Savannah River Site Health Effects Subcommittee (SRSHES) Meeting

Meeting Minutes
September 6, 2002

Back to Table of Contents

Outreach Workgroup.
Dr. Wilson explained that the goal of the workgroup is to inform persons near SRS about the role and function of SRSHES. The members reviewed the brochure and plan to present a final draft of the document at the next meeting. Editorial and grammatical changes have been made; the list of members will be updated; and the logo will be revised to clearly illustrate SRS’s location in South Carolina. The members made suggestions on updating the SRSHES web site and expect to present the revised site during the next meeting. Links to CDC, ATSDR and SRS should be listed. Dates and locations for upcoming SRSHES meetings should be posted. A form for the public to pose questions to SRSHES members should be added. Biographies and photographs of SRSHES members should be incorporated. The members agreed to review other HES web sites and obtain additional ideas.

The workgroup considered several outreach mechanisms to more widely publicize SRSHES and its activities. Grand rounds could be conducted in local hospitals. The existing SRSHES brochure could be modified and tailored to specific audiences, such as medical providers and patients. Representatives from citizen’s groups could accompany workgroup members during visits to county councils involved with SRS. Posters with basic SRSHES information could be displayed at local health departments and community health centers. A press release and group photograph of SRSHES members could be placed in local newspapers. Youth could be engaged in SRSHES outreach activities, such as designing logos and posters. The workgroup thanked ATSDR for committing its time, funding and resources to the outreach efforts.

Dr. Crawford announced that many SRS retirees are willing to make presentations on dosimetry effects and other site activities. He offered to secure speakers from Citizen’s for Nuclear Technology Awareness (CNTA). Dr. Bustos reported that CNTA made a formal request to be scheduled on a future SRSHES agenda. He planned to distribute information on CNTA to SRSHES and determine the members’ interest in responding to the request. Ms. Kato mentioned that representatives from the Nuclear Control Institute and Physicians for Social Responsibility could also be placed on a future SRSHES agenda. Mr. Green mentioned that NCEH will update the SRSHES web site. Ms. Drye requested that McDuffie County high school students be involved in the youth outreach activities.

Dr. Bustos advised the workgroup to be cognizant of time constraints since outreach activities require a significant effort. For example, the process to develop and publish the first version of the SRSHES brochure required two years. He pointed out that the need for all outreach products to be approved by SRSHES consensus must also be considered during the planning stage. Dr. Wilson confirmed that the workgroup discussed time constraints and agreed to hold conference calls in between face-to-face meetings.

Membership Workgroup.
Mr. Waters reported that 18 members currently serve on SRSHES; 12 terms will expire on June 30, 2003, three on June 30, 2004 and three on June 30, 2005. Within the next two weeks, Mr. Waters will poll the 12 members whose terms will expire on June 30, 2003 to determine their interest in reapplying for another three-year term. The responses will be forwarded to the Chair for submission to the DFO.

Epidemiologic Data Workgroup.
Ms. Guess reported on behalf of the workgroup chair who was absent from the meeting. The members discussed outstanding issues and potential follow-up actions. The workgroup reiterated its previous request for technical advisors from the Georgia Department of Human Resources and SCDHEC to assist the members. Dr. James Kirr of the North Augusta Resource Center should be contacted to determine if SRS workers are being compensated for certain cancers. Dose reconstruction documents should be reviewed to determine whether SRSHES needs to address any issues. Efforts should be made to identify tests that can routinely examine persons residing near SRS for radiation exposure.

Mr. Lockridge suggested that SRSHES’s current epidemiologic data set be summarized in terms of relevance to SRS. Dr. Crawford supported this recommendation, but he stressed the importance of developing a document that will be credible to the public. This goal can be achieved by summarizing the data with a non-SRS expert and then disseminating the report to the public. Ms. Kato noted that the SRSHES epidemiologic data set is currently limited to SRS. She reiterated her previous request for the database to be broadened to other sites. Dr. Lee agreed with this suggestion and recommended that the HTDS be included in the SRSHES epidemiologic data set. Iodine-131 was the focus of the HTDS, but this contaminant was also released from SRS. Both Mr. Devitt and Ms. Kato have access to epidemiologic technical resources that can be shared with the workgroup.

Community Summary Workgroup.
Dr. Bustos announced that the ad hoc group has been dissolved since the community summary has been finalized. The document will be distributed to SRSHES before the next meeting.

Agenda Workgroup.
Dr. Lee has asked Ms. Judy James, the SRSHES Senior Committee Management Specialist, to provide her with electronic versions of previous meeting minutes and agendas. The documents will be used to identify outstanding requests for agenda items and determine whether any topics are still relevant. Mr. Green clarified that NCEH must first verify consistency with final certified paper copies before electronic versions of meeting minutes can be released. He confirmed that this process is underway. NCEH will forward electronic versions of previous meeting minutes to the workgroup when the documents have been compared to final certified copies.

Scenario Workgroup.
Mr. Lockridge reported that the workgroup plans to achieve three objectives in collaboration with CDC: develop radiological exposure scenarios to support the SRS dose reconstruction project, design a risk-based exposure ranking, and identify future activities needed. The workgroup will also review data for the six scenarios; identify locations of residences, schools, milk, other food sources, jobs, churches and other activities for each scenario; and establish a living format to present scenario data. At this time, the workgroup is requesting a consensus recommendation from SRSHES to approve submission of scenarios 1-4 to CDC. Profiles of all six scenarios are outlined below.

The rural family lived on a farm in Burke County, Georgia. Girard, Georgia was selected as the location, which is three miles west of the Savannah River, southeast from SRS and located in the SRS plume path. The population of the town was approximately 200 in the 1950s. The rural family had two parents and five children in the 1950s and two parents and three children in the 1960s. The children attended Girard Elementary or Waynesboro High School. Residents were employed as farmers who used peanuts, corn and cotton as cash crops and grew vegetables for family consumption. The rural family spent time at a local Methodist church.

In terms of food sources, 50% of meat and vegetables were grown on the farm in the 1950s and 25% in the 1960s. The majority of milk was from one of two Girard dairies, but the rural family had dairy cows as well. The rural family swam, went camping on a limited basis did no recreational boating, hunted and fished to a great degree, and trapped animals on a limited basis. The rural family fished two miles east of Girard in Briar Creek and hunted for deer, quail and dove. The rural family scenario was modified with the assumption that the milk source was most likely from local dairies near Girard, but the backyard cow was not excluded.

The urban/suburban family resided in Augusta, Georgia on Broad and Greene Streets with two parents and two children in the 1950s and two parents and three children in the 1960s. The father is assumed to have worked in the SRS F-Area Canyon Building from 1955 to 1992, while the mother worked onsite through the first trimester of pregnancy. The mother is assumed to have then stayed home to raise children. The urban/suburban family attended a local Augusta church and the children attended Augusta neighborhood schools.. Food and milk were obtained from local grocery stores; Aiken and Augusta area dairies served as local milk suppliers.

The urban/suburban family occasionally swam and boated in Clark’s Hill Lake, fished two weekends per month in Clark’s Hill Reservoir and did not hunt. The urban/suburban family scenario was modified with two assumptions. First, milk was obtained from a local grocery store in Augusta rather than the nearest dairy or a rural neighbor. A backyard cow was included for the purpose of dose modeling. Second, the mother worked at the site during the early months of pregnancy. The delivery person resided in Barnwell, South Carolina and routinely delivered beverages to various SRS locations on a weekly basis. The family had two parents and two children in the 1950s and two parents and three children in the 1960s. The children attended schools in the Barnwell school system.

The delivery person is assumed to have worked at the Allendale Coca-Cola Bottling Plant in Allendale, South Carolina and spent eight hours per week onsite. The delivery person attended a Baptist church in Martin, South Carolina and obtained food from Barnwell and Martin grocery stores. The delivery person swam, hunted and fished in the Lower Three Runs Creek area, boated and camped at Little Hell Landing on the Savannah River, and also fished at the Savannah River Smith Lake. The family of the delivery person drank a considerable amount of soft drinks. The delivery person scenario was modified with the assumptions that no dosimetry was issued and backyard chickens or rabbits were maintained at the residence.

The outdoors person resided in Jackson, South Carolina and worked as a hunter or trapper subcontractor to a prime SRS contractor or the U.S. Forest Service. The family had two parents and two children in the 1950s and two parents and three children in the 1960s. The children attended schools in the 29831 and 29803 zip codes and the family attended a Baptist church in Jackson, South Carolina. In terms of food sources, 50% of vegetables were locally grown and irrigated from a surface creek, 75% of meat was obtained from SRS, fish were obtained from the Savannah River and water was obtained from a private well on the property. The outdoors person swam, boated and camped in the Savannah River from the Jackson boat ramp. Deer and hogs were obtained from work as a trapper at SRS.

The outdoors person scenario was modified with the assumptions that hunting dogs were also family pets and some potential exposure occurred from trapping activities in streams and ponds. A hypothetical poacher was included in the scenario as well. The workgroup is still gathering data for the family living near the river and migrant worker family scenarios. Input is being solicited from SRSHES to address the plausibility of these two scenarios and determine appropriateness of the pathways. The workgroup made some general observations about the overall process. First, chemical source terms and scenarios should be evaluated with the same level of rigor in terms of health effects in offsite populations. The dose reconstruction scenarios are only radiological.

Second, synergistic effects of radiological and chemical scenarios should be considered. Third, limitations of computer models that may impact the scenarios should be clearly stated. For example, the rural family scenario will need to be evaluated for impact if the model has no soil resuspension capability. The workgroup noted that it could provide further assistance to CDC after the radiological dose scenarios are completed. These activities would include developing and reviewing chemical scenarios; reviewing and ranking dominant radionuclides by risk; and reviewing screening analysis results in terms of community presentation. However, the workgroup acknowledged the need to first participate in a tutorial of the risk ranking process.

SRSHES extensively discussed the outdoors person scenario; several modifications were suggested. The outdoors person should obtain a considerable amount of meat and fish from the site and present with sufficient credibility to represent the scenario. A game warden or U.S. Forest Service worker who hunts with a dog could fill this role. Assumptions should be made that both the worker and dog were immersed in SRS streams and were heavily exposed on a frequent basis. Dr. Lee’s position was that SRSHES is placing far too much emphasis on the small details of the scenarios since the screening activity is not the actual dose reconstruction. At this point, SRSHES’s only focus should be to identify potential contaminants of concern and determine exposure pathways that will be incorporated into dose reconstruction project. For the other scenarios, SRSHES made the following recommendations.

• Replace "soft drinks" with "carbonated beverages" in the delivery person scenario.
• Include a family pet in all six scenarios rather than for the outdoors person only.
• Use Ms. Guess as an anecdotal data source for the family living near the river scenario.
• Distinguish between critical pathways for two scenarios: atmospheric exposure for the rural family and surface water exposure for the family living near the river, including fish consumption.
• Use the rural family scenario assumptions as a basis to reduce the exposure time by a certain percentage and develop assumptions for the migrant worker family scenario.

To avoid delays in the screening process, agreement was reached for the workgroup to produce a draft of the family living near the river and migrant worker family scenarios. NCEH will distribute the documents to all SRSHES members for review and comment within the next 30-45 days.