Savannah River Site Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES) Meeting

Final Meeting Minutes
September 15, 2005

Back to Table of Contents

In response to a question by Mr. Ken Crase of the Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC), Dr. Hertel replied that he did not determine the appropriateness of ATL’s approach of applying a canned dose to risk conversion for an individual.

Mr. Peter Atherton is a nuclear safety consultant and expressed concerns about the ATL report. Regulating agencies do not require periodic testing of detectors to ensure accurate calibration or proper function of these instruments. The ATL report does not include safety margins to account for erroneous readings and inefficient detectors. Mr. Atherton questioned whether the models ATL used are appropriate for SRS scenarios and actually reflect problems at the site.

Mr. Wood explained that the calculation of source terms and identification of priority areas to study were completed in Phase II of the SRS dose reconstruction project. During Phase II, earlier measurements of releases from SRS were found to be incorrect due to inaccurate estimates of deposition and sample types. Based on revised calculations and an NAS review, the Phase II source terms were adjusted and published. A thorough examination of instruments was also included in this analysis. Mr. Wood added that the ATL report is not a regulatory document and is not designed to be conservative or generate safety margins. The overarching objective was to provide the best estimates of actual doses to actual persons during the time period of the study.

To Mr. Atherton’s second comment, Dr. Hertel and Mr. Wood conveyed that ATL’s equations and models were based on well-established theories and then adjusted with certain environmental parameters to develop specific models for SRS. CDC contracted ATL to calculate doses based on sources that were previously estimated in Phase II. Mr. Wood indicated that the Phase II report can address Mr. Atherton’s concerns, particularly the extensive sections on instrumentation errors and the calculation of sources.

Mr. Kenneth Webb was stationed at SRS in 1955 during his military service. He questioned whether the dose reconstruction study accounted for radiation exposure to military personnel who continuously resided on or near the site 24 hours per day for over a year. As a soldier, Mr. Webb was not provided with personal protective equipment, traveled throughout the site in open vehicles and has since suffered from cancer. He learned that DOE and other federal agencies submitted letters to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) denying the release of any radiation at SRS.

Mr. Wood pointed out that the dose reconstruction study does not contain a specific scenario for soldiers because CDC was commissioned to only examine exposures to the offsite public. However, Mr. Webb could review the scenarios to select a delivery person, migrant worker or another human receptor who spent a significant amount of time onsite as a starting point in estimating his dose. He could also review VHA data on atomic radiation exposures to veterans and worker studies conducted by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Mr. Webb was encouraged to contact Mr. Wood at 404/498-1826 or cmw6@cdc.gov for additional information or sources.