Public Health Assessment Work Group
Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2003
Attendance
ORRHES Members attending:
Bob Craig (Chair), LC Manley, Kowetha Davidson, James Lewis,
Susan Kaplan, Pete Malmquist, George Gartseff, and David Johnson
Public Members attending:
Tim Joseph, John Merkle, Gordon Blaylock, and J.D. Hutchins
ATSDR Staff attending:
Bill Taylor, Melissa Fish, Jack Hanley-telephone, Dee Williamson-telephone,
and Lorine Spencer-telephone
Purpose
There were four items on the agenda for discussion.
- Review of PHAWG Meeting Minutes of 9/2/03
- Discussion of Cancer Incidence Review
- Brief presentation about Public Health Assessment conclusion categories
- Presentation about past Mercury exposures
- Air releases of mercury
- Inventories not accounted for
Meeting Minutes
Pete Malmquist said that he was not at the September 2nd PHAWG
meeting. Pete asked if the overheads that Bill Taylor used in his presentation
are available in the office. Without a copy of the overheads, a person
coming into the office a year from now would not understand what went
on and what the individual comments and concerns noted in the minutes
were actually referring to. Bill Taylor told the group that a copy of
the overheads and the handouts are available in the binders with the minutes.
James Lewis stated that the September 2, 2003 meeting minutes were adequate
for the casual observer. James felt that Melissa Fish’s previous
detailed minutes were better and that the quality and style of the previous
minutes were beneficial to the work group as well as those who could not
attend the meetings. James asked that the group give consideration to
the meeting minutes issue and said that the meeting minutes issue may
be discussed in more detail in COWG. James added that the work group minutes
are the only product that the work groups’ produce and that the
work group meetings deserve quality minutes.
Susan Kaplan agreed with James Lewis and added that the meeting minutes
Melissa Fish previously produced were like actually attending the meeting.
Susan felt that the previous minutes played a role in bringing a person
up to speed on the topic if they had to miss a meeting.
Bob Craig said that he appreciated the input and that the group is trying
to strike a balance with the meeting minutes’ issue. Bob added that
meeting minute structure varies among different organizations.
James Lewis said that some people feel that the public issues have been
lost. The “he said, she said” is beneficial to outsiders who
are trying to become involved in the process. James went on to say that
the group needs to consider other people who are not members of the work
group or who are not able to attend every meeting. James added that flexibility
is also important with this issue.
David Johnson stated that detailed minutes, like those that were originally
being produced by Melissa Fish are an important part of packaging the
science/facts for people off the street. The previous minutes allowed
a person to understand what had transpired over the course of time.
James Lewis said that the group might not understand the value of what
they were getting. James said that many times the work group has to return
to the same issues over and over because the issue was not previously
captured in a detailed type manner.
George Gartseff said that he disagrees with James Lewis about the meeting
minutes being a product, rather George views the minutes as a record.
George does agree that the work group meetings are where most of the vocal
public input takes place. George suggested a possible solution being that
the group have carry-over agenda items so that ongoing community input
is captured and that the community is part of the process. Also, people
should make sure that their quotes were captured correctly so that the
other types of arguments are avoided.
Bill Taylor told the group that the decision to make the September 2nd
meeting minutes different was done as somewhat of a pilot in order to
get feedback from the work group and community members. There has been
internal discussion about the minutes and it is important to address the
issue of what purposes the minutes serve. The meeting minutes seem to
have different purposes and value for different people. Bill Taylor told
the group that he appreciated the discussion.
David Johnson stated that each person who reads the meeting minutes has
their own agenda and personality; with that in mind, it raises the question
of how much detail is enough.
Tim Joseph asked how long it had taken to create the previous detailed
minutes. Melissa Fish responded that the previous detailed minutes took
approximately 16 hours.
Bill Taylor said that he understands the value of the previous detailed
minutes. Bill asked the group what do they lose in the abbreviated format.
Bill said that Melissa is still capturing the concerns but the aspect
that is missing is the “who said what.”
Bob Craig said that if a person is interested in the full detail of a
meeting that the person can listen to the tape. Tim Joseph agreed with
Bob Craig and said that he would listen to the tape if he were interested
in additional detail beyond what the minutes supplied. Tim added that
if he were really interested in a meeting, he would likely prefer the
audiotape to the meeting minutes.
Susan Kaplan responded saying that not all people are auditory learners
and that some people are visual learners.
Bill Taylor told the group that any person is welcome to come to the
office and speak to him if they miss a meeting. However, this option is
only helpful for the duration of the field office operation.
James Lewis said that the minutes are one component of running an effective
meeting and the other component of an effective meeting are the skills
of the chairperson. James felt that the meeting minute issue is a dynamic
issue and is not a simple issue. James added that there are things that
can be done to help the person taking the meeting minutes.
The group did not vote to approve the September 2, 2003 PHAWG minutes.
The vote to approve the September 2, 2003 PHAWG minutes was postponed.
The meeting minutes issue was revisited at the end of the meeting.
Discussion of Cancer Incidence Review
Dee Williamson reviewed the draft Assessment of Cancer Incidence
PowerPoint presentation that she plans to present to ORRHES at the
October meeting. Topics of the presentation included the purpose, geographic
area, cancer incidence data, statistical methods, interpretation, examples,
strengths, and weaknesses of the assessment of cancer incidence. A copy
of the presentation is available in the field office.
Dee Williamson and Pete Malmquist pointed out that the 49 census tracts
surrounding Oak Ridge will be looked at as one large group rather than
individual census tracts.
Bob Craig’s questions helped to clarify that the geographic area
of interest is based on the areas that ORRHES defined earlier in the process.
Because it was noted that thyroid cancer as well as “sarcoma”
was missing from the list of cancers to be examined, Dee Williamson said
that she would check with Toni Bounds to make sure that she (Dee) has
included all of the cancer types that the state has complete data for
(1990-1996).
Pete Malmquist pointed out that gender was not in the list of demographic
and medical data available on each individual cancer patient. Dee Williamson
said that the list of limited data available should include: name, address
at time of diagnosis, census tract code, primary cancer site, histology
type, age at diagnosis, race, and gender.
Susan Kaplan pointed out that many people go to Vanderbilt and other
outside areas for treatment: Where would those people be listed? Dee Williamson
responded that the cancer incidence is reported for the area that you
are living in at the time of diagnosis and not the area where treatment
or diagnosis occurs.
Dee Williamson pointed out that she would take into account age and race
for different cancers. Dee also explained that the data for each different
cancer type and for each gender would be reported individually per county/area
of interest. Dee added that she will be providing a descriptive analysis
and that the analysis will not establish a cause and effect. Data is not
available concerning risk factors or the length of time people have resided
in particular counties. Dee Williamson also explained that a small number
of cases often create unstable results.
In addition, Dee Williamson noted that the Tennessee Cancer Registry has
its own set of limitations. She added that the group will be looking at
descriptive information about the population level and not the individual
level, and Dee reiterated that this type of analysis would not be able
to establish a cause and effect.
After noting that lung cancer was listed as a cancer type to be examined,
Gordon Blaylock asked if smokers versus non-smokers would be included
in the lung cancer category. Dee Williamson said that the Cancer Registry
does not have information regarding smoking status, which is one of its
limitations.
There was some confusion expressed regarding the dotted lines on the
ORRHES Geographic Areas of Interest map. It was decided that ATSDR would
clarify the purpose and/or meaning of the dotted lines or get rid of the
dotted lines as appropriate.
Pete Malmquist requested input from the group regarding the types of
responses that should be given when a particular type of cancer is elevated
in a certain geographical area. Pete feels that with 26 different cancers,
most likely there will be some elevated cancer levels.
James Lewis asked about situations like example three. When it appears
that there are an elevated number of cases but there is very little information,
how will these types of issues be addressed? James feels that many questions
or challenges could result from situations like example three.
Kowetha Davidson said that Dee Williamson would need to incorporate her
explanation for each result.
Tim Joseph said that it is difficult to explain the term confidence interval
to the public. It is extremely important to clearly explain the confidence
interval to the public in language that the general public can understand.
If not, the public would look at the numbers and be unnecessarily alarmed.
Jack Hanley suggested that one way Dee Williamson could effectively communicate
with the lay public is to provide an example such as changing the cancer
number by one or two cancers so that the public can see what happens.
Dee Williamson is concerned about what type of information will go to
the media. Dee asked the group what they are comfortable with going to
the media. Dee also asked how the group should address the cancers that
are found to be a true elevation. Because there will most likely be elevated
cancer findings, Dee would like the groups involved (Tennessee Cancer
Registry, ORRHES, and ATSDR) to develop a plan as to how to communicate
elevated cancer findings.
Bob Craig said that the group should look at the data prior to establishing
a plan. Bob feels that it is not a good use of time to work on developing
responses before the group sees the data.
Jack Hanley pointed out that the National Cancer Institute has a website
with fact sheets for almost all cancers. Thus, if there is an elevated
cancer the NCI fact sheet could be used to inform the public about what
is known about the cancer. After some discussion, the group decided that
fact sheets for all 26 cancers should be included regardless of whether
or not the cancer is elevated.
Kowetha Davidson said that it is important to clearly establish up front
that any elevations in cancer incidence cannot be linked to exposure.
Susan Kaplan said that it is known that some cancers are caused by certain
contaminants of concern. Susan felt that all of the information that is
known about cancer and contaminants should also be presented. Dee Williamson
pointed out that most cancers have various risk factors. Jack Hanley replied
that the NCI fact sheets are clearly written and describe what is known
about all risk factors, including environmental risk factors.
Dee Williamson pointed out that Susan Kaplan’s comment about doctors
not being able to say what caused a particular cancer is true.
James Lewis pointed out that the Tennessee Cancer Registry data should
be put into perspective regarding the standard that it meets. For example,
there is a platinum standard and gold standard. If Tennessee does not
meet the highest standards then that needs to be clearly explained.
Jack Hanley felt that there are two issues that must be clearly explained
in Dee Williamson’s efforts. One issue needing to be explained is
that Cancer Incidence Data is really high quality data that has been validated
through quality assurance and quality control checks. Jack added that
ATSDR is very comfortable with the data for the years of 1990-1996. The
second issue needing to be explained is that there is a national process
to evaluate registries and that the State of Tennessee is trying to improve
its score/national ranking.
Bob Craig asked Dee Williamson about the timetable concerning the document.
Dee Williamson said that she hopes to have the document with the actual
data available by the beginning of December.
Public Health Assessment Conclusion Categories
James Lewis presented a table with the conclusion categories from the
Public Health Assessment Guidance Manual. Jack Hanley
explained that these are from the latest edition of the manual. Although
the manual is still in “draft” status, the categories are
the ones that ATSDR is currently using when writing Public Health Assessment
documents.
James Lewis explained that the conclusion categories have types of actions
associated with each of them. James feels that it is imperative that ORRHES
members understand the logic and process that ATSDR uses when writing
the public health assessment documents. James would like ATSDR to give
a presentation explaining their logic and explaining the recent updates
regarding the conclusion category chapter of the Public Health
Assessment Guidance Manual.
Bob Craig thanked James Lewis for his presentation.
Mercury Presentation
As a follow-on to James Lewis’s presentation, Bill Taylor explained
that when he is closer to completing this series of mercury discussions,
he would be ready to discuss his overall thinking regarding past mercury
exposures. Bill added that the conclusion categories serve as a pivotal
point in the PHA document. The categories serve as a place to consider
follow-up actions.
Bill Taylor read aloud two technical reviewers’ comments that he
would be addressing in his presentation.
- Some reviewers thought it was inappropriate to consider the transport
of uranium particulate matter as a model for mercury vapor.
- Some reviewers were concerned about the large amount of mercury unaccounted
for.
Overhead One
Bill Taylor explained that the problem regarding mercury releases to
air is that the earliest off-site ambient air mercury concentrations were
measured in 1986, but the highest Y-12 mercury releases to air were during
the period of 1953 to 1962. As a result, the Task 2 team estimated air
mercury concentrations from Y-12 to Wolfe Valley and the Scarboro Community.
Also, Task 2 estimated air concentrations of mercury from water emissions
from East Fork Poplar Creek in the areas of Scarboro, Robertsville School,
an EFPC Farm Family, and two Oak Ridge community locations.
Overhead Two
Bill Taylor explained that for Wolf Valley, Task 2 modeled air concentrations
of mercury for 1950-1963 using the EPA ISCST3 (Industrial Source Complex
Short Term) Version 96113 (1995) which was appropriate for relatively
flat areas.
Bill Taylor explained that the EPA model included 114 point source terms
including 9 buildings, 62 stacks, 43 fans, and 9 vents. Bill provided
a picture from the Task 2 Report depicting the 114 point source terms.
Bill Taylor said that the EPA model predicts mercury concentrations at
Wolf Valley from each source term and that the total annual average mercury
air concentrations are equal to the sum of contributions from each point
source.
LC Manley said that one technical review said that the EPA model was
not appropriate because of the terrain. LC said that the model is correct
for flat terrain but asked about other areas like Pine Ridge. LC said
that a model for flat terrain should not be applied to the entire area.
Bill Taylor responded that the model was not applied to the surrounding
areas.
LC Manley said he feels that the EPA model is valid for Wolf Valley but
not for the surrounding areas.
Bob Craig agreed with LC and said that the EPA model is appropriate for
Wolf Valley but not other areas.
John Merkle suggested that to understand the issue better it might be
helpful to draw contours of concentrations depending on the distance from
the source to see how the shape of the contours compare with the topography.
Overhead Three
Bill Taylor said that the Task 2 team recognized that the EPA model was
not appropriate for Scarboro and used a different method for estimating
air mercury concentrations in Scarboro. The model used for estimating
air concentrations in Scarboro is based on uranium.
Bill Taylor explained that the mathematical quantity (“empirical
chi over Q”, or χ/Q) is based on two physical quantities. Greek
letter chi (χ) is the estimated uranium concentration in Scarboro and
Q is measured air releases of uranium from Y-12. The Task 2 team used
the uranium quantities along with the average annual release rate of mercury
from Y-12 to estimate the concentration of mercury in the Scarboro area.
LC Manley pointed out that uranium is particulate matter and mercury
is a gas or a mist that would go further and higher than uranium. Bill
Taylor agreed with LC Manley’s concern and went on to explain that
Task 2 might be overestimating the mercury concentration in the Scarboro
area by using uranium as a model.
Bill Taylor explained that the differences between uranium and mercury
were that the uranium stacks were generally higher than the release points
for mercury. A higher release point from Y-12 would suggest that more
of the uranium got over the Pine Ridge than would have otherwise crossed
over if the release points from the stacks and from the buildings would
have been closer to the ground. So, the higher release point would increase
the amount of uranium in Scarboro, which would increase the empirical
quantity in the calculation and overestimate the amount of mercury for
the Scarboro area.
Bill Taylor explained that as LC Manley mentioned, uranium is particulate
matter and mercury is a vapor, gas, or mist and it is generally expected
that as a gas, mercury would travel further and higher than uranium. So,
by using the model of uranium, the model actually is increasing the quantity
that would arrive in Scarboro because the uranium would settle out quicker
than mercury. So once again, using uranium as a model may overestimate
the mercury concentration in the Scarboro area.
Bill Taylor pointed out that these are potential problems with using
the uranium method. So, why did they use it? Bill Taylor said that the
air dispersion models that were available did not model complicated terrain.
Bill was told that the Task 2 team tried the data in several different
models and was unsuccessful at predicting air concentrations over Pine
Ridge. Thus, the Task 2 team used the uranium relationship of releases
from Y-12 and concentrations in Scarboro as the best model for what the
concentrations of mercury in the Scarboro region might have been.
Kowetha Davidson asked if the Task 2 provided detail as to the proportion
of how much mercury was vapor and how much was mist? Bill Taylor responded
that Task 2 was considering annual averages and assumed the averages were
all in the elemental mercury state and were a vapor.
LC Manley said that a major problem is that there are so many assumptions
rather than hard data regarding mercury. LC said that the assumptions
bothered him to the point that he cannot accept the results.
Tim Joseph responded to LC Manley saying that both calculations were
an overestimate of the mercury concentrations.
Bill Taylor agreed with LC that the estimated mercury concentrations
were highly uncertain but stated that the calculations set an upper boundary
and that it is not believed that the mercury levels were higher than what
the Task 2 people estimated. Bill also acknowledged that the group would
never know, but that the calculations provide a ballpark figure as to
what the maximum levels might have been.
Gordon Blaylock said that modeling is used when there is no answer. Gordon
told the group to not take the modeling data as the actual number, but
that it is the best information that is currently available regarding
past mercury concentrations in Scarboro.
Tim Joseph and Bob Craig added that Task 2 was trying to be conservative.
In response to a question regarding how comfortable he feels that the
mercury concentration would fall below the numbers calculated, Gordon
Blaylock said that based on all of the assumptions, this is the best information
that is available right now. Gordon Blaylock reminded the group that this
is modeling; this is when you do not have all of the data.
Overhead Four
Bill Taylor discussed the vapor being released from East Fork Poplar
Creek. Bill Taylor said that it is known that water mercury concentrations
in East Fork Poplar Creek near Y-12 are higher than those in East Fork
Poplar Creek near the Poplar Creek junction. It was estimated that 60-90%
of mercury “lost” in EFPC goes to sediment and air. The best
Task 2 estimate is that 5% of the mercury mass in the creek volatilized.
Bill Taylor displayed Figure 7-5 from the Task 2 Report that shows that
consecutive segments spanning the length of East Fork Poplar Creek provided
the source terms used to calculate the air mercury concentration at the
various population centers. For each segment of the creek, the mass of
mercury remaining in the water at that point contributed a fraction of
the mercury that evaporated from the water, which was used in the EPA
dispersion model.
Bill Taylor also explained that tree rings were studied and were determined
not a reliable measure of air mercury concentrations for different years
because the mercury did not stay put in a tree ring.
Another area that the Task 2 Report looked at but did not spend a lot
of time on was East Fork Poplar Creek soil emissions. The Task 2 team
considered some studies that concluded that emissions from EFPC soils
were insignificant compared with emissions from the EFPC water.
Overhead Five
Bill Taylor used overhead five in conjunction with overhead four. Overhead
five is figure 7-5: Conceptual Model for Mercury Releases from EFPC Using
the ISCST3 Air Dispersion Model from the Task 2 Report.
Overhead Six
(Figure 7-2: A bar graph of air concentrations of mercury at Scarboro
from both Y-12 air releases and EPFC water emissions.) LC Manley asked
if there is a similar graph for the area near Bruners. Bill Taylor responded
that Bruners was not a location for which they estimated the air concentrations
of mercury.
Kowetha Davidson asked how the concentrations on the graph would compare
with the source at East Fork Poplar Creek. If a person had their nose
to the water level, the concentrations would be extremely high. Bill Taylor
agreed with Kowetha and said that she raised an interesting question.
Bill said that one of the recipient populations is the East Fork Poplar
Creek Farm Family so that was probably the best guess for air concentrations
closest to the creek.
LC Manley said that the Jefferson area is basically in the flood plain
as well as Kmart and Kroger. LC Manley told the group that the soil contaminated
with mercury was covered with new soil, which would cut down the amount
of vapors.
Bill Taylor told the group that he needs to look back and see what Oak
Ridge population centers Task 2 modeled.
Overhead Seven
Bill Taylor told the group that there is a large amount of mercury that
is unaccounted for. Bill explained that there are two major studies that
looked at the mercury inventories. One report is dated 1977 and the other
is a 1983 Mercury Task Force Report in which people were interviewed and
the inventory records were studied more closely.
Bill Taylor explained that the chart makes a distinction between what
is lost and what is not accounted for. Bill said that the term “lost”
is used to describe quantities that are estimated to have gone into the
air, soil, and water. The term “not accounted for” describes
what could not be accounted for in lost quantities or what could not be
identified in the inventory of products. The 1983 Mercury Task Force Report
identified 1,291,855 pounds of mercury as being not accounted for. It
is estimated that 5% of the mercury not accounted for could be in the
buildings—in the walls, floors, and pipes. Another 45% of the “not
accounted for” mercury could be due to accounting errors. Mercury
came into the plant in flasks that weighed 76 pounds. However, the flasks
were not accounted for by weight, they were accounted for by numbers of
flasks, thus mercury coming into the plant was estimated by number of
flasks times 76 pounds. People who were interviewed who worked at the
plants said that sometimes the flasks would arrive at the plant and not
be completely full. Thus, it is likely that the incoming amount of mercury
was overestimated.
Bob Craig feels that the important number being presented is the 2,025,056
pounds of mercury that are known to be lost and not accounted for, because
the 2,025,056 pounds are potential exposures.
Bill Taylor said that the other 50% of the estimated mercury that was
unaccounted for was not addressed in the Task 2 report. Bill said that
although there is not a lot we can do with this information, it is important
to keep these uncertainties in mind.
New Business
There was some discussion about the dates of the upcoming PHAWG meetings.
Jack Hanley asked the group if the next PHAWG meeting could be moved to
October 13th if necessary. The group agreed that it would be OK to change
the PHAWG meeting date if need be. Jack Hanley plans to discuss the Y-12
Uranium PHA comments and ATSDR’s responses with the PHAWG prior
to the October 21st ORRHES meeting.
Continuation of Discussion of Meeting Minutes
David Johnson asked what we were going to do about the meeting minutes.
Bob Craig said we need a little more detail than in the September 2 minutes,
but we are not looking for verbatim minutes. Bill Taylor explained that
there is not much “in between” when considering the time and
preparation regarding the meeting minutes. There are the previous PHAWG
minutes and there are the most recent PHAWG minutes. The group needs to
consider the value of the longer minutes versus the value of the shorter
minutes.
Tim Joseph asked how long the shorter version of the PHAWG minutes took
to complete. Melissa Fish said that the last PHAWG meeting took approximately
three to four hours but it was a meeting that did not have many concerns
or much group discussion.
Tim Joseph also asked what is not getting done when Melissa is spending
her time completing meeting minutes. Melissa Fish said that the meeting
minutes take away from her time working with the community concerns database.
Tim Joseph feels that it is important to consider not just the amount
of time, but also the value of the projects that time is being taken from.
Susan Kaplan said that because a lot of money is being spent, the 16
hours of time is well spent documenting the meetings accurately and completely.
James Lewis said that the group should not be discussing the hours or
resources because resources are another group’s issue. The group
should be asking themselves what is gained or lost by having more abbreviated
minutes.
Kowetha Davidson wondered if it is important to get a verbatim account
of a presentation if the concerns are captured. Tim Joseph also pointed
out that the concerns from the last PHAWG meeting were captured in the
abbreviated meeting minutes.
Gordon Blaylock pointed out that a problem with the abbreviated minutes
might arise when there are controversial issues because everyone wants
to know what was said. Some members of the PHAWG stated that the person
could go back to the audiotape if a controversy does come up.
Both Gordon Blaylock and Susan Kaplan pointed out that it took two years
to get the tapes of an ORRHES meeting to get a situation cleared up where
Owen Hoffman said one thing and the synopsis showed another. Susan Kaplan
said that it is not realistic to expect someone to go back and review
the tape.
There was further discussion about what is and what is not considered
controversial. The group seemed to agree that a concern is a concern,
regardless of whether or not the concern or issue is controversial.
Jack Hanley asked Melissa Fish if in the abbreviated form of the meeting
minutes she would likely include Bill Taylor’s response to LC Manley’s
questions regarding using the uranium model to estimate mercury concentrations.
Jack Hanley said that Bill Taylor’s responses to LC Manley’s
questions were very important and needed to be captured in the record.
Is there a difference in capturing the response and clear explanation
to an issue when choosing the longer minutes compared to the more abbreviated
minutes? Melissa Fish responded that she thought that there would be a
difference.
Jack Hanley said he thought that issues that arise and have been responded
to should be clearly and completely documented so that years from now
people will be able to see that the issue was considered and addressed.
Melissa Fish agreed with Jack Hanley and Melissa said she did not think
that the shorter minutes will accurately portray the entire response to
an issue.
Susan Kaplan said that the more abbreviated minutes involve more judgment
than the longer, more detailed minutes. Susan reminded the group that
when Melissa leaves, they would need to bring in another person to train
and teach judgment. Melissa Fish agreed with Susan Kaplan’s concern.
The abbreviated minutes call into question what responses are worthy of
being captured and which are not.
James Lewis stated that the more complete minutes have clear advantages
that need to be considered.
Kowetha Davidson told the group that the PHAWG is getting into a situation
where the PHAWG minutes are more detailed than ORRHES meeting minutes.
It is important to determine the benefits and costs regarding the meeting
minutes detail because there are finite people and finite resources. James
Lewis disagreed with Kowetha and said that resources are a management
issue. Kowetha Davidson disagreed with James Lewis and said that the issue
of finite people, time, and resources is a reality.
Bill Taylor told the group that he feels that this discussion needs to
be decided by ORRHES if ORRHES chooses to do so. If not, the decision
will be made by ATSDR.
Susan Kaplan made a motion for the work group to use the more
complete meeting minutes. The motion was seconded. The group voted 5 to
5 with Kowetha Davidson breaking the tie by voting against the more complete
minutes. The motion failed.
Action Items
- Cancer Incidence Review
Dee Williamson will check with Toni Bounds to make sure that the list
of cancer types is complete.
- ATSDR will clarify/explain the purpose of the dotted lines on the
ORRHES Geographic Areas of Interest or get rid of the lines, as appropriate.
- Dee Williamson’s efforts need to include explaining that Cancer
Incidence Data is high quality, how does the quality of the State of
Tennessee Registry compare with other states, and that the State of
Tennessee is actively trying to improve its national registry ranking.
- Public Health Assessment Conclusion Categories
ATSDR should consider providing a presentation that would explain the
process used in deriving specific conclusion categories for the Public
Health Assessment documents.
- Mercury
Bill Taylor will find out what Oak Ridge population centers the Task
2 Report modeled.
- Uranium
Jack Hanley will present the public comments on the Y-12 Uranium PHA
and ATSDR’s responses to them to the PHAWG prior to the October
ORRHES meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:45 PM.
|