 251)

3 = Questionable

4 = Unreliable

What is the main reason for the unreliable or questionable

quality of this interview? (indicate one only)

____ (FILL IN CODE NUMBER)

1 = Unclear memory of events

2 = Uncertain understanding of questions

3 = Hurried responses

4 = Other, specify

How often was explanation of the text repeated? (indicate

one)

(FILL IN CODE NUMBER)

1 = not often

2 = often

3 = very often

4 = Not applicable

COMPLETION TIME: :A.M. / P.M.

Interviewer________________Signature

August 15, 1994 61
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

 BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
APPENDIX I

NATIVE AMERICAN LIFESTYLE and DEMOGRAPHY

DATA COLLECTION / VOLUMES 1 and 2

I -243
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
BSRC-700/95/004

Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

Native American Lifestyle and Demography Data Collection

Technical Document For The NALD 2.0 Database

Preparedfor:

U.S. Public Health Service

Centers For Disease Control

National Center For Environmental Health

Radiation Studies Branch

Prepared by:

Marcus Lester

Edward Liebow

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

Contract No. 200-92-0534

May, 1995
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
BSRC-700/95/004V1

Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

Native American Lifestyle and Demography Data Collection

Technical Document For The NALD 2.0 Database

Volume 1: User’s Guide

Preparedfor:

U.S. Public Health Service

Centers For Disease Control

National Center For Environmental Health

Radiation Studies Branch

Prepared by:

Marcus Lester

Edward Liebow

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

Contract No. 200-92-0534

May, 1995
 ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Table Of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS.............................................................................................................i

INTRODUCTION.................................................................................... 1

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS....................................................................................................... 1

SETTING UP YOUR NEW NALD 2.0 DATABASE................................................ 2

RUNNING THE NALD 2.0 DATABASE........................................................................................ 2

CUSTOMIZING NALD 2.0 FOR YOUR TRIBE...............................................................................4

IMPORTING DATA FROM EPI-INFO.......................................... 4

Export EPI-Info records................................................ 4

Import records into NALD 2.0..........................................................................................5

ENTERING AND CHECKING DATA WITH INPUT FORMS..............................................................5

Entering Data........................................... 5

Changing Records..........................................................................................................6

Changing Forms.............................................................................................................6

Checking and Editing Data................................................. 6

Deleting a Record......................................................................................................... 6

SELECTING DATA AND PRINTING REPORTS.................................. 6

THE STRUCTURE OF NALD 2.0................................................................................................ 7

Tables.........................................................................................................................7

Queries........................................................................................................................ 8

Reports............... ........................................................................................................9

Input Forms................................................................................................................. 10

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide i

(Printed: 5/24/95)
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Introduction

The Native American lifestyle and demography data collection for the Hanford Environmental

Dose Reconstruction Project (HEDR) has generated some very large data sets. The affected

Tribes have done hundreds of interviews, and each interview has about 1,300 items of data to be

analyzed. In cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and the members of the Intertribal

Council on Hanford Health Projects, Battelle Seattle Research Center has developed the Native

American Lifestyle and Demography (NALD 2.0) database system to aid the Tribes in managing,

analyzing, and reporting the large data sets.

NALD 2.0 takes advantage of the Microsoft Access (2.0) database management software for

analysis and reporting. The database contains all the procedures necessary to import data from

an existing EPI-Info database, to enter new data from interview forms, to check and edit data at

any time, to select the data for reporting, and to print reports. All of these procedures may be run

from a simple menu, and the person doing the work needs only a brief familiarity with Microsoft

Access to get started.

The following instructions will show the user how to:

♦ Set up your new Access database on your computer,

• Import data that you may have already entered in EPI-Info,

• Input new data and check all data,

• Select the data for reporting,

• Print reports.

System Requirements

NALD is a Microsoft Access database that is designed to run on a PC compatible

microcomputer. You will need the following equipment and software installed on your computer

to run NALD:

• Color monitor;

• 3.5 inch floppy disk drive;

• Hard disk drive with about five megabytes (5 MB) of available space;

• Mouse;

• 12 megabytes of memory (This is the minimum recommended. More is better.);

• Microsoft Windows (version 3.1) operating system;

• Microsoft Access (version 2.0);

• Installed type fonts - Arial and Times New Roman.

If you are not sure if your computer meets these requirements, see your system administrator for

help. Please note that NALD will not run under the old version (1.0) of Microsoft Access.

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide 1

(Printed: 5/24/95)
Setting Up Your New NALD 2.0 Database

The structure for the NALD 2.0 database and all functions for data import, data entry, queries,

and reports have been built into a template database. This is an empty database that is supplied

on a floppy disk as the files naldtmpl.mdb and naldtmpl.ldb.

• Make sure that you have Microsoft Access version 2.0 installed on your computer. NALD

2.0 will not run with earlier versions of Microsoft Access.

• Start Microsoft Windows.

• Use File Manager to create a working directory for your new NALD 2.0 database.

• Write-protect the disk with the template database files, and insert it into your computer.

(Keep this locked disk as an ultimate backup.)

• Copy the naldtmpl.mdb and naldtmpl.ldb files to the working directory on your

hard disk.

• Rename the template database files (on your hard disk) with a new name (foodl.mdb, for

example).

Now you’re ready to go to work.

Running The NALD 2.0 Database

To run NALD 2.0, start

MSWindows and click on the

MSAccess icon. When Access

is running, select Open from

the File menu or click on the

open folder icon on the

toolbar. Use the Open menu

to select your database (e.g.,

foodl.mdb). The program

will start and you will see the

Main Menu (Figure 1.). Use

this window to run all the

automated functions of NALD

2.0. You may also click on the

button “Close this window” to

use all the other functions

available in Microsoft Access. Figure 1. Main Menu

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide 2

(Printed: 5/24/95)
Running the Native American Lifestyle and Demography Database

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide 3

(Printed: 5/24/95)
Customizing NALD 2.0 For Your Tribe

NALD 2.0 will automatically print reports of all your data, and each report will show the Tribe’s

name that is entered in the General Info table. To enter your Tribe’s name, click on the button

labeled “Enter Tribe Name.” This will bring up a form (Figure 2) where you can enter the

correct name to be shown on all reports.

