HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1210.019 2006-2008
Page 1 of 1
Murashige, Laura
From: jwmorrow@att.net
6
Sent: Sunday, June 29, 2008 6:01 PM
To: counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us °
Subject: Resolution 639-08 Testimony
Attachments: jwmorrow4.pdf
Testimony for July 2, 2008 hearing re: Resolution 639-08
Cornm No. /q
Ref. Todd 40"M47
Ref. Dote
6/30/2008
TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HAWAII COUNTY COUNCIL
RELATED TO RESOLUTION 639-08
July 2, 2008
Chairman Hoffmann, Members of the Council, I am Dr. James W. Morrow. I regret that I am
unable to be with you today to discuss this important issue due to my attendance at an
international conference, but I do offer this written testimony.
Today I will briefly summarize the key points from my May 13, 2008 testimony and add a few
additional comments. This testimony is presented solely on my own behalf and not on behalf of
any of my current or former clients or employers.
When I first heard of the public concern about a possible airborne uranium hazard in populated
areas of the Big Island, I immediately recalled that uranium was one of the metals we analyzed
during our VOG studies in the late 1980's and early 1990's when we collected hundreds of 24-
hour samples at Hilo, Kalapana and Captain Cook. I reviewed our archived data for Hilo, Kona
and Kalapana and found that uranium was measured at normally low background levels. That is
concentrations were below 0.001 microgram per cubic meter of air and most samples were below
detectable limits. For comparison, the World Health Organization's (WHO) health-based
exposure limit for airborne uranium exposure is one 1) microgram per cubic meter of air, and
the U.S. Agency for Toxics Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) minimum risk levels
(MRL) are 0.3 - 0.4 micrograms per cubic meter of air. So, given that the Army's Davy
Crockett depleted uranium (DU) spotter rounds have been in the PTA impact area for over 40
years, it appears that they have not contributed to an airborne uranium threat to public health in
the Hilo, Kona or Kalapana areas.
My next concern was whether or not those DU spotter rounds might be contributing to elevated
airborne uranium levels at the boundaries of the PTA military reservation. To evaluate this
possibility I conducted computer modeling analyses using the EPA model used for years in
assessing the potential impacts of air pollution sources as part of permitting throughout the U.S.
We looked at "worst case" conditions in term of number of rounds struck by high explosive
munitions and converted into an inhalable aerosol and stable air conditions which would
maximize uranium concentrations in the air. The results indicated that even if 100 DU spotter
rounds were "aerosolized" every day for a year, they would not cause airborne uranium levels to
exceed WHO or ATSDR health standards. This analysis was clearly "worst case" when one
considers that the Army reports a total of only 700 DU spotter rounds brought into Hawaii and
used on Oahu and the Big Island.
I have also heard some individuals describing the harmful effects of uranium, both chemical and
radiation related. Yes, uranium is a toxic substance with potential adverse chemical effects to
the kidneys and carcinogenic effects due to radiation emissions, but these are dose related and
there must be exposure to reach an effective dose. Both our VOG study data and our modeling
analysis indicate that there is no increased exposure beyond normal background levels of
I of 2
TESTIMONY OF DR. J. W. MORROW
RELATING TO RESOLUTION 639-08
July 2, 2008
uranium; thus, one would conclude that there would no change in effects related to uranium
exposure.
While our VOG study data and modeling analysis suggest that there is no increased exposure and
therefore no increased potential for health effects, we are still awaiting release of the results of
the laboratory analyses of uranium on the 400+ filters from our baseline monitoring study around
the PTA perimeter. Should those results be similar to our data and modeling findings thus
indicating normal background uranium levels, then the 5-point plan proposed in Resolution 639-
08 would be unnecessary and the Army could cease spending more taxpayers' money on this
issue.
Thank you for the opportunity to present my views.
James W. Morrow, DrPH
(808) 942-9096
Owmorrow@att.net)
2of2