DISCLAIMER

The following is a staff memorandum or other working document 
prepared for the members of the Advisory Committee on Human
Radiation Experiments.  It should not be construed as representing
the final conclusions of fact or interpretation of the issues. 
All staff memoranda are subject to revision based on further 
information and analysis.  For conclusions and recommendations of
the Advisory Committee, readers are advised to consult the Final
Report to be published in 1995.






                          MEMORANDUM    


TO:             Members of the Advisory Committee on Human Radiation 
                Experiments

FROM:           The Outreach Subcommittee

DATE:           June 28, 1994        

RE:             Proposal Concerning Meetings Outside of Washington

                         
INTRODUCTION

     The Outreach Subcommittee recommends to the Committee that at 
least two and preferably three full Committee meetings and four panel 
hearings be scheduled outside of Washington, D.C.  This would allow 
members of the public who would not otherwise have an opportunity to 
do so to meet with Committee members and express their views on the 
record.  It is the consensus of the subcommittee that both kinds of 
meetings are in the public interest and will contribute significantly 
to the successful completion of the Committee's work.  The 
subcommittee has concluded that taking the Committee to the public, 
both in the form of full-scale meetings and "hearings" held by 
three-member panels, will attract useful statements and documentation 
that otherwise would not reach the Committee, and will make more 
people aware of the Committee's work.  

FULL-SCALE MEETINGS

     The subcommittee has concluded that at least half a day be 
devoted to public comment at meetings held outside of Washington.  
Anything less would, we believe, properly be viewed as inadequate.  To 
ensure that the Committee will not lose time from its regular 
deliberations, the subcommittee suggests that out-of-Washington 
meetings be extended to two full days or even two and a half days.  We 
also recommend that, if time allows, members of the public be 
permitted to address the Committee for more than the five minutes 
allotted at Washington meetings.  The precise time allotted could be a 
function of the number of persons who sign up to speak.  

     The subcommittee believes there should  be three full Committee 
meetings outside Washington so that the three broad geographical 
regions of the country will be represented.  It has reviewed possible 
meeting sites and has reached consensus on San Francisco as one site 
to recommend to the full Committee.  San Francisco appeals to us for 
several reasons.  There is a cluster of high-profile cases in 
California and the Northwest including plutonium injections, Green 
Run, Laguna Honda and prison experiments in both Oregon and 
Washington.  Although San Francisco itself was the site of only a 
small part of the plutonium injection experiments, the city is a 
convenient travel destination; meeting facilities are good; more 
Helpline calls have come from California than from any other state; 
and San Francisco has acceptable weather year-round, minimizing the 
likelihood of weather-related problems.  


				  1


     The subcommittee also recommends Atlanta because there is a 
cluster of cases in the Southeast.  In addition, Atlanta is an airline 
hub; there is adequate meeting space; the weather is good, and 
Helpline calls have been heavy in the Southeast.  Finally, Chicago is 
recommended because it is in the Midwest, has good airline connections 
and good meeting facilities.

     Staff will prepare for these meetings by working with grass-roots 
and national groups, as well as individuals, to facilitate within 
practical limitations as much access to the Committee by the public as 
is possible.

     We will need a minimum of three months lead time to prepare for a 
full-scale out-of-Washington meeting.  Partly because it has been 
difficult to find a satisfactory site in Washington for the October 
12-13 meeting, and because of weather considerations, we suggest that 
the Chicago meeting, if approved, be held on these dates.  If the 
Committee determines for budgetary or other reasons that a third 
meeting should not be held, the subcommittee recommends that Chicago 
be dropped because it is probably the farthest site from 
concentrations of concerned persons and the most difficult to work 
with because of weather.  We would then suggest that the San Francisco 
meeting be held on October 12-13.  The January or February meeting  
could be held in Atlanta.  If there are three meetings, they could be 
held in October (Chicago), December (San Francisco) and February 
(Atlanta).

SMALL-PANEL MEETINGS

     While it would be impractical to schedule more than three 
meetings outside of Washington for the full Committee, it would be 
possible, and the subcommittee believes it would be desirable, to have 
three-member panels hold one-day hearings in other areas of the 
country where public interest is especially high.  Public interest can 
be measured through helpline interest and often tracks the location of 
a facility associated with radiation research.  Proximity to 
facilities like Oak Ridge and Los Alamos also is relevant because it 
would provide an opportunity for at least some Committee members to 
visit those facilities.  The subcommittee has three principal reasons 
for recommending that the Committee send out hearing panels:

     1.  to give a larger and more diverse sector of the public an 
opportunity to comment;
     2.  to collect information for the Committee; and
     3.  to publicize the work of the Committee.  

     The principles for selecting hearing sites are not identical to 
those used for selecting full-Committee meeting sites.  While we do 
not want full meetings to be perceived as an effort to gather 
information on specific cases, the small hearings can appropriately be 
seen as reaching out to those persons who have the most at stake.  The 
following cities and towns seem worthy of consideration for the 
Committee:



					2






     1.  Spokane (relatively convenient to Richland, Walla Walla and 
Salem).
     2.  Richland
     3.  Cincinnati
     4.  Albuquerque/Santa Fe
     5.  Nashville
     
     As with the full Committee meetings, staff will prepare by 
reaching out to persons and institutions who have something to 
contribute or who have a legitimate interest in being heard by the 
Committee.  The subcommittee would like staff to make a special effort 
to assure that all perspectives are well-represented.  Letters to 
stakeholders and professional groups will note that hearings are being 
planned.  Staff also should be asked to ascertain what lessons can be 
learned from the experience of Congressional Subcommittees and other 
groups that have held field hearings.  For example, do we want to 
limit testimony to prepared statements, or will we encourage audience 
participation?  If the latter, do we need a professional facilitator 
to run the discussion?  

 It will require at least two months lead time to prepare for an 
out-of-Washington panel session.

Because of the time required for preparation of both full Committee 
meetings and panel hearings, the subcommittee requests that the 
Committee respond to these recommendations during the July 5-6 
meeting, but no later than the July 25-26 meeting.

				3