Figure 2. Enter your Tribe’s name.

Importing Data From EPI-Info

If you have already entered some of your data in EPI-Info, it is a simple matter to get them into

NALD 2.0. First, use EPI-Info to export the data in “Fixed Field” format, then NALD 2.0 will

automatically import all the data when you click on the button “Import Records From EPI-Info.”

The NALD 2.0 database contains import specifications for the HEDR data. These specifications

match the data as they are exported by EPI-Info with the “Fixed Field” option, and they let

NALD 2.0 know what the data look like so that they are imported correctly.

This process destroys any data that you may have in your database, so

import EPI-Info records before you enter any data from questionnaires.

When you convert your files,

use Option 12: Fixed Field.

Export EPI-Info records.

First, export your EPI-Info data. Use EPI-Info to CONVERT

each record file using the “Fixed Field” option. This will

produce files with the suffix . car. These are the raw files that will be imported by the Access

database. The additional files (.dir) are not needed for further processing, because this

information has already been brought into Access, but you may wish to keep them with the . car

filesfor reference. Copy all the . car files that you have produced to the subdirectory on your

hard disk where you have installed your NALD 2.0 database (foodl .mdb).

It is important that the export files are in the same directory as your NALD

2.0 database, because this is where NALD will look for them.

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide 4

(Printed: 5/24/95)
Import records into NALD 2.0.

At this point you should have in your working directory the new, empty Access database and the

five . car files with your EPI-Info data. Now you’re ready to run Access and import your data

from the export (. car) files. Start NALD 2.0 as before, and on the Main Menu, click on the

“Import Records From EPI-Info” button.

NALD 2.0 automatically imports all records from the . car files that you produced. If Access

encounters any errors, it will inform you with a message window, and the errors will be recorded

in a table. Later, you can open this table to check on the errors found. Ifthere are only a few

errors, correct them with the input forms, described below. Ifthere are many errors, correct them

with EPI-Info, and rerun the Export process, described above, to get a clean set of data to import.

Entering and Checking Data with Input Forms

NALD 2.0 has input forms for all the data in the questionnaire. Use these forms to look at your

data, to make any corrections or additions, and to add new records. Click on the “Open Input

Forms” button to view the first form.

Entering Data.

There are three ways to enter data on the input forms (Figure 3):

• Select a value from a pull-down list,

• Click on a check-box (Yes/No answers).

• Type the information into a box on the form,

To use the pull-down list, click once on the arrow button at the side

of the list. The list will open, and you can select any of the items in

the list by clicking on it.

Figure 3. Data Input

When you click on a check-box, an X fills the box. This means YES. If you want to change it,

just click on it again, and it will turn off (NO).

Type your data into any box. When you have finished entering the data, press Enter, and NALD

2.0 will automatically move to the next data element in the order that it appears on the

questionnaire. You may also press the Tab key to skip to the next data item. If you want to skip

over many, then use the mouse to move the cursor to the item you want, and click once with the

left mouse button.

When you press return for the last data item on a form, the entire record is saved, and the focus

moves to the first item of the next record.

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide 5 ,

(Printed: 5/24/95)
Changing Records.

Use the record selectors, located in the lower left-hand

corner of the form to move from one record to the

next. The left button will move you to the first record, the next button (left pointing triangle) will

move you to the previous record, the next button (right pointing triangle) will move you to the

next record, and the right button will move you to the last record. To add a new record, move to

the last record (right button), then click once on the next-record button.

Changing Forms.

Use the buttons at the top of each form to move from one form to

another. Move the cursor to the button you want and click with the left mouse button. When you

are finished, click on the Close button, and you will return to the Main Menu.

Checking and Editing Data.

Use the input forms to view your data one record

at a time. You can select the record you want

with the record selector buttons, and then change

any item. When you go to the next record or

close the form, your changes will automatically be

saved.

Hint: Everybody makes mistakes. It is a very

good idea to make a backup, to recover past work

without redoing everything.

Before you start to edit your data, quit

NALD 2.0 and make a copy of your database. For

example, if your files are called foodi.Idb and

foodi.mdb, then copy these files to foods.ldb

and foods.mdb. Now start NALD 2.0 again and

edit food2. This way you can go back to foodl any

time.

Deleting A Record.

It is easy to delete an entire record. Use the Record Selector to display the record that you want

to delete. Click once on Edit on the Menu Bar to open the Edit Menu, and choose Select

Record. To delete this selected record, press the Delete button on your keyboard or select

Delete from the Edit Menu.

Selecting Data and Printing Reports

Not all data from the questionnaires are used for the final reports. To select the data for reporting

click on the Main Menu button marked “Select the Data for Reporting.” NALD 2.0 will

automatically select and sort the data. To print the reports, click on the button marked “Print All

Reports.”

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide 6

(Printed: 5/24/95)
The Structure of NALD 2.0

While NALD 2.0 will perform all its operations automatically, these operations are not hidden

from the users. They may be looked over and modified by anyone who can operate Microsoft

Access. The data are contained in tables, they are selected and sorted with queries, and they are

output withreports. The following three lists show all the tables, queries, and reports that are

supplied with the NALD 2.0 database naldtmpl.

For a complete listing of all elements of the NALD 2.0 database, please refer to the Technical

Reference Manual.

Tables

This is a list of the predefined tables that NALD 2.0 uses:

Questionnaire

Table Section Questions Description

T01 1 1 to 7 Interview information

T02 2 8 to 24 Residence

T03 3 25 to 52 Milk

T04 4,5,6 53 to 82 Vegetables, fruit

T05 7,8 83 to 116 Eggs, meat

T06 9 117 to 144 Fowl

T07 10 145 to 157 Salmon, steelhead, etc. (44-47)

T08 10 158 to 169 Eel, bullhead, etc. (44-47)

T09 10 170 to 181 Perch, bass, etc. (44-47)

T10 10 182 to 187 Shellfish (44-47)

Til 10 188 to 200 Salmon, steelhead, etc. (64-66)

T12 10 201 to 213 Eel, bullhead, etc. (64-66)

T13 10 214 to 225 Perch, bass, etc. (64-66)

T14 10 226 to 231 Shellfish (64-66)

T15 11 232 to 245 Water, bathing

T16 12 246 to 252 Beliefs, summary

General Info Tribe name

Milk_45 Compiled Milk data (44-47)

Milk_65 Compiled Milk data (64-66)

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide 7

(Printed: 5/2495)
Queries

The following are the queries that NALD 2.0 uses to select the data for reporting. Note that

NALD 2.0 produces sixteen additional tables (“VegMeat” and “Fish”). The underlined names

are the tables and queries from which the reports are taken.

Note - this is the sequence of operations that is performed when you select the Main Menu button

labeled “Select the Data for Reporting.”

Query Action From To Table

Milk: Commercial in ‘45 Append T03 Milk 45

Milk: Family Cow in ‘45 Append T03 Milk 45

Milk: Commercial in ‘65 Append T03 Milk 65

Milk: Family Cow in ‘65 Append T03 Milk 65

VegMeat 45 age under 5 Select T04-T06 VegMeat 45 - under 5

VegMeat 45 age 5 to 14 Select T04-T06 VegMeat 45 - 5 to 14

VegMeat 45 female over 15 Select T04-T06 VegMeat 45 - fem 15+

VegMeat 45 male over 15 Select T04-T06 VegMeat 45 - male 15+

VegMeat 65 age under 5 Select T04-T06 VegMeat 65 - under 5

VegMeat 65 age 5 to 14 Select T04-T06 VegMeat 65 - 5 to 14

VegMeat 65 female over 15 Select T04-T06 VegMeat 65 - fem 15+

VegMeat 65 male over 15 Select T04-T06 VegMeat 65 - male 15+

Fish 45 age under 5 Select T07 - T10 Fish 45 - under 5

Fish 45 age 5 to 14 Select T07-T10 Fish 45 - 5 to 14

Fish 45 female over 15 Select T07-T10 Fish 45 - fem 15+

Fish 45 male over 15 Select T07 - T10 Fish 45 - male 15+

Fish 65 age under 5 Select T11 -T14 Fish 65 - under 5

Fish 65 age 5 to 14 Select T11 -T14 Fish 65 - 5 to 14

Fish 65 female over 15 Select T11-T14 Fish 65 - fem 15+

Fish 65 male over 15 Select T11 -T14 Fish 65 - male 15+

Milk 45 age under 5 Select Milk_45

Milk 45 age 5 to 14 Select Milk_45

Milk 45 female over 15 Select Milk_45

Milk 45 male over 15 Select Milk_45

Milk 65 age under 5 Select Milk_65

Milk 65 age 5 to 14 Select Milk_65

Milk 65 female over 15 Select Milk_65

Milk 65 male over 15 Select Milk_65

NALD ZO Volume 1: User's Guide 8

(Printed: 5/24/95)
Reports

These are the reports that are printed by NALD 2.0:

Report Year Age Sex

REP Milk 45 - under 5 1945 <5 Both

REP Veg 45 - under 5 1945 <5 Both

REP Meat 45 - under 5 1945 <5 Both

REP Fish 45 - under 5 1945 <5 Both

REP Milk 45 - 5 to 14 1945 5-14 Both

REP Veg 45 - 5 to 14 1945 5-14 Both

REP Meat 45 - 5 to 14 1945 5-14 Both

REP Fish 45 - 5 to 14 1945 5-14 Both

REP Milk 45 - fem 15+ 1945 15+ Female

REP Veg 45 - fem 15+ 1945 15+ Female

REP Meat 45 - fem 15+ 1945 15+ Female

REP Fish 45 - fem 15+ 1945 15+ Female

REP Milk 45 - male 15+ 1945 15+ Male

REP Veg 45 - male 15+ 1945 15+ Male

REP Meat 45 - male 15+ 1945 15+ Male

REP Fish 45 - male 15+ 1945 15+ Male

REP Milk 65 - under 5 1965 <5 Both

REP Veg 65-under 5 1965 <5 Both

REP Meat 65 - under 5 1965 <5 Both

REP Fish 65 - under 5 1965 <5 Both

REP Milk 65 - 5 to 14 1965 5-14 Both

REP Veg 65 - 5 to 14 1965 5-14 Both

REP Meat 65 - 5 to 14 1965 5-14' Both

REP Fish 65 - 5 to 14 1965 5-14 Both

REP Milk 65 - fem 15+ 1965 15+ Female

REP Veg 65 - fem 15+ 1965 15+ Female

REP Meat 65 - fem 15+ 1965 15+ Female

REP Fish 65 - fem 15+ 1965 15+ Female

REP Milk 65 - male 15+ 1965 15+ Male

REP Veg 65 - male 15+ 1965 15+ Male

REP Meat 65 - male 15+ 1965 15+ Male

REP Fish 65 - male 15+ 1965 15+ Male

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide 9

(Printed: 5/24/95)
Input Forms

The following pages illustrate the sixteen Input Forms used by NALD 2.0. They are included

here so that you may familiarize yourself with the forms that you will be using.

These illustrations were made from a sample data set of one fictitious record, and the values

shown are for illustration only. They do not represent any data actually gathered for this study.

NALD 2.0 Volume 1: User's Guide 10

(Printed: 5/24/95)
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 1: General Information

ID

ATTEMPT1

ATTEMPT2

ATTEMPTS

ATTEMPT4

ATTEMPTS

DATE1

Enter the ID ot the interview subject

20 I Write this number on the Interview form.

Enter times as

NUMBERS.

For example, enter

5:30 as 530

Time

STARTTIME

Person Interviewed:

5 Informant?

Informant Relationship

6

Birthday

7A 1 Month (mm)

7B 1 Day (dd)

7C 1 Year(yy)

7D 1901 Birthyear (19yy)
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 2: Residence Information

Location 1: From | 1/1/44] To | 12/30/'

ID: | 201

HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 3: Milk and Dairy Products

Subject ID | 201 Born: 1901 Year A

NURSING 25 9 Ever?

26

27A

27B

0 Age (mos.) nursing began.

Month

Year

Milk other than breast milk

30 Age (mos.) first milk.

31A Month

31B Year

1944-1947

28 0 Age (mos.) nursing stopped.

29A Month

298 Year

Food other than milk

32 Age (mos.) first ate food.

33A Month

33B Year

MILK

Descr.

34 9| Ever? 36A LI Store Bought 368

35A 0 Jan-Mar 36C C Home Delivered 36D

35B 0 Apr-Jun 36E C Famiy cow/goat

35C 0 Jul-Sep 36F C Other 36F

35D 0 Oct - Dec 36Q O Unknown

Brand

Brand

MILK PRODUCT

37A 0 Jan - Mar 38A C Store Bought 388 Brand

37B 0 Apr - Jun 380 CI Home Delivered 380 Brand

37C 0 Jul - Sep 38E C Famiy cow/goat

37D 0 Oct-Dec 38F C Other 38F Descr.

38G CT Unknown

NURSING 39 | | Ever? YearB [ 19011 1964- 1966

40

41A

41B

0 Age began. 42

Month 43A

Year 43B

0 Age stopped.

Month

Year

Milk other than breast milk Food other than milk

44

45A

45B

Age first milk. 46

Month 47A

Year 47B

Age first food.

Month

Year

MILK

48 Ever? 50A CI Store Bought 50B Brand

49A 0 Jan - Mar 500 Ci Home Delivered SOD Brand

498 0 Apr - Jun 50E C Family cow/goat

490 0 Jul - Sep 50F C Other 50F Descr.

490 __0 Oct - Dec 50G C Unknown

MILK PRODUCT

52G C Unknown

51A 0 Jan - Mar 52A CI Store Bought 52B Brand

51B 0

Apr - Jun 52C CI Home Delivered 52D Brand

51C 0 Jul - Sep 52E C Famiy cow/goat

510 0 Oct - Dec 52F C Other 52F Descr.
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Sections 4,5,6: Vegetables and Fruits

Birth Yean 19361 YEARC

Leafy Vegetables (Section 4)

Ever In 1944-47?

Jan-Mar

Apr * Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

Washed?

Other Vegetables (Section 5) YEARD (2 19361 Birth Year

63 68 Ever In 1964-66? I__ Ever In 1944-47?

FRESH STORED FRESH STORED

Jan-Mar 64A 0 66A 0 69A 71A 9

Apr-Jun 64B 0 66B 0 69B 71B 0

Jul-Sep 64C 0 66C 0 69C 71C 0

Oct-Dec 640 0 66D 0 69D 71D 0

Washed? 66 |_____ □ 67 ___ 70 72

Fruits and Berries (Section 6) YEARE (2 19381 Birth Year

73 || Ever In 1944-47? 78 Ever In 1964-66?

FRESH STORED FRESH STORED

Jan - Mar 74A QI 76A oi 79A a 81A

Apr - Jun 74B d 76B 79B 81B

Jul-Sep 74C a 76C 79C 81C

Oct - Dec 740 0| 760 790 a 81D

Washed? 75 ________ | 77 80 82
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Sections 7,8: Eggs and Meat

Birth Year 1901 YEAR F

Eggs (Section 7)

1944-1947

1964-1966

Domestic Wild

83 ________| Ever in 44-47? 85 ________| Ever in 44-47?

84A 0 Jan- Mar 86A 0 Jan- Mar

84B 0 Apr - Jun 868 0 Apr-Jun

84C 0 Jul - Sep 86C 0 Jul-Sep

84D 0 Oct - Dec 86D 0 Oct - Dec

Domestic Wild

87 0| Ever in 64-66? 89 oj Ever in 64-66?

88A 0 Jan- Mar 90A 0 Jan-Mar

88B 0 Apr-Jun 90B 0 Apr-Jun

88C 0 Jul - Sep 900 0 Jul - Sep

88D 0 Oct - Dec 900 0 Oct - Dec

Meat and Game (Section 8) Birth Year 1901 YEAR G

1944-1947 91 | ] Domestic or wild meat - Ever in 1944-47?

DOMESTIC MEAT

Domestic - Fresh Domestic - Stored

92A 0 Jan- Mar 95A 0 Jan- Mar

92B 0 Apr-Jun 95B 0 Apr-Jun

920 0 Jul-Sep 950 0 Jul-Sep

920 0 Oct - Dec 950 0 Oct - Dec

93 How Prepared 96 _________________[How Prepared

94A —i Store bought 97A —i Store bought

94B U Home raised 97B —; Home raised

940 c Neighbor/friend 970 D Neighbor/friend

940 Other [ 970 □ Other [

94E n Unknown 97E Unknown

WILD MEAT

Wild - Fresh Wild-JStored

98A 0 Jan - Mar 101A 0 Jan- Mar

98B 0 Apr - Jun 101B 0 Apr - Jun

980 0 Jul - Sep 1010 0 Jul-Sep

980 0 Oct - Dec 1010 0 Oct - Dec

99 How Prepared 102 | How Prepared

100—

Where Hunt 103 _____________________ [Where Hunt
1964-1966 104 Domestic or wild meat - Ever in 1964-66?

DOMESTIC MEAT

10SA

Domestic - Fresh

0 Jan- Mar

105B 0 Apr-Jun

105C 0 Jul - Sep

105D 0 Oct - Dec

106 _________________| How Prepared

107A —' Store bought

107B J Home raised

107C —i Neighbor/friend

107D —i Other [

107E □ Unknown

Domestic - Stored

108A 0 Jan • Mar

1088 0 Apr-Jun

108C 0 Jul-Sep

108D 0 Oct - Dec

109 _________________I How Prepared

110A —i Store bought

110B —; Home raised

1100 □ Neighbor/friend

1100 C Other |

110E -4 Unknown

WILD MEAT

Wild - Fresh

111A 0 Jan- Mar

111B 0 Apr-Jun

me 0 Jul-Sep

1110 0 Oct - Dec

112 How Prepared

113 Where Hunt

Wild - Stored

114A 0 Jan-Mar

1148 0 Apr-Jun

1140 0 Jul-Sep

1140 0 Oct-Dec

115 How Prepared

116 Where Hunt
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 9: Fowl

ID | 20! Birth Yean 19011 YEARH

1944-1947

117

118A

118B

118C

118D

Fresh

Local Poultry - Ever?

Stored

Jan-Mar 121A

Apr-Jun 1218

Jul - Sep 1210

Oct-Dec 1210

Jan- Mar

Apr - Jun

Jul - Sep

Oct - Dec

119

120A

120B

120C

L

.... Store bought

._ Home raised

LJ Neighbor/friend

How Prepared 122

123A

1238

1230

.J Store bought

-J Home raised

Neighbor/friend

How Prepared

1200 C Other 1230 D Other

120E LJ Unknown 123E I.J Unknown

124 o Wild Birds - Ever?

Freeh Stored

12SA

125B

125C

1250

Jan-Mar 128A

Apr - Jun 1288

Jul - Sep 1280

Oct-Dec 1280

a Jan- Mar

Apr-Jun

Jul- Sep

Oct - Dec

9

a

0

128

127

How Prepared 129

Where Hunt 130

How Prepared

Where Hunt

1964-1966

131

132A

132B

1320

1320

Freeh

Local Poultry - Ever?

Stored

Jan - Mar 13SA

Apr - Jun 135B

Jul - Sep 1350

Oct-Dec 135D

Jan-Mar

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct - Dec

133

134A

134B

134C

—i Store bought

.J Home raised

— Neighbor/friend

How Prepared 136

137A

137B

1370

c Store bought

Ji Home raised

—1 Neighbor/friend

How Prepared

1340 L Other 1370 LJ Other

134E -3 Unknown 137E C Unknown

138 0 Wild Birds - Ever?

Fresh Stored

139A

139B

1390

139D

0 Jan- Mar 142A

Apr - Jun 142B

Jul-Sep 1420

Oct-Dec 142D

Jan- Mar

Apr-Jun

Jul - Sep

Oct - Dec

a

a

a

140 How Prepared 143 How Prepared

141 Where Hunt 144 Where Hunt
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 10: Fish - Salmon and Steelhead 1944-47

IO [20 j Birth Yean | 190lj YEARI

1944-1947 145 | j Any Ash 1944-477

Fresh Salmon Stored Salmon

146A

1468

____ ® Jan - Mar

Apr-Jun

149A

1498

____ ft Jan - Mar

__ft Apr-Jun

146C ft Jul - Sep 149C Jul-Sep

146D ____ a Oct - Dec 1490 0* Oct - Dec

147 150

148A

148B

148C

1480

148E

148F G 148K CT!

148G G 148L G

148H O 148M O

U 1481 G 148N G

□ 148J G 1480 G

148P G

Fresh Steelhead

151A

1518

151C

151D

151E

□ 151F G 151K G

G 151G G 151L G

151H G 151M C

□ 1511 G 151N G

G 151J G 1510 C.

151P G

Stored Steelhead

152A 155A

152B 155B

152C 1550

1520 155D

153 166

154A i

1548

154C

1S4D

154E I

154F C 154K G

154G G 154L G

3 154H G 154M G

J 1541 C 154N G

J 154J C 1540 O

154P G

157A

157B

1570

1570

157E

3 157F G 157K G

157Q G 157L G

□ 157H G 157M G

1571 G 157N G

“ 157J G 1570 G

157P G
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 10: Fish - Eel, Bullhead, etc. 1944-47

1944-1947 ID 20

Fresh Eel Stored Eel

158A Jan - Mar 161A 0 Jan- Mar

158B Apr-Jun 161B « Apt - Jun

1580 Jul- Sep 1610 Jul - Sep

1580 Oct - Dec 161D Oct - Dec

159

160A d i6oi d

160B d 160J d

1600 d 160K d

160D C 160L C

160E D 160M O

160F □ 160N d

160G □ 1600 C

160H -J 160P d

Fresh Bullhead

164A q Jan - Mar

1648 Qj Apt - Jun

1640 « Jul-Sep

1640 ____ q Oct - Dec

165

166A d 166H d 1660 d

166B 1661 d 166P d

1660 □ 166J d 1660 d

1660 □ 166K d 166R d

166E □ 166L O 166S d

166F □ 166M d 166T d

166G _= 166N d 166U d

162 r

163A 1631

1638 d 163J d

1630 d 163K d

163D d 163L d

163E d 163M

163F 163N j1;

163G d 1630 d

163H d 163P d

169A d 169H d 1690 d

169B d 1691 d 169P d

1690 d 169J d 1690 d

1690 C 169K d 169R C

169E d 169L d 169S d

169F d 169M d 169T d

169G d 169N d 169U d
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 10: Fish - Perch, Bass, etc. 1944-47

BBBM|

1944-1947 ID fo______|

Fresh Perch Stored Perch

170A

1708

170C

170D

0 Jan - Mar 173A

Apr - Jun 173B

Jul - Sep 1730

Oct-Dec 173D

Jan - Mar

Apr-Jun

Jul - Sep

Oct - Dec

0

0

0

171 174

172A

172B

172C

172D

172E

172F

172Q

” 172H C 1720 C

□ 1721 Ci 172P C

C 172J Ci 1720 Ci C 172K C 172R C

172L C 172S C

U 172M Ci 172T Ci

C 172N Ci 172U C

Fresh Bass

175A

17SB

1750

1750

175E

175F

175G

175H C 1750 C

C 1751 Ci 175P C

□ 175J C 1750 C

175K C 175R C

C 175L c 175S c

175M CI 175T C

C 175N C 175U Ci

Stored Bass

176A

1768

176C

176D

Jan-Mar 179A

Apr - Jun 179B

Jul- Sep 1790

Oct - Dec 1790

0 Jan- Mar

Apr-Jun

Jul-Sep

Oct-Dec

0

0

0

177 180

178A C 178H 1780 C

178B C 1781 178P C

178C C 178J C 1780 C

178D C 178K C 178R C

178E C 178L C 178S C

178F Ci 178M CI 178T CI

178G Ci 178N Ci 178U Ci

181A I

181B I

1810 !

1810 I

181E I

181F !

181G I

181H C 1810 C

1811 Ci 181P C

181J C 1810 C

181K C 181R C

“ 181L C 181S C

181M C 181T C

3 181N C 181U C
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 10: Ash - Shellfish 1944-47

1944-1947 io ^ i

Freeh Perch Stored Perch

182A __g Jan-Mar 185A __0] Jan- Mar

182B __a Apr - Jun 185B _ g Apr-Jun

182C a Jul - Sep 185C a Jul-Sep

182D a Oct-Dec 1850 __g Oct- Dec

183 ___________________________ I 186

184A

1848

184C

1840

184E

184F

184G

184H d 1840 d 187A

3 1841 d 184P d 1878

184J d 1840 d 1870

184K d 184R C 1870

184L d 184S O 187E

184M d 184T d 187F

□ 184N d 184U d 1870

187H C 1870 c

1871 d 187P d

U 187J d 1870 d

187K C 187R d

187L d 187S d

187M d 187T d

□ 187N d 187U d
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption ^M fftsl ctoa»|

section iu: tei, aunneaa labd-bb

1964-1966 ID |»_____ |

Fresh Eel Stored Eel

201A aJan-Mar 204A oiJan-Mar

2018 0 Apr-Jun 2048 aApr-Jun

201C 0 Jul-Sep 204C ajul-Sep

201D ____ OjOct - Dec 2040 ____OjOct - Dec

202 _______________________ _J 205 |____

203A C 2031 C 206A C 2061 C

2038 C 203J C 2068 C 206J C

203C 203K Ci 206C E 206K Ci

203D 203L C 2060 206L Ci

203E _J 203M C 206E C 206M C

203F □ 203N Ci 206F C 206N CI

203Q □ 2030 Ci 206Q C 2060 E

203H Ei 203P Ei 206H C 206P Cl

207 _______ | Any bullhead, etc. in 64-66?

Freeh Bullhead Stored Bullhead

208A 01 Jan-Mar 211A 0 Jan-Mar

208B Of Apr-Jun 211B 0 Apr-Jun

208C Oi Jul-Sep 2110 0 Jul-Sep

2080 ____ a Oct-Dec 211D ____ Oj Oct-Dec

209 J 212 |______________

210A C 210H C 2100 C 213A C 213H C 2130

2108 C 2101 C 210P C 213B C 2131 C 213P c

210C 210J C 2100 C 2130 El 213J El 2130 c

2100 Ci 210K C 210R C 213D C 213K □ 213R

21OE □ 210L C 210S C 213E Ci 213L C 213S c

210F C 210M C 210T C 213F C 213M C 213T c

210G □ 210N C 210U C 213G C 213N Ci 213U c
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 10: Fish - Salmon, Steelhead 1964-66

?^tiiKiuL4il>HiMC2HbM:<^l

ID I20 188 I 1 Any Fish 1964-66?

1964-1966

Fresh Salmon Stored Salmon

189A 0 Jan - Mar 192A Jan - Mar

1898 0 Apr-Jun 192B Apr - Jun

189C a Jul - Sep 1920 Jul - Sep

1890 0 Oct - Dec 1920 Oct - Dec

190 _____________ I 193

191A 1911 194A n 1941

1918 191J 1948 d 194J

1910 d 191K 1940 d 194K

191D 191L 1940 is 194L in

191E 191M d 194E d 194M d

191F d 191N 194F c 194N

191Q c 1910 194G c 1940

191H 191P 194H 194P in

Fresh Steelhead Stored Steelhead

196A 0 Jan - Mar 198A

195B 0 Apr-Jun 198B

1950 0 Jul-Sep 1980

1950 a Oct - Dec 198D

196 199

Jan- Mar

Apr-Jun

Jul- Sep

Oj Oct-Dec

197A in 1971 in 200A in 2001

197B d 197J 200B d 200J

1970 c 197K d 2000 200K d

1970 pg 197L 2000 200L in

197E 197M tn 200E d 200M

197F 197N in 200F 200N

197G d 1970 in 200G d 2000 d

197H in 197P in 200H tn 200P c
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 10: Perch, Bass 1964-66

1964-1966 ID 20______

Frosh Perch Stored Perch

214A OfJan- Mar 217A __Ol Jan - Mar

2148 a Apr-Jun 217B Of Apr-Jun

214C Of Jul - Sep 217C Of Jul - Sep

2140 ____ Of Oct - Dec 2170 ____ OjOct - Dec

215 218

216A C 216H C 2160 C 219A 3 219H d 2190 CI

2168 2161 CI 216P CI 219B 2191 Ci 219P Ci

216C □ 216J G 216Q d 2190 Ci 219J C 2190 d

216D □ 216K C 216R Cl 2190 219K C 219R CI

2166 C 216L CI 216S C 2196 -J 219L C 219S C

216F 216M CI 216T CI 219F □ 219M C 219T CI

216G -j 216N C 216U d 219G -4 219N d 219U Ci

Fresh Bass Stored Bass

220A __ojJan-Mar 223A of Jan - Mar

220B 0| Apr-Jun 223B 0 Apr-Jun

220C o|jul- Sep 2230 o Jul-Sep

2200 ____ OjOct - Dec 2230 ____ OjOct - Dec

221 224 I

222A □ 222H C 2220 C 22SA 3 225H C 2250 C

2228 2221 CI 222P CI 2258 2251 C 225P C

222C □ 222J Ci 2220 d 2250 225J C 2250 d

2220 222K C 222R d 225D -i 225K Ci 225R d

2226 222L CI 222S C 2256 □ 225L C 225S C

222F 222M CI 222T CI 225F 225M C 225T C

222G □ 222N C 222U d 225G C 225N d 225U d
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 10: Shellfish 1964-66

1964-1966 ID !20

Fresh Shellfish Stored Shellfish

226A Jan- Mar 229A Jan- Mar

226B Apr- Jun 2298 Apr- Jun

226C Jul-5Sep 2290 Jul-S5ep

2260 Oct- Dec 229 Oct- Dec

227 230

228A D 228H 2280 c 231A 231H 2310 c

228B 2281 228P 231B 2311 231P

2280 228J 2280 2310 231J 2310

2280 228K 228R 2310 231K 231R c

228E 228L 228S 231E 231L 231S

228F 228M 228T 231F 231M 231T

2280 □ 228N 228U c 231G 231N H 231U
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 11: Columbia River Water Exposure

ID I20 I ^ I laoij Ye»j

1944-1947

Untreated Water Where?

232A Jan- Mar 233A D 233F C 233K C

2328 Apr-Jun 2338 C 233G □ 233L Cl

232C Jul-Sep 2330 C 233H EI 233M Cl

2320 Oct - Dec 233D C 2331 C 233N El

233E C 233J C 2330 C

Municipal Water

234A Jan-Mar

2348 Apr-Jun

234C Jul - Sep

2340 Oct - Dec

Bathing and Swimming Where?

235A Jan- Mar 236A C 236F C 236K C

235B Apr - Jun 2368 □ 236G El 236L Ei

235C Jul-Sep 2360 E 236H D 236M C

235D Oct - Dec 2360 El 2361 El 236N El

236E C 236J El 2360 C

Boating Where?

237A Jan- Mar 233A El 238F El 238K El

2378 Apr-Jun 2388 El 238G El 238L El

237C Jul-Sep 2380 C 238H C 238M C

2370 Oct - Dec 238D O 2381 D 238N El

238E El 238J El 2380 El

1964-1966

Untreated Water Where?

239A Jan- Mar 240A El 240F c 24OK

2398 Apr-Jun 2408 C 24OQ 240. c

2390 Jul - Sep 2400 c 240H 240M Li

2390 Oct - Dec 2400 2401 u 240N C

Municipal Water

240E n 24OJ c 2400 C

241A Jan- Mar

2418 Apr-Jun

2410 Jul - Sep

2410 Oct - Dec

Bathlnc and Swimming Where'F

242A Jan- Mar 243A 243F a 243K

242B Apr-Jun 2438 c 243G 243L EI

2420 Jul - Sep 2430 c 243H 243M

2420 Oct - Dec 2430 2431 243N

243E 243J d 2430

Boatinc Where?

244A Jan- Mar 245A 245F 245K

2448 Apr-Jun 245B 245G E 245L d

2440 Jul-Sep 2450 245H El 245M

244D Oct - Dec 2450 2451 245N d

245E 245J c 2450 El
HEDR: Native American Food Consumption

Section 12, Summary: Beliefs and Summary

Health Problems

247 [

How knowledgeable?

246A

2468 d

248J

246K n

246C 246L

246D c 246M d

246E 246N

246F d 2460

246Q 246P

246H d 2460 d

246! [j 246R EI

246S d

246T

248A a 2480 EI

2488 n 248E EI

248C c 248F n

Summary:

249

Quality

Birth Defects

Other

Other

Other Cancers

End time

3:20 PM'

Reason

badquai. Repeated?
BSRC-700/95/004V2

Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project

Native American Lifestyle and Demography Data Collection

Technical Document For The NALD 2.0 Database

Volume 2: Technical Reference

Preparedfor:

U.S. Public Health Service

Centers For Disease Control

National Center For Environmental Health

Radiation Studies Branch

Prepared by:

Marcus Lester

Edward Liebow

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories

Contract No. 200-92-0534

May, 1995
 albertsons library

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Table Of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS i

INTRODUCTION--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1

SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS 2

RUNNING THE NALD 2.0 DATABASE_______________________________________________ 2

ENTERING AND CHECKING DATA WITH INPUT FORMS_______________________________ 3

Entering Data...........................................................................................3

Changing Records.......................................................................................3

Changing Forms................................................ 3

Checking and Editing Data.............................................................................4

SELECTING DATA AND PRINTING REPORTS .....~......................................................................................~. 4

THE STRUCTURE OF NALD 2.0 •■•••••••••••••••••••••••••••«••••••••••»••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••■••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••«• 4

The following tabbed sections include these appendices:

Tables and Fields

Query definitions

Report definitions

Macros

Forms (including illustrations of Input Forms)

Import Specifications

NALD 2.0 Volume 2: Technical Reference

(Printed: 5/18/95)
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY

BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY
Introduction

The Native American lifestyle and demography data collection for the Hanford Environmental

Dose Reconstruction Project (HEDR) has generated some very large data sets. The affected

Tribes have done hundreds of interviews, and each interview has about 1,300 items of data to be

analyzed. In cooperation with the Centers for Disease Control and the members of the Intertribal

Council on Hanford Health Projects, Battelle Seattle Research Center has developed the Native

American Lifestyle and Demography (NALD 2.0) database system to aid the Tribes in managing,

analyzing, and reporting the large data sets.

NALD 2.0 takes advantage of the Microsoft Access (2.0) database management software for

analysis and reporting. The database contains all the procedures necessary to import data from

an existing EPI-Info database, to enter new data from interview forms, to check and edit data at

any time, to select the data for reporting, and to print reports. All of these procedures may be run

from a simple menu, and the person doing the work needs only a brief familiarity with Microsoft

Access to get started.

The User’s Guide provides detailed instructions for:

• Setting up the new NALD 2.0 database on the computer,

• Importing data that is already entered in EPI-Info,

• Inputting new data and checking data,

• Selecting the data for reporting,

• Printing reports.

It also includes a complete set of illustrations of the Input Forms for the user’s familiarization

and reference.

This Technical Reference is a complete documentation of the NALD 2.0 database. Some

elements of the User’s Guide are recapitulated here, for clarity and completeness, but this volume

does not cover user issues. It is intended to provide the knowledgeable user of Microsoft Access

with complete information about the construction and operation of NALD 2.0.

In addition to this section, it has six appendices:

• Tables and Fields

• Query definitions

• Report definitions

• Macros

• Forms (including illustrations of Input Forms)

• Import Specifications

NALD 2.0 Volume 2: Technical Reference 1

(Printed: 5/18/95)
System Requirements

NALD is a Microsoft Access database that is designed to run on a PC compatible

microcomputer. You will need the following equipment and software installed on your computer

to run NALD:

• Color monitor,

• 3.5 inch floppy disk drive;

• Hard disk drive with about five megabytes (5 MB) of available space;

• Mouse;

• 12 megabytes of memory (This is the minimum recommended. More is better.);

• Microsoft Windows (version 3.1) operating system;

• Microsoft Access (version 2.0);

• Installed type fonts - Arial and Times New Roman.

If you are not sure if your computer meets these requirements, see your system administrator for

help. Please note that NALD will not run under the old version (1.0) of Microsoft Access.

Running The NALD 2.0 Database

Figure 1. Main Menu

The NALD 2.0 database has a

graphical user interface

(Figure 1) that provides the

ordinary user access to all

input, editing, and reporting

functions. The interface starts

automatically when the

database is opened. The

functions are fully explained in

Volume 1, the User’s Guide.

The user has two options for

turning offthe graphical user

interface. The Quit

MSAccess button closes all

open tables and forms, and the

Access application terminates.

The Close this window button closes the Main Menu, but the remainder of the database is

unaffected. At that point, the user has access to all the other functions of the Microsoft Access

application.

NALD 2.0 Volume 2: Technical Reference 2

(Printed: 5/18/95)
Entering and Checking Data with Input Forms

NALD 2.0 has input forms for all the data in the questionnaire. These forms are available from

the graphical user interface by clicking on the Open Input Forms

button to view the first form.

Entering Data.

There are three ways to enter data on the input forms (Figure 2):

• Select a value from a pull-down list,

• Click on a check-box (Yes/No answers).

• Type the information into a box on the form. Figure 2. Data Input

To use the pull-down list, click once on the arrow button at the side

of the list. The list will open, and you can select any of the items in the list by clicking on it.

When you click on a check-box, an X fills the box. This means YES. If you want to change it,

just click on it again, and it will turn off (NO).

Type your data into any box. When you have finished entering the data, press Enter, and NALD

2.0 will automatically move to the next data element in the order that it appears on the

questionnaire. You may also press the Tab key to skip to the next data item. If you want to skip

over many, then use the mouse to move the cursor to the item you want, and click once with the

left mouse button.

When you press return for the last data item on a form, the entire record is saved, and the focus

moves to the first item of the next record.

Changing Records.

Use the record selectors, located in the lower left-hand

corner of the form to move from one record to the

next. The left button will move you to the first record, the next button (left pointing triangle) will

move you to the previous record, the next button (right pointing triangle) will move you to the

next record, and the right button will move you to the last record. To add a new record, move to

the last record (right button), then click once on the next-record button.

Changing Forms.

Use the buttons at the top of each form to move from one form to

another. Move the cursor to the button you want and click with the left mouse button. When you

are finished, click on the Close button, and you will return to the Main Menu.

NALD 2.0 Volume 2: Technical Reference 3

(Printed: 5/18/95)
Checking and Editing Data.

Use the input forms to view your data one record

at a time. You can select the record you want

with the record selector buttons, and then change

any item. When you go to the next record or

close the form, your changes will automatically be

saved.

Hint: Everybody makes mistakes. It is a very

good idea to make a backup, to recover past work

without redoing everything.

Before you start to edit your data, quit

NALD 2.0 and make a copy of your database. For

example, if your files are called foodl. Idb and

foodl .mdb, then copy these files to foods. Idb

and foods .mdb. Now start NALD 2.0 again and

edit foodg. This way you can go back to foodl any

time.

Selecting Data and Printing Reports

Not all data from the questionnaires are used for the final reports. To select the data for reporting

click on the Main Menu button marked “Select the Data for Reporting.” NALD 2.0 will

automatically select and sort the data. To print the reports, click on the button marked “Print All

Reports.”

The Structure of NALD 2.0

While NALD 2.0 will perform all its operations automatically, these operations are not hidden

from the users. They may be looked over and modified by any knowledgeable user of Microsoft

Access. The data are contained in tables, they are selected and sorted with queries, and they are

output with reports.

The naming convention for field names established for the EPI-Info database has been preserved.

For example: FOWL6139C

I I I Question Number from the Questionnaire

I I Time Period: 4 = 1944-47; 6 = 1964-66

I Descriptive name

Three field names in EPI_Info were found to vary from this convention, and these were changed

as follows:

OTHER6109 to

FISH44150 to

FISH4212 to

OTHER6110

FISH4150

FISH6212

NALD 2.0 Volume 2: Technical Reference 4

(Printed: 5/18/95)
ALBERTSONS LIBRARY BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY