Compendium of Issues Surrounding the Levels of Contaminants
Contained in Fish Collected in Tributaries Leaving
the Savannah River Site (SRS)
and Associated Risks from Exposure
to Those Levels of Contaminants
June 1,1997
John R. Stockwell, MD, MPH
Human Health Effects Officer
Federal Facilities Branch
U.S. EPA Region 4
-------
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Savannah River Fish Fact Sheet
INFORMATION ABOUT RADIATION (May 1997)
WHO should be aware of the information contained in this fact sheet?
~ If you arc a member of a community along ihc Savannah River and eai fish from the Savannah River you should
carefully read and understand the information contained in this fact sheet.
WHAT should you know?
~ Contaminants of concern: Radioactive contaminants have been identified in fish taken from the Savannah River.
~ Areas of most concern: Four Mile Creek, Steel Creek, and Lower Three Runs Creek
The mouth of these creeks are of the most concern at this time. The areas 35 miles downstream from SRS and 2 milt
from the banks of this stretch of the Sav;innah River are also areas of concern.
~ Fish of greatest concern: Bottom feeders, ie Spotted Suckers, and Catfish
~ Additional studies are being conducted lo determine if other areas and types of fish should be avoided.
IS your drinking water safe?
~ Your drinking water is safe and recreational activities on Savannah River pose no health risk. Fish eat plants and
contaminated sediments then store radioactive contaminants in their body fat, making them harmful to consume.
What are the overall POTENTIAL HEALTH RISKS you should know about?
~ Health risks associated with eating fish contaminated with these radioactive contaminants are greatest for pregnant
women, infants, children, and adults consuming more than 3 ounces (the size of an average adult palm without the
thumb or fingers) of fish a day.
~ The risk from eating contaminated fish depends on the amount eaten. The risk from eating less than 3 ounces is 1
excess case of cancer for every 100,000 individuals and the risk from eating more than 3 ounces is 1 excess case of
cancer for every 10,000 individuals.
~ The levels of radioactive contamination in the fish are low and will not pose significant risk if moderate amounts arc
eaten . Exposure to these contaminants at increased levels over a long period of time may cause serious health
problems.
What are the CONTAMINANTS OF CONCERN and their possible effects on health?
~ Cesium -137 (Cs -137):
This radionuclide releases half of its radiation in about 30 years in the environment. Within the human body
cesium-137 behaves like potassium and releases half of its radiation in only 73 days.
~ Strontium -90 (Sr-90):
Tliis radionuclide releases half of its radiation in about 28 years in the environment. Within the body strontium-90
behaves like calcium and siorcs in the bones for approximately 10 years.
~ Tritium (H-3):
Tli is radionuclide releases half of its radiation in approximately 12 years.
-------
User name:
File name:
Directory:
Description:
CVAUGHN (68)
Queue: R4LS10W/PRINT10FL-11
Server: PS R4LS10W HP11
K:\USER\CVAUGHN\FISHFACT\FISH-CV.WPD
July 23, 1997 3:09pm
*
~
ccc
V
V
A
U
u
c c
V
V
A A
U
u
c
V
V
A A
U
u
c
V
V
A A
U
u
c
V
V
AAAAA
u
u
c c
V
V
A A
u
u
ccc
V
A A
uuu
G
G
G
H
H
N
N
H
H
N
N
H
H
NN
N
GGG HHHHH N N N
GGGG H
H
H
N
NN
H
H
N
N
H
H
N
N
W W
III
N N
DDDD
000
w w
W W
I
N N
D
D
0
0
w w
W W
I
NN N
D
D
0
0
w w
WWW
I
N N N
D
D
0
0
www
WWW
I
N NN
D
D
0
0
www
WW WW
I
N N
D
D
0
0
WW WW
w w
III
N N
DDDD
000
w w
W SSS
S S
S
SSS
S
S S
W SSS
-------
o
o
s
FAX TRANSMITTAL
# of pages ~
i°
TWjsa MrtM
"" 47-0"c)S3-L|l>f8
Fax t
GENERAL SERVICES ADMIIJ.ST RAIIO..
u
% & s
5
Os • V
(0
cO
rg
X
C
<5f
IS}
Carolina
Warnings don't
fish const
<
By Kariti Schill
Staff Writer
CO
a
Their catch might.be contaminated, but that isn!
killing the appetite of some area fishermen.
Researchers conducting a survey of 315 houses
holds along the Savannah River found that a small
amount of people on both sides of the waterway eat
more river fish than health officials say they should.
And surveyors were surprised to learn that those
who consume at least 2 pounds of fish each week do
so because they want to - not because they're poor.
"Our hypothesis, if you will, was that they'd fish
because they had to," said Milton Morris, a profes-
sor at Benedict .College in Columbia, .who helped
oversee tne Eish Subsistence-or'
Consumption:. Survey. "That
doesn't seem to be the case."
The.-survey was paid for by'a
$73,221 grant from the Depart-
ment of Energy. It came in ¦ reJ
sponse to a fish advisory the
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Con-
trol issued last spring, warning
peoplie not >to eat more than 1.5 to. 1:75 pounds of riv-
er fish;a mbnth.
The fish contains small amounts of radioactive
Strontium-90 and Cesium-137" that leaked-from-Sa
vannah River Site when the plant's reactors were
running. Such metals dan cause cahcer.
The fish also contains mercury, although nobody
is sure where it came from. Mercury, also a metal,
affects the nervous system and is especially harmful
to babies.
Some scoffed when DHEC issued its notice last
spring; arguing that nobody eats the amount of fish
stipulated in the advisory. But preliminary survey
data show that at least 3 percen t of respondents do.
Keith Coilinsworth of DHEC said Tuesday that
his agency will evaluate the final report when it is
released tearly next year to determine if the fish ad-
visory is doihg its job.
""WT'
the right
populati
them to
were va'
For $
Benedic
munitie:
Lng habi
Preli
househo
Savann;
of those
bass we
the draf
¦'i.11 ¦!¦ 33B
SB
-------
*
dina
Wednesday, December 4, 1996
WC
~ ^^tegusiaCJjnmitk
gs don't slow fish consumption
at isn't
g house-
g small
~ ay eat
hould.
t those
eek do
; poor.
-'d fish
,0 orofes-
co.
n '
1/5
X
<
in
L-5
sor at Benedict College in Columbia, who helped
oversee the Fish Subsistence or
Consumption Survey. "That
doesn't seem to be the case."
The survey was paid for by a
$73,221 grant from the Depart-
ment of Energy. It came in re-
sponse to a fish advisory the
South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Con-
trol issued last spring, warning
people not to eat more than 1.5 to 1.75 pounds of riv-
er fish a month.
The fish contains small amounts of radioactive
Strontium-90 and Cesium-137 that leaked from Sa-
vannah River Site when the plant's reactors were
running. Such metals can cause cancer.
The fish also contains mercury, although nobody
is sure where it came from. Mercury, also a metal,
affects" the nervous system and is especially harmful
to babies.
Some scoffed when DHEC issued its notice last
spring, arguing that nobody eats the amoiint of fish
stipulated in the advisory. But preliminary survey
data show that at least 3 percent of respondents do.
Keith Collinsworta of DHEC said Tuesday that
his agency will evaluate the final report -when it is
released fearly next year to determine if the fish ad-
visory is doing its job.
"We will lookat it in terms of, are we reaching
the right population with our advisory and does that
population even exist?" he said. "We were pushing
them to do this study to make sure our assumptions
were valid."
For seven weeks earlier this fall, students from
Benedict College walked door-to-door in river com-
munities near. SRS to ask families about their fish-
ing habits.
Preliminary results show that 57 percent of the
households surveyed have members who fish in the
Savannah River or in its tributaries. More than half
of those who do say they eat their catch. Bream and
bass were clear favorites among area fisherman,
the draft survey shows.
0
£
:o
OS
-------
d-m/fld-
2EZ.
*1 DRO^
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET NE
ATLANTA GEORGIA 30365
ipti v $
4WD-FFB
Dr. Mildred McClain
Citizens for Environmental Justice
P.O. Box 1841
Savannah, GA 31402
SUBJ: Public Availability Session
Savannah, GA
Dear Dr. McClain:
This letter is in regard to our previous discussions and
concerns that you have expressed regarding the Department of
Energy (DOE) environmental restoration program and information
needs of the citizens of Savannah, GA. These discussions and
concerns have been shared with other DOE-Savannah River Site
(SRS) Citizens Advisory Board members and with the Federal
Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee at
various meetings during this year. These concerns focus on the
need for government agencies, namely the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), DOE, and others to increase their outreach efforts
with communities traditionally uninvolved with environmental
decision making. EPA has recognized that non-traditional methods
should be utilized to improve its own outreach programs. Hence,
this office is interested in piloting its first DOE-SRS related
public involvement activity in your community.
The DOE-SRS has a public involvement plan. EPA is charged
with oversight responsibility of public involvement activities
that impact DOE environmental restoration programs. In an effort
to better gauge the type and extent of information that has been
disseminated in the Savannah area, I am offering our assistance
to you and the citizens of Savannah by having an availability
session and/or sessions to hear the public's concerns regarding
SRS. The goal of this session is to ensure that the public has a
forum to express their concerns without enormous focus on
technical jargon and regulatory processes. It is anticipated
that this will enable the community to participate more fully in
future decisions regarding the environmental clean up at SRS.
I am tentatively scheduling this session for March 1995, in
coordination with the DOE-SRS Citizens' Advisory Board meeting
also planned for that month in Savannah. The availability
session will focus on the citizens talking to the EPA and other
government agencies: e.g., Agencies for Toxic Substances and
-------
2
Disease Registry (ATSDR), DOE, Georgia Department of Natural
Resources (GA DNR) and others. EPA would appreciate your
assistance by identifying those topics where there is strong
public interest and assisting us in coordinating this endeavor
from a logistical perspective. I believe this will aid EPA in
executing its oversight mission as well as hear from the citizens
directly regarding their concerns.
I am looking forward to hearing from you. If you have
questions or need additional information, you may call me or
Camilla Warren, Chief, DOE Remedial Section, at (404) 347-3016.
cc: Timothy Fields, Jr., EPA
Jim Woolford, EPA
Barry Breen, EPA
Mike Stahl, EPA
Col. James Owendoff, DOD
Patricia A. Rivers, DOD
Tad McCall, USAF
Lt. Col Mark Hamilton, USAF
Richard E. Newsome, USA
David Olson, USN
Paul Yaroschak, USN
Cindy Kelly, DOE
James D. Werner, DOE
Suzanne Rudzinski, DOE
Mark M. Bashor, Ph.D., ATSDR
John Craynon, DOI
George Sundstrom, USDA
Drew Caputo, Natural Resources Defense Council
Tim Connor, Energy Research Foundation
Ralph Hutchison, OR Environmental Peace Alliance
Lenny Siegel, Pacific Studies Center
J. Ross Vincent, Sierra Club
Dr. Jay Sorenson, Sierra Club
Pat Bryant, Gulf Coast Tenants Organization
Donald Elisburg, Laborers' Health & Safety Fund of N.A.
Richard Miller, Oil Chemical Atomic Workers Union
Stanley Paytiamo, State of New Mexico
Merv Tano, State of Colorado
Chris Carini, International City/County Mgmt. Assoc.
Phillip A. Niedzielski-Eichner, Energy Communities Alliance
Amy McCabe Fitzgerald, ORR Local Oversight
Ann Ragan, SCDHEC
Sincerely,
Jon D. Johnston, Chief
.Federal Facilities Branch
-------
3
Pat Haight, KDEP
Earl Lemming, TDEC
Sam Goodhope, State of Texas
Thomas Kennedy, Assoc. of State & Territorial Solid Waste
Mgmt. Officials
Dan Miller, State of Colorado
Howard Roitman, State of Colorado
Brian J. Zwit, National Assoc. of Attorneys General
-------
United State*
Environmental Protection Agency
Region4
Waste Management Division
345 Couriiand Street, NE
Atlanta. GA 30365
m
Supplemental Guidance
to RAGS:
Region 4 Bulletins
Office of Health Assessment
(404) 347-1586
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
Human Health Risk Assessment
Bulletin No. 3
November, 1995
INTERIM
The objective of the exposure assessment is
to estimate the type and magnitude of
exposures to chemicals of potential concern
present at or migrating from a site. The
exposure assessment should include the
following sections.
• Characterization of Exposure Setting
• Identification of Exposure Pathways
• Quantification of Exposure
Ihis bulletin includes a bibliography with
acronyms for each entry. The acronyms are
used in the bulletin along with page numbers
[or reference purposes.
Characterization of Exposure Setting
Hie general physical characteristics of the
site and of the populations on and near the
Site should be presented in this section.
Populations should be addressed relative to
jjiose characteristics that influence exposure,
Rich as location and activity patterns. In
ladition, the presence of sensitive
fiibpopulations should be discussed. Current
®ceptors as wells as potential future
Acceptors should be considered.
identification of Exposure Pathways
section should identify the pathways by
wnich the previously identified populations
be exposed. A conceptual site model
would be developed for each site. The
¦conceptual site model should include known
and suspected sources of contamination,
types of contaminants and affected media,
known and potential routes of migration,
and known or potential human and
environmental receptors. In addition to the
narrative discussion of pathways, a figure
following the format of the example
presented in the RI/FS guidance should be
presented (RI/FS, p. 2-8).
Institutional controls (e.g., fences or guards)
should not be used as the justification for
elimination of a pathway in the baseline risk
assessment for current or future scenarios.
However, institutional controls may be used
in the determination of exposure frequency
for current exposure.
Generally, the baseline risk assessment
should consider the reasonably anticipated
future land use. However, it may be
valuable to evaluate risks associated with a
variety of future land uses especially where
there is some uncertainty regarding the
anticipated future land use (LUG, p. 6).
Residential Scenario
A future residential scenario should be
included in the baseline risk assessment
unless there is a strong reason to do
otherwise, e.g., an industrial area expected
to remain industrial or a wetland. If the
future residential scenario is not included, a
justification for not considering the
residential scenario should be presented and
-------
many parameters in an effort to establish
consistency. However, default values are
undesirable when the determination of
realistic current risks are sought. Data
based on observation of receptor populations
are most desirable in deriving site specific
current exposure assumptions. Future
exposure assumptions may be represented by
default values that reflect behavior resulting
in reasonable maximum exposure (RME)
risk estimates. This Bulletin presents intake
assumptions which reflect RME scenarios,
jhe accompanying Risk Characterization
Bulletin indicates that quantitative risk
values should be developed for central
tendency exposure (CTE) assumptions. The
Agency will be preparing formal guidance
on CTE default assumptions.
Concentration Term
The concentration term in the intake
equation is an estimate of the arithmetic
average concentration for a chemical within
eui exposure unit. Ideally the exposure point
concentration should be the true average
concentration within the exposure unit.
However, because of the uncertainty
associated with estimating the true average
concentration at a site, the 95 percent upper
confidence limit (UCL) of the arithmetic
mean should be used as the concentration
Brm (CCT, p. 1). However, if the
calculated UCL exceeds the maximum
jetected value the maximum detected value
ipould be used as the concentration term
RAGS, p. 6-22). It is generally reasonable
to assume that Superfund soil sampling data
S® lognormally distributed (CCT, p. 4).
Region 4 makes an exception to the use of
UCL as the exposure point concentration
^°r groundwater. Groundwater exposure
KPWt concentrations should be the arithmetic
average of the wells in the highly
93
concentrated area of the plume (ERGC, p.
3). Also, it is unacceptable to use data
from filtered ground water samples in a
baseline risk assessment (RAGS, p. 6-27).
Chemical degradation or attenuation should
not be considered in the baseline risk
assessment unless site-specific chemical-
specific data are available and prior approval
from the RPM and OHA is obtained.
Air concentration can be represented by
modeled values or long-term monitoring.
PM10 values should be used for particulates.
Ingestion
Soil ingestion rates should be as follows:
Resident Child 200 mg/day; Resident Adult
100 mg/day; Worker 50 - 480 mg/day,
depending on type of worker assumed
(SDEF, pp. 6, 10).
Sediments in an intermittent stream should
be considered as surface soil for the portion
of the year the stream is without water. In
most cases it is unnecessary to evaluate
human exposures to sediments covered by
surface water.
Potable water ingestion rates should be as
follows: Resident Child 1 f/day; Resident
Adult 2 f/day; Worker 1 f/day (EFH, p. 2-
3).
Ingestion of 50 ml/hour of surface water
should be used for exposures to water
during swimming (RAGS, p. 6-36). Intake
rates for exposure to surface water during
wading should be 50 ml/hour for children 1-
6 and 10 ml/hour for adolescents and adults.
Fish ingestion is highly variable and site
specific intake assumptions are most
3-3
11/95
-------
desirable since data vary greatly. Default
fish ingestion should be considered at 54,
g/day (in combination with a exposure
frequency of 350 days/year) unless a site
specific fish ingestion study has been
performed (SDEF, p. 12). If a site specific
fish study is used to determine the number
of meals of fish consumed during a given
time period, Region 4 suggests a default
value of 145 grams per meal. If site-
specific information indicates the presence
of subsistence fisherman, an evaluation of
their greater intake should be considered.
Dermal Contact
The areas of the body receiving exposure to
the specific media should be considered and
summed to obtain the skin surface area.
The Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH),
Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles
and Applications (DERMAL), or RAGS can
be used to determine the surface area of
each portion of the body which is exposed.
Where chemical-specific information is not
available, dermal absorption factors of 1.0%
for organics and 0.1 % for inorganics should
be used as defaults in determining the uptake
associated with dermal exposure to
contaminated soils (this includes the soil
matrix effect).
The soil to skin adherence factors given in
RAGS (1.45 mg/cm2 to 2.77 mg/cm2) are
outdated. New data in this area indicates
that this range should be changed to 0.2
mg/cm2 to 1.0 mg/cm2 (DERMAL, p. 8-
17). The value of 1.0 mg/cm2 is considered
appropriate for evaluation of RME intake
assumptions.
Dermal-aqueous permeability coefficients
should be obtained from tables or calculated
from equations presented in EPA's Dermal
Guidance. Table 5-3 should be used foi
inorganics and Table 5-7 should be used foi
organics (DERMAL, pp. 5-9, 5-39).
Additionally, ATSDRToxicological Profiles
are an acceptable alternative source.
Inhalation
The default inhalation rate for adults is 20
m3/day (SDEF, p. 6). Children should be
considered at 15 m3/day (EFH, p. 3-41),
Site specific inhalation rate should be
considered based on the worker activity a
the site; 20 m3/work day is an acceptable
default (SDEF, p. 10).
Exposure to VOCs During Showering
It should be assumed that showering
exposure is equivalent to exposure fron
ingestion of two liters of contaminated watei
per day based on the recommendation o
The Risk Assessment Forum (RAF, p. 1-2)
This method includes exposures vi;
inhalation and dermal routes and is applie<
to adolescents and adults.
Exposure Frequency
Default exposure frequency should be
considered at 350 days/year for residents
and 250 days/year for workers (SDEF, pp.
5, 9). Current exposure assumptions should
represent conservative actual occurrences as
accurately as possible.
As a default, Region 4 believes swimming
frequency in the southeast should be 45
days/year. However, for backyard
swimming pools, in the southern portion of
the region, a substantial increase in exposure
frequency over the 45 days/year should be
considered based on site specific
information. Region 4 recommends that a
backyard swimming pool exposure
4
11/95
-------
frequency of 90 days/year should be
considered.
Exposure Duration
^ 30 year exposure duration (6 years as a
Shild and 24 years as an adult) is the default
issumption for residents. Default worker
Exposure duration should be 25 years
SDEF, pp. 5, 9).
Use of the Fraction Ingested (FI) Term
Office of Health Assessment should be
consulted regarding the use of the FI term.
A FI of 100% is used except in hot spot
exposure assessments and in the evaluation
of exposures to intermittent streams.
Bibliography
Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles
and Applications, (DERMAL), Interim
Report, EPA/600/8-91/01 IB, January 1992.
'Exposure Factors Handbook, (EFH),
internal Draft, NCEA-W-005, May 1995
^Update to Exposure Factors Handbook,
EPA/600/8-89/043, May 1989).
Exposure to VOCs During Showering,
(RAF), Memorandum from Dorothy E.
fatton, Chair, Risk Assessment Forum, to
P. Henry Habicht, H, July 10, 1991.
Guidance for Conducting Remedial
Investigations and Feasibility Studies Under
fERCLA, (RI/FS), EPA/540/G-89/004,
October 1988.
Use in CERCLA Remedy Selection
Process, (LUG), OSWER Directive No.
9355.7-04, May 25, 1995.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Supetfund:
Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual, (RAGS), Interim Final,
EPA/540/1-89/002, December 1989.
Risk Assessment Guidance for Supetfund:
Volume 1 - Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Supplemental Guidance, Standard
Default Exposure Factors, (SDEF), Interim
Final, OSWER Directive No. 9285.6-03,
March 25, 1991.
Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:
Calculating the Concentration Term, (CCT),
OSWER Publication 9285.7-081, May 1992.
Supplemental Guidance to RAGS:
Estimating Risk from Groundwater
Contamination, (ERGC), Internal Draft,
December 1993.
3-5
11/95
-------
tnciosure, Letter Hon to Shaw/Harris
dated 8 1996
RECORD OF SCDHEC/EPA-IV/SR EXECUTIVE FORUM MEETING
NOVEMBER 29,1995
ISSUES DISCUSSED
Technology Development
• SR briefly updated the progress on deploying new ER technology. Good cooperation
between the site and regulatory staffs was highlighted, and a recent letter in which EPA
commended SR for involving EPA in the technology development process was noted as
further confirmation of a collaborative process.
• EPA will track the $10 million for technology development and a desired FY97 FFA
milestone based on technology development
• Deployment of new ER technology has been an ongoing process for several years, and will
be accelerated in FY96 as a result of the post-Rock Hill momentum.
Enforcement Actions
• The possibility of terminating the enforcement action process tor the tritium release and the
IROD for the F- and H-Areas groundwater remediation was discussed EPA will continue to
leave the enforcement action open for the IROD and track the SRS commitment to meet thf-
RCRA remediation schedule. EPA will determine the status of the tritium NOV.
• Elevating issues to the management of the three parties for resolution prior to initiating
enforcement actions was discussed.
Fish Contamination
• SR provided a chronology of the fish contamination events.
• The initiation of the potential EPA enforcement action regarding this action was discussed.
• The technical staffs of the three parties plan to meet to determine if any action is necessary.
Status RCRA Applicability to Nuclear Materials
• SR provided a chronology of actions regarding the applicability of RCRA to nuclear
materials.
• A SCDHEC response to the SRS position letter can be expected in December.
-------
MEETING RECORD
MEETING DATE AND TIME
February 6, 1996, 10:00 A.M.
MEETING LOCATION:
Lower Savannah District Office of the South
Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, 218 Beaufort Street,
NE, Aiken, SC
PURPOSE OF MEETING:
Follow-up on issues related to radioactivity
in Savannah River fish
ATTENDEES:
See Attachment 1
The attendees were welcomed by Myra Reece of the South Carolina Department of
Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), Aiken Office.
The meeting was turned over to Gail Whitney of the Environmental Compliance
Division of the Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office (DOE-
SR). Ms. Whitney reviewed the status of issues and actions that the group would
discuss (see Attachment 2, Items 1-4, 9, 12, 14, 18, and possibly 16).
SUBJECTS DISCUSSED:
• What methodology and data were or should be used to calculate risk value?
- A SCDHEC representative showed overheads and led discussions on the
Risk variables for edible and non-edible fish sections (see Attachment 3)
- What SCDHEC considered edible and non-edible fish.
- What methodology was used.
- Multiple sampling locations.
Risk from ingestion of edible and non-edible sections of fish contaminated
with cesium-137 and strontium-90 caught in the Savannah River (see
Attachment 4).
The similarities in the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR)
and the DOE data.
following:
Subsistence fishermen - a discussion took place on who fishes, where they
fish, and why they fish.
-------
Follow-up Fish Issues Meeting
Page 2
It was stated that the GDNR and SRS are using the WSRC/EMS Fish
Monitoring Plan (see Attachment 5).
• It was asked if either agency had data on other rivers. SCDHEC indicated
they had not looked at other rivers; GDNR reported they had sampled three
other rivers.
- A Westinghouse Savannah River Company representative showed overheads
and led discussions on the:
Review of data from SCDHEC, GDNR, and SRS regarding radionuclides in
Savannah River fish (see Attachment 6).
Agency assumptions utilized to calculate risk (see Attachment 7).
- A question was asked about the site's revisions to the environmental
monitoring program and if the revisions would impact the fish monitoring
program. Ben Gould, DOE-ECD, indicated there are no plans to reduce the
current level of sampling nor will any revisions reduce the quality of the
monitoring program.
- A GDNR representative presented an overview and led discussions on the
actions performed by the State of Georgia:
Reviewed 1991 strategies;
Looked at lakes and rivers;
Targeted fish most likely to be caught;
Analyzed for 44 contaminants;
Developed and issued guidelines in the form of a pamphlet that provides
information to people in a user friendly way.
Georgia will base their fish advisories on an approach that informs people
how much fish they can eat and how often in order to remain in the safe
category.
-------
Follow-up Fish Issues Meeting
Page 3
• Ms. Whitney suggested each agency identify two or three representatives
to serve as members of a committee to review of the 1992 adopted Fish
Monitoring Plan. This committee should meet in the very near future to
assess and identify needed revisions to the plan before the group present
today reconvenes.
DECISIONS REACHED:
• SCDHEC will evaluate the data to determine if a concern still exists; review the
data from the source sites, and meet to discuss communications strategy.
• All parties should use the same sampling and analyzing procedures.
• DOE will consider conducting a survey regarding subsistence fishermen;
SCDHEC indicated they could provide a point of contact for such a survey.
• A few representatives from each agency will meet in the near future (before the
larger group meets again) to review the 1992 Fish Monitoring Plan.
• The next meeting will be scheduled within a month. SCDHEC representatives
will inform Ms. Whitney of a suitable date.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1:
Attachment 2:
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4:
Attachment 5:
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7;
Meeting Attendees
Issues
Risk Variables for Edible + Non-Edible Fish Sections
Risk From Ingestion of Edible + Non-Edible Sections of Fish
Contaminated With CS-137 + SR-90 Caught in the Savannah
River
The WSRC/EMS Fish Monitoring Plan
Review of Data from SCDHEC, GDNR, and SRS Regarding
Radionuclides in Savannah River Fish
Agency Assumptions Utilized to Calculate Risk
-------
,-tS STj
/A 'J
I® UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 4
3JS COURTLA'nID street ne
ATLANTA GEORGIA 303ii
APR 0 I i^O
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO;
Public Information Exchange Sessions
at the Savannah River Site
Camilla Bond Warren, Chief ^n ,
Department of Energy Sectio£L4/lAJAMX4^_--
David Levenstein
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
(Mail Code 2261)
Marianne Lynch, Regional Liaison
Office of Federal Facilities Reuse
and Redevelopment (Mail Code 5101)
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of
Energy (DOE), Savannah River Site (SRS) and EPA, Region IV
embarked on an innovative approach to access stakeholders -
public information exchange sessions. This approach was designed
to enhance the dialogue between the stakeholders, the regulating
agencies and the DOE Site. On June 26-27, 1995, three
information exchange sessions were held in Savannah, Georgia, a
downstream community. Although not near the site concerns had
been expressed regarding the impact of the drinking water form
the Savannah River. This allowed greater opportunity for these
stakeholders to express their concerns and hear directly form the
agencies.
To capture the concerns of the community and assist in
evaluating the information needs of this area, a total of 2000
questionnaires were mailed and distributed at the meetings.
These completed questionnaires were returned to EPA via "postage
paid" envelopes. Approximately 22 responses were received. In
addition, the meetings which were transcribed solicited 59
questions. The questions were categorized; of which 25 were
selected and formed the basis for the "Responsiveness Summary."
A second public exchange session was held on December 6,
1995 in Barnwell, South Carolina. The South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC) participated in this
session. The Responsiveness Summaries were distributed at the
meeting and will also be mailed to those in attendance at the
June pilot.
-------
2
The regulating agencies and DOE have determined that these
information exchange sessions are very beneficial and allows
greater dialogue and accessibility to the stakeholders. This
aspect of DOE-EPA-State coordination was discussed and agreed
upon in the July 1995, SRS Workout Session. Since the SRS
Workout, DOE,EPA and SCDHEC managers are working to coordinate
these meetings on a quarterly basis in order to streamline and
improve public involvement activities.
Attachment: Responsiveness Summary
-------
Summary of Questions Asked
at
EPA/DOE PUBLIC INFORMATION EXCHANGES
(June 26 & 27, 1995)
Groundwater
1. Where do the contaminants go when you take them out of the
water? (Source: June 26, 1995, Page 9, Line 18)
Basically, solvents are being removed from the
groundwater. When the water goes through the air stripper,
the solvents are removed and they are emitted to the air.
Ultimately, the ultraviolet rays from the sun destroy the
solvents.
2. When you talk about remediating contaminated water, what
do you do to it? (Source: June 27, 1995, Evening
Meeting, Page 10, Line 14)
It depends on the contaminant in the water. Water comes
into the top of the taller stripper unit and blows air up
from the bottom. The solvents go into the air and come out
of the water easily. The water that comes out is clean
and it goes back into the stream. Although it is clean, it
is monitored regularly. The volatiles go into the air and
the UV rays from the sun destroy them. We also
demonstrated and we intend to put in service
bioremediation. Methane is injected into the ground where
there are microbes that live in the earth, but they're not
very active. When you feed them methane, they become more
active and these microbes, eat the solvents and they
process them in their own small bodies. The discharge is,
again, not hazardous any longer.
3. Do you have monitoring devices to determine if there is
contamination in the lower aquifers? (Source: June 27,
19 95, Evening Meeting, Page 17, Line 13)
Yes.
1
-------
4. Is SRS on the recharge line for the Florida aquifer?
(Source: June 27, 1995, Evening Meeting, Page 52, Line 3)
No, SRS is not on the recharge line for the Florida
aquifer.
2
-------
Health
1. Since you have become involved with this, has a study been
conducted on the personnel at SRS who work around that
material to find out how they are impacted? (Source:
June 26, 1995, Page 46, Line 1)
All the workers at Savannah River are monitored each year.
All workers are required to take appropriate training.
The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is
looking into any public health impacts of releases from
the process and, they're forming a Citizens Advisory Board
to address these issues.
In addition, the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) is a part of the National Institute of
Health, and they just released a preliminary study that
indicated that among a small population of site workers,
there has been small incidence and a statistically
noticeable blip of leukemia among a very small segment of
the site population. The National Institute of Health and
the Centers for Disease Control did a cancer study on all
nuclear sites, both commercial power plants and DOE
facilities, the surrounding communities and then control
communities a distance away. No significant differences
were found in the cancer rates among those communities.
We have had worker studies from day one at the site. O'^r
own studies indicate that there's been no significant
difference in the number of cancers seen in the site
worker population of those outside.
2. Is strontium also present in drinking water? (Source:
June 27, 1995, Page 43, Line 8)
Yes. Strontium, chemically, is everywhere in nature.
Chemically, it's very similar to calcium. You find it in
concrete, you find it in your homes, you find it in paint,
trees, rivers and minerals. Strontium is a radionuclide.
It' s produced as a by-product when reactors operate. When
atoms split apart, sometimes the fragments have an atomic
rate of 90, and it's the element strontium. Strontium-90
has about a 30-year half life. If there was any natural
strontium-90', it died billions o.f years .ago, so
3
-------
essentially all strontium-90 in the world today is the
result of nuclear industry or weapons production or
atmospheric testingqf-^weafche
3. What kind of data/information are available on fish?
(Source: June 27, 1995, Morning Meeting, Page 47, Line 7)
Fish from certain locations near the Department of Energy
Savannah River Site are contaminated from off-site
releases of radioactive contaminants from the facility.
Some of these contaminants are cesium-137 and strontium-
90.
4. Were the present EPA standards based on the 1980
conference by the National Academy of Science called the
Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR 3)?
Source: June 27, 1995, Morning Meeting, Page 54, Line 10)
EPA radiation protection standards are based largely on
the results of the BEIR V Report, which was produced by
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). However, EPA also
uses health effects data and dose and risk models from a
number of other national and international scientific
advisory commissions and organizations. Besides NAS,
these organizations include the National Council on
Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), the United
Nations Scientific Committee on t.he Effects of Atomic
Radiation (UNSCEAR), and the International Commission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP).
5. What is the greatest risk from SRS to the citizens of
Savannah at the present time? (Source: June 27, 1995,
Morning Meeting, Page 64, Line 6)
There are two types of risk - human health and ecological.
The greatest current risks we have identified result from
contaminated groundwater plumes that are seeping into the
Savannah River. We do not see imminent human health
exposures to be problematic at this point, but we do see
some potential, and probably imminent, ecological issues
that need to be addressed from some of those areas. They
are identified as- the .F and I}-Areas.
4
-------
Our worst "potential" human and environmental risks are
posed by the presence of the high level waste tanks.
There are two reasons why these tanks present our greatest
potential risks: 1) their quantity, about 35 million
gallons, and 2) the fact that their contents are
essentially a liquid. The contents are a sludge, a very
concentrated sludge, but it truly is liquid and could be
dispersed into the environment, contaminating fairly large
areas with very high radioactivity and be very dangerous
to fish, human health, and products. The risks presented
by the contents of the high level waste tanks are
minimized by performing safety integrity checks of the
tanks.
6. We know that x-rays build up in your body over a long
period of time. If you drink a. lot of the water are you
going to have a problem with tritium? Is it just going to
keep accumulating like strontium-90? (Source: June 27,
1995, Evening Meeting, Page 49, Line 23)
Tritium resembles water so closely that the body can not
recognize that it's different from water. Most of the
body is water so, it's "distributed throughout the body.
Tritium does not stay very long, but if you drink it all
the time, you may have a certain level in your system at
all times. It depends on the concentration and the dose.
The drinking water in Savannah comes from the ground right
now and not from tne river. We know that the level is
still safe with regard to the national drinking water
standard.
5
-------
Savannah River
1. Is the Savannah River tested constantly in this Savannah
area? (Source: June 26, 1995, Page 26, Line 5)
Yes. It's tested in several places. It's tested
downstream before it reaches the city of Savannah and
Beaufort, South Carolina, and at various points in
between.
2. Can the Savannah River be used for drinking water?
(Source: June 26, 1995, Page 26, Line 20)
Yes.
3. How safe is the water in Savannah River? (Source: June
27, 1995, Evening Meeting, Page 39, Line 13)
The Savannah River as it leaves the site and comes on
downstream meets all the drinking water standards that
there are.
4. Why are there not many fish in the Savannah River in this
area? (Source: June 27, 1995, Evening Meeting, Page 40,
Line 3)
The Savannah River corridor has been a heavily industrial
area for a long time; so nationally the trends are and the
facts are that fishing is not what it used to be, not
just in the Savannah, Georgia area, but in other areas.
EPA is basically trying to pick off these industrial areas
one at a time and try to ratchet back clean water at each
stream that enters the Savannah River and make water more
fishable and swimmable.
6
-------
Appendices C, G, and H
1. How long does it take to evaluate the sites listed in each
appendix and to move them from one classification to
another? Is it possible that you have something on these
lists that could endanger citizens? (June 26, 1995, Page
32, Line 4)
The Appendix G process usually takes between three to six
months to evaluate whether or not the site needs to either
go to Appendix C or whether or not the contamination, if
any is present, does not exceed any of the established
requirements. Once it moves from Appendix G to Appendix
C, the typical tjume frame for evaluating what needs to
happen, if anything, is approximately eighteen months.
Once we determine whether of not there's further
remediation needed, then we go through the process of
bringing it to the public and identifying the alternatives
of the types of cleanup activities we are going to use to
clean up that particular area of concern.
7
-------
Tritium
1. There was a grant given to Georgia last year to study
tritium leaking into the river. What were the results of
that study? (Source: June 27, Evening Meeting, Page 28,
Line 9)
The conclusion that was drawn by those studies was this
was a small amount of airborne tritium coming down with
the rainfall rather than the groundwater migrating
laterally in to Georgia.
2. What is the level of tritium on the Savannah River?
(Source: June 27, 1995, Evening Meeting, Page 41, Line
20)
The SRS information averages approximately 1,000
picocuries, January through March. The Safe Drinking
Water Act has establiblished a Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) of 4 millirems per year for gross beta emitters,
such as tritium. This MCL is equal to 60,900 picocuries
per liter of water.
3. Is tritium naturally-occurring in water? (Source: June
27, 1995, Evening Meeting, Page 51, Line 13)
Tritium is found in rain water and is produced by the
interaction of sunlight in the upper atmosphere and, up to
World War II, tritium was used to date groundwater.
8
-------
Budget
1. Is the budget for SRS $60 Million a year? What is the
estimated cost to clean it up completely? (Source: June
27, 1995, Evening Meeting, Page 27, Line 2)
The cost to clean up the site can not be determined.
2. Why is the SRS budget so much lower than other DOE sites?
(Source: June 27, 1995, Page 46, Line 5)
The Department of Energy is responsible for formulating
that budget and getting it up to Congress. That question
was raised by the EPA one year ago and when the Department
of Energy people looked at it they agreed to increase
clean up dollars at SRS.
9
-------
FFA
1. Explain the relationship between EPA, DOE, and the Federal
Facilities Agreement as it relates to SRS (Source: June
27, 1995, Evening Meeting, Page 25, Line 25)
The agencies agree up front to a schedule of compliance
for the facility that's suitable to the regulators both at
the state and federal levels. It's required by CERCLA of
Superfund, Section 120, to get a compliance schedule from
the Department of Energy.
10
-------
CERCLA/RCRA
1. Are CERCLA and RCRA the major tools under the Federal
Facilities Agreement? (Source: June 27, 1995, Evening
Meeting, Page 38, Line 9)
The state of South Carolina got out there first with DOE
and had some RCRA permits issued and RCRA permits required
cleanup of some old waste sites, as early as 1987. The
site was listed a couple of years later on the NPL as a
Superfund site. One of the areas that the state wanted to
ensure that the agreement delineated was the CERCLA
responsibilities, the old disposal practices that were not
part of the RCRA permit and it could be separated out and
that things were not duplicated across the board from a
state and federal authority standpoint. CERCLA and RCRA
are the tools and those are the tools nationwide for the
defense and energy sites. Savannah River is no different
from the others. Hanford, Oakridge, Femold, all the big
DOE sites have either Federal Facilities Agreements or
RCRA permits that are driving the cleanup schedule.
11
-------
Miscellaneous
1. I would like to know how many underground storage units
you have and how many gallons of radioactive waste you
have in them and whether they are still leaking. (Source:
June 26, 1995, Page 11, Line 18)
Fifty-one high level radioactive tanks.
2. What interaction does the Environmental Restoration
Division have with the co-trustees for the Natural
Resources at SRS? (Source: June 27, Morning Meeting,
Page 77, Line 24)
Ms. Duncan - I attended the last Trustee Council meeting,
representing the Department of Interior, and I've heard
here more today on what is being done at SRS than I' ve
heard in the past three and a half years. The last
Trustee Council , made an effort to put together a
strategy to get more involved, to get more to the
administration of DOE. In response to some of the
comments about your budget, I specifically requested that
the trustee interest and activities be represented in the
SR budget.
1'Z
-------
r, t
'/7
'u &L
(J i
' i
u/iScJclu TYja/t-h L i997
1 1/4,
(U^j
iil %
amtL
(Qraant'pxd?^
6>}€.
-Jk
/ .:I IVfaeySp&b^&AJ / ^es fiys/Qc ( &P3) ~7ss-/o^
_/c^-^y. fast W/n^y^/- g"^^-f5<7
t£T tO
(£&{\
7. ctfqR&d ifWkEXy~~n?Q£-3r?.
/j.xk'Cm
-4o$- /.CfczL - J37f|
.z- "8^7 2-
^5-T^S-9folS
-^AS-S^S/
//"I ("gyi CJ^»t.4fe /VPTA-PfA ^09-
/J, j! \To tW A. 57otAM&l, mpt APtf- iS5£/?A-/ w£?l&a *or/&z'VS//
jM
/62
-------
(?/mr
Tfygaa##? fctf# : F(^
/I fr&/-
/ /ft^/Y^ Hsiri-t ff**+r
de'Lcsfr 3^/f-U^/L /_P&>£~ £/&/vt 4t/?/r/?$£a- C ^ *'**•
-5 &f*Z. A<0sie^/T// M. &
fcA&ifc 7 ¦= f Sftzuz?
Pto fiMZrr Qy/vi/^) ft^mo a4W/rr Afwt# /f
£/frt*#/0&affz: A? Sf0
fiZT'/WM? frft/ //r '5&&V UP47>&&
fytyiyAfP 5y%$.
5(/6tvr/WcfL " pf- ff'&vtus Mfmj
/6*K& 5^m/&yyr
-------
„ l< f
tfA#?/*# i5K5,
/3-. £%&- M&t&p/ry
¦/} yrc/(P^ df~ /?&?#<£ ftrb &)*¦$(;/» ftsay
H/sWf/L /?<%s&V (jAtf5£ /^(Z/Z'^/fA- ^ 0/Zfr/Y/7?jfy ( f^o^\
- (£?.&
//
-------
w/l. J//?r //r^/c^ of
fit&W */47£A^ V (Jftf## f3& /fr0&77&t- fi?A-
S/b3
01^ t/YT& T/f/fr &?#&? //y 5X ^ ftf^
Z.0 ^ £6frnt&e. r/-/£/A
J %
/W fH/& MfrxcM
/yl/Y-&) AAc(4o
Qo&m" 37- ~ ^c^f0ff
f % <
Z<9 % 3"
12.7a ^ ft5, f &***
-------
C diHX?)
IP l+M^P5T&&
5 ^ /-/c^Z-Mzs? 57^/^-
u if — - —
K£^4f/c/& 13 -5f4rt#?z& Op/tf^/sy
Jlft-A&Q- f ({/$ /$>
Ot'3t 4&$ &#*?&*? ? y s/tfr# 5V&>f7T?/vc£ ^Erp ^/o%5
¦fl - -_ =/<^/% 0_FZ_
rrf ........ . /-/0Cs5£Vo'
gUlO^^r
.$y\> ( ^ (6 //n^fiTA-rff (po&3?fc/Y
a
P(jpp0A. 57cvy ^/5" rovy
ft% 2.
fen/jzcP zt/rSowfro T/^/i
» aa^N^u-r
U*L ;
. l,{j$
¦*? 'i ~ A/ -r- ^/i -r* £Z>4tf/u.ofc- 5/ ^
Lftm-Mm/o Zo^/ol^
-------
3,y- <2yr^ QeNSunpr&f ~==? ^ *G-
1G0££>
5^/nMr <
»
¦Z./7k£> -OLs/ZC^tr
^TcA £
« £/5 /-oo-snj r /f-^c/f/s^ £1/YFo - /=/*/• ^f-^z/9
Op ft#8a# 4- ¦. &ftf-Attc.(rr / &/3C/C4 r^sr £/u&*if
* &0/t? s % /Zrf¥-_/t4jC({/£?5
* "ft-su ^ ^ S///)-ff//Y£ v- fi/tcK j /tUMmr#**
/ £-{(// /V6 //Y C/ht£5 //*_±_d&sr —
fe . , (*>/-{ ft/VcM/rt £/f- 7
^00^^01-0$ faXMS
firtouT X-T 7
fyjfcuot* -
:# ^7 ///fe fid-ro^ OP 5Tv/?f
^ \£4!/oAMffe crP- CaU-^smurr/orf &&TM&N C/Af/yfrLstrt /
foic^t? A-f/Lj tr po^tt.7.__/n#fr&^ //= 'r
-------
MAY 22 '97 02: 12PM SC DHEC BSHUIM
P. 1
H E C
PtOMOTF. PROTKliT P&OSPF.R
South CiKiliiui Department of Health
&nd Environmental Control
Date: Sr.Z7.-T?
Number of pages Including Cover Sheet: -*23
Please Deliver This Fax Message
TO: J~3hn ^5~\-QcJ^u>e l(
Name
tTPA-
Organization/Department
dd £7* A XS^If?
Fax Number
( )
Office Phone
Name
Bureau/Division/Section
-------
rKun : saw jjrtfiL# oi
MAY 22 '97 02=13PM SC DHEC BSHWM
r 9W^A
P.2
>2
DMdan of
MfldoBolQteM
1600 M Sheet
imbla S.C. 29201
103) 73^5074
..j»tfen
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
May 14,1996
COLUMBIA • A fteh consumption advisory for the Savannah River Issued In January
1995 baaed on mercury in fish ie being expanded to include all species of fish based on
measured levels of two radioactive Isotopes, the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental
Control reported today.
The expanded advisory applies only to a portion of the river from Beech island in Aiken
County downstream to the Webb Wildlife Center In Hampton County.
"Results of fish testing in the Savannah River showed elevated levels of Cesium-137
and Strontium-90," according to Harry Ma this, assistant chief of DHEC's Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management "While radioisotopes are commonly present In the
environment and the presence of Cesium-137 and Stronfium-SO have been routinely reported
since 1959, this is the first time we have evaluated the data using a more comprehensive
quantitative risk analysis. These radioisotope releases occurred due to historical methods for
ihe disposal of radioactive material at toe site These methods are no longer used at SRS to
dispose of radioactive material, and discharge to streams have been reduced. We believe the
results of the risk analysis need to be communicated. The analysis of this data is part of the
state's continuing effort to measure levels of radioisotopes in flsh near nuclear facilities in the
state. The advisory was expanded to communicate these risks, especially to people who
routinely eat fish caught in the river."
Mathis said the radioisotope contamination concern isforfisn only, as wiin mercury,
fish also concentrate the radioisotopes to levels of concern. Water samples from the
Savannah River analyzed for radioactivity indicated that the safety of drinking water is not
affected.
The types of fish sampled include sucker, bowfin, shad, largemouth bass, striped
bass, bream, carp, catfish, and mullet,1 Mathis said. There are plans to sample additional fish
and other aquatic species in the Savannah River that may be exposed to the Isotopes.*
"We believe expanding the advisory will provide people the information they need to
make informed decisions about which fish to eat and how micti," he said.
The Savannah River's fish consumption advisory extending from Lake Thurmond
downstream to Interstate 95. issued 17 months ago based on the presence of mercury, is still
In effect and includes the recommendation that pregnant women, women planning to become
pregnant, infants and children may face the highest risk of hearth problems and should not eat
any flsn from these waters.
The IJ.S, Environmental Protection Agency is working with us to try to Identify groups
potentially at risk," he said.
'While humans can eliminate seme of the radioisotopes through body wastes,' said
Cheryl Nytoro, risk assessor far DHEC's federal facilities section, the concentrations and types
of radioisotopes in these samples are high enough to warrant notification. The risk of an effect
•more*
-------
from radiation can be reduced if people are aware of and follow guidelines."
Msftfisaitftta^rfromnt savannah RtoeiiMte for drinking water oumosesartf
recreational river uses. Finally, consumption of fish obtained front the Savannah River is safe if
consumed in a manner consistent with the advisory's guidelines.
People with questions about the advisory or fish consumption guidelines may call
DHECs Environmental Quality Control district offices in Greenwood at (864)223-0333, Irr Aiken
at (803)641*7670 or in Beaufort at (603)522-9097.
IWw
For Further Information:
Thorn Berry - (803)734-5043
Harry Mathis - (603)68*4000
Cheryl Nybro - (803)696-4067
-------
I'iM f i_c 'r>( l-irl'l 3L jJHtL'v- EibliWI'l
^.4
FISH CONSUMPTION ADVISORY
FOR THE SAVANNAH RIVER*
(Pounds per Month)
Lake Thurmond to Beech Island
LMB** - 4.75
AU other fish - no limit
Beech Island to Allendale/Barnwell County Line LMB** - 1.75
All other fish -1.5
Allendale/Barnwell County Line to Webb Wildlife
Webb Wildlife to 1-95
LMB** -2.5
All other fish - 4.0
LMB** -1.0
All other fish - no limit
Pregnant women, women planning to get pregnant, infants and children
should not eat fish from the Savannah River.
LMB - largemouth bass
-------
I-HY 22 '97 02=14P[1 sc dhec bshwm
RISK ASSESSMENT AND FISH CONSUMPTION
ADVISORY FOR THE SAVANNAH RIVER BASED
ON RADIONUCLIDES PRESENT IN FISH
UPSTREAM, ADJACENT TO, AND DOWNSTREAM
OF THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
Donald L. Siron
Risk Assessor
-------
MhY 22 '97 02:15PM SC DHEC BSHUM
Introduction
The Savannah River Site (SRS) is a United States Department of Energy facility occupying
approximately 310 square miles within Aiken, Barnwell and Allendale counties of South Carolina.
The SRS operated from 1952 to 1988 to produce nuclear materials primarily for national defense. As
a result of these operations over SO different radioisotopes were released to the environment
(Cummins et al., 1991). The SRS presently serves as a storage facility for radioactive and other
contaminated waste.
A risk assessment was performed to assess the potential for adverse human health effects due
to ingestion of Savannah River fish contaminated with radioactive material. Human health effects
were considered only in this risk assessment; no analyses were performed to quantify risk to
ecological receptors. This risk assessment follows the EPA Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
or RAGS (EPA, 1989) and Region IV Supplemental Guidance to RAGS (EPA, 1995).
The Savannah River Site (SRS) is bounded to the west by a 35 mile stretch of the Savannah
River. Five nuyor streams from SRS flow into the Savannah River; Upper Three Runs Creek, Four
Mile Creek, Pen Branch, Steel Creek and Lower Three Runs Creek. These streams directly receive
effluents from SRS operations as well as runoff from past activities and disposal practices and
transport contaminants to the Savannah River. The Savannah River contains Cesium-137 (Cs-137)
and Strontium-90 (Sr-90) which are man-made radioactive isotopes that are directly related to SRS
operations. These two radionuclides are known to be bioaccumulated in fish and were specifically
chosen for risk assessme1^
Methods
The Westinghouse Savannah River Company Environmental Protection Department (WSRC-
EPD) Savannah River fish sampling database for 1993 and 1994 was used for the basis of the risk
calculations (Appendix A). This database contains radionuclide concentrations from 237 fish
samples. Fish samples were collected from sites on the Savannah River upstream, adjacent to, and
downstream of the Savannah River Site. Concentrations of Cs-137 and Sr-90 were reported in both
edible and non-edible fish portions.
Risk calculations were performed using the risk assessment methodology in accordance with
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
(RAGSXEPA, 1989). The risk was calculated using the following formula:
Risk = (coocentration)(gxposure duration)(ingestioa rate)(slope factor)
Where:
concentration ~ pCi/kg
exposure duration = years
ingestion rate s kg/year
slope factor unitless constant
-------
MAY 22 "57 02=15PM SC DHEC BSHWM
The exposure duration of 30 years was used to represent a lifetime residential exposure based
on USEPA guidance (EPA, 1989). Two fish ingestion rates were used: 1) 19 kilograms per year
(EPARegion IV Guidance) to address the sport fishing scenario, and 2) SO kilograms per year (90th
percentile as reported in the USEPA Exposure Factors handbook, Draft 1995) to represent the
subsistence fishing scenario. Oral slope factors used in the risk calculations were obtained from the
EPA's online Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST). Radioisotope slope factors are
calculated by EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) to assist HEAST users with risk-
related evaluations and decision-making at various stages of the site remediation process. The EPA
classifies all radioisotopes as Group A (known human) carcinogens. The slope factors used were
3.16x10'" (Risk/pCi) for Cs-137 and 4,09x10*" (Risk/pCi) for Sr-90.
The measured radionuclide concentrations in fish were organized into three groups or "river
segments" according to location: 1) Upstream of SRS, 2)Adjacent to SRS, and 3)Downstream of
SRS (Appendix B). These "segments" contain data from individual sampling points. The "Upstream
of SRS" segment contained data from the area below the Augusta Lock and Dam. The "Adjacent
to SRS" segment contained data from Upper Three Runs Creek mouth, Beaver Dam Creek mouth,
Four Mile Creek mouth, Steel Creek mouth and Lower Three Runs Creek mouth. The "Downstream
of SRS" segment contained data from the Highway 301 Bridge area, Stokes Bluff Landing and
Highway 17A Bridge area. Microsoft Excel was used to calculate average and maximum
radionuclide concentrations for each sampling point as well as an average of the maximum
concentrations of individual sampling points for each segment (Appendix B). The average of the
maximum value (concentration) for each segment was used in the risk calculations (Appendix C),
Discussion
The purpose of this risk characterization is to asses the potential for adverse human health
effects associated with the ingestion of Savannah River fish containing radionuclides. The CERCLA
risk calculation provides numbers reflecting the excess lifetime risk of excess cancer. These
calculated incremental lifetime cancer risks are a result of specific exposure (ingestion) to
radionuclides in Savannah River fish. Risk numbers generated as a result of this risk assessment are
presented in Table 1 below. A graphical presentation of this risk data with respect to river location
is presented in Figure 1.
The EPA considers risk numbers less than 1 OxlO"6 (i.e., one additional case of cancer over
what would be normally expected in a group of 1,000,000 people) as negligible. Calculated risk
between the l.OxlO"4 and 1,0x10"* range requires risk management decisions to either remove the
contamination or minimize exposure to the public, workers and the environment. Risk greater than
l.OxlO*4 (one additional case of cancer in a population of 10,000) could require some fonn of
corrective action or remediation.
-------
FIGURE 1
Average Risk From Cs-137 and Sr-90 Combined
Adjacent to SRS
0.000001
(10^
~ 19kg/yn@30yrs
~50kg/yr@30yrs
50fcg/yr®30yrs
18kg/yr@3Qyis
Consumption
Rate
Location
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:17PM SC DHEC BSHNM
TABLE 1
Calculated risks for ingestion of Savannah River fish containing Cs-137 and Sr-90 (using 1993-94
data).
River Segment Sportfishing Scenario Subsistence Fishing Scenario
Upstream of SRS
2.4x10'®
6.3xl0"5
Adjacent to SRS
3.8xl0*J
1.0x10"*
Downstream of SRS
l.SxlO"5
4.0x10's
Consumption limits of Savannah River fish that are protective of the 1.0x10'* risk range were
calculated using the following formula:
Consumption Limit - risk + (concentration)(expo$ure duration)(slope factor)
Where:
consumption limit = kg/yr
concentration - pCi/Kg
exposure duration ~ years
slope factor = unities* constant
Consumption limits were calculated independently for both Cs-137 and Sr-90 in Savannah
Rim fish since the slope factors are constituent-specific (Appendix C). The resulting consumption
limits are presented in Table 2 and Table 3 below. The most conservative of the two consumption
limits drives the overall maximum consumption limit in the Fish Advisory.
TABLEZ
Fish Consumption Limit Protective to 1.0x10*' Risk for Cs-137 (Edible and Non-Edible Portions)
River Segment Kilograms per Year Pounds per Month
Upstream of SRS
25.1
4.6
Adjacent to SRS
10.9
2.0
Downstream of SRS
38.1
7.0
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:17PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P. 10
TABLE 3
Fish Consumption Limit Protective to 1 .OxlO"5 Risk for Sr-90 (Edible and Non-Edible Portions)
River Segment Kilograms per Year Pounds per Month
Upstream of SRS
15.1
2.8
Adjacent to SRS
11.8
2.2
Downstream of SRS
24,4
4.5
The January 199S DHEC fish consumption advisory from Lake Thurmond downstream to
Interstate 95 based on mercury levels in Savannah River fish was expanded in May 1996 to include
all species offish based on measured concentrations of Cs-137 and Sr-90 (Table 4). The Januaiy
1995 fish consumption advisory based on mercury levels only considered Largemouth Bass and
Bowfin. The May 1996 advisory only increased the number offish species from Largemouth Bass
and Bowfin to all species of fish. The fish consumption rates were not altered from the original
advisory based on mercury.
TABLE 4
Fish Consumption Advisory for the Savannah River Based on Mercury Levels (SCDHEC, 1996).
River Segment
Largemouth Bass
Pounds per Month
All Other Fish
Pounds per Month
Lake Thurmond to Beech
Island
4.75
no limit
Beech Island to
Allendale/Barnwell County
Line
1.75
1.5
Allendale/Bamwell County
line to Webb Wildlife
2.S
4.0
Webb WUdlife to 1-95
1.0
no limit
The river segments from Beech Island to the Allendale/Barnwell County line and
Aflendaleteamwell County line to Webb Wildlife include the three river segments considered in this
radionuclide advisory. The most conservative fish consumption limit (within the three segments
considered for radionuclides) based on mercury levels in fish is 1.5 pounds per month. The most
conservative fish consumption limit (for the same three segments) based on radionuclides is 2.0
pounds per month, therefore the consumption limits based on mercury are also protective for
radionuclides.
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:13PM SC DHEC BSHNM
P. 11
Uncertainty
There are several sources of uncertainty associated with risk assessment methodology. These
uncertainties may serve to over or under estimate risk.
OHfo and of Data
The fish data used in this risk assessment was from one source (WSRC-EPD) for a two year
period only (1993*1994). There were no acceptable quality control samples taken during this period
from other organizations for comparison. DHEC is cunrently developing a fish sampling protocol for
the Savannah River which will increase the quantity and quality of data used for risk assessment
calculations.
Analysis results from the WSRC-EPD data were reported by fish species as edible or non*
edible portions. No information was available regarding fish consumption patterns of local residents
(i.e., fish species eaten, preparation, cooking methods). All fish portions were therefore considered
to be "edible" for this risk assessment due to the inability to determine what portion of a fish was
considered to be "edible" or "non-edible".
Fish Sise
The fish sampling plan used by WSRC-EPD only requires a minimum weight of 200 grams
(7 ounces) and no maximum weight was specified. Individual fish weights were not available
therefore it is unclear whether larger more mature fish were sampled. Due to the high
bioaccumulation potential for Cs-137 and Sr-90 large fish would be expected to contain higher
concentrations of these radionuclides. If the majority of fish sampled were relatively small, then the
exclusion of large fish would serve to under estimate risk.
Conclusions
The principal risk to the public from the release of the radionuclides Cs-137 and Sr-90 to the
environment is from the consumption of Savannah River fish. This risk is due to the high degree of
bioaccumulation for radionuclides and other contaminants observed in fish. The element cesium has
a bioaccumulation factor of 3,000 in Savannah River fish, therefore the concentration of cesium in
fish tissue should be 3,000 times greater than the concentration of cesium in Savannah River water
(WSRC, 1996).
Risk numbers calculated for the sportfishing scenario (19kg per year consumption rate) and
subsistence fishing scenario (SO kg per year consumption rate) using the 1993-1994 data are in the
1.0x10** to 1.0x10^ range. The risk management decision based on these excess lifetime cancer risk
numbers was to formally notify the public by expanding the DHEC 199S Savannah River fish advisory
for mercury to include all species of fish
-------
MAY 22 '37 02:18PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P.12
References
Cummins, C.L., Hetrick, C.S., and Martin, D.K., 1991, Radioactive releases at the Savannah River
Site (1954-1989) (U). WSRC-RP-91-684. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1989, Risk assessment guidance for Superfund,
Volume I, Human health evaluation manual, Part A, Interim final. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. Washington, DC. EPA/540/1-89-002. Part B EPA/540/R-92/003. Part C
EPA/540/R-92/004
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1995. Draft - Exposure factors handbook. Office
of Health and Environmental Assessment. Washington, DC, EPA/600/95/043.
Westinghouse Savannah River Company, 1996. Environmental report for 1995. WSRC-TR-96-
0075. Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, SC,
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:19PM SC DHEC BSHUI1
P. 13
APPENDIX A
WSRC-EPD measured Cs-137 and Sr-90 concentrations in Savannah River fish
(1993 and 1994 data)
-------
MAY 22 '97 02=19PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P.14
SRS DATA BY RIVER SEGMENT
rill
E« Edible
Nuclide I
Result
Uncertainty
Date
Fish
Location
NE=Nonedit>le
wetpci/g
Samole # 1
•composite |
I 1
(UPSTREAM SRS) !
IR3CTI
mm*
Bass
.Auausta Lock and Dam
9390793800
E
.Sr-90
,8.346-03
Bass
.Auausta Lock and Dam
9380793900
NE
Sr-90
2.75E-01
,6.236-02
Bass
.Auausta Lock and Dam
9390794000
E
.Sr-90
9.00E-03
9.17E-03
Bass
.Augusta Lock and Dam
9390794200
NE
.Sr-90
3.21 E-01
,6.700-02
Bass
Augusta Lock and Dam
9490036500
E
.06-137
4.21 E-01
.3.176-02
Bass
Auausta Lock and Dam
9490036500
E
Bass
Auausta Lock and Dam
9490036600
NE
.Cs-137
3.31 E-01
,2.55e-02
Bass
.Augusta Lock and Dam
9490036600
NE
.Sr-90
.2.77e-02
Bass
.Auausta Lock and Dam
9390797400
E
.Sr-90
2.09E-02
Bream
,Augusta Lock and Dam
9id07«7500
NE
.Sf-90
,7.506-02
Bream
.Augusta Lock and Dam
9390797600
E
.CS-137
.3.98e*02
Bream
Augusta Lock and Dam
9390797600
E
,Sr-eo
,1.73e-02
Bream
Augusta Lock and Dam
9390797700
NE
.Sr-90
Bream
Auausta Look and Dam
9490035600
E
,Sr-90
,1.08e-02
Bream
Augusta Lock and Dam
9490035960
NE
,Si^90
,2.76e-02
Bream
.Augusta Lock and Dam
9590098700
E
MKmm
Bass
Augusta Lock and Dam
9590098600
NE
^sr»90
1.09E-01
,2.08*42
.09/22/94.
Bas*
Augusta Lock and Dam
I
^'ADJACENT TO SRS)
1 >390446400
E
.CS-137
,1.67e-02
,06/14/93.
Catfish
,U3R creek River Mouth
J390448500
NE
.SN90
.06/14/93.
Catfish
iU3R Creek River Mouth
9390446900
NE
.Sr-90
.06/14/93.
Catfish
,U3R Creek River Mouth
939056310b
E
•Ca-137
,2.39e>02
.05/14/93.
Catfish
.U3R Creek River Mouth
9390563106
E
.sr-©0
3.55E-03
,3.74e-03
,05/14/93,
Catfish
,U3R creek River Mouth
9390563200
NE
1.80E-02
.1.990-02
,05/14/93.
catflsn
.U3R Creek River Mouth
9490299500
E
.C&-137
6.97E-02
.2.158-02
.04/20/94.
Catfish
.U3R Creek River Mouth
9490299500
E
.Sr-90
1.10E-02
.3.54e43
,04/20/94,
Catfish
,U3R Creek River Mouth
9490299600
NE
,Sr*90
1.31 E-01
.4.81 e-02
.04/20/94,
Catfish
9490299700
E
.Sr-90
1.86E-02
.7.848-03
.04/20/94.
Catfish
,U3R Creek River Mouth
NE
.Sr-90
1.B9E-01
.4M»«
.04/20/94.
Catfish
,U3R Creek River Mouth
M&oioaioo
E
, Sr-90
3.86E-03
,2,88e-03
.04/20/94.
Catfish
,U3R Creek River Mouth
9490300200
NE
.Sr-90
1.63E-01
.4.33e-02
.04/20/94.
Catfish
,U3R Creek River Mouth
9490044900
" E
.CS-137
7.07E-01
,4.26e-02
,05/18/93.
Bream
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9466644960
E
.Sr-90
3.89E-02
.8.728-03
.05/18/93.
Bream
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
9490045000
NE
.Cft-137
1.43E-01
,4.010-02
.05/18/93,
Bream
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490045000
NE
,Sr-90
9.77E-01
.9.848-02
,05/18/93.
Bream
•Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9390503800
E
.S*90
2.09E-04
5.04E-03
06/17/93.
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Moutii
939040&60
NE
,Sr-90
6.95E-01
.2.298-01
.06/17/93.
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9390504000
E
.Sr-90
4.48E-03
.3.658-03
.06/17/93.
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9390504100
NE
,09-137
5.27E-02
,1.616-02
.06/17/93.
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9390504100
NE
.Sr-90
8.12E-01
.2.338^)1
.06/17/93,
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490041500
E
.CS-137
7.39E-02
,2.21 e-02
.05/25/93.
Catfish
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
9490041506
E
.Sr-90
1.48E-03
6.45E-03
05/25/93,
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490041700
" NE
i9®-137
2.74E-02
.5.99e-03
.05/25/93.
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
Appendix A
-------
MAY 22 '9? 02:20PM SC DHEC BSHWM
SRS DATA BY RIVER SEGMENT
P. 15
NE
.Sr-90
1.31E-01
,4.94e-02
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
E
,Cs-137
,2.40e-02
Bass
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
E
,Sr-90
,4.65e-03
Bass
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9590099200
NE
.Cs-137
4.72E-01
,3.02e-02
Bass
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9590099200
NE
.Sr-90
.4.156-02
Bass
.Beavar Dam Creak River Mouth
8460213400
E
.Cs-137
,1.626-02
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490213400
E
•Sr-90
,3.55e-03
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490213500
NE
,Sr-90
iSfeoi
.3.16e>02
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490214000
E
,Sr-90
,9,43e-03
Catfish
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
hi-whim*]
NE
,Cs-137
.2.11e-02
Catfish
,Beaver Dam 6reek River Mouth
NE
.Sr-90
.4.170-02
Catfish
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
9460214200
E
.Sr-90
,3.490-03
Catfish
.Beaver Dam creek klver Mouth
9490214300
NE
,5r-80
.2.940-02
!03/55«4,
.Beaver Dam creak amy Mnutu
9390541100
E
.Sr-90
,7.450-03
Bream
9390541300
NE
,Sr-90
.3.230-01
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390541400
E
.S*90
,7.200-03
Bream
•Four Mile Creek River Mouth I
9390641600
NE
,Sr-90
1 .B2E+0Q
,3.350-01
Bream
9390541700
E
, Cs-137
1.52E-01
,4.270-02
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390541700
E
,Sr-90
1.31E-02
,7.330-03
!oS5oS/93,
Bream
.Pour Mile Creek River Mouth
9390541800
NE
.ds-137
1.17E-01
,3.130-02
.65/06/93.
Bream
.Four Mile creek River Mouth
9390541800
NE 1
.Sr-90
,3.850-01
,05/06/93.
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390648100
E
,Cs-137
,1.86e-02
.05/06/93.
Catfish
9390548100
E
.Sr-90
,5.470-03
.05/06/93.
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390548200
Nfc
esn
TEEM
.Four Mile Creek River iwiouih !
9390548400
E
.Cs-137
3.05E-02
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek Rhrer Mouth I
"*90548400
E
.Sr-90
,0^/06/93,
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
990548500
NE
.Cs-137
.05/06/93,
Catfish
.390548500
NE
.Sr-90
.5.810-02
Catfish
9390548700
e
.Sr-90
.3.850-03
catfish
9390548800
NE
,Sr-90
.6.510-02
Catfish
.Four Mile Crook River Mouth I
5
,Sr-90
,8.080-03
Bream
.Four Mile creek Rjvor Mouth
9490308300
NE
.Cs-137
.3.050-02
Bream
9490308300
NE
,Sr-0O
.1.28e-01
Bream
9490309300
E
,Sr-90
.5.380-03
Bream
9490309500
NE
.81^90
,7.460-02
Bream
9490309800
E
,3.000-02
Bream
9490309800
E
.Sr-90
,1.0904)2
Bream
9490309900
NE
.CS-137
.2.870-02
Bream
9490309900
NE
.Sr-90
.7.350-02
Bream
9490203300
E
.CS-137
^2.410-02
Catfish
9490203300
£
.Sr-90
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth I
9490203400
NE
.CS-137
Catfish
.fWTO
e creek River Mouth
9490203400
NE
,Sr-90
Catfish
.Four Mi
e 6reek Sver Moutii
9490203500
E
.Cs-137
Catfish
Four Ml
a Creek Rivor Mouth
9490203500
E
,Sr-90
Catfish
,FourMl
e Creek River Mouth
9490203600
NE
.Cs-137
1.1364)1
!1.650-02
ioSSe/w,
Catfish
Four Mi
e Creek River Mouth
9490203600
NE
.Sr-90
,1.290-01
Catfish
,Four Mil
e Creek River Mouth
9490203700
S
.Cs-137
,2.690-02
,03/28/94.
Catfish
>ourMd
e Creek River Mouth
9490203700
E
.Sr-90
.4.0904)3
|.63g8/94.
Catfish
.Four Mil
o creek River Mouth
9490208600
NE |
,CH37
.2,0604)2
Catfish
I .Four Mile Creek Rjvor Mouth
NE
,Si^90
,9.2304)2
Catfish
Appendix A
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:21PM SC DHEC BSHWM
SRS DATA BY RIVER SEGMENT
=,.16
19^90603800
Cs-137
1.42E+Q0
,4,6€e-02
.09/08/93.
Bass
¦Steel Creek River Mouth
I90603600
I90603900
9390603900
8390604300
9390804300
9390604400
9390604400
9390361000
9390381100
9390362000
Sf-90
2.10E-02
,5.50e-03
NE
Cs-137
8.14E-01
NE
E
.Sr-90
1.98E-01
2.70e-02
,09/09/93,
Bass
,09/09/93
A.22e-02
,09/09/93
Ba5S
[CS-137
,Sr-90
1.106*00
2.72E-02
Bass
,4.25e-02
.9.86e-03
09/09/93,
.09/09/93.
NE
NE
Bass
lasT
.Steei Creek River Mouth
fiass 1 .Steel Creek River Mouth
"Bass Steel Creek River Mouth 1
Sf-90
.Sf-90
.Cs-137
7.01 E-02
1.08E-02
1.36E-01
,2.85e«02
.1.066-02
.3.12e-02
,09/09/93.
¦05/12/93.
jp5/12/93
steel creek River Mouth
Bream
Bream
¦Steel creek River Mouth
9390362000
8390385200
9390383200
9490034700
9490034800
9390389700
NE
NE
,Cs-137
Sf-90
,2.366-02
05/12/93
1.91E-01
,3.44e-02
NE
¦Cs-137
NE
Sf-90
!5mbq"
NE
.Sf-90
8.S2E-02
1.06E-01
,2.46e-02
TiSgos
8.94E-02
,2.93e-02
05/12/93.
SHI
Bream
Bream
,1.67e-02
,2.70e-02
,2J6e^)2
,05/12/93,
,05/10/93.
Bream
Bream
,05/10/93.
Bream
Bream
.Steei Creek River Mouti
.Steel Creek River MautT"
¦Steel Creek River Mautn'
9390389700
, Cs-137
1.805-01
7.04E-03
,06/10/93,
Catfish
,^tee< 6reek River Moufi
9390369800
9390389800
9390389900!
9390380900
9390390100
®5"
NE
Cs-137
1.18E-01
,5.lSe-03
.05/10/93.
NE
.SMS0
¦CS-137
HOT"
7.49E-02i
,2.45e-02
,2.45e-02
,05/10/93.
CS-137
1.94E-01
2.34E-03
,2.85e-02
,5.286-03
,1.95e-02
05/10/93,
.05/10/93,
Catfish
catfish
Catfish
.Steel Creek foyer Mauta
05/10/93
,05/10/93.
Catfish
,Steel Creek River MouM
¦Steei Creek River Mauti"
9390439SQ0
°390439800
NE
NE
.Sr*9Q
1.02E-01
7.S2E-02
, Cs-137
6.46E-02
9.92E-01
,2.0Ia-02
,1.44e-02
.3.06e-01
lot/10/93.
.05/10/93.
Catfish
Catfish
.steel Creek River Mouth
Catfish
,Steei Creek River Mouth
Steel Creek River Mouth'
690096300
990098300
9590098400
9590098400
NE
.Sr-90
05/10/93.
Catfish .Steel Creek River Mouth
Bass .Steel Creek River Mouth \
,w-bu
1.206-03
,4.25e-03
,4.51 e-02
,09/20/94
Bass
NE
Ca-137
09/20/94
Bass
.Steel creek River Mouth
9590098500
9590098600
9590096600
9490306600
9490306700
NE
lSt-90
2X41-01
NE
&L2L
NE
.Cs-137
5.68E-01
,4.206-02
,09/20/94,
T
Sf-90
3.72E-01
,3.296-02
¦2.01 e-02
,09/20/94.
Sr-90
1.92E-01
,09/20/94,
.steel creek River Moutn
,4.06e-02
Bass
, Sr-90
1.66E-02
,6.50e-03
,09/20/94,
,03/28/94,
Bass
Bream
Steei Creek River Moiith
¦Steel Creek River Mouth
NE
1.99E-01
03/28/94.
Bream
¦Steel Creek River Mouth
9490201400
9490201400
9490201500
9490201600
9490201600
9490201700
9490201700
9490232700
9490202700
9490202800
0781000
939
9390761100
9390761100
NE
CS-137
mr"
:27E-01
-w
CS-137
2.;
2.04E-02
,Sr-9Q
1.73E-01
,3.06o-02
¦4.38e-03
03/26/94.
137
NE
1.S0E-01
,2,456-02
,3.466-02
03/28/94.
Catfish
03/28/94
Catfish
¦Steei creek River Mouth
.sieei Creek foyer Mouth"
,3.150-02
.03/28/94.
catfish 1 .Steel Creek River McSh
Cs-137
NE
T
NE
,Sr-90
03/28/94
Iw
9.28E-02
,3.28e-03
j2.24e-02
Catfish T.'steei Creek River Mouth"
Catfish Steel Creek River Mouth"
03/28/94.
catfish j .Steel creek River Mouth
2.53E-02
3.1;
,3.95e-02
2.68e-02
Catfish
03/28/94,
¦6.33e-03
J.17e-02
03/28/94
03/28/94.
E
E
"FSI"
catfish
catfish
steel Creek River Mouth'
.Steel Creek diver Mouth
¦Steel Creek River Mouth"
, Steel Cneek River Mouth
NE
X'80
.CS-137
Sr-90
.Cs-137
4.99E-03
3.50E-01
4.20e-03
,3.72e-02
,5.94e-02
,2.266-02
.09/18/93.
Bass
09/16/93.
.09/16/93.
.05/18/93.
Basa
hLaggreek River Mouth
Bass
Bass
Bream
,U3R Creek River Mouth
¦L3R Creek River Mouth
Appendix A
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:22PM SC DHEC 3SHWM
SRS DATA BY RIVER SEGMENT
P. 17
¦^90380900
¦ e
.Sl^SO
3.34E-C3
,5.25e-03
.05/18/93.
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
1 90381500
NE
,C*-137
.1.756-02
.05/16/93.
Bream
,k3R Creek River Mouth
I >0381500
NE
,S*90
,2.76e-02
,05/16/93,
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390624600
E
,Cs-137
.5.32*02
.05/1 A/93.
Bream
,U3R Creek River Mouth
9390624600
E
,Sr»90
7.71 E-03
,4.75e-03
Bream
iC3R Creek River Mouth
9390624700
NE
.CS-137
5.46E-01
,4.19e-C2
Bream
9390624700
NE
.Sr-90
1.99E-01
^5.43fe-02
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth "
9390625200
E
,Cs-137
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390625200
E
,Sr-90
Bream
,L3R creek River Mouth
9390625300
ME
,CS-137
^373e-02
Bream
,13R Creek River Mouth
9390629300
NE
,Sf-90
,5.78e-02
.09/16/93,
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390409500
E
.Cs-137
.2.688-02
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390409500
E
.Sf-90
,5,020-03
catfish
9390409600
s
.Cs-137
4.43E-01
,2.34e>02
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390409600
E
,§r"®°
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390409700
NE
.Cs-137
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390409700
NE
,Sr-0O
Catfish
9390435800
E
,Cs»137
,2.616.02
Catfish
,UR Creek River Mouth
9390435800
S
.fer-90
,i.77®-03
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390435900
NE
.Cs-137
tiie-01
,1.906-02
Catfish
,UR Creek feiver Mouth
9390435900
NE
,Sr-90
4.18E-02
,5.346-02
Catfish
,L3R Creek klver Mouth
9590098900
E
.Cs-137
4.45E-01
J..808-02
Bass
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9590098900
E
,-S%90
1.41
,2.aie-03
,09/20/94,
Bass
.L3R Creek River Mouth
9590099000
NE
.Cs-137
2.39E-01
.2.906-02
Bass
,L3k Creek fiiver Mouth
9590099000
NE
1.02E-01
,3.496-02
Bass
,L3R Creek diver ktouth
*490201100
g
,ct-n7
7.ME-01
S.08e>02
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
60201100
fe
,Sf.SO
2.25E-01
t1.73e-02
.03^8/94.
Bream
>L3R Creek River Mouth
,90201300
NE
,Cs-137
4.33E-01
,03/28/94,
Bream
,L3R Creek nlver Mouth
9490201300
NE
,Sr-90
1.50E-01
.3.426-02
,03/28/94,
Bream
lunciMkMUfffaJS
9490213200
E
,Cs*137
1.48E-01
.2.976-02
,63/30/94,
Bream
,UR Creek River ftiioaitti
9490213200
E
.Sr-90
3.84E-02
,8.616-03
,03/30/94,
Bream
9490213300
" ME
,CS-137
1.08E-01
,3.31©-02
,03/30/94,
Bream
9490213300
ME
.Sr-90
1.13E-01
,3236-02
,03/30/94,
Bream
•CSM Creek River Mouth ~
9490307200
E
.Cs-137
7.98E-01
,4.586-02
,04/18/94,
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9490307200
E
.Sr-90
3.47E-02
.8.496-03
,04/18/94,
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9490307300
NE
.Cs-137
4.41E-01
,3.526-02
.04/18/94,
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9490307300
NE
.Sr-90
2.6»
ill
,7.85e-02
Bream
,uk Creek River Mouth
9490307700
E
CS-137
2.7SE-01
.3.406-02
Bream
9490307700
E
,Sr-90
1.60E-02
,5.776-03
Bream
¦V3R Creek River Mouth 1
9490343900
NE
Cs-137
.2.4464)2
Bream
9490343906
NE
.Sr-90
1.14E-01
.5.986-02
Bream
13R creek River Mouth
9490198600
E
,Cs-137
1.33E+00
.4.836-02
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9490196600
E
,Sf»90
4.52E-03
,3.52e-03
Catfish
,L3R Creek kver Mouth
9490198706
" NE
.Cs-137
6.67E-01
.3.916-02
Catfish
iWR creek River Mouth
9490198700
NE
MO
2.26E-01
.4.976-02
,03/28/94.
Catfish
,L3R cref k diver Mouth
9490198800
E
, CS-137
2.44&01
Catfish
9490198800
E
2.40E-02
,4.40(M)3
Catfish
9490199200
E
4ft!*7 ¦
5.91*01
,3.786-02
,03/28M.
Cattish
.L3R creek River Mouth
9490199200
E
,Sr-90
il5E-03
.3.506-03
,03/28/94.
Catfish
,L3R Creek ftlver mouid
9490199300
NE
.CS-137
3.16E-01
,3.376-02
,03/28/94.
Catfish
¦L3R Creek fctver Mouth
W901993001
NE
,Sr-90
2.19E-01
.7.226-02
,03/28/94.
Catfish
Apperdix A
-------
M3Y 22 '97 02:23PM SC DHEC BSHWM
SRS DATA BY RIVER SEGMENT
P. 18
020C9001
NE
Cs-137
,1.87e-02
03/28/94,1
Catfish
L3R Creek River Mouth
02C0900I
NE
Sr-90
,4.28e-02
03/28/94.
Catfish
L3R Creek River Mouth
¦ ! 1
r
! (DOWNSTREAM OF SR
Si
I
KM®!SP!5F1I
E
sr-90
8.50E-03
,4.419-03
09/16/93, |
Bass
Hwy-301 Bridge Area
6390620506
NE
Sr-90
7.94E-02
,2.61 e-02
Bass
Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390624800
E
.6*90
1.22E-03
3.21 E-03
Bass
Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390624S00
Hz
.CS-137
5 67E-02
,1.88e-02
Bass
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390624900
N£
.Sr-90
9.50E-02
,2.B7e-02
Bass
•Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9990613000
E
.8*90
1.48E-03
,3.37e-03
Bream
, Hwy-301 Bridge Area
NE
.Sr-90
1.25E-01
Bream
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
83906(3200
E
,S*90
S.12E-03
.4.63e-03 I
Bream
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390613460
NE
.5690
1.56E-01
Bream
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390621600
mEom
mem
Bream
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390621600
E
,sr*W
929E-03
.3.759-03
Bream
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390621^00
NE
.S*90
1.S0E-01
,3.35e-02
!o5/25/93.
Bream
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
•UttuWi
E
,Sf-90
4.30E-03
5.19E-03
06/21/93,
Catfish
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390392400
NE
.Sf»90
9.84E-02
,06/21/93.
catfish
.Hwy-301 BndgeArea
9390429860
E
.Cs-137
7.18E-02
, 1.486-02
.06/24/93.
Catfish
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9330429800
E
.Sr-90
6.63E-03
.5.286-03
,06/24/93.
Catfish
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390426600
NE
.Cs-137
9.08E-02
.2.426-02
,06/24/^3.
Catfish
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390429966
NE
!Sr>90
2.96E-01
,6.66s-02
,06/24/93,
Catfish
.Hwv-301 Bridge Area
939043&50
E
.CS-137
1.49E-01
.2.016-02
.06/21/93.
catfish
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390435700
NE
.CS-137
4.27E-02
.1.406-02
.06/21/93,
Catfish
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
19390435700
NE
.Sr-90
2.55E-01
,1,406-01
,06/21/93.
Catfish
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
^590087^6
NE
.Cs-137
3.73E-02
.1.24»-02
,09/22/94.
Bass
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
S90087VOO
Hi
.Sr-90
1.S2E-01
.3.456-02
,09/22/94.
Bass
.hiwy.301 Bridge Area
S90oeis6o
£
MXirZrm
Bass
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9590017800
s
.8*90
4.13E-03
.3.976-03
Bass
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9590086000
NE
•CS-137
4.41 E-02
.9.416*03
L09/22/94,
Bass
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
NE
.Sr-90
1,37E-6l
.3.386-02
Bass
9490300tf0
E
.CS-137
1.11E-01
,2.870-02
Bream
|,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
iFHvHiliSE
.8*90
3.31E-03
.3.556-03
Bream
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
umomo
NE
.Sr-90
2.62E-01
.4.57642
Bream
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9490302400
£
.8*90
1.44E-02
,6,37e-03
Bream
.Hwy-301 Bridae Area
949030^)0
NE
,Sr-90
2.38E-01
.4.706-02
Bream
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9490302^00
6
,Sr-90
.9,756-03
Bream
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9450302700
NE
,8*90
,4.156-02
Bream
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
¦91
.CS-137
I 4.44E-02
.1.366-02
Bream
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
fH&M&aOOl E
Sr'90
I 1.72E-02
.5.756-03
Bream
.Hwv-301 Bridge Area
|rrMBFF
NE
i«na
NE
Sr-90
.8.286-02
Bream
,Hwv-301 Bridge Area
.Cs-137
.2.056-02
Catfish
,Hwv-301 Bridge Area
¦rr^VI^Tv
E
8*90
.3.896-02
catfish
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
B49033640C
NE
.Sr-90
.4.406-02
Catfish
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
94903b070C
i
, Cs-137
7.07fe-oi
.2.426-02
Catfish
,Hwv-301 Bridge Area
948030070C
E
.Sr-90
.4.516-03
Catfish
.Hwv-301 Bridge Area
949030086c
ME
.Sr-90
.4.426-02
catfish
.Hwv-301 Bridge Area
6i907i790C
E
.Cs-137
.1.936-02
,11/io/ii
Bass
.Stokes Bluff Landing
939073820C
E
.CS-137
,2.296-02
.11/10/93.
Bass
.Stokes Bluff Landing
l^96^83'&C
E
,Cs-137
,11/10/93,
Bass
.Stokes Bluff Landing
Appendix A
-------
MAY 22 '97 02;25C DHEC BSHWM
P. 19
SSS DATA BY RIVSR SEGMENT
"">0034500
E
.08-137
4.08E-02
,1.22e-02
,07/15/93,
Bream
, Stokes Bluff Landina
>0476600
E
,08-137
5.75E+00
,1.890-02
,07/08/93,
Catfish
.Stokes Bluff Landing
>0476700
E
.Cs-137
7.30E-02
,1.93e-02
,07/08/93.
Catfish
.Stokes Siuff Landina
9490306500
E
.Cs-137
7.98E-02
,1.99e-02
.05/09/94,
Catfish
.Stokes Bluff Landina
9490409200
E
.Cs-137
1.226-01
.2.586-02
,05/12/94.
Catfish
.Stokes Bluff Landinq
9490409300
E
.CS-137
B.24E-02
.1.788-02
,05/16/94,
Catfish
.Stokes Bluff Landina
9390794300
E
, CS-137
1.33E-01
,2.31 e-02
,10/19/93.
Bass
jHwy-17A Bridge Area
9990704400
E
, CS-137
7.59E-02
,2.07e-02
.10/19/93.
Bass
,Hwy-17A Bridge Area
9390761300
E
,Cs-137
5.61 E-01
,3.12e-02
,10/19/93.
Mullet
,Hwy-i7A Bridge Area
9390761400
E
j££1|L_
1.22E-01
,2.168-02
,10/19/93,
Mullet
,Hwy*17A Bridge Area
9390761500
E
,05-137
7.73E-02
,2.07e-02
,10/^9/83.
Mullet
,Hwy-l7A Bridge Area
9490302200
E
•CS-137
6.93E-02
.1.476-02
,05/11/94.
Bass
,Hwy.l7A Bridge Area
$490302300
E
.CS-137
1.07E-01
,2.108-02
,05/11/94,
Bass
b,Hwy-17A Bridge Area
Appendix A
-------
MRY 22 '97 02:24PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P. 20
APPENDIX B
Cs-137 and Sr-90 average, maximum, and average of maximum concentrations in Savannah River
fish upstTeam, adjacent to, and downstream of the Savannah River Site
(1993 and 1994 data)
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:24PM SC
DHEC BSHWM
Cs-137 & Sr-90 UPSTREAM
P. 21
¦
1 E= Edible
Nuclide
Result
Uncertainty
Date
Fish
NE-Nonedib
e
wetpci/g
Sample # 1
rcomposite
1
(UPSTREAM
SRS)
9390793800
E
.CS-137
6.39E-02
,2.09e-02
.10/26/93.
Bass
Augusta L
ock and Da
m
9490036500
E
•Cs-137
4.21 E-01
,3.17o-02
.10/26/93.
Bass
Augusta Lock and Dam
9490036600
NE
,Cs-137
3.31 E-01
,2.556-02
,10/26/93.
Bass
.Augusta Lock and Dam
9390797600
E
,CS-137
1.88E-01
,3.986-02
.10/26/93.
Bream
Augusta Lock and Dam
Al- ,A 1
AVG
MAX
\X
AUG.L0CK4
DAM Cs-13
7
2.51 E-01
4.21 E-01
pCi/g
I
TOTAL UPS1
[REAM Cs-
137
2.51 E-01
4.21E-01
4.21E-01
pCi/g
9390793800
E
.Sr-90
1.09E-02
,8.34eM>3
Bass
Augusta L
oekand Da
m
9390793900
NE
Sr-90
2.75E-01
.6.230-02
Bass
.Augusta Lock and Dam
9390794000
E
,Sr-90
9.00E-03
9.17E-03
Bass
Augusta Lock and Da/n
9390794200
NE
,Sr-90
3.21 E-01
,6.79e.Q2
,10/26/93,
Bass
.Augusta Lock and Dam
9490036500
9490036600
9390797400
93h0797500
E
NE
E
NE
ll I LI M
EE*
KSMI
EEQ333
KSH3S
MXttirx1
iSBEST"
mztsm
mimm
¦3TEW
.Augusta Lock and Dam
.Augusta Lock and Dam
Augusta Lock and Dam
9396797660
Wgyyflo
14900^5600
*490035900
-4-
" e
Nfe" "
.Sr-90
,Sr-90
0-
2.36E-01
1.96E-02
,l.*8e^
.6.096-02
.1.069-02
.2.766^)2
11 W40/oOi
iia^B!"
,10/10/93.
,10/10/93.
oleum
Bream
Bream
Bream
Bream
.Augusta Lock and Dam
Augusta Lock and bam
¦Auousta Lock and Dam
Augusta Lock and Dam
Augusta Lock and Oam
9590006700
9590068800
E
N?
.Sr-90
,Sr-80
5.86E-03
1.09E-01
.3.9464)3
.3.086-02
,09/22/94.
,09/22/94.
Bass
Bass
.Augusta Lock and Dam
Augusta Lock and Dam
AVG
MAX
AVG Of MAX 1
AUG.LOCK&DAM Sr-90
1.37E-Q1
6.99E-01
PCi/g
.1 1
ITOTAL UPSTREAM Sr-90 I
1.37E-01
6.99E-01
6.99E-01
pCi/g
Appendix B
-------
MAY 22 '9? 02:25PM SC DHEC BSHWM
Cs-137 & 8r-90 ADJACENT
r
" ' |
Result
Uncertainty
Date
Fish
NE=Nonedible I
Sample #
I I
'composite
i ,
,f ADJACENT TO SRS) !
9390443400
E
.Cs-137
5.98E-02
,1.67e-02
Catfish
,U3R Cree
k River Mouth I
93905631.60
E
,Cs-137
7.93E-02
,2.39e-02
Catfish
,U3R Creek River Mouth
9490299500
£
.68-137
6.97E-02
,2.15e-02
Catfish
,U3R Creek River Mouth
9490044900
E
.CS-137
7.07E-01
.4.290-02
Bream
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490045006
NE
.Cs-137
1.43E-01
,4.01e-02
Bream
.Beaver Oam Creek River Mouth
9390504100
NE
,C*137
,1.61e-02
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490041500
E
.CS-137
.2.216-02
Catfish
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
9490041706
NE
.Cs-137
.5.99e-03
]d6>25/93.
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creak River Mouth
9690099100
E
, Cs-137
.2.40e-02
Bass
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
9690099200
NE
.Cs-137
,3.02e-02
Bass
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490213400
E
,CH37
,1.62e-02
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490214106
NE
,Cs-137
.2.116-02
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9390541700
E
.CS-137
,4.27e-02
.05/06/93,
Bream
.Pour Mile Creek River Mouth
9390541800
NE
,Cs-137
1.17E-0T
,3.13e-02
bream
,Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390540100
E
.Cs-137
6.39E-02
,1.86e-02
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390548400
E
.Cs-137
8.05E-02
.1.95642
Catfish
.Four Mile creek River Mouth
9390548506
NE
.Cs-137
,2.336-02
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490308300
NE
.Cs-137
1.06E-01
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490309860
E
¦Cs-137
,3.006-02
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
190309900
NE
.Cs-137
,2.87e-02
bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
190203300
E
.Cs-137
.2.41e-02
Catfish
.Four Mife Creek River Mouth
.490203400
NE
¦CM17
.1.608-02
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490203500
E
.tt-137
,2.746-02
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490203600
NE
.Cs-137
i.iie-oi
,1.658-02
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490203700
E
.CS-137
3.54E-01
.2.698-02
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490203800
NE
.Cs-137
9.63E-02
,2.068-02
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390803800
6
Cs-137
1.42E+00
,4.68 6-02
Bass
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390603900
NE
Cs-137
8.14E-01
,2>0&-02
Bass
,Steel Creek River Mouth
989M04300
E
.Cs-137
1.10E+00
,4 25e-02
Bass
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390604400
NE
.CS-137
6.02E-Q1
,3.5€e-02
Bass
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390381100
E
.Cs-137
1.36E-01
.3.126-02
Bream
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390382000
NE
,Cs-137
7.64E-02
.2.368-02
Bream
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390385200
NE
.Cs-137
8.52E-02
,2.46e-02
Bream
,8teei Creek River Mouth
9390389700
E
.Cs-137
1.80E-01
.2.766-02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390389800
NE
.CS-137
1.18E-01
.2.456-02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390389900
E
,&-ii*
1.94E-01
.2.85*02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390390106
NE
.CS-137
1.02E-01
.1.956-02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390439500
e
.CS-137
S.4»M2
.1.448-02
Catfish
, Steel Creek River Mouth
9590098300
E
,Cs-137
2.12E+00
.6.166-02
Bass
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9596098460
NE
.CS-137
1.14E+00
.4.51e-02
Bass
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9590098500
E
.CS-137
5.68E-01
.3.296-02
Bass
.Steel Creek River Mouth
959009860b
NE
.Cs-137
3.72E-01
.2.016-02
Bass
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490201400
E
.CS-137
2.27E-01
,3.068-02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490201500
NE
,CS*137
1.73E-01
.2.458-02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490201800
E
.Cs-137
2.12E-61
.3.158-02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
Appendix 6
-------
MAY 22 '9? 02:26PM SC DHEC BSHWM
Cs-137 & Sr-90 ADJACENT
P. 23
90201700
N€
,Cs-137
1.16E-01
| ,2.246-02
,03/28/94,
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
90202700
E
,Cs-137
2.72E-01
,03/26/94.
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
..90761COO
E
,Cs-137
7.41E-01
L37816-02
.09/16/93.
Bass
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390701100
NE
•Cs-137
3.50E-01
I ,3.728-02
,09/16/93,
Bass
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390380900
E
,Cs-137
1.17E-01
,05718/93.
Bream
,L9K creek River Mouth
9390381500
NE
.CS-137
9.40E-02
,1.756-02
,05/18/93,
Bream
.L3R Creek River Mauth
9390624600
E
K-RttMMfi*]:*!]
,5.326-02
.65/14/93.
Bream
.L3R Creek River Mouth
9390624700
NE
I,Cs-137
I 5.46E-01I .4.196-02
,05/14/93.
Bream
.L3R Creek River Mouth
o
E
¦MRPHI
mmfi
,U3R creek River Mouth
19390625300
NE
.CS-137
3.29E-01
,3.73e-02
.09/16/93.
Bream
,Uk ureeic River Mouth
19380409500
E
,Cs-137
2.61 E-01
2.635-02
,05/14/93.
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
0
1
E
.CS-137
1.43E-01
.2.346-02
.05/14/93.
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390409700
NE
.Cs-137
1.73E-01
,2.426-02
.05/14/03.
Catfish
.L3R Creek River Mouth
9390435300
E
.CS-137
2.01 E-01
_^81e-02
,05/14/93.
Catfish
.L3R Creek River Mouth
M9O4359G0
6590098900
NE
e
.Cs-137
,Cs-137
1.61 E-01
4.45E-01
.1.900^)2
1 80a»O2
.05/14/93.
Ae/5n/ciA
Catfish
.L3R Creek River Mouth
9590099000
9490201100
9490201300
9490213200
9490213300
9490307200
9490307300
9490307700
NE
S
NE
=
NE
" i
NE
g
, Cs-137
.Cs-137
,Ca-137
, Cs-137
,Cs-137
,CS-137
.&-ii7
.Cs-137
2.39E-01
7.56E-01
4.33E-01
1.48E-01
1.08E-01
7.98^-01
4.41 E-01
2.73E-01
,2.90e>02
.5.086-02
3.32e-02
.2.976-02
.3.316-02
,4.5815-02
,3.526-02
.3.406-02
,69/20/94.
,03/28/94.
,03/28/94,
,03/30/94.
,03/30/94.
,04/18/94.
,03/30/94!
9855
Bass
Bream
Bream
Bream
Bream
Bream
Bream
Bream
Crock River Mouth
,L3R Creek River Mouth
,L3R Creek River Mouth
,L3R Creek River Mouth
,L3R Creek River Mouth
,L3R Creek River Mouth
,L3R Creek River Mouth
,L3R Creek kiver Mouth
¦L3R Creek Rivar Uniith
9490343900
490193600
490198700
«490198800
9490199200
9490199300
9490200900
U3R Creek M
Beaver Cam
NE
£
NE
NE
outh Cs-13
Creek Moul
.CS-137
.CS-137
,Cs-137
!cs-137
.Cs-137
.Ca-137
.Cs-137
7
th Cs-137
1.44E-01
1.33E+00
8.87E-01
2.44E-01
5.91 E-01
3.18E-01
9.35E-02
AVG
8.96E-02
2.81 E-01
4.638-02
,3.916-02
,2.296-02
¦3.766-02
,1.876-02
MAX
7.93E-02
9.37E-01
,03/28/94.
.0M8/94.'
AVG Of
Bream
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
Catfish
kX
pCI/fl
pCt/g
.LiR Creel
,L3R Creel
,L3k Creel
,L3R Creel
,L3R Creel
•L3R Creel
,L3R Creel
* River Mot
(River Mou
iRIver Mou
(River Mou
t River Mou
t River Mou
i River Mou
ith
ith
ith
ith
ith
ith
ith
Four Mile creek Mouth c
Steel Creek River Mouth
USR Creek River Mouth
:s-137
Cs-137
Ss-137
1.40E-01
4.B1E-01
3.90E-01
3.54E-01
2.12E+00
1.33E+00
pCJ/g
pCi/fl
£cva_
TOTAL ADJA
9390448506
CENT CS-1
NE
37
SN90
3.44E-01
3 186-61
2.12E+00
6 B9feA9
9.Q4E-01
4/Q4
"pCl/g
9390448900
9390583100
NE
S
Sr-«o
6r-90
2.77E-01
3.55E-03
,6.186-02
.3.746-03
iUP/14/94.
,06/14/93.
,05/14/93.
catrisn
Catfish
Catfish
,U3R Cree
.U3R Creel
.U3R Cree"
kKiver Mouth
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:2^ SC DHEC 5SKWM
Cs-137 & Sr-90 ADJACENT
P. £4
90044900
E
.Sr-60
.8.728-03
Bream
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
90045000
ME
.Sr-90
9.77E-01
,9.84e-02
Bream
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
.,90503800
E
,Sr-90
5.04E-03
Catfish
.seaver cam creek River Mouth
9390503800
NE
.Sr-90
,2.29e-01
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9390504000
E
,Sf-90
.3.650-03
,06/17/93,
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9390504100
NE
.Sr-60
6.lli-01
,2.33e-01
,06/17/93.
Catfish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490041500
E
(MB
¦KI-1=C*M
mmm
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9460041700
NE
.Sr-60
1.31(5-01
,4.94e-02
Catfish
.Beaver Oam Creek River Mouth
9560099100
E
,Sr-90
7,216*03
,4.65e-03
Bass
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9590098200
NE
,Si-90
,4.15e-02
Bass
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
9490213400
E
fSr*0
,3.55e-03
Catfish
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
9490213500
NE
,SMW
.3.160-02
Catfish
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
6490214000
E
,Sr-90
.9.438-03
Catfish
.Beaver Oam Creek River Mouth
9490214100
NE
,Sr-90
,4.176-02
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
9490214200
E
,8f-W
Catfish
.Beaver Dam creek River Mouth
6460214300
NE
.Sr-60
tB7E-01
cattish
.Beaver Dam Creek River Mouth
8390541100
E
m-um
1
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390541300
NE
, Sr-90
1.45E+O0
,3.26e-01
,05/06/63.
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390541400
E
,S"-60
.7.209-03
,05/06/93.
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390541600
NE
,6n>60
,3.35e-01
,05/06/63,
^ream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390541706
E
,Sr-90
1.31E-02
.7.336-03
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390541800
NE
.Sr-90
,3.85e-01
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390548100
E
,Sr-90
,5,47e-03
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9390548200
NE
,Sr-90
.7.056-02
Catfish
.Four Mile Cieek River Mouth
9360548400
E
.8^90
,4.09e*03
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
"390548500
NE
.Sf-90
,5.81e-02
,05/06/93,
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
390548700
E
.Sr-60
,3,85©-03
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek ttlver Mouth
*360548800
NE
,Sr-90
,6.516-02
,05/5/63,
Catfish '
,Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490308200
s
,Si^8Q
,8.06e-03
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
6460308300
NE
.8*90
folfc+ool
,1.28e-01
B ream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
6460309300
E
,8r-90
8.62E-03
,5.38e-03
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
6490309500
NE
.Sr-90
2.276-01
,7,466-02
,03/28/94,
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490309800
E
,8*60
7.53E-02
,1.06«-02
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490309600
NE
,Sr-90
5.22E-01
,7.35e-02
Bream
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490203300
E
,Sf>60
.7.116-03
.03/28/94.
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9460203400
V
,Sr-90
.5.05^-02
,03/28/64.
Catfish
.Four Mlie Creek River Mouth
£
1^91^2
,4.36e-03
,63/28/64,
Catfish
.Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9460203600
NE
,8*90
,1.296-01
Catfish
,Four Mile Creek River Mouth
9490203700
E
,Sr-90
Catfish
NE
.8*60
Catfish
Jour Mile Creek River Mouth
6390803800
E
Sr-90
Bass
¦Stee
Creek River Mouth
9360603900
NE
,SMM)
lSpE-01
Bass
las
creek River Mouth
9390804300
E
.Sl*0
Bass
Stee
Creek River Mouth
9390804400
,SM0
.66/66/6*!
Bass
.Stee
Creek River Mouth
9390381000
E
,8*60
!1.066-02
,05/12/63,
Bream
j5m
Creek River Mouth
9390382000
NE
,Sr-90
1.61e3T
,3.44e-02
Bream
.Stee
Creek River Mouth
9390385206
NE
,Sr-90
Bream
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490034700
E
,8*60
Bream
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490034800
NE
,Sr-90
Bream
.Steel Creek rilver Mouth
9390389700
E
.Sr-90
"iflfeoTl
Catfish
, Steel Creek River Mouth ~~
J39038980Q
NE
.8r-90
.2.45e-02 I
Appendix B
-------
'1AY 22 '97 02:28PM SC DHEC BEHl-JM
Cs-137 & Sf-90 ADJACENT
P. £5
""90369900
E
, Sr-90
2.34E-03
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
90390100
NE
,Sr-90
7.52E-02
,2.62e-02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
30439800
NE
,sr.8o
9.92E-01
,3.06e-01
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9590068300
£
mam
.Steel Cre'ek River Mouth
9590098400
NE
,Sr-90
2.14E-01
,4.20e-02
Bass
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9590098660
NE
.Sr-90
,4.06e*02
Bass
,8teei Creek River Mouth
9490306600
E
,Sr-90
,6.506-03
Bream
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490306700
NS
.Sr-90
,7.25e-02
Bream
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490201400
E
,Sr-90
2.04E-021
,4.38e-03
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490201500
NE
,Sr-90
,3.4fle-02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490201wO
E
.3.29e-03
Catfish
,8teei Creek River Mouth
0490201700
Nfl
,Sr-90
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9490202700
E
,Sr-90
2.53E-02
,6.33e-03
Catfish
,&teel Creek River Mouth
9490202800
NE
.Sf-tiO
3.121-01
.8.173-02
Catfish
.Steel Creek River Mouth
9390761000
E
,Sr-90
4.99E-03
.4.20043
Bass
,U3R Greek River Mouth
939076^100
NE
.Sr-90
2.13E-01
,5.94e-02
,09/16/93,
Bass
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390380900
E
.Sr-90
3.34E-03
,5,25e-03
Bream
,Ur Creek River Mouth
r-TOTifl*]
NE
,Sr-90
9.87E-02
Bream
13R Creek River Mouth
rmT-vm-m
E
Sr-90
7.71 E-03
.4.75e-03
Bream
,L3A Creek River Mouth
9390624700
NS
,Sn90
1.99E-01
,5.43e-02
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
93906252^0
E
4.45E-02
,2.24e-02
4ream
,13R Creek River Mouth
93906253C0
NE
.Sr-90
3.19E-01
,5.78e-02
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
93904095C0
E
,Sr-90
3.16E-03
.5.02e-03
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9390409600
E
,»f-yu
4.43&03
,5,32e-03
Catfish
.L&R Creek River Mouth
9390409^00
NE
.Sr-90
,6.19e^02
Catfish
,UR Creek River Mouth
V1W43^C0
E
.Sr-90
,5.77e-03
Catfish
,13R Creek River Mouth
(90435900
NE
,Sr-90
t5,34e-02
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
590098900
E
.Sr-SO
.2.8ie43
Bass
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9590099(iCO
NE
.Sr-90
,3.46e-02
Bass
.L3R Creek River Mouth
9490201100
E
.Sr-90
,1,73e-02
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9490201300
NE
.Sr-90
,3.42e-02
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9490213200
E
,Sr-90
.8.61 e-03
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
949C213300
NE
,8r-90
TTai-oi
,3.Z3e-02
Bream
.L3R Creek River Mouth
949C3072lJo
E
,8r-90
3.47E-02
,8.496*03
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
S49C307300
NE
En
M-ra-vi
,L3R Creek River Mouth
649C307700
E
,8r-90
1.G0E-02
.5.77*43
.03/30/94.
Bream
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9^90343900
NE
Jf<0
1.14E-01
.5.98042
,03/30/94.
Bream
,13R Creek River Mouth
9490198600
E
.Sr-90
4.52B-03
.3.52e>03
,03/28/94,
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9460198700
NE
.Sr-90
2.26E-01
.4.97e-02
.03/28/94.
Catfish
•L3R Creek River Mouth
949O196BO0
E
,Sr>90
2.40E-02
.4.400-03
.03/28/94.
Catfish
,L3R Creek River Mouth
9460199260
E
.&-90
5.15E-03
.3.50e43
.03/28/94,
Catfish
.L3R Creek River Mouth
9490199^00
NE
.Sr-90
2.19E-01
.7.220-02
.03/28/94.
Catfish
,Lsr Creek River Mouth
9490200900
NE
.Sr-90
1.03E-01
.4.269-02
.03/28/94,
Catfish
,L3R Creak River Mouth
I
I
AVG
MAX
AVG of MAX
U3R Creek Moutft sr-90
1.13E-01
3.18E-01
pCl/g
Beaver Oam Creek Mouth Sr-90
2.04E-01
9.77E-01
pci/g
I
Pour Mile Creek Mouth S*>90
4.23E-01
1.82E+00
pCl/g
Stee Creak River Mouth Sr-90
1,245-01
9.92E-01
PCI/Q
L3R Creek River Mouth Sr^BO
I.O'E-01
3.48E-01
dCI/o
I
1
I
Appendix B
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:29PM SC DHEC BSHWM
Cs-137 & Sr»90 ADJACENT
JjOTAL ADJACENT Sfr90 I 1.98E-01I 1.B2E+00I 8.91E-01 IpCl/g "7
Appendix B
-------
MAY 22 '97 02--29PI1 SC DHEC BSHWM
Cs-137 &Sr-90 DOWNSTREAM
P. 27
~ i I
Nuclide
Result
Uncertainty
Date
Fish
NE=NonedibI«
3
wet oci/g
Sample #
'composite I
' . _
I
(DOWNSTREAM OF SRS)
i
6390624900I NE I,Cs-137
,1.88e-02 1
Bass
,Hwy-30l Bridge Area
6390621600 E
IfcXtQai
HiHnW
.Hwv-301 Bridge Area
939042980b E
.CS-137
,1.48e-02
,06724/83,
Catfish
Jlwy-301 Bridge Area
9390429900 NE
.Cs-137
,2 426-02
.06/24/93.
Catfish
939043560d E
.Cs-137
,2.01 e-02
.06/21/93.
Catfish
9390435700 NE
.CS-137
.1,40e-02
.06/21/93,
Cathsh
[959dOB7tOQl NE
.CS-137
.1.24e-02
.09/22/94.
Bass
95OOO87SO0
0890068000
1 E
NE
PiFMini^a
wnnttFm
K-JirHSa
C275HE
KfflEiIE
TI?7TT.ttp
ll'f-EUl'-H
949oi6dtoo
KZTKit
EEFITfiT
HW.T-fT.'Tl
9490306800
mi
0490307100
NE
KSEMKEiBEa
kiieem
9490300300
E
IBSEm
KETESt
9490300700
E
.Cs-137
7.07E-02
,2.42e-02
,04/25/94,
catfish
,Hwv-301 Bhdge Area
9390737900
E
.Cs-137
8.63E-02
,1.93e-02
.11/10/93.
Bass
.Stokes Bluff Landina
9390738200
E
, Cs-137
S.S8E-02
,2.29 e-02
.11/10/93.
Bass
,8toices Bluff Landing
9390^38300
E
•Cs-137
y,9^6-0i
Bass
.Stokes Bluff Landina
9490034500
E
.CS-137
4.08E-02
.1.22e-02
Bream
.Stokes Bluff Landina
9i4047&600
E
.Cs-137
omit
.1.80*42
Catfish
.Stokes Bluff Landina
9390476700
E
.Cs-137
.1.93e-02
Catfish
.Stokes Bluff Landina
1490306500
E
.CS-137
7.98E-02
.1.99*02
Catfish
.Stokes Bluff Landina
i490409200
E
.CS-137
1.22E-01
,2.58e-02
Catfish
.Stokes Bluff Landina
9490409^00
6
.CS-137
6.24E-02
...J .78*02
Catfish
.Stokes Bluff Landina
9390794300
E
.cmst
1.33E-01
Bass
•Hwv-17A Bridge Are
9390794400
E
,06-137
7.59E-02
,2.07 e-02
Bass
.hwv-iVA Brldae Are
9390761300
E
.CS-137
5.61 E-01
.3.12*02
Mullet
,Hwy-17A Bridge Are
9390761400
E
,CS-137
1.22E-01
.2.16e-02
Mullet
,Hwy-17A Bridge Are
9390761500
£
t&SFmMfif&w
9490302*00
E
.CS-137
8.93E-02
,1.47e-02
.05/11/94.
Bass
,Hwv-17A Bridge Are I
9490302300
g
.Cs-137
1.07E-01
,2.10e-02
.05/11/94.
Bass
.HWV-17A
I
AVG
MAX
IAVQ of MAX
HWY 301 BRIDGE Cs-137
7.08E-02
1.49E-01
pci/a
STOKES BLUFF LOG. Cs-137
7.87E-02
1.22E-01
pCI/fl
HWY-17A BRIDGE Cs-137
1.67E-01
5.61 E-01
pCi/g
I I
TOTAL DOWNSTREAM Cs-137
9.61 E-02
5.61 E-01
2.77E-01
PCI/0
9390620400
E
.Sf-90
8.50E-03
,4.41e-03
,09/16/93,
Bass
IKTTEiU
9390620500
NE
,5r-90
7.94E-02
,2.61e*02
.09/16/93.
Bass
9390324800
E
.Sf-90
1.226-03
3.21 E-03
9/16/93
Bass
, Hwv-301 Bridge Area
93906249k)
NE~~
.Sr-90
9.50E-02
: ,2.87e-02
,09/16/93,
Bass
.Hwv-301 Bridge Area
9390613000
.Sr-90
1.48E-03
,3.376-03
,09/16/93.
Bream
,Hwv-301 Bridge Area
9390613100
NE
.8*90
1.25E-01
.3.09*02
.09/16/93.
Bream
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9390613200
i E
.Sn90
5.12E-03
I ,4.638-03
.09/16/93.
Bream
Appendix B
-------
MAY 22 '9? 02= 30PVI SC DHEC BSHWM
CS-137 SiSr-90 DOWNSTREAM
P. 28
N£ l.Sr-90 II .56E-011 ,3.55ft-02 1,09/16/93.1 Bream I.Hwv-301 Bridoe A««l
"90613303
80621600
90621700
9380392300
9390392400
9380429800
9390429900
9390435700
9S90067700
9800067800
NE
NE
Umieti
IE™
IEEGBE3
^K*ng»aiB3i5Ha3f
NE
"7S"
T$"
E
,ar-wu
,Sr-90
SM»
tf.uoe*ui
2.55E-01
35ToT
o.oee-uz
/UOe-01
.3.4Se-02
,3.97e-03
j3.38e-02
OG/Z4/93,
06/21/93.
09/22/94.
i4.
catnsn
Catfish
Bass
ass
Hwy-301 Bridge Area
,Hwy-301 Bridge Area
Hwy-301 Bridge Area
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9490300500
9490300660
N6
E
ImST
(3.55e-03
04/25/94
ass
Bream
Hwy^Ol Bridge Area
II _ _ -
¦Hwy-301 Bridge Area
¦Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9490302400
NE
,S{-90
,4.57e^2
,6.3Te*03
04/2S/94.
05/02/94
Bream
WoM66
9490302600
Sr-90
Jfi.
trio"
r3T
2.3BE-01
1.14E-02
A75e-03
05S2?§r
Bream
mm.
Bream
¦hwy-301 Bridge Area
Bream
Ifream
Hwv-301 BridoeArea
Hwy-301 Bridge Area
9490302700
9490306800
NE
SpST
2.07E-01
1.72E-02
4.33E-01
,4.15e-02
5.75e-03
06/02/94
.Hwy-301 Bridge Area
.hwy-301 Bridge Area
9490307100
E
,8.239*02
04/15/94.
Bream
94103007CO
NE
E
NE
,8r-90
Itg;
SEE
TOo"
6.51 E-05
04/15/94.
ToSToT
1.31E-02
,3jfe-02
,4.40e-02
04/25/94
04/25/94
Bream
04/25/94.
04/25/64,
Catfish
Catfish
¦Hwy-301 Bridge Area
Hwy-301 Bridge Area
Hwy-301 Bridge Area
94&03008CO
E
"ife"
j£IcT
1.78E-01
.4,316-03
,4,42e-02
04/25/94.
Cattish
Catfish
Hwy-301 Bridge Area
¦ Hwy-301 Bridge Area
AVG
MAX
AVGofMAX
¦HWV 301 BRIDGE Sr-80
1.05E-01
4.33S-01
[TOTAL DOWNSTREAM
Sr-90
1.05E-01
4.33E-01
4.33E-01
EK
e£}&L
Appendix B
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:31PM SC DHEC BSHMM
P.29
APPENDIX C
Risk calculations based on the average of the maximum concentrations of Cs-137 and Sr-90 in
Savannah River fish upstream, adjacent to, and downstream of the Savannah River Site
and
Consumption limits of Savannah River fish protective of the 1 OxlO"5 risk level
(1993 and 1994 data)
-------
MAY 22 '57 02:31PM SC DHEC BSHWM
AVERAGE OF MAX RISK (93-94data)
P. 30
Appendix C
-------
MAY 22 '97 02 ¦' 31PM SC DHEC B5HWM
AVERAGE OF MAX RISK (93-94
-------
IW 22 '97 02:32PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P. 32
GENERAL Q & A FISH ADVISORY INFORMATION
What is a radioactive element?
A radioactive element is an element whose nucleus is unstable and tries to become
stable by way of nuclear decay. The term nuclide, is applied to all atomic forms of the
element while the term "radioisotope" is the most common term used to describe various
unstable forms of a single element. For example, cesium has several different isotopes
including Cesium 134 and Cesium 137. Each isotope has the same chemical properties
as stable cesium, except they have a different number of neutrons in their atomic
structure.
Are there different forms of radiation?
There are three different forms of radiation: alpha and beta particle and gamma
rays; Alpha and beta particles can cause damage only when they enter the body. Due
to their size, both particles have little potential to cause external radiation damage. A
gamma ray is similar to an x-ray and has the ability to penetrate the skin and enter the
body from the outside. A gamma ray can also cause damage if the radionuclide is
ingested or inhaled into the body.
How do radioactive isotopes become contaminants in fish? Can they build up in
humans?
Some radioactive isotopes occur naturally in the environment. However, there
are also a number of other isotopes that are released by the activities of man. Some
radioisotopes are released by nuclear fallout, some are released through accidental
releases or runoff from various processes associated with nuclear facilities. Some
radioisotopes are used in medicine and can be released at low levels from the body. Low
levels of radioactive isotopes in water can build up in fish over time. Older fish have
higher levels of radioactive isotopes in their bodies.
Humans can eliminate some of the radioactive isotopes through body wastes, but
some of the radioactive isotopes will remain in the body for long time. For example,
Strontium-90, which is a radioactive isotope, acts the same as calcium in the body and
since bones need calcium to remain strong, Strontium-90 will go to the bones just like
calcium.
1
-------
MAY 22 '97 02=32PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P. 33
Can radiation affect my health?
Radioactive material can build up in the body, but your body can slowly get rid
of some of it through body wastes. But if you are eating more than your body can get
rid of, it will build up in your system and can cause long-term effects. As stated earlier,
alpha and beta particles have the potential to harm the body after they have entered the
body. Since gamma rays are more penetrating, they have the potential to produce harmful
effects regardless if they are inside or outside of the body.
At unsafe doses, some of the long-term effects of radiation exposure include
genetic abnormalities in the chromosome or genetic mutations in cells of your body.
Long term exposure to excess levels of radiation can also cause cancer to most organs
and systems of the body such as the bones or thyroid.
Can I get tested for radiation exposure?
Currently there are not any methods which allow us to detect long term exposure
to radiation.
One of the major problems in detecting the effects of radiation exposure is due
to the large amount of uncertainty associated with the chronic effects of low doses of
radiation. This uncertainty is in large part due to the time lag (years) present between
exposure to low dose radiation and its potential effect.
How do radioactive materials enter the environment?
Radioactive material can be released through the natural weathering of the earth's
crust by wind and water. Radioactive materials can be found throughout the
environment.
Radioactive material can get into air through natural means from deposits of ore,
volcanic dust, or through activities carried out by man such as nuclear weapons testing
and the use of nuclear power. Air, water, and soil all contain radioactive material from
both natural sources and human activities.
Radioactive material can get into lakes, rivers or soil from rocks containing
radioactive material, from accidental releases of radioactive material, or nuclear
weapons, or nuclear power plants.
2
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:33PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P. 34
Is tbe Savannah River Site a potential source for the radioactive material found in
the fish from the Savannah River?
Yes. The information that has been collected so far on fish from the Savannah
River suggests that one of the sources of the radioisotopes is past releases from the
Savannah River Site (SRS). These radioisotope releases occurred due to historical
methods for the disposal of radioactive material at the site. These methods are no longer
used at SRS to dispose of radioactive material and discharge to streams have been
reduced.
In addition, some of the radioisotopes found in the river may be due to nuclear
weapons testing fallout and/or natural sources.
Why is the risk from eating fish apparent now but was not evident earlier:
There are different groups of scientists who have been studying and working with
things in the environment that may be threats to human health. One group of scientists
has focused on radiation and they have tried to answer the question "What dose
(exposure) to radiation can humans safely tolerate without affecting their health?" The
standards they agreed upon were based on the dosage (exposure) that would cause death,
usually from cancer. These standards have been used over the years to monitor work
with radioactive materials, not only at SRS and similar facilities, but also with persons
who operate x-ray machines and other people who may come in contact with radiation.
A different group of scientists have focused their work on the effects of toxis
materials in the environment and their potential effect on human health. These scientists
have worked with toxic materials that may be released from operating industries or found
at waste sites of disposal or accidental spills. The standards they set for human safety
are based on the risk of persons getting sick (for example, cancer) if they come in
contact with these materials over time. They have been responsible for establishing the
rules for cleaning up contaminated sites to keep them safe from endangering the public.
The methods employed by these scientists can result in different estimates of the
risks associated with exposure to radioisotopes in the fish. Based on the method being
used here, we believe the risk needs to be communicated so that people who routinely
eat fish from the Savannah River can make informed decisions about which fish to eat
and how much.
Is the fish contamination from radioactive material due to current or recent releases
from SRS?
No. If a current or recent release of radioactive material had occurred at SRS,
3
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:34PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P. 35
SCDHEC and DOE would have made sure that the public would have been notified.
What is being done to correct the problem?
There are on-going investigations and remedial actions occurring at SRS which
are being coordinated through a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA). DOE, EPA, and
SCDHEC are the three parties involved in the FFA and this Agreement allows for federal
and state oversight of projects to investigate and clean up contaminated sites at SRS.
Have all fish in South Carolina been tested for radioactive isotopes contamination?
No. Fish have not been tested in all the state's waterbodies and not all species
of fish have been tested. Fish in waterbodies near other nuclear facilities located in
South Carolina have been tested for radioactive isotopes. The concentrations of
radioactive isotopes found in fish from these waterbodies are lower than the amount of
radioactive isotopes present in fish from the Savannah River.
What fish in the Savannah River have been found to be contaminated with
radioactive isotopes?
The Savannah River fish that have been sampled and found to contain radioactive
isotopes are sucker, bowfin, shad, largemouth bass, striped bass, bream, carp, catfish,
and mullet.
Are there studies currently being done to determine if there are higher amounts of
cancer in the Savannah River area around the Savannah River Plant?
The Medical University of South Carolina and SCDHEC are working on a joint
project called the "Savannah River Regional Health Information System". The purpose
of this system is to collect data concerning cancer in this area to determine any trends
in the occurrence of cancer among local residents near the site. Additional information
about this information about this system can be obtained by calling the Cancer Cluster
Hotline at 800-224 1674. They can also respond to concerns about cancer occurrences
in your area.
Why is DHEC basing its review on portions of fish some people consider to be non-
edible?
DHEC looked at radioisotope contamination in edible and non-edible portions of
fish because there may be some individuals who eat sections of the fish which other
individuals would consider to be non-edible. For example, after a fish has been fried,
some individuals will eat the fried tins.
4
-------
MAY 22 '97 02=34PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P. 36
Is the water from the Savannah River safe to drink?
The water that is drawn from the Savannah River for drinking water purposes is
safe to drink. The water is monitored for different contaminants, such as radioactive
materials, at the Beaufort/Jasper Water Plant. All water that has been tested from the
Savannah River has been found to be safe to drink and daily use.
What about using the water for recreation?
The Savannah River still can be enjoyed for camping, swimming, boating, and
skiing. The water itself is not showing high levels of radioactive material and it is sate
to handle fish caught in this river. You can continue fishing the Savannah River as long
as you pay attention to consumption guidelines which have been published.
Will DHEC test fish from waterbodies near other nuclear facilities in the state?
DHEC has analyzed the concentration of radioactive material in fish from the
waterbodies near nuclear facilities and the radioisotope concentrations in these fish are
lower than the radioisotope concentration found in fish caught in the Savannah River.
The sampling and testing of fish near all nuclear facilities will continue.
Does the presence of radioactive material in the Savannah River affect dredge spoils
from the river which are being used for land fill material in the Beaufort area?
No. The levels of radioactive material in the dredge sediments are very low and
does not affect the use of this material for land fill.
Will DHEC do more testing?
Yes, DHEC will continue to monitor radioactive material in the Savannah River.
The advisory will remain in effect until our fish testing shows that the concentration of
radioactive material in the fish has declined to an acceptable level. We will inform the
public of new information as it becomes available.
If more testing is to be done, will the potential effects on saltwater species (e.g.
oysters, shrimp) be examined?
As part of the continued monitoring of radioactive material in fish, DHEC will
be expanding their testing to sample species of fish, oysters, and shrimp from saltwater
areas of the Savannah River. In addition, more samples of sediments from the Savannah
5
-------
MAY 22 '97 02:35PM SC DHEC BSHNM
P.37
River will be collected and analyzed adjacent to and downstream of SRS.
Were there any trends in the data which showed if the levels of the radioisotopes are
decreasing or that the concentrations of the radioisotopes were elevated at certain
locations along the Savannah River?
Currently, only two years of fish caught in the Savannah River have been
analyzed using the current methods employed by DOE, SCDHEC, and GDNR and there
is not enough information available to determine any trends. Concentrations of cesium-
137 and strontium-90 are higher adjacent to ami downstream of SRS than in locations
upstream of SRS. These concentrations are probably due to past radioactive material
releases at SRS.
How far do fish migrate? Do they swim upstream?
All fish species can and do swim upstream but all species do not migrate.
Individuals of some species like bream and largemouth bass remain in relatively small
areas their entire lives and don't move around a lot. The Savannah River does contain
some species (stripped bass, sturgeon, white bass, some catfish, etc.) that are known to
move or migrate great distances in relatively short time-frames. In fact, striped bass may
migrate from off-shore waters to Thurmond Dam in less than a couple of days then
return to coastal waters.
6
-------
1ftY 22 '97 02=35PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P. 38
Cesium 137
Cesium is an alkali metal which occurs naturally in the earth's crust. Cesium-133
is a naturally-occurring isotope while other isotopes of cesium are man made. The most
abundant man-made isotope of cesium is Cesium-137, produced as a byproduct of fission
reactions. Cesium-137 has been released to the atmosphere through weapons testing and
to terrestrial and aquatic systems through accidental releases. Cesium is one of the most
important radioisotopes to consider at SRS because it is a primary radioisotope released
at SRS, from past operating processes. The half life of Cesium-137 is 30 years.
Fate and Transport
Cesium-137 is removed from the atmosphere because of its tendency to attach to
to surface soils, surface waters, and vegetation and plants. In surface soils and in surface
waters and groundwaters, Cesium-137 is not carried in the water column of surface
waters since it in tends to attach to particles of soil/sediments or plants, settling at
bottom of these water bodies.
Human Health Effects
Chemically, Cesium-137 can act as an analog of potassium. This means that it
will concentrate in the body the same way that potassium would concentrate. Cesium-137
is retained in higher concentrations when the supply of potassium supply is low. The
primary danger from Cesium-137 is through the release of beta particles and gamma
rays. Beta particles can only partially penetrate the skin; they are of concern due to their
ability to once they are ingested or inhaled. Gamma rays have the ability to fully
penetrate the skin and cause damage to internal organs whether they are taken into the
body through ingestion or inhalation or not, Cesium-137 can be physically cleared from
the body through fecal or urinary excretion, and perspiration. Thus, its elimination
occurs both through radioactive decay and biological elimination. The effective half-life
of Cesium-137 in the body is approximately 73 days.
Ecological Effects
Cesium-137 has a high bioaccumulation factor in fish and does have the potential
to bioaccumulate through the food chain. The uptake of a radioisotope by fish or any
organism can be quantified by calculating bioconceniration factors. Bioconcentration
factors tend to increase with decreasing concentrations of potassium in Savannah River
7
-------
MAY 22 '37 02=36PM SC DHEC BSHWM
P.33
water (Whicker et al., 1990).The aquatic food chain accumulates Cesium-137 not only
from water but also from suspended and bottom sediments and from absorption from
food. For the Savannah River, Cummins (1994) reported that Cesium-137 had
bioconcentration factors that were orders of magnitude higher than those reported in the
literature. The relatively high bioconcentration factors of Cesium-137 in fish flesh can
be largely explained by the low concentration of potassium in the water.
Strontium 90
Strontium is an alkaline metal that is found naturally in the earth's crust in small
quantities, usually associated with calcium or barium minerals. Due to its atomic
structure and chemical properties, strontium is similar in nature to magnesium, calcium,
barium, and radium. Strontium-90 is the primary isotope of strontium that is of concern
at SRS. Strontium-90 has a 28-year half life and is a beta emitter. Strontium-90 has been
released to the atmosphere due to weapons testing and has been released at SRS into
onsite seepage basins and site streams (Carlton et al., 1992b).
Fate and Transport
Strontium-90 is found in natural systems. It does not strongly attach to suspended
particulate matter in water. Thus, it is soluble in soils, in surface water, and
groundwaters.
Human Health Effects
Strontium-90 emits beta particles and is only a significant human health risk when
it enters the human body through ingestion or inhalation. Because it behaves like
calcium, Strontium-90 can be a potential contributor to the skeletal dose of an individual.
Strontium-90's effective half-life is approximately 10 years due to its tendency to be
incorporated into the bone.
Ecological Effects
Strontium-90 can also be incorporated into the skeletal structure of terrestrial and
aquatic organisms in the same manner as it is incorporated into humans. Strontium-90
uptake in most aquatic organisms occurs directly from the water and only about one-tenth
of the Strontium-90 is taken up by fish through the food chain. Therefore, trophic or
feeding level appears to have little effect on the bioconcentration factor of Strontium-90.
Strontium-90 tends to accumulate in the backbone of fish. As with Cesium-137, the
Strontium-90 bioconcentration factors calculated for SRS aquatic systems are higher than
those reported in the literature (Cummins, 1994).
8
-------
r A \
-mj
- »«o*c
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
MAR 2 5 1991 office of
SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE
OSWER Directive 9285.6-03
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
Human Health"? Evaluation Manual, Supplemental Guidance:
"Standard Default Exposure Factors"
Timothy Fields, Jr., Acting Director
Office of Emergency and £ejnedial_Response
Bruce Diamond, Direct
Office of Waste Programs
forcement
TO: Director, Waste Management Division,
Regions I, IV, V, & VII
Director, Emergency & Remedial Response Division,
Region II
Director, Hazardous Waste Management Division,
Regions III, VI, VIII, & IX
Director, Hazardous Waste Division,
Region X
Purpose
The purpose of this directive is to transmit the Interim
Final Standard Exposure Factors guidance to be used in the
remedial investigation and feasibility study process. This
guidance supplements the Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A that was issued
October 13, 1989.
Background
An intra-agency workgroup was formed in March 1990 to
address concerns regarding inconsistencies among the exposure
assumptions used in Superfund risk assessments. Its efforts
resulted in a June 29, 1990, draft document entitled "Standard
Exposure Assumptions". The draft was circulated to both
technical and management staff across EPA Regional Offices and
/ithin Headquarters. It was also discussed at two EPA-sponsored
neetings in the Washington, D.C., area. The attached interim
final document reflects the.comments received as well as the
results of recent literature reviews addressing inhalation rates,
soil ingestion rates and exposure frequency estimates.
Ps>rv*r
-------
Objective
This guidance has been developed to reduce unwarranted
variability in the exposure assumptions used by Regional
Superfund staff to characterize exposures to human populations in
the baseline risk assessment.
Implementation
This guidance supplements the Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS): Human Health Evaluation Manual, Part A. Where
numerical values differ from those presented in Part A, the
factors presented in this guidance supersede those presented in
Part A.
This guidance is being distributed as an additional interim
final guidance in the RAGS series. As new data become available
and the results of EPA-sponsored research projects are finalized,
this guidance will be modified accordingly. We strongly urge
Regional risk assessors to contact the Toxics Integration Branch
of the Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (FTS 475-9486)
with any suggestions for further improvement; as we will begin
updating and consolidating the series of RAGS documents in 1992.
kttachment
cc: Regional Branch Chiefs
Regional Section Chiefs
Regional Toxics Integration Coordinators
Workgroup Members
-------
OSWER DIRECTIVE: 9285.6-03
March 25, 1991
RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR SUPERFUND
VOLUME I: HUMAN HEALTH EVALUATION MANUAL
SUPPLEMENTAL GUIDANCE
"STANDARD DEFAULT EXPOSURE FACTORS"
INTERIM FINAL
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response
Toxics Integration Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
(202)475-9486
-------
* * * * NOTICE * * * *
The policies set out in this document are not final Agency
action, but are intended solely as guidance. They-are not
intended, nor can they be relied upon, to create any rights
enforceable by any party in litigation with the United States.
EPA officials nay decide to follow the guidance provided in this
document, or to act at variance with the guidance, based on an
analysis of site-specific circumstances. The Agency also
reserves the right to modify this guidance at any time without
public notice.
* * * *********
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This guidance was developed by the Toxics Integration Branch
(TIB) of EPA's Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
Hazardous Site Evaluation Division. Janine Dinan of TIB provided
overall project management and technical coordination in the
later stages of its development under the direction of Bruce
Means, Chief of TIB's Health Effects Program.
TIB would like t;o acknowledge the efforts of the interagency work
group chaired by Anne Sergeant of EPA's Exposure Assessment Group
in the Office of Health and Environmental Assessment. Workgroup
members, listed below, and Regional staff provided valuable input
regarding the content and scope of the guidance.
Glen Adams, Region IV
Lisa Askari, Office of Solid Waste
Alison Barry, OERR/HSCD
Steve Caldwell, OERR/HSED
David Cooper, OERR/HSCD
Linda Cullen, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
Steve Ells, OWPE/CED
Kevin Garrahan, OHEA/EAG
Susan Griffin, OERR/TIB
Gerry Hiatt, Region IX
Russ Kinerson, OHEA/EAG
Jim LaVelle, Region VIII
Mark Mercer, OERR/HSCD
Sue Norton, OHEA/EAG
Andrew Podowski, Region V
John Schaum, OHEA/EAG
Leigh Woodruff, Region X
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background 2
1.2 Present and Future
Land Use Considerations 3
2.0 Residential 5
2.1 Ingestion of Potable Water 5
2.2 Incidental Ingestion of
Soil and Dust 6
2.3 Inhalation of Contaminated
Air 6
2.4 Consumption of Homegrown
Produce 7
2.5 Subsistence Fishing 8
3.0 Commercial/Industrial 9
3.1 Ingestion of Potable Water 9
3.2 Incidental Ingestion of
Soil and Dust 9
3.3 Inhalation of Contaminated
Air 10
4.0 Agricultural 10
4.1 Farm Family Scenario 10
4.1.1 Consumption of Homegrown
Produce 11
4.1.2 Consumption of Animal
Products 11
4.2 Farm Worker 12
-------
5.0 Recreational 12
5.1 Consumption of Locally
Caught Fish 12
5.2 Additional Recreational
Scenarios 13
6.0 summary 14
7.0 References 16
Attachment A
Attachment £
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS) has been
divided into several parts. Part A, of the Human Health
Evaluation Manual (HHEM; U.S. EPA, 1989a), is the guidance for
preparing baseline human health risk assessments at Superfund
sites. Part B, now in draft form, will provide guidance on
calculating risk-based clean-up goals. Part c, still in the
early stages of development, will address the risks associated
with various remedial actions.
The processes outlined in these guidance manuals are a positive
step toward achieving Rational consistency in evaluating site
risks and setting goals for site clean-up. However, the
potential for inconsistency across Regions and among sites still
remains; both in estimating contaminant concentrations in
environmental media and in describing characteristics and
behaviors of the exposed populations.
Separate guidance on calculating contaminant concentrations is
currently being developed in response to a number of inquiries
from both inside and outside the Agency. The best method for
calculating the reasonable maximum exposure (RME) concentration
for different media has been subject to a variety of
interpretations and is considered an important area where further
guidance is needed.
This supplemental guidance attempts to reduce unwarranted
variability in the exposure assumptions used to characterize
potentially exposed populations in the baseline risk assessment.
This guidance builds on the technical concepts discussed in HHEM
Part A and should be used in conjunction with Part A. However,
where exposure factors differ, values presented in this guidance
supersede those presented in HHEM Part A.
Inconsistencies among exposure assumptions can arise from
different sources: l) where risk assessors use factors derived
from site-specific data; 2) where assessors must use their best
professional judgement to choose from a range of factors
published in the open literature; and 3) where assessors must
make assumptions (and choose values) based on extremely limited
data. Part A encourages the use of site-specific data so "that
risks can be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. This
supplemental guidance has been developed to encourage a
consistent approach to assessing exposures when there is a lack
of site-specific data or consensus on which parameter value to
choose, given a range of possibilities. Accordingly, the
exposure factors presented in this document are generally
considered most appropriate and should'be used in baseline risk
assessments unless alternate or site-specific values can be
clearly justified by supporting data.
1
-------
Supporting data for many of the parameters presented in this
guidance can be found in the Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH; U.S.
EPA, 1990). In cases where parameter values are not available in
EFH, this guidance adopts well-quantified or widely-accepted data
from the open literature. Finally, for factors where there is a
great deal of uncertainty, a rationally-derived, conservative
estimate is developed and explained. As new data become
available, this guidance will be modified to reflect them.
These standard factors are intended to be used for calculating
reasonable maximum exposure (RME) estimates for each applicable
scenario at a site. Readers are reminded that the goal of RME is
to combine upper-bound and mid-range exposure factors in the
following equation so that the result represents an exposure
scenario that is both protective and reasonable; not the worst
possible case:
Intake « C x IR x EF x ED
BW x AT
C = Concentration of the chemical in each medium
(conservative estimate of the media average
contacted over the exposure period)
IR - Intake/Contact Rate (upper-bound value)
EF = Exposure Frequency (upper-bound value)
ED «= Exposure Duration (tipper-bound value)
BW = Body Weight (average value)
AT «= Averaging Time (equal to exposure duration for
non-carcinogens and 70 years for carcinogens)
Please note that the Agency is presently evaluating methods for
calculating conservative exposure estimates, suctr as RME, in
terms of which parameters should be upper-bound or mid-range
values. If warranted, this guidance will be modified
accordingly.
1.1 BACKGROUND
An intra-agency workgroup was formed at the Superfund Health Risk
Assessment meeting in Albuquerque, New Mexico (February 26 -
March 1, 1990)'. Its efforts resulted in a June 29, 1990, draft
document entitled "Standard Exposure Assumptions". The draft was
distributed to Superfund Regional Branch Chiefs, and members of
2
-------
other programs within the Agency, for their review and comment.
It was also presented and discussed at two EPA/OERR sponsored
meetings. The meetings, facilitated by Clean Sites, Inc.,
brought members of the "Superfund community" and the Agency
together to focus on technical issues in risk assessment.
A final review draft was distributed on December 5, 1990, ¦which
reflected earlier comments received as well as the- results of
more recent literature reviews addressing inhalation rates, soil
ingestion rates and exposure frequency estimates (these being
areas commented on most frequently).
1.2 PRESENT AND FUTURE LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS
The exposure scenarios, presented in this document, and their
corresponding assumptions have been developed.within the context
of the following land use classifications: residential,
commercial/industrial, agricultural or recreational.
Unfortunately, it is not always easy to determine actual land use
or predict future use: local zoning may not adequately describe
land use; and unanticipated or even planned rezoning actions can
be difficult to assess. Also, the definition of these zones can
differ substantially from region to region. Thus, for the
purposes of this document, the following definitions are used:
Residential
Residential exposure scenarios and assumptions should be
used whenever there are or may be occupied residences on or
adjacent to the site. Under this land use, residents are
expected to be in frequent, repeated contact with
contaminated media. The contamination may be on the site
itself or may have migrated from it. The assumptions in,
this case account for daily exposure over the long term and
generally result in the highest potential exposures and
risk.
Commercial/Industrial
Under this type of land use, workers are exposed to
contaminants within a commercial area or industrial site.
These scenarios apply to those individuals who work on or
near the site. Under this land use, workers are expected to
be routinely exposed to contaminated media. Exposure may be
lower than that under the residential scenarios, because it
is generally assumed that exposure is limited to 8 hours a
day for 250 days per year.
3
-------
Agricultural
These scenarios address exposure to people who live on the
property (i.e., the farm family) and agricultural workers.
Assumptions made for worker exposures under the
commercial/industrial land use may not be applicable to
agricultural workers due to differences in workday length,
seasonal changes in work habits, and whether migrant workers
are employed in the affected area. Finally, the farm family
scenario should be evaluated only if it is known that such
families reside in the area.
Recreational
This land use addresses exposure to people who spend a
limited amount of time at or near a site while playing,
fishing, hunting, hiking,- or engaging in other outdoor
activities. This includes what is often described as the
••trespasser" or "site visitor" scenario. Because not all
sites provide the same opportunities, recreational scenarios
must be developed on a site-specific basis. Frequently, the
community surrounding the site can be an excellent source of
information regarding the current and potential recreational
use of a site. The RPM/risk assessor is encouraged to
consult with local groups to collect this type of
information.
In the case of trespassers, current exposures are likely to
be higher at inactive sites than at active sites because
there is .generally little supervision of abandoned
facilities. At most active sites, security patrols and
normal maintenance of barriers such as fences tend to limit
(if not entirely prevent) trespassing. When modeling
potential future exposures in the baseline risk assessment,
however, existing fences should not be considered a
deterrent to future site access.
Recreational exposure should account for hunting and fishing
seasons where appropriate, but should not disregard local
reports of species taken illegally. Other activities should
also be scaled according to the amount of time they could
actually occur; for children and teenagers, the length of
the school year can provide a helpful limit when evaluating
the frequency and duration of certain outdoor exposures.
4
-------
2.0 RESIDENTIAL
Scenarios for this land use should be evaluated whenever there
are homes on or near the site, or when residential development is
reasonably expected in the future. In determining the potential
for future residential land use, the RPM should consider:
historical land use; suitability for residential development;
local zoning; and land use trends. Exposure pathways evaluated
under this scenario routinely include, but may not be limited to:
ingestion of potable water; incidental ingestion of soil and
dust; inhalation of contaminated air; and, where appropriate,
consumption of home grown produce.
2.1 Ingestion of Potable Water
This pathway assumes that adult residents consume 2 liters
of water per day, 350 days per year, for 30 years.
The value of 2 liters per day for drinking water is
currently used by the Office of Water in setting drinking
water standards. It was originally used by the military to
calculate tank truck requirements. In addition, 2 liters
happens to be quite close to the 90th percentile for
drinking water ingestion (U.S. EPA, 1990), and is
comparable to the 8 glasses of water per day historically
recommended by health authorities.
The exposure frequency (EF) of 365 days/year for the
residential setting used in RAGS Part A has been argued both
inside and outside of the Agency as being too conservative
for RME estimates. National travel data were reviewed to
determine if an accurate number of "days spent at home"
could be calculated.¦ Unfortunately, conclusions could not
be drawn from the available literature; as it presents data
on the duration of trips taken for pleasure, but not the
frequency of such trips (OECD, 1989; Goeldner and Duea,
1984; National Travel Survey, 1982-89). However, the
Superfund program is committed to moving away from values
that represent the "worst possible case." Thus, until
better data become available, the common assumption that
workers take two weeks of vacation per year can be used to
support a value of 15 days per year spent away from home
(i.e., 350 days/year spent at home).
In terms of exposure duration (ED), the resident is assumed
to live in the same home for 30 years. In the EFH, this
value is presented as the 90th-percentile for time spent at
one residence. (Please note that in the. intake equation,
averaging time (AT) for exposure to non-carcinogenic
compounds is always equal to ED; whereas, for carcinogens a
5
-------
70 year AT is still used in order to compare to Agency slope
factors typically based on that value).
2.2 Incidental Ingestion of Soil and Dust
The combined soil and dust ingestion rates used in this
document were presented in OSWER Directive 9850.4 (U.S. EPA,
1989b), which specifies 200 mg per day for children aged 1
thru 6 (6 years of exposure) and 100 mg per day for others.
These factors account for ingestion of both outdoor soil and
indoor dust and are believed to represent upper-bound values
for soil'and dust ingestion (Calabrese, et al., 1989;
Calabrese, et al., 1990a,b; Davis, et al., 1990; Van Wijnen,
et al., 1990). Presently, there is no widely accepted
method for determining the relative contribution of each
medium (i.e., soil vs. dust) to these daily totals, and the
effect of climatic variations (e.g., snow cover) on these
values has yet. to be determined. Thus, a constant, year
round exposure is assumed (i.e., 350 days/year).
Please note that the equation for calculating a 30-year
residential exposure to soil/dust is divided into two parts.
First, a six-year exposure duration is evaluated for young
children which accounts for the period of highest soil
ingestion (200 mg/day) and lowest body weight (15 kg).
Second, a 24-year exposure duration is assessed for older
children and adults by using a lower soil ingestion rate
(100 mg/day) and an adult body weight (70 kg).
2.3 Inhalation of Contaminated Air
In response to a number of comments, the RME inhalation rate
for adults of 30 m /day (presented in HHEM Part A) was re-
evaluated. Activity-specific inhalation rates were combined
with time-use/activity level data to derive daily inhalation
rate values (see Attachment A). Our evaluation focused on
the following population subgroups who would be expected to
spend the majority of their time at home: housewives;
service and household workers; retired people; and
unemployed workers (U.S. EPA, 1985). An inhalation rate of
20 m /day was found to represent a reasonable upper-bound
value for adults in these groups. This value was derived by
combining inhalation rates for indoor and outdoor activities
in the residential setting. This rate would be used in
conjunction with ambient air levels measured at or downwind
of the site. Although sampling data are preferred,
procedure^ described in Hwang and Falco (1986) and
Cowherd, et al. (1985) can be used to estimate volatile and
dust-bound contaminant concentrations, respectively.
6
-------
In cases where the residential water supply is contaminated
with volatiles, the assessor needs to consider the potential
for exposiure during household water use (e.g. , cooking,
laundry, bathing and showering). Using the same time-
use/activity level data described above, a total of
15 m /day was found to represent a reasonable upper-bound
inhalation rate for daily, indoor, residential activities.
Methods for modeling volatilization of contaminants in the
household (including the shower) are currently being
developed by J.B. Andelman and U.S. EPA's Exposure
Assessment Group. Assessors should contact the Superfund
Health Risk Assessment Technical Support Center for help
with site-specific evaluations (FTS-684-7300).
2.4 Consumption of Home Grown Produce
This pathway need not be evaluated for all sites. It may
only be relevant for a small number of compounds (e.g. , some
inorganics and pesticides) and should be evaluated when the
assessor has site-specific information to support this as a
pathway of concern for the residential setting.
The EFH presents figures for "typical" consumption of fruit
(14 0 g/day) and vegetables (200 g/day) with the "reasonable
worst case" proportion of produce that is homegrown as 30
and 40 percent, respectively. This corresponds to values of
42 g/day for consumption of homegrown fruit and 80 g/day for
homegrown vegetables. They are derived from data in Pao, et
al. (1982) and USDA (1980). EFH also provides data on
consumption of specific homegrown fruits and vegetables that
may be more appropriate for site-specific evaluations.
Although sampling data are much preferred, in their absence
plant uptake of certain organic compounds can be estimated
using the procedure described in Briggs, et al. (1982). "No
particular procedure is recommended for quantitatively
assessing inorganic uptake at this time; however, the
following table developed by Sauerbeck (1988) provides a
qualitative guide for assessing heavy metal uptake into a
number of plants:
7
-------
Plant Uptake of Heavy Metals
High
Moderate
lettuce
spinach
carrot
endive
cress
beet and
beet leaves
cnion
mustard
potato
radish
Low
Very Low
corn
cauliflower
asparagus
celery
berries
beans
peas
melon
tomatoes
fruit
2.5 Subsistence Fishing
This pathvay is not expected to be relevant for most sites.
In order to add subsistence fishing as a pathway of concern
among the residential scenarios, onsite contamination must
have impacted a water body large enough to produce a
consistent supply of edible fish, and there must be evidence
that area residents regularly fish in this water body (e.g.,
interviews with local anglers). If these criteria are met,
the 95thi-percentile for daily fish consumption (132 g/day)
from Pao, et al. (1982) should be used to represent the
ingestion rate for subsistence fishermen. This value was
derived from a 3-day study of people who ate fish, other
than canned, dried, or raw. An example of this consumption
rate is about four 8-ounce servings per week.
This consumption rate can also be used to evaluate exposures
to non-residents who may also use the water body for
subsistence fishing. In this case, the exposure estimate
would not be added to estimates calculated for other
residential pathways, but may be included in the risk
assessment as an exposure pathway for a sensitive sub-
population.
For further information regarding food chain contamination the
assessor is directed to the following documents:
o Methodology for Assessing Health Risks Associated with
Indirect Exposures to Combustor Emissions (PB-90-
187055). Available through NTIS.
o Development of Risk Assessment Methodology for Land
Application and Distribution and Marketing of Municipal
Sludge (EPA/600/6-89/001). Available from
OHEA/Technical, Information at FTS 382-7326.
o Estimating Exposure to 2,3,7,8-TCDD (EPA/600/6-
88/005A). Available from OHEA/Technical Information at
FTS 382-7326.
8
-------
3.0 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
Occupational scenarios should be evaluated when land use is (or
is expected to be) commercial/industrial. In general, these
scenarios address a 70-kg adult who is at work 5 days a week for
50 weeks per year (250 days total). The individual-is assumed to
work 25 years at the same location (95th-percentile; Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1990). This scenario also considers ingestion
of potable water, incidental ingestion of soil and dust, and
inhalation of contaminated air.
Please note that under mixed-use zoning (e.g., apartments above
storefronts), certain pathways described for the residential
setting should also be evaluated.
3.1 Ingestion of Potable Water
Until data become available for this pathway, it will be
assumed that half of an individual's daily water intake
(1 liter out of 2) occurs at work. All water ingested is
assumed to come from the contaminated drinking water source
(i.e., bottled water is not considered). For site-specific
cases where workers are known to consume considerably more
water (e.g., those who work outdoors in hot weather or in
other, high-activity/stress environments), it may be
necessary to adjust this figure.
A lower ingestion rate is used in this pathway so that a
more reasonable exposure estimate may be made for workers
ingesting contaminated water. However, it is important to
remember that remedial actions are often based on returning
the contaminated aquifer to maximum beneficial use; yhich
generally means achieving levels suitable for residential
use.
3.2 Incidental Ingestion of Soil and Dust
In the occupational setting, incidental ingestion of soil
and dust is highly dependent on the type of work being
performed. Office workers would be expected to contact much
less soil and dust than someone engaged in outdoor work such
as construction or landscaping. Although no studies were
found that specifically measured the amount of soil ingested
by workers in the occupational setting, the one study that
measured adult soil ingestion included subjects that worked
outside of the home (Calabrese, et al., 1990a). Although
the study had a limited number of subjects (n=6) and did not
associate the findings with any particular activity pattern,
it is the only study.that did not rely on modeling to
9
-------
estimate adult soil ingestion. Thus, the Calabrese, et al.
(1990a) estimate of 50 mg/day is selected as an interim
default for adult ingestion of soil and dust in the
"typical" workplace. Please be aware that this value may
change when the results of ongoing soil ingestion studies
sponsored by EPA's Exposure Assessment Group are finalized
in 1991.
Attachment B presents modeled rates for adult soil ingestion
that should be used to estimate exposures for certain
workplace activities where much greater soil contact is
anticipated, but with limited exposure frequency and/or
duration.
3.3 Inhalation of Contaminated Air
As in the previous discussion regarding inhalation rates
for the residential setting, specific time-use/activity
level data were used to estimate inhalation rates for
various occupational activities. The results indicate that
20 m per 8-hour workday represents a reasonable upper-
bound inhalation rate for the occupational setting (see
Attachment A). Although analytical data are much preferred,
procedures described in Hwang and Falco (1986) and Cowherd,
et al. (1985) can be used to estimate volatile and dust-
bound contaminant concentrations, respectively.
4 . 0 AGRICULTURAL
These land use scenarios include potential exposures for farm
families living and working on the site, as well as, individuals
who may only be employed as farm workers.
4.1 Farm Family Scenario
This, scenario should be evaluated only if it is known or
suspected that there are farm families in the area. The
animal products pathway should not be used for areas zoned
residential, because such regulations generally prohibit the
keeping of livestock. Farm family members are assumed to
have most of the same characteristics as people in the
residential setting; the only difference is that consumption
of homegrown produce will always be evaluated. Thus,
default values for the soil ingestion, drinking water, and
inhalation pathways would be the same as those in the
residential setting.
10
-------
4.1.1 Consumption of Homegrown Produce
The values used in evaluating this pathway are the same
as those presented in Section 2.4. While it is more
likely for farm families to cultivate fruits and
vegetables, it is not necessarily true that they would
be able to grow a sufficient variety to meet all their
dietary needs and tastes. Thus, the consumption rate
default values will be 42 g/day and 80 g/day for fruits
and vegetables, respectively. Again, EFH presents
consumption rates for specific homegrown fruits and
vegetables. The assessor is reminded that the plant
uptake pathway is not relevant for all contaminants and
sampling-of fruits and vegetables is highly
recommended. However, in the absence of analytical
data, plant uptake of organic chemicals can be
estimated using the procedure described in Briggs, et
al. (1982). No particular procedure is recommended for
quantitatively assessing inorganic uptake at this time;
however, the table (presented in Section 2.4) developed
by Sauerbeck (1988) provides a qualitative guide for
assessing heavy metal uptake into a number of plants.
4.1.2 Consumption of Animal Products
Animal products should only be addressed if it is known
that local residents produce them for home consumption
or are expected to do so in the future. The best way
to determine which items are produced is by interviews
or consultation with the local County Extension Service
which usually has data on the type and quantity of
local farm products.
EFH provides average ingestion rates for beef and dairy
products and assumes that the farm family produces
75 percent of what it consumes from these categories.
This corresponds to a "reasonable worst case"
consumption rate of 75 g/day for beef and 300 g/day for
dairy products. Although sampling data are much
preferred, in their absence the procedure described in
Travis and Arms (1988) may be used to estimate organic
contaminant concentrations in beef and milk. This
procedure does not provide transfer coefficients for
poultry and eggs. Thus, the latter two pathways can be
evaluated only if site-specific concentrations for
poultry and eggs are available, or if transfer
coefficients can be obtained from the literature.
.dditional references addressing potential exposures from
ontaminated foods are listed in Section 2.0.
11
-------
4.2 Farm Worker
Many farm activities, such as plowing and harrowing, can
generate a great deal of dust. The risk assessor should
consider the effects of observed (or expected) agricultural
practices when using the fugitive dust model suggested under
the residential scenario. Note that soil ingestion rate may
be similar to the outdoor yardwork scenario discussed in
Attachment B, although it will be necessary to modify the
exposure frequency and duration to account for climate and
length of employment. The local County Extension Service
should be able to provide information on agricultural
practices around a site. In addition, the Biological and
Economic Analysis Division in the Office of Pesticide
Programs maintains a database of the usual planting and
harvesting dates for a number of crops in most U.S. states.
This information may be very helpful for estimating times of
peak exposure for farm workers, and, if needed, can be
obtained through the Superfund Health Risk Assessment
Technical Support Center (FTS 684-7300).
5.0 RECREATIONAL
As stated previously, sites present different opportunities for
recreational activities. The RPM or risk assessor is encouraged
to consult with the local community to determine whether there is
or could be recreational use of the property along with the
likely frequency and duration of any activities.
5.1 Consumption of Locally Caught Fish
This pathway should be evaluated when there is access to a
contaminated water body large enough to produce a consistent
supply of edible-sized fish over the anticipated exposure
period. Although the local authorities should know if the
water body is used for fishing, illegal access (trespassing)
and deliberate disregard of fishing bans should not
necessarily be ruled out; the risk assessor should check for
evidence of these activities. If required, the scenario can
be modified to account for fishing season, type of edible
fish available, consumption habits, etc.
For recreational fishing, the average consumption rate of
54 g/day from Pao, et al. (1982) is used. This value is
derived from a 3-day study of people who ate finfish, other
than canned, dried or raw. An example of this consumption
rate is about two 8-ounce servings per week. Other values
presented in EFH, for consumption of recreationally caught
fish, are from limited studies of fishermen on the west
coast'and may not be applicable to catches in other areas.
12
-------
When evaluating this pathway please consider the possibility
of subsistence fishing. Unlike the residential scenario,
exposure estimates from this pathway would not necessarily
be added to any other exposure estimates (see Section 2.5).
Instead, it would be included as an estimate of exposure for
a sensitive sub-population.
5.2 Additional Recreational Scenarios
A number of commentors requested standard default valuer for
the following recreational scenarios: hunting, dirtbiking,
swimming and wading.. One approach to address exposure
during swimming and wading is presented in HHEM Part A. The
Agency is currently involved in research projects designed
to estimate dermal uptake of contaminants from soil, ws'r.er
and sediment. Results of these studies will be used to
update the swimming and wading scenarios as well as other
scenarios that rely on estimates of dermal absorption.
Unfortunately, lack of data and problems in estimating
exposure frequencies and durations based on regional
variations in climate have precluded the standardization of
other recreational scenarios at this time. Additional
guidance will be developed as data become available.
13
-------
6 . 0 SUMMARY
This supplemental guidance has been developed to provide a
standard set of default values for use in exposure assessments
when site-specific data are lacking. These standard factors are
intended to be used for calculating reasonable maximum exposure
(RME) levels for each applicable land use scenario at a site.
Supporting data for many of the assumptions can be found in the
Exposure Factors Handbook (EFH; U.S. EPA, 1990). When supporting
information was not available in EFH, well-quantified or widely-
accepted data from the open literature were adopted. Finally,
for factors where there is a great deal of uncertainty, a
rationally conservative estimate was developed and explained.
As new data become available, either for the factors themselves
or for calculating RME, this guidance .will e modified
accordingly.
The following table summarizes the exposure pathways that will be
evaluated on a routine basis for each land use, and the current
default values for each exposure parameter in the standard intake
equation presented below (refer to HHEM: Part A, U.S. EPA, 1989a,
for a more detailed discussion of each exposure parameter) :
Intake = c x IP x EF x ED
BW x AT
C *= Concentration of the chemical in each medium
IR = Intake/Contact Rate
EF = Exposure Frequency
ED = Exposure Duration
BW = Body Weight
AT = Averaging Time
14
-------
SUMMARY OF STANDARD DEFAULT EXPOSURE FACTORS (1)
Land Use
Residentlal
Commercial/
Industrlal
Agrleultural
Recreational
Exposure Pathway (2)
Ingestion of
Potable Water
Ingestion of
Soil and Dust
Inhalation of
Contaminants
Ingestion of
Potable Water
Ingestion of
Soxl and Dust
Inhalation of
Contaminants
Ingestion of
Potable Water
Ingestion of
Soil and Dust
Inhalation of
Contaminants.
Consumption of
Homegrown
Produce
Consumption of
Locally Caught
Fish
Dally
Intake Rate
2 liters
200 mg (child)
100 mg (adult)
20 cu.m (total)
15 cu.m (indoor)
1 liter
50 mg
Exposure
Frequency
350 days/year
350 days/year
350 days/year
250 days/year
250 days/year
20 cu.m/workday 250 days/year
2 liters
200 mg (child)
100 mg (adult)
20 cu.m (total)
15 cu.m (indoor)
42" g (fruit)
00 g (veg.)
54 g
350 days/year
350 days/year
350 days/year
350 days/year
350 days/year
Exposure
Duration
30 years
6 years
24 years
30 years
25 years
25 years
25 years
30 years
6 years
24 years
30 years
30 years
30 years
Body Weight
70 kg
15 kg (child)
70 kg fadult)
70 kg
70 kg
70 kg
70 kg
70 kg
15 kg (child)
70 kg (adult)
70 kg
70 kg
70 kg
(1) - Factors presented are those that should generally be used to assess
exposures associated with a designated land use. Site-specific data may warrant deviation
from these values; however, use of alternate values should be justified and documented
in the risk assessment report.
(2) - Listed pathways may not be relevant for all sites and. ot:her exposure pathways
may need to be evaluated due tov site conditions. Additional pathways and applicable default
values are provided in the text of this guidance.
-------
7.0 REFERENCES
Briggs, G., R. Bromilow, and A. Evans. 1982. Relationship
between lipophilicity and root uptake and translocation of
non-ionized chemicals by barley. Pesticide Science 13:495-
504.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. 1990. Statistical summary: tenure
with current employer as of January 1987. (Transmitted via
facsimile, 7 September 1990)
Calabrese, E.J., Barnes, R., Stanek, E. J., Pastides, H.,
Gilbert, C.E., Veneman, P., Wang, X., Lasztity, A., and P.T.
Kosteck. 1989. How Much Soil Do Young Children Ingest: An
Epidemiologic Study. Reg. Tox. and Pharmac. 10:12?-137.
Calabrese, E.J., Stanek, E.J., Gilbert, C.E.,and R.M. Barnes.
1990a. Preliminary Adult Soil Ingestion Estimates: Results
of a Pilot Study. Reg. Tox. and Pharmac. 12:88-95.
Calabrese, E.J. 1990b. Personal communication with J. Dinan,
Toxics Integration Branch. EPA/OSWER/OERR. October 24,
1990.
Cowherd, C., Muleski, G., Englehart, P., and D. Gillette. 1985.
Rapid Assessment of Exposure to Particulate Emissions from
Surface Contamination. Prepared by Midwest Research
Institute, Washington, D.c. for EPA/OHEA. EPA-600/8-85-002.
Davis, S., Waller, P., Buschbom, R., Ballou, J. and P. White.
1990. Quantitative Estimates of Soil Ingestion in Normal
Children between the Ages of 2 and 7 Years: Population-
based Estimates Using Aluminum, Silicon and Titanium as Soil
Tracer Elements. Arc. Environ. Health. 45(2):112-122.
Goeldner, C.R. and K.P. Duea. 1984. Travel Trends in the United
States and Canada. Business Research Division, University
of Colorado at Boulder.
Hawley, J.K. 1985. Assessment of health risk from exposure to
contaminated soil. Risk Analysis 5(4):289-302.
Hwang, S.T., and J.W. Falco. 1986. Estimation of Multimedia .
Exposures Related to Hazardous Waste Facilities. In: Cohen
(ed.). Pollutants in a Multimedia Environment. New York, NY:
Plenum Publishing Corp. pp. 229-264.
National Travel Survey. 1982-1989. U.S. Travel Data Center,
Washington, D.C.
16
-------
OECD. 1989. National and International Tourism Statistics,
1974-1985. Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development.
Pao, E.M., K.H. Fleming, P.A. Guenther, and S.J. Mickle. 1982.
Foods commonly eaten by individuals: Amounts per day and per
eating occasion. USDA, Human Nutrition Information Service.
Home Economics Report No. 44.
Sauerbach, D. 1988. Transfer of Heavy Metals in Plants. As
published in: Technical Report No. 40, Hazard Assessment of
Chemical Contaminants in Soil (August 1990). European
Chemical Industry Ecology & Toxicology Centre. Brussels,
Belgium. ISSN-0773-8072-40
Travis, C.C. and A.D. Arms. 1988. Bioconcentration of organics
in beef, milk, and vegetation. Environmental Science and
Technology 22(3):271-274.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1980. Food and nutrient intakes
of individuals in one day in the United States, Spring 1977.
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-1978. Preliminary
Report No. 2.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1990. Exposure Factors
Handbook. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment.
EPA/,600/8-89/043, March 1990.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989a. Risk Assessment
Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response.
EPA/540/1-89/002.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1989b. Interim Final
Guidance for Soil Ingestion. Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response. OSWER Directive 9850.4.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Development of
Statistical Distributions of Ranges of Standard Factors Used
in Exposure Assessments. OHEA-E-161, March 1985.
Van Wijnen, J.H., Clausing, P. and B. Brunekreef. 1990.
Estimated Soil Ingestion by Children. Environmental
Research 51: 147-162.
17
-------
ATTACHMENT A
ACTIVITY SPECIFIC INHALATION RATES
Background
The standard default value of 20 m3/day has been used by EPA to
represent an average daily inhalation rate for adults. According
to EFH, this value was developed by the International Commission
on Radiologic Protection (ICRP) to represent a daily inhalation
rate for "reference man" engaged in 16 hours of "light activity"
and 8 hours of "rest". EPA (1985) reported on a similar study
that indicated the average inhalation rate for a man engaged in
the same activities would be closer to 13 m /day. EFH, in turn,
reiterated the findings of ICRP and EPA (1985) then calculated a
"reasonable worst case" inhalation rate of 30 m /day. This
reasonable worst case value was used in Part A of the Human
Health Evaluation Manual as the RME inhalation rate for
residential exposures.
Commentors from both inside and outside the Agency expressed
concerns that this value may be too conservative. Many also
added their concern that exposure values calculated using this
inhalation rate would not be comparable to reference doses (RfD)
and cancer potency factors (ql*) values based on an inhalation
rate of 20 m3/day. Thus, the Toxics Integration Branch of
Superfund (TIB) conducted a review of the literature to determine
the validity of using 30 m /day as the RME inhalation rate for
adults. Members of EPA's Environmental Criteria Assessment
Office-Research Triangle Park (A. Jarabek, 9/20/90) and the
Science Advisory Board (10/26/90) have suggested that inhalation
rates could be calculated using time-use/activity level data
reported in the "Development of Statistical Distributions or
Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments" (OHEA;
U.S. EPA, 1985). Thus, TIB used this data to calculate an ,RME
inhalation rate for both the residential and occupational
settings, as follows.
Methodology
o The time-use/activity level" data reported by OHEA
(1985) were analyzed for eacr. occupation subgroup;
o The data were divided into hours spent at home vs.
hours' spent at the workplace (lunch hours spent outside
of work and hours spent in transit were excluded);
o The hourly data were subdivided into hours spent
indoors vs. outdoors (to allow for estimating exposures
to'volatile contaminants during indoor use of potable
water);
-------
ATTACHMENT B
ESTIMATING ADULT SOIL INGESTION
IN THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SETTING
Most of the available soil ingestion studies focus on children in
the residential setting; however, two studies were found that
address adult soil ingestion that also have application to the
commercial/industrial setting (Hawley, 1985; Calabrese, et al.,
1990).
Hawley (1985) used, a number of assumptions for contact rates and
body surface area to estimate the amount of soil and dust adults
may ingest during a variety of residential activities. For
indoor exposures, Hawley estimated levels based on contact with
soil/dust in two different household areas, as follows:
0.5 mg/day for daily exposure in the "living space"; and 110
mg/day for cleaning dusty areas such as attics or basements. For
outdoor exposures, Hawley estimated a soil ingestion rate during
yardwork of 480 mg/day. The assumptions used to model exposures
in the residential setting may also be applied to similar
situations in the workplace. The amount of soil and dust adults
contact in their houses may be similar to the amount an office or
indoor maintenance worker would be expected to contact.
Likewise, the amount of soil contacted by someone engaged in
construction or landscaping may be more analogous to a resident
doing outdoor yardwork.
Calabrese, et al. (1990) conducted a pilot study that measured
adult soil ingestion at 50 mg/day. Although the study has
several drawbacks (e.g., a limited number of participants and no
information on the participants daily work activities), i~
included subjects that worked outside the home. It is also
interesting to note that this measured value falls within the
range Hawley (1985) estimated for adult soil ingestion during
indoor activitieis.
From these studies, 50 mg/day was chosen as the standard default
value for adult soil ingestion in the workplace. It was chosen
primarily because it is a measured value but also because it
falls within the range of modeled values representing two widely
different indoor exposure scenarios. The 50 mg/day value is to
be used in conjunction with an exposure frequency of 250
days/year and an exposure duration of 25 years. For certain
outdoor activities in the commercial/industrial setting (e.g.,
construction or landscaping), a soil ingestion rate of 480 mg/day
may be used; however, this type of work is usually short-term and
is often dictated by the weather. Thus, exposure frequency would
generally be less than one year and exposure duration would vary
according to site-specific construction/maintenance plans.
-------
o The corresponding activity level was assigned to tech
hour and the total number of hours spent at each
activity level was calculated;
o For time spent inside the home, 8 hours per day were
assumed to be spent at rest; and
o The total number of hours spent at each activity level
was multiplied by average inhalation rates reported in
the EFH. Note: average values were used since only
minimum, maximum and average values were reported. The
use of maximum values would have to be considered
"worst case". Values for average adults were applied
to all but the housewife data (where average rates for
women were applied).
The results showed that the highest weekly inhalation rate was
18.3 m /day for the residential setting and 18 m /day for th&
workplace. These values represent the highest among the weekly
averages and were derived from coupling "worst case" activity
patterns with "average" adult inhalation rates. It was concluded
from these data that 30 m /day may in fact be too conservative
and that 20 m3,/day would be more representative of a reasonably
conservative inhalation rate for total (i.e., indoor plus
outdoor) exposures at home and in the workplace.
RAGS Part B will specifically model exposure to volatile organics
via indoor use of potable water. Using the method described
previously, it was determined that 15 m3/day would represent a
reasonably conservative inhalation rate for indoor residential
exposures.
-------
EPA 904/R-96/006
POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF INGESTING
FISH WHICH ARE TAKEN FROM LOCATIONS NEAR THE
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
May 1996
Atlanta, Georgia
library
EPA REGION 4
9th Floor
100 Alabama St. S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30303
U.S. EPA Region 4
Waste Management Division
Department of Energy Remedial Section / Federal Facilities Branch
-------
1
FTRODUCTION
This screening-level risk assessment is for a hazardous waste site. This analysis
characterizes risks due to ingesting fish which have radioactive and nonradioactive
contaminants and are taken from locations along the Savannah River near the Savannah
River Site (SRS), which is located near Aiken, South Carolina. The potential human health
effects of the radioactive contaminants in these fish are analyzed in Part I; the
nonradioactive contaminants in Part II; and their combined effects in Part III. Part IV
presents the overall risk characterization for this risk screening.
The risk characterization. Part IV, clearly highlights both the confidence and the
uncertainty associated with this screening-level risk assessment. This risk characterization
conveys the assessor's judgment as to the nature and existence of both human and
ecological risks. However, even though there is a limited discussion of the ecological
considerations of chemical releases from this site in Part IV, the primary site-specific focus
of this analysis is potential human health risks.
RESULTS IN BRIEF
This section provides an executive summary of overall risks derived in this analysis. Individual risk (including both
central tendency and high endI are presented, along with population risk. Important subgroups, such as highly
exposed or highly susceptible, are identified. Refer to Part IV, the risk characterization section, for more detailed
information from several types of exposure scenarios and the use of multiple risk descriptors (e.g., centra!
endency, high end of individual risk, population risk, important subgroups, if known) consistent with terminology
in the Agency's Guidance on Risk Characterization, Agency Risk Assessment Guidelines (RAGs) and program-
specific guidance.
Hazard Indexes (His) for deleterious non-cancer systemic effects during a lifetime obtained
by ingesting fish which are contaminated with selected nonradioactive contaminants and
are taken from various locations along the Savannah River near the Savannah River Site
(SRS)
Four nonradioactive contaminants were analyzed. None of the doses of these four
contaminants exceeded their respective reference doses (RfDs) and are therefore not likely
to be associated with any systemic health risks. Of the four nonradioactive contaminants
studied, mercury had the highest hazard index (0.62). However, RfDs for b-BHC and DDE
are not available at this time, and any hazard for these contaminants presently cannot be
estimated. Consequently, the overall hazard for deleterious non-cancer systemic effects
during a lifetime obtained by ingesting fish which are contaminated with these two
pollutants is unknown.
Summary of Part I Results
Estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk for a resident ingesting fish which are
contaminated with selected radioactive contaminants and are taken from various locations
along the Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
-------
2
Estimated risks for rural resident with RME to Strontium-90 (SR-90). Cesium-137 (CS-
137). Tritium (H-3). and Gross Alpha la)
• The estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk for a Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME) rural resident ingesting Savannah River fish taken from the
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Discharge (VEGPD) (which is close to Four
Mile Creek), the mouth of Four Mile Creek, the mouth of Steel Creek, and
the mouth of Lower Three Runs Creek (radioactive combined) is 5.46E-5
• • In short, with arithmetic rounding, this risk from SR-90, CS-
137. H-3, and a combined for a RME rural resident should be
considered to be a "1.00E-4" risk
• • Stated in other terms, this is roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 10,000 individuals with maximum
exposure to SR-90, CS-137, H-3, and a
Estimated risks for rural residents with average exposure to SR-90 and CS-137. H-3. and
a
The upper bound estimate of lifetime excess total cancer risk due to SR-90,
CS-137, H-3, and a combined for an average rural resident ingesting
Savannah River fish taken from various locations along the Savannah River
near the Savannah River Site (SRS) (radioactive combined) is 8.40E-6.
In short, with arithmetic rounding, the upper bound estimate of
this risk from SR-90, CS-137, H-3, and a combined for an
average rural resident should be considered to be a "1.00E-5"
risk
Stated in other terms, this is roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 100.000 individuals with average
exposure to SR-90, CS-137, H-3, and a
The lower bound estimate of lifetime excess total cancer risk due to SR-90.
CS-137. H-3, and a combined for an average rural resident ingesting
Savannah River fish taken from various locations along the Savannah River
near the Savannah River Site (SRS) (radioactive combined) is 3.98E-6.
• • In short, with arithmetic rounding, the lower bound estimate of
this risk from SR-90. CS-137, H-3, and or combined for an
average rural resident should be considered to be a "1.00E-6"
risk
-------
3
• • Stated in other terms, this is roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 1,000,000 individuals with average
exposure to SR-90, CS-137. H-3, and a
Summary of Part II results
Estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk for a resident ingesting fish which are
contaminated with selected nonradioactive contaminants and are taken from various
locations along the Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRSJ
Estimated risks for rural resident with RME to As, b-BHC. and DDE
• The estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk due to As, b-BHC, and DDE
(nonradioactive combined) for a Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME) rural
resident ingesting Savannah River fish taken from various locations along the
Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRS) is 1.06E-5
• • In short, with arithmetic rounding, this risk from As, b-BHC,
and DDE combined for a RME rural resident should be
considered to have a "1.00E-5" risk
• • Stated in other terms, this is roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 100,000 individuals with maximum
exposure to As, b-BHC, and DDE
Estimated risks for rural resident with average exposure to As. b-BHC. and DDE
• The upper bound estimate of lifetime excess total cancer risk due to As, b-
BHC, and DDE (nonradioactive combined) for an average rural resident
ingesting Savannah River fish taken from various locations along the
Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRS) is 6.19E-6
In short, with arithmetic rounding, the upper bound estimate of
this risk from As, b-BHC, and DDE combined for an average
rural resident should be considered to have a "1.00E-5" risk
• • Stated in other terms, this is roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 100,000 individuals with average
exposure to As, b-BHC, and DDE
The lower bound estimate of lifetime excess total cancer risk due to As, b-
BHC, and DDE (nonradioactive combined) for an average rural resident
ingesting Savannah River fish taken from various locations along the
Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRS) is 2.78E-6
-------
4
• • In short, with arithmetic rounding, the lower bound estimate of
this risk from As, b-BHC, and DDE combined for an average
rural resident should be considered to have a "I.00E-6" risk
• • Stated in other terms, this is roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 1,000,000 individuals with average
exposure to As, b-BHC, and DDE
Summary of Part III Results
Estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk for a resident ingesting fish which are
contaminated with selected radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants and are taken
from various locations along the Savannah River near the Savannah River Site /SRS)
Estimated risks for rural resident with RME to radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants
• The estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk due to radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants combined for a Reasonably Maximally Exposed
(RME) rural resident ingesting Savannah River fish taken from these locations
is 6.52E-5
• • In short, with arithmetic rounding, this risk from both
radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants for a RME rural
resident should be considered to be a "1.00E-4" risk
• • Stated in other terms, this is roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 10,000 individuals with maximum
exposure to both radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants
Estimated risks for rural resident with average exposure to radioactive and nonradioactive
contaminants
• The upper bound estimate of lifetime excess total cancer risk due to
radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants combined for an average rural
resident ingesting Savannah River fish taken from various locations along the
Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRS) is 1.46E-5
• • In short, with arithmetic rounding, this risk from radioactive
and nonradioactive contaminants combined for an average
rural resident should be considered to be a "1.00E-5" risk
•• Stated in other terms, this is roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 100,000 individuals with average
exposure to radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants
• The lower bound estimate of lifetime excess total cancer risk due to
radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants combined for an average rural
-------
5
resident ingesting Savannah River fish taken from various locations along the
Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRS) is 6.76E-6
• • In short, with arithmetic rounding, this risk from radioactive
and nonradioactive contaminants combined for an average
rural resident should be considered to be a "1.00E-5" risk
• • Stated in other terms, this is roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 100,000 individuals with average
exposure to radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants
An executive summary of overall risks derived in this analysis is shown in Tables 1. and 2.
which follow:
-------
Table 1.
Summary Table Of Hazard Indexes (His) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects
During a Lifetime Obtained by Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selected
.Nonradioactive Contaminants And Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah
River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
HI = Human Dose / RfD
If this number is = or > "1", this indicates that the RfD has been exceeded. Usually,
doses less than the RfD are not likely to be associated with any systemic health risks and
ere therefore less likely to be of regulatory concern. However, as the frequency of
exposure exceeding the RfD increases, and as the size of the excess Increases, the
probability increases that adverse effects may be observed in a human population.
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yrj fish consumption rate was used to obtain these upper
estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yrl consumption rate was used elsewhere in this risk
screening to obtain tower estimates as well.
Contaminant
of Concern
Consumption Scenario
HI
Arsenic
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.12
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.05
Mercury
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.62
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.30
Selenium
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.06
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.03
Zinc
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.03
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.02
b-BHC
Can Not Be Estimated Because a Reference Dose (RfD) Is
Not Available At This Time
Unknown
DDE
Can Not Be Estimated Because a Reference Dose (RfD) Is
Not Available At This Time
Unknown
-------
Table 2.
Summary Table of Estimated Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk For a Resident
Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selected Radioactive and
Nonradioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From Various Locations
Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yt) fish consumption rate was used to obtain
these upper estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yrj consumption rate was used
elsewhere in this risk screening to obtain lower estimates as well.
Consumption
Scenario
Radioactive
Nonradioactive
Radioactive and
Nonradioactive
Combined
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
5.46E-5
1.06E-5
1.30E-4
Maximum Estimate of
Average Exposure
8.40E-6
6.19E-6
1.46E-5
Minimum Estimate of
Average Exposure
3.98E-6
2.78E-6
6.76E-6
-------
POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF INGESTING FISH WHICH ARE
TAKEN FROM LOCATIONS NEAR THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
PART I. RISK SCREENING ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL HUMAN
HEALTH EFFECTS DUE TO INGESTING FISH WHICH HAVE
RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINANTS AND ARE TAKEN FROM
LOCATIONS NEAR THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
PART II. RISK SCREENING ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL HUMAN
HEALTH EFFECTS DUE TO INGESTING FISH WHICH HAVE
NONRADIOACTIVE CONTAMINANTS AND ARE TAKEN FROM
LOCATIONS NEAR THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
PART III. RISK SCREENING ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL HUMAN
HEALTH EFFECTS DUE TO INGESTING FISH WHICH HAVE
COMBINED RADIOACTIVE AND NONRADIOACTIVE
CONTAMINANTS AND ARE TAKEN FROM LOCATIONS NEAR
THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
PART IV. OVERALL RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF POTENTIAL HUMAN
HEALTH EFFECTS DUE TO INGESTING FISH WHICH HAVE
COMBINED RADIOACTIVE AND NONRADIOACTIVE
CONTAMINANTS AND ARE TAKEN FROM LOCATIONS NEAR
THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
-------
PART I.
RISK SCREENING ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
DUE TO INGESTING FISH WHICH HAVE RADIOACTIVE
CONTAMINANTS AND ARE TAKEN FROM LOCATIONS NEAR THE
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
-------
Key to Radioactive Risk Screening Tables
Table
Number
Title
1
Summary Table Of Estimated Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk For a Resident
Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selected Radioactive
Contaminants And Are Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah
River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
2
Mean Levels of Selected Radioactive Contaminants in Edible Portions of Fish
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River
Site (SRS)
3
Mean Annual Dose Of Radioactivity From Selected Radioactive
Contaminants Per kg Of Fish Obtained By Ingesting Fish Taken From
Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site
(SRS)
4
Summary Table Of Unit Risk Factors (q,*s) for Oral Exposure To Selected
Radioactive Contaminants Found In Fish Taken From Various Locations
Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
5
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk From Selected Radioactive
Contaminants to a Resident Obtained By Ingesting Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
6-1
Mean Annual Dose Of Radioactivity Per kg Of Fish From Selected
Radioactive Contaminants Obtained by Ingesting Fish Taken From the
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Discharge (VEGPD) Near the Savannah
River Site (SRS)
6-2
Mean Annual Dose Of Radioactivity Per kg of Fish From Selected
Radioactive Contaminants Obtained by Ingesting Fish Taken From the
Mouth Of Four Mile Creek Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
6-3
Mean Annual Dose Of Radioactivity Per kg Of Fish From Selected
Radioactive Contaminants Obtained by Ingesting Fish Taken From the
Mouth of Steel Creek Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
6-4
Mean Annual Dose Of Radioactivity Per kg Of Fish From Selected
Radioactive Contaminants Obtained by Ingesting Fish Taken From the
Mouth of Lower Three Runs Creek Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
7-1
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME) Resident Ingesting Savannah River Fish Which Have
Selected Radioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From the Vogtle Electric
Generating Plant Discharge (VEGPD) Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
7-2
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk for a Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME) Resident Ingesting Savannah River Fish Which Have
Selected Radioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From the Mouth Of Four
Mile Creek Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
-------
7-3
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME) Resident Ingesting Savannah River Fish Which Have
Selected Radioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From the Mouth of Steel
Creek Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
7-4
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME) Resident Ingesting Savannah River Fish Which Have
Selected Radioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From the Mouth of
Lower Three Runs Creek Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
-------
Table 1.
Summary Table Of Estimated Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk For a Resident Ingesting Fish
Which Are Contaminated With Selected Radioactive Contaminants And Are Taken
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yrf fish consumption fate was used to obtain these upper
estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yr) consumption rate was used elsewhere in this risk
screening to obtain lower estimates as weii.
Consumption
Scenario
a Hot Zone
(STN 360)
Resident
Consumes
Fish From
Vogtle Electric
Generating
Plant
Discharge
(VEGPD)
SR-90
Hot Zone
(STN 365)
Resident
Consumes
Fish From
Mouth Of
Four Mile
Creek
H-3
Hot Zone
(STN 410)
Resident
Consumes
Fish From
Mouth Of
Steel Creek
CS-137
Hot Zone
(STN 440)
Resident
Consumes
Fish From
Mouth Of
Lower Three
Runs Creek
Radioactive
Hot Zones
Combined
Resident
Consumes Fish
From VEGPD,
Four Mile
Creek, Steel
Creek, and
Lower Three
Runs Creek
Here SR-90. CS-
137, H-3. and a all
vo prMent, but [o\
is hlghect
Here SR-90. CS-
137. H-3, end o all
aro precent, but
[Sft-90] U highect
Hare SR-90. CS-
137, H-3, end a all
iff prevent, but
[H-3I fa hfghMt
Here SR-90, CS-
137. H-3. and all
v« present, but
[CS-137] U hlghact
Hera Jtacldant
comumM R*h With
the Kphert
Concentration* of
SR-90, CS-137,
H-3, and a together
Reasonably
Maximally
Exposed
(RME)
4.53E-5
1.18E-4
4.64E-5
1.05E-5
5.46E-5
Resident
Consumes Fish
From Specific Hot
Zones at the
Mouths of Streams
Leaving SRS
-------
Maximum
Estimate of
Average
Exposure
7.39E-6
1.09E-5
9.84E-8
1.52E-5
8.40E-6
Resident
Consumes Fish
From Various
Locations Along
the Savannah River
Near SRS
(A««ume« K2gh«r Annual
Consumption Bate)
Minimum
Estimate of
Average
Exposure
3.50E-6
5.18E-6
4.66E-8
7.20E-6
3.98E-6
Resident
Consumes Fish
From Various
Locations Along
the Savannah River
Near SRS
(Atsume* (owor Annual
Consumption Rata)
-------
Table 2.
Mean Levels Of Selected Racioactive Contaminants In Edible Portions of Fish From Various Locations Along the Savannah
River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Note: Lab results (i.e. dry) were converted to fresh (i.e. wet) concentrations in this risk screening; the dry concentration results were
multiplied by 0.3, which approximates the typical dry/wet (D/W! ratios observed in these samples (which were 0.3+/-0.11
Sampling
Station
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
a
Number
(STN)
(picoCuries
per dry
kilogram)
(picoCuries
per wet
kilogram)
(picoCuries
per dry
kilogram)
(picoCuries
per wet
kilogram)
(picoCuries
per dry
kilogram)
(picoCuries
per wet
kilogram)
(picoCuries
per dry
kilogram)
(picoCuries
per wet
kilogram)
330
667.14
200.14
543.33
163.00
1,128.57
338.57
305.00
91.50
335
394.33
118.30
—
—
166.67
50.00
—
—
350
2,078.75
623.63
5,295.00
1588.5
5,612.50
1,683.75
185.00
55.50
355
116.67
35.00
—
—
—
—
—
—
360
(VEGPD.
which fa do*o
to the Mouth
of Four MM&
Crook)
386.67
116.00
475.00
142.50
916.67
275.00
504.29
151.29
365
(Mouth of
Four M3o
Crook)
2,154.55
646.37
8,642.86
2,592.86
28,411.11
8,523.33
296.67
89.00
375
620.00
186.00
—
—
2,000.00
600.00
425.00
127.50
410
(Mouth of
Stoal Croak)
2,560.00
768.00
273.33
82.00
31.138.46
9.341.54
345.00
103.50
420
970.00
291.00
—
—
1,733.33
520.00
—
—
-------
440
(Mouth of
Lowar Thr®«
Bun* Creek)
2,851.42
855.43
—
—
1,771.43
531.43
300.00
90.00
460
213.33
64.00
...
—
1,575.00
472.50
165.00
49.50
530
186.67
56.00
...
—
1,800.00
540.00
215.00
64.50
540
138.29
41.49
30.00
9.00
2,216.67
665.00
—
—
Overall
Arithmetic
Means
1,025.99
307.80
1,173.81
352.14
6036.19
1810.86
210.84
63.25
-------
Table 3.
Mean Annual Dose of Radioactivity From Selected Radioactive Contaminants Per kg of Fish Obtained by
Ingesting Fish Taken from Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Consumption Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
a
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
307.80 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
352.14 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
1,810.86 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
63.25 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
(Assumes Lower
Annual Consumption Rate)
2.770.20 pCi/yr
3,169.26 pCi/yr
16,297.74 pCi/yr
569.25 pCi/yr
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
307.80 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
352.14 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
1,810.86
X 19 kg/yr =
63.25 pCi/yr
X 19 pCi/yr =
(Assumes Higher
Annual Consumption Rate)
5.848.20 pCi/yr
6,690.66 pCi/yr
34.406.34 pCi/yr
1,201.75 pCi/yr
-------
Table 4.
Summary Table Of Unit Risk Factors (qn*s) for Oral Exposure To Selected Radioactive
Contaminants Found In Fish Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah River
Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Contaminant of Concern
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
a
qi* (mg/kg-d)'1
3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
4.09E-11
(Risk/pCi)
7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
-------
Table 5.
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk From Selected Radioactive Contaminants to a
Resident Obtained By Ingesting Fish Taken From Various Locations
Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Note: The standard consumption period used in this risk screening is that usually used for rural residents (40
yrj; the standard consumption period lor an urban resident would be less (30 yr)
Consumption
Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
a
Radioactive
Combined
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Assumes Lower Annual
Consumption Rate)
2,770.20
pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 3.50E-6
3,169.26
pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 4.09E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 5.18E-6
16,297.74
pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 4.66E-8
569.25
pCi/yr X
40 yrs X
3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 7.20E-6
3.98E-6
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Assumes Higher Annual
Consumption Rate)
5,848.20
pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 7.39E-6
6,690.66
pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 4.09E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.09E-5
34,406.34
pCi/yr X 40
yrs X
7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 9.84E-8
1,201.75
pCi/yr X
40 yrs X
3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.52E-5
8.40E-6
-------
Table 6-1.
Mean Annual Dose Of Radioactivity Per kg Of .Fish From Selected Radioactive Contaminants
Obtained by Ingesting Fish Taken From the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Discharge (VEGPD)
Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
(STN 360)
Consumption
Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
a
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Assumes Lower
Annual Consumption Rate)
116.00 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
1,044.00 pCi/yr
142.50 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
1,282.50 pCi/yr
275.00 pCi/kg
X 9kg/yr =
2,475.00 pCi/yr
151.29 pCi/kg X
9kg/yr =
1,361.61 pCi/yr
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Assumes Higher
Annual Consumption Rate)
116.00 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
2204.00 pCi/yr
142.50 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
2.707.50 pCi/yr
275.00 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
5.225.00 pCi/yr
151.29 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
2,874.51 pCi/yr
-------
Table 6-2.
Mean Annual Dose Of Radioactivity Per kg Of Fish From Selected Radioactive Contaminants Obtained
by Ingesting Fish Taken From the Mouth of Four Mile Creek Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
(STN 365)
Consumption
Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
a
Minimum Estimate
of Average
Exposure
{Assumes Lower Annual
Consumption Rate)
646.37 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
5,817.33 pCi/yr
2.592.86 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
23,335.74 pCi/yr
8,523.33 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
76,709.97 pCi/yr
89.00 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
801.00 pCi/yr
Maximum Estimate
of Average
Exposure
(Assumes Higher Annual
Consumption Rate)
646.37 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
12,281.03 pCi/yr
2,592.86 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
49.264.34 pCi/yr
8,523.33 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
161,943.27 pCi/yr
89.00 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
1,691.00 pCi/yr
-------
Table 6-3.
Mean Annual Dose Of Radioactivity Per kg Of Fish From Selected Radioactive Contaminants Obtained
by Ingesting Fish Taken From the Mouth of Steel Creek Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
(STN 410)
Consumption
Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
a
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(As9ume9 Lower
Annual Consumption Bate)
768.00 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
6.912.00 pCi/yr
82.00 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
738.00 pCi/yr
9,341.54 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
84,073.86 pCi/yr
103.50 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
9,315.00
pCi/yr
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Assumes Higher
Annual Consumption Rate)
768.00 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
14,592.00 pCi/yr
82.00 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
1.558.00 pCi/yr
9,341.54 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
177,489.26 pCi/yr
103.50 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
1,966.50
pCi/yr
-------
Table 6-4.
Mean Annual Dose Of Radioactivity Per kg Of Fish From Selected Radioactive
Contaminants Obtained by Ingesting Fish Taken From the Mouth of Lower Three Runs
Creek Near the Savannah.River Site (SRS)
(STN440)
Consumption
Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
a
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
855.43 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
—
531.43 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
90.00 pCi/kg
X 9 kg/yr =
(Assumes Lower
Annual Consumption Rate)
7.698.87
pCi/yr
4.782.87 pCi/yr
810.00 pCi/yr
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
855.43 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
—
531.43 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
90.00 pCi/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
(Assumes Higher
Annual Consumption Rate)
16,253.17
pCi/yr
10,097.17 pCi/yr
1,710.00 pCi/yr
-------
Table 7-1.
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME) Resident Ingesting Savannah
River Fish Which Have Selected Radioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From the Vogtie Electric Generating Plant
Discharge (VEGPD) Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
(STN 360)
Note: The standard consumption period used in this risk screening is that usually used for rural residents (40 yr); the standard consumption
period for an urban resident would be less (30 yr1
Consumption
Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
or
Radioactive
Combined
Minimum Estimate
lAssumes Lower
Annual Consumption Rate)
1,044.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.32E-6
1,282.50 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 4.09E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.10E-6
2,475.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 7.08E-9
1,361.61 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.72E-5
= 2.06E-5
Maximum Estimate
(Assumes Higher
Annual Consumption Rate)
2,204.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.79E-6
2,707.50 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 4.09E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 4.43E-6
5,225.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.49E-8
2,874.51 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 3.63E-5
= 4.35E-5
-------
Table 7-2.
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME) Resident Ingesting Savannah
River Fish Which Have Selected Radioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From the Mouth of Four Mile Creek Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)
(STN 365)
Note: The standard consumption period used in this risk screening is that usually used for rural residents (40 yrl; the standard consumption
period for an urban resident would be less (30 yr)
Consumption
Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
cr
Radioactive
Combined
Minimum Estimate
(Assumes Lower
Annual Consumption Rate)
5,817.33 pCi/yrX
40 yrs
X 3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 7.35E-6
23,335.74 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 4.09E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 3.82E-5
76,709.97 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.19E-7
801.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.01E-5
= 5.59E-5
Maximum Estimate
(Assumes Higher
Annual Consumption Rate)
12,281.03 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.55E-5
49,264.34 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 4.09E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 8.06E-5
161,943.27 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 4.634E-7
1,691.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.14E-5
= 1.18E-4
-------
Table 7-3.
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME) Resident Ingesting Savannah
River Fish Which Have Selected Radioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From the Mouth of Steel Creek Near the
Savannah River Site. (SRS)
(STN 410)
Note: The standard consumption period used in this risk screening is that usually used for rural residents (40 yr); the standard
consumption period for an urban resident would be less (30 yr)
Consumption
Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
or
Radioactive
Combined
Minimum Estimate
(Assumes Lower
Annual Consumption Rate)
6.912.00
pCi/yr X 40 yrs
X 8.74E-6
(Risk/pCi)
= 8.74E-6
738.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 4.09E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.21E-6
84,073.86 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.40E-7
931.50 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.18E-5
= 2.20E-5
Maximum Estimate
(Assumes Higher
Annual Consumption Rate)
14,592 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.84E-5
1.558.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 4.09E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.55E-6
177,489.26 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 5.08E-7
1,966.50 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.49E-5
= 4.64E-5
-------
Table 7-4.
Estimated Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME) Resident Ingesting
Savannah River Fish Which Have Selected Radioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From the Mouth of
Lower Three Runs Creek Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
(STN 440)
Note: The standard consumption period used in this risk screening is that usually used for rural residents 140 yr); the standard
consumption period for an urban resident would be less (30 yr)
Consumption
Scenario
CS-137
SR-90
H-3
or
Radioactive
Combined
Minimum Estimate
(Assumes Lower
Annual Consumption Rate)
7.698.87 pCi/yr X
40 yrs
X 3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 9.73E-6
4,782.87 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.37E-8
810.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 1.02E-5
= 4.99E-6
Maximum Estimate
(Assumes Higher
Annual Consumption Rate)
16,253.17 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-11
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.05E-5
10,097.17 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 7.15E-14
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.89E-8
1,710.00 pCi/yr
X 40 yrs
X 3.16E-10
(Risk/pCi)
= 2.16E-5
= 1.05E-5
-------
PART II.
RISK SCREENING ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
DUE TO INGESTING FISH WHICH HAVE NONRADIOACTIVE
CONTAMINANTS AND ARE TAKEN FROM LOCATIONS NEAR THE
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
-------
Key to Nonradioactive Risk Screening Tables
Table
Number
Tide
1
Summary Table Of Hazard Indexes (His) For Deleterious Non-Cancer
Systemic Effects During a Lifetime Obtained by Ingesting Fish Which Are
Contaminated With Selected Nonradioactive Contaminants And Are Taken
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River
Site (SRS)
2
Summary Table of Estimated Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk For a Resident
Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selected Nonradioactive
Contaminants And Are Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah
River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
3
Mean Levels Of Selected Nonradioactive Contaminants In Edible Portions of
Fish Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)
4
Mean Daily Doses of Selected Nonradioactive Contaminants Per kg Of Fish
Obtained By Ingesting Fish Taken From Various Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
5
Summary Table Of Reference Doses (RfDs) For Oral Exposure To Selected
Nonradioactive Contaminants Found In Fish Taken From Various Locations
Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
6
Hazard Index (HI) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects During a
Lifetime Obtained By Ingesting Fish Contaminated With Arsenic And Taken
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River
Site (SRS)
7
Hazard Index (HI) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects During a
Lifetime Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Mercury
And Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)
8
Hazard Index (HI) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects During a
Lifetime Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selenium
And Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)
9
Hazard Index (HI) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects During a
Lifetime Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Zinc And
Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah
River Site (SRS)
-------
1°
Summary Table Of Unit Risk Factors (q,*s) For Oral Exposure To Selected
Nonradioactive Contaminants Found In Fish Taken From Various Locations
Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
11
Upper Estimates Of Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Resident
Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Arsenic And
Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah
River Site (SRS)
12
Upper Estimates Of Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Resident
Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With b-BHC And Taken
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River
Site (SRS)
13
Upper Estimates Of Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Resident
Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With DDE And Taken
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River
She (SRS)
-------
Table 1.
Summary Table Of Hazard Indexes (His) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects
During a Lifetime Obtained by Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selected
.Nonradioactive Contaminants And Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah
River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
HI = Human Dose / RfD
If this number is = or > "1", this indicates that the RfO has been exceeded. Usually,
doses less than the RfD are not likely to be associated with any systemic health risks and
are therefore less likely to be of regulatory concern. However, as the frequency of
exposure exceeding the RfD increases, and as the size of the excess increases, the
probability increases that adverse effects may be observed in a human population.
Note: The maximum 119 kg/yr) fish consumption rate was used to obtain these upper
estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yr) consumption rate was used elsewhere in this risk
screening to obtain lower estimates as well.
Contaminant
of Concern
Consumption Scenario
HI
Arsenic
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.12
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.05
Mercury
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.62
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.30
Selenium
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.06
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.03
Zinc
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.03
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.02
b-BHC
Can Not Be Estimated Because a Reference Dose (RfD) Is
Not Available At This Time
Unknown
DDE
Can Not Be Estimated Because a Reference Dose (RfD) Is
Not Available At This Time
Unknown
-------
Table 2.
Summary Table of Estimated Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk For a Resident
Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selected Nonradioactive
Contaminants And Are Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah River
Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yr) fish consumption rate was used to obtain these
upper estimates• the minimum (9 kg/yr) consumption rate was used elsewhere in
this risk screening to obtain lower estimates as well.
Consumption
Scenario
As
b-BHC
DDE
Nonradioactive
Combined
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
1.86E-9
2.68E-5
5.06E-6
1.06E-5
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Assumes Higher
Annual Consumption Bate)
7.45E-10
1.73E-5
1.26E-6
6.19E-6
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Assumes Lower
Annual Consumption Rate)
3.53E-10
8.24E-6
5.94E-7
2.78E-6
-------
Table 3.
Mean Levels of Selected Nonradioactive Contaminants In Edible Portions Of Fish Taken From Various Locations
Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
County
Loom
Spaofaa
Avaraga
Ungth
In
Contaminant of Conoam tnuHfll
Aa
Ho
So
Zn
MHC
DDE
run
avg
run
avg
run
avg
run
avQ
run
avg
run
•vg
Richmond
DmwMm
Lwfc A Dam
largamouth
Bm
14.8
-
-
0.18
to 0.21
0.20
0.32
to0 3S
0.36
8.80
to 10.00
9.40
-
0.02
< 0.01
< 0.1
Suckar
14.9
-
-
0.10
to 0 26
0.18
0.26
to 0.36
0.31
8.30
to 12.00
9.70
< 0.01
< 0.01
< 0.01
to 0.02
0.006
Chatham
l» 17
Channal
CatfUh
16.1
0 02
to 0.06
0.03
0 04
to 0.08
0.08
0.06
to 0.14
0.10
5.10
to 6.30
S.36
-
-
-
-
Largamouth
8w»
13.3
< 0.02
to 0.03
0 01
0.02
to 0 06
0.04
0.11
to 0.19
0.14
4.20
to 6.70
S.17
-
-
-
-
Com bl red
Court tUt
Compoaita
14.8
0.02
to 0.06
0.02
0.02
to 0 26
0.12
0.06
to 0.38
0.23
4.20
to 12.00
7.40
< 0.01
to 0.02
0.013
< 0.01
to 0.02
0.006
-------
Table 4.
Mean Daily Doses Of Selected Nonradioactive Contaminants Per kg Of Fish Obtained By Ingesting Fish Taken
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Consumption
Scenario
As
Ho
Se
Zn
b-BHC
DDE
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Aattmm Lowtr
Annual Consumption Rat*)
0.02 moAp
X 9 kg/yr -
0.13 mg/yr -
4 93E-4 mg/d -
7.0SE-6
mg/kg-d
0.12 mg/Vg
X 9 kg/yr -
1.08 mg/yr -
2.96E-3 mg/d -
4.23E-6
mg/kg-d
0.23 mg/Vg
X 9 kg/yr -
2.07 mg/yr ¦
6.67E-3 mg/d -
8.10E6
mg/Vg-d
7.40 mg/Vg
X 9 kg/yr -
66 6 mg/yr m
0.18 mg/d -
2.61E-3
mg/Vg-d
0.013 mgAg
X 9 kg/yr -
0.117 mg/yr •
3,21 £-4 mg/d -
4.58E-6
mg/kg-d
0.006 mg/Vg
X 8 kg/yr -
0.O45 mg/yr ¦
1.23E-4 mg/d -
1.76E-6
mgdeg-d
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Amithm higher Annual
Conctmptfon Rat*)
0.02 mg/Vg
X 19 kg/yr -
0.38 mg/yr -
1.04E-3 mg/d -
1.49E-6
mg/kg-d
0.12 mg/Vg
X 19 kg/yr -
2.29 mg/yr —
6.26E-3 mg/d -
8.93E-6
mg/Vg-d
0.23 mgfcg
X 19 kg/yr -
4.37 mg/yr -
1.20E-2 mg/d -
1.71E-4
mgAg-d
7.40 mg/Vg
X 19 kg/yr -
140.60 mg/yr -
3.86E-1 mg/d -
G60E3
mg/Vg-d
0.013 mg/Vg
X 19 kg/yr -
0.247 mg/yr -
6.77E-4 mg/d -
9.B7E-6
mg/kg-d
0.006 mg^cg
X 19 kg/yr -
0.950 mg/yr -
2.6OE-4 mg/d -
3.72E-6
mg/Vg-d
-------
Table 5.
Summary Table Of Reference Doses (RfDs) For Oral Exposure To Selected
Nonradioactive Contaminants Found In Fish Taken From Various Locations Along
the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Contaminant
of Concern
As
Hg
Se
Zn
b-BHC
DDE
RfD (mg/kg-day)
3.00E-4
3.00E-4
5.00E-3
3.00E-1
Not
Available
at this
time
Not
Available
at this
time
-------
Table 6.
Hazard Index (HI) for Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects
During a Lifetime Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are
Contaminated With Arsenic And Taken From Various Locations
Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
HI = Human Dose / RfD
If this number is = or > "1", this indicates that the RfD has been
exceeded. Usually, doses less than the RfD are not likely to be
associated with any systemic health risks and are therefore less
likely to be of regulatory concern. However, as the frequency of
exposure exceeding the RfD increases, and as the size of the
excess increases, the probability increases that adverse effects may
be observed in a human population.
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yr) fish consumption rate was used to
obtain these upper estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yr) consumption
rate was used elsewhere in this risk screening to obtain lower
estimates as well.
Consumption
Scenario
Daily Dose
HI
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
[Channel Catfish Taken
Solely at US
17, Chatham County]
0.05 mg/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
0.95 kg/yr =
2.60E-3 mg/d =
3.72E-5
mg/kg-d
3.72E-5 mg/kg-d
0.12
3.00E-4 mg/kg-d
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
[Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)]
1.49E-5
mg/kg-d
1.49E-5 mg/kg-d
0.05
3.00E-4 mg/kg-d
-------
Table 7.
Hazard Index (HI) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects During
a Lifetime Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With
Mercury and Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah River
Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
HI = Human Dose / RfD
If this number is = or > "1", this indicates that the RfD has been
exceeded. Usually, doses less than the RfD are not likely to be
associated with any systemic health risks and are therefore less likely
to be of regulatory concern. However, as the frequency of exposure
exceeding the RfD increases, and as the size of the excess Increases,
the probability increases that adverse effects may be observed in a
human population.
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yr) fish consumption rate was used to
obtain these upper estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yr) consumption
rate was used elsewhere in this risk screening to obtain lower
estimates as well.
Consumption
Scenario
Daily Dose
HI
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
[Sucker Taken Solely at
Downstream Lock & Dam,
Richmond County]
0.25 mg/kg
19 kg/yr =
4.75 mg/yr =
1.30E-2 mg/d =
1.86E-4
mg/kg-d
1.86E-4 mg/kg-d
= 0.62
3.00E-4 mg/kg-d
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the
Savannah River
Site (SRS)]
8.93E-5
mg/kg-d
8.93E-5 mg/kg-d
= 0.30
3.00E-4 mg/kg-d
-------
Table 8.
Hazard Index (HI) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects During a Lifetime
Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selenium And Taken From
Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
HI = Human Dose / RfD
If this number is = or > "1", this indicates that tho RfD has been exceeded. Usually,
doses less than the RfD are not likely to be associated with any systemic health risks and
ere therefore less likely to be of regulatory concern. However, as the frequency of
exposure exceeding the RfD increases, and as the size of the excess increases, the
probability increases that adverse effects may be observed in a human population.
Note: The maximum 119 kg/yr) fish consumption rate wa3 used to obtain these upper
estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yr} consumption rate was used eisewhere in this risk
screening to obtain lower estimates as well.
Consumption
Scenario
Daily Dose
HI
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
[Largemouth Bass Taken Solely at
Downstream Lock & Dam.
Richmond County]
0.38 mg/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
7.22 mg/yr =
1.98E-2 mg/d =
2.83E-4
mg/kg-d
2.83E-4 mg/kg-d
= 0.06
5.00E-3 mg/kg-d
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
1.71E-4
mg/kg-d
1.71E-4 mg/kg-d
= 0.03
[Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the Savannah
River Near the Savannah River
Site (SRS)]
5.00E-3 mg/kg-d
-------
Table 9.
Hazard Index (HI) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects During
a Lifetime Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With
Zinc And Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah River
Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
HI = Human Dose / RfD
H this number is = or > "1". this Indicates that the RfD has been
exceeded. Usually, doses less than the RfD are not likely to be
associated with any systemic health risks and are therefore less likely
to be of regulatory concern. However, as the frequency of exposure
exceeding the RfD increases, and as the size of the excess increases,
the probability increases that adverse effects may be observed in a
human population.
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yrl fish consumption rate was used to
obtain these upper estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yr1 consumption
rate was used elsewhere in this risk screening to obtain lower
estimates as well.
Consumption
Scenario
Daily Dose
Hf
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
[Sucker Taken Solely at
Downstream Lock & Dam,
Richmond County]
12.00 mg/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
228 mg/yr =
0.62 mg/d =
8.92E-3
mg/kg-d
8.92E-3 mg/kg-d
= 0.03
3.00E-1 mg/kg-d
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
[Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)I
5.50E-3
mg/kg-d
5.50E-3 mg/kg-d
= 0.02
3.00E-1 mg/kg-d
-------
Table 10.
Summary Table of Unit Risk Factors (q^s) For Oral
Exposure To Selected Nonradioactive Contaminants
Found In Fish Taken From Various Locations Along
the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site
(SRS)
Contaminant
of Concern
As
b-BHC
DDE
q,* (mg/kg-d)"1
5.00E-5
1.80E + 0
3.40E-1
-------
Table 11.
Upper Estimates Of Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Resident Obtained
By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Arsenic And Taken From
Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site
(SRS)
Individual Risk = Unit Risk Factor X Individual Dose
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yr) fish consumption rate was used to obtain these
upper estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yr) consumption rate was used elsewhere in
this risk screening to obtain lower estimates as weii.
Consumption
Scenario
Daily Dose
Individual Risk
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
(Channel Catfish Taken
Solely at US 17, Chatham
County]
0.05 mg/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
0.95 kg/yr =
2.60E-3 mg/d =
3.72E-5
mg/kg-d
3.72E-5 mg/kg-d
X = 1.86E-9
5.00E-5 (mg/kg-d)'1
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
[Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)]
1.49E-5
mg/kg-d
1.49E-5 mg/kg-d
X = 7.45E-10
5.00E-5 (mg/kg-d)-1
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
[Fiah Taken From Various
Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the
. Savannah River Site (SRS)]
7.05E-6
mg/kg-d
7.05E-6 mg/kg-d
X = 3.53E-10
5.00E-5 (mg/kg-d)"1
-------
Table 12.
Upper Estimates Of Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Resident
Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With b-BHC And Taken
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River
Site (SRS)
Individual Risk = Unit Risk Factor X Individual Dose
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yr) fish consumption rate was used to obtain these
upper estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yr) consumption rate was used elsewhere
in this risk screening to obtain lower estimates as well.
Consumption
Scenario
Maximum Daily
Dose
Individual Risk
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
[Largemouth Bass Taken
Solely at Downstream Lock
& Dam, Richmond County]
0.02 mg/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
0.38 mg/yr =
1.04E-3 mg/d =
1.49E-5
mg/kg-d
1.49E-5 mg/kg-d
X = 2.68E-5
1.80E + 0 (mg/kg-d)1
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
(Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)]
9.67E-6
mg/kg-d
9.67E-6 mg/kg-d
X = 1.73E-5
1.80E + 0 (mg/kg-d)-1
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
[Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)]
4.58E-6
mg/kg-d
4.58E-6 mg/kg-d
X = 8.24E-S
1.80E + 0 (mg/kg-d)'1
-------
Table 13.
Upper Estimates Of Lifetime Excess Total Cancer Risk For a Resident
Obtained By Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With DDE And Taken
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River
Site (SRS)
Individual Risk = Unit Risk Factor X Individual Dose
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yr! fish consumption rate was used to obtain
these upper estimates; the minimum 19 kg/yr) consumption rate was used
elsewhere in this risk screening to obtain lower estimates as well.
Consumption
Scenario
Daily Dose
Individual Risk
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
[Largemouth Bass Taken
Solely at Downstream Lock
& Dam, Richmond County]
0.02 mg/kg
X 19 kg/yr =
0.38 mg/yr =
1.04E-3 mg/d =
1.49E-5
mg/kg-d
1.49E-5 mg/kg-d
X = 5.06E-6
3.40E-1 (mg/kg-d)-1
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
[Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)]
3.72E-6
mg/kg-d
3.72E-6 mg/kg-d
X = 1.26E-6
3.40E-1 (mg/kg-d)-1
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
[Fish Taken From Various
Locations Along the
Savannah River Near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)I
1.76E-6
mg/kg-d
1.76E-6 mg/kg-d
X = 5.94E-7
3.40E-1 (mg/kg-d)-1
-------
PART III.
RISK SCREENING ESTIMATES OF POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS
DUE TO INGESTING FISH WHICH HAVE COMBINED RADIOACTIVE
AND NONRADIOACTIVE CONTAMINANTS AND ARE TAKEN FROM
LOCATIONS NEAR THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
-------
Key to Combined Radioactive and Nonradioactive Risk Screening Tables
Table
Number
Title
1
Summary Table Of Hazard Indexes (His) For Deleterious Non-Cancer
Systemic Effects During a Lifetime Obtained by Ingesting Fish Which Are
Contaminated With Selected Nonradioactive Contaminants And Are Taken
From Various Locations Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River
Site (SRS)
2
Summary Table of Estimated Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk For a Resident
Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selected Radioactive and
Nonradioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From Various Locations Along
the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
-------
Table 1.
Summary Table Of Hazard Indexes (His) For Deleterious Non-Cancer Systemic Effects
During a Lifetime Obtained by Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selected
Nonradioactive Contaminants And Taken From Various Locations Along the Savannah
.River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
HI = Human Dose / RfD
If this number is = or > "1", this indicates that the RfD has been exceeded. Usually,
doses less than the RfD are not likely to be associated with any systemic health risks and
are therefore less likely to be of regulatory concern. However, as the frequency of
exposure exceeding the RfD increases, and as the size of the excess increases, the
probability increases that adverse effects may be observed in a human population.
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yr) fish consumption rate was used to obtain these upper
estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yrj consumption rate was used elsewhere in Ms risk
screening to obtain tower estimates as well.
Contaminant
of Concern
Consumption Scenario
HI
Arsenic
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)-
0.12
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.05
Mercury
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.62
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.30
Selenium
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.06
Maximum Estimate of Average Exposure
0.03
Zinc
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME)
0.03
Maximum. Estimate of Average Exposure
0.02
b-BHC
Can Not Be Estimated Because a Reference Dose (RfD) Is
Not Available At This Time
Unknown
DDE
Can Not Be Estimated Because a Reference Dose (RfD) Is
Not Available At This Time
Unknown
-------
Table 2.
Summary Table of Estimated Lifetime Excess Cancer Risk For a Resident
Ingesting Fish Which Are Contaminated With Selected Radioactive and
Nonradioactive Contaminants And Are Taken From Various Locations
Along the Savannah River Near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Note: The maximum (19 kg/yr) fish consumption rate was used to obtain
these upper estimates; the minimum (9 kg/yr) consumption rate was used
elsewhere in this risk screening to obtain lower estimates as well.
Consumption
Scenario
Radioactive
Nonradioactive
Radioactive and
Nonradioactive
Combined
Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME)
5.4GE-5
1.06E-5
6.52E-5
Maximum Estimate
of Average Exposure
8.40E-6
6.19E-6
1.46E-5
Minimum Estimate
of Average Exposure
3.98E-6
2.78E-6
6.76E-6
-------
PART IV.
OVERALL RISK CHARACTERIZATION OF
POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH EFFECTS DUE TO INGESTING FISH WHICH
HAVE COMBINED RADIOACTIVE AND NONRADIOACTIVE
CONTAMINANTS AND ARE TAKEN FROM LOCATIONS NEAR THE
SAVANNAH RIVER SITE (SRS)
-------
1
Risk Characterization
The purpose of this section Is to clearly communicate results of the risk assessment to the risk manager. Key
scientific concepts, data, and methods are discussed here. This section provides an evaluation of the overall
quality of the assessment and the degree of confidence the authors have in the estimates of risk and conclusions
drawn. Section also describes risks to individuals and populations in terms of extent and severity of probable
harm. This section integrates individual characterizations from:
A. Hazard Identification
1. Whsft fa knmsm s&mM At mvMxstlty @8 tifas omiQatmlimoBtte eri!
Hot omislmgi ear otthw axUmc&s fotdfflo tsffl&stis Its
fymmmm, HdhmssSmiy m£ms£a, m rtfft spxusfos?
EPA classifies all radionuclides as Group A (known human)
carcinogens. Radionuclide slