Savannah River Site Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES) Meeting

Meeting Minutes
March 14, 2003

Back to Table of Contents

Scenario Workgroup.
Mr. James Lockridge, the Workgroup Chair, conveyed that the members used the breakout session to compile a list of comments and identify opportunities for improvement in the dose reconstruction study. He indicated that the recommendations were based on SRSHES’s feedback to the ATL status report. The twelve suggestions are outlined as follows:

1. Assumptions, the basis for assumptions and the impact of any exclusions should be well documented, including the modeling process and computer codes.
2. Results should be benchmarked against actual monitoring data collected by GDNR, SCDHEC and WSRC when practical.
3. SRSHES’s concerns about merging data should be addressed. For example, combining the FB Canyon, Seepage Basins and other source locations into one point source may not be conservative for receptors on or near the SRS boundary. If source points are merged, ATL’s computer code should have capacity to separate individual source terms and receptors.
4. Drinking water pathways from rain and river water should be added to the scenarios for consideration.
5. Scenarios should reflect worst-case realistic scenarios.
6. SRSHES’s concerns about screening should be addressed. For example, the impact of eliminating the screening process should be summarized and the screening process should be defined. The need to perform screening should be revisited. The screening process should be compared to similar efforts undertaken at other DOE sites.
7. Dose contributions from non-SRS source terms should be identified and quantified if applicable, such as Plant Vogtle and nuclear weapons fallout.
8. SRSHES should be provided an opportunity to comment on ATL’s protocol, SRS-specific parameters and ATL’s modifications to source terms developed by RAC.
9. An elderly individual should be included in one scenario.
10. An explanation should be provided for the discrepancy between 11 radionuclide source terms in the RAC report and >30 radionuclides in ATL’s technical approach. Adherence to the RAC results should be considered because the cost savings from analyzing only 11 radionuclides could be used for the screening process.
11. The impact of significant acute historical releases from SRS should be considered in addition to annual averages.
12. SRSHES should be provided an opportunity to develop a scenario for a family living by the water; Ms. Kato to take the lead on this activity.

As a follow-up comment to recommendation four, Mr. Blackman pointed out that Waynesboro uses Briar Creek as a water source. Other water supplies use creeks as well. The water sources are neither upstream nor downstream from the Savannah River because the creeks are generally filled by rain. Mr. Blackman confirmed that he would provide GDNR data to SRSHES about historical usage of surface water supplies. As a follow-up comment to recommendation 12, Mr. Devitt noted that the water family scenario is unrealistic based on anecdotal reports from several former SRS workers and long-time community residents. Ms. Perry also advised SRSHES to be cautious in developing the water family scenario. Consistent with Mr. Devitt’s findings in South Carolina, she did not locate this type of family in Georgia.

Ms. Kato clarified that the water family scenario would be persons who lived along the Savannah River and spent a fair amount of time in the water shed. The family would not have lived on a houseboat. Mr. Eisenberg confirmed that SRSHES still has time to add a water family scenario. Mr. Green reminded the members that CDC’s request at the September 2002 meeting for SRSHES to finalize certain scenarios within a specified time period was not met. The record reflects that CDC planned to progress to the next step in the dose reconstruction project if SRSHES did not meet the deadline.

Based on the workgroup report, SRSHES is still revising scenarios. However, Mr. Green emphasized that consensus must be reached on this issue at some point, particularly since more than one year has passed in developing and finalizing the scenarios. Dr. Crawford conveyed that delays in finalizing the scenarios are primarily due to SRSHES only meeting twice per year and the workgroups having no contact between meetings. SRSHES activities could be more efficiently and effectively completed if the workgroups convened more frequently. Dr. Lee raised the possibility of CDC establishing a deadline for SRSHES to finalize and submit the scenarios.

Mr. Guess was extremely upset and did not approve of CDC’s lack of communication in changing ATL’s scope of work to eliminate the screening process. The ATL contract was awarded in August 2002, but the SRSHES meeting was held the following month. Because SRSHES was established to advise CDC, the members should have been informed about the modified tasks at the meeting and asked to provide input. Ms. Guess believed that SRSHES’s activities on the scenarios at the previous meeting were a farce since a decision had already been made to eliminate the screening process. She felt dishonest because she has informed persons in her community that screening would be performed.

Epidemiological Data Workgroup.
Dr. Warren Umansky, the Workgroup Chair, conveyed that the breakout session was used to review the two components of the workgroup charge. First, the workgroup is to assist SRSHES in understanding challenges, logistics and limitations associated with performing epidemiological research. Second, the workgroup is to provide SRSHES with a review of current epidemiological data that may impact SRS. The review was presented during a previous meeting, but an update of these studies should be made at the next meeting. The workgroup expressed concerns about ATL’s plans to use overly conservative estimates in the dose reconstruction project.

This approach is unlikely to generate findings at a significant level that would justify an epidemiological study ³. To address this concern, the workgroup agrees with the Scenario Workgroup’s suggestion to use worst-case realistic scenarios since these calculations are likely to be more significant than ATL’s conservative estimates. The workgroup’s position is that doses with higher levels and longer exposure periods should be used in ATL’s calculations instead of a mid-point of lower and upper ranges. The workgroup presented two recommendations for SRSHES to consider.

First, SRSHES should be provided copies of ATL’s monthly progress reports to CDC. Second, one of the three well-known epidemiologists the workgroup suggested to the Agenda Workgroup should be scheduled to make a presentation at the next meeting. The topics should include the logistics of performing epidemiological research; surveillance of cancer clusters, neurotube defects and other medical conditions in Georgia and South Carolina potentially impacted by SRS; and epidemiological research of chemical and radionuclide releases from nuclear sites conducted after 2000.

Dr. Lee was unclear about the workgroup’s concerns with ATL’s strategy to use conservative estimates since these calculations generate higher doses. Mr. Eisenberg clarified that ATL will input realistic values for the exposure assessment to reflect site-specific behaviors of persons in the scenarios. However, the computer code relies on many parameters for this calculation. He emphasized that ATL will not modify the scenarios to be realistic. Mr. Wood confirmed that ATL will select the high endpoint of real doses. In terms of the overall project, he announced that the FY ‘03 budget will not be adequate to cover all the activities ATL presented. However, all tasks could be accomplished after FY ‘03 with new dollars.

Dr. Crawford and Ms. Kato were divided on completing the dose reconstruction in FY ‘03 versus prolonging the study in anticipation of new dollars. On the one hand, CDC’s budget for radiation health effects projects could be further reduced or totally eliminated in the future. On the other hand, demand for completion of the study would be high if the majority of activities are accomplished in FY ‘03. The dose reconstruction project should not rushed to completion; instead, ATL and SRSHES should be provided adequate time to gather sufficient data and obtain public input. Ms. Kato hoped the epidemiological research could be expanded to include data on radionuclides identified in the RAC Phase II report that have impacted sites other than SRS.

Outreach Workgroup.
Dr. Michael Wilson, the Workgroup Chair, distributed mock copies of the new SRSHES brochure. He thanked Ms. NeSmith and Ms. Perry for their diligent efforts in completing this activity. Before the brochure is finalized, telephone numbers will need to be added and the membership roster will need to be updated. SRSHES was asked to edit the mock copy and submit additional changes to Ms. NeSmith by the end of the meeting. The workgroup will provide each SRSHES member with 100 copies of the brochure for distribution in their respective communities; 5,000-10,000 total copies are expected to be printed. Other dissemination efforts by the members could include presentations to city councils, school boards, hospitals and other local groups as well as reprints in newspapers and other local publications.

The brochure will also be translated into Spanish. CDC will support publication of the brochure, but mass mailings are not included in the budget. For web site distribution of the brochure, the workgroup reviewed the Hanford and Oak Ridge web sites. As models for consideration, some sites contain photographs and addresses in addition to the names of HES members. The SRSHES web site is limited to one page and needs to be improved. Mr. Wood has offered to assist the workgroup in this endeavor. SRSHES generally agreed to revise the brochure as follows:

• The point of contact will be listed in the brochure as "Mr. Phillip Green, Executive Secretary of the SRSHES," with his telephone number, the RSB mailing address and the SRSHES web site.
• Mr. Green’s telephone number will also be listed in the other two sections of the brochure that direct persons to call for more information.
• He will explore the possibility of establishing an SRSHES mailbox to receive e-mail messages from the public.

Agreement was not reached on whether to list the web site addresses for ATSDR and NIOSH in the brochure or provide links to the agencies on the SRSHES web site.

Agenda Workgroup.
Dr. Bustos, the Workgroup Chair, announced that the members will convene a face-to-face meeting to discuss potential speakers recommended by the Epidemiological Workgroup. The suggested presenters are Dr. Rush of Cambridge University; Dr. Takara of the University of Washington; and Dr. Steve Wing of the University of North Carolina. Dr. Lee is in the process of compiling a list of outstanding agenda items to identify topics that are still relevant versus those which should be removed from the SRSHES agenda. She expected to present this list during the next meeting, but she will first need agendas from all SRSHES meetings. Mr. Green reported that RSB does not have paper copies of agendas from the initial meetings. Dr. Bustos recessed the meeting for a break from 10:50 a.m.-11:15 a.m.

³ One SRSHES member noted that the observations by the Epidemiological Data Workgroup reflect a misunderstanding of ATL’s use of the word conservative. Use of conservative values in dose calculations will generate higher doses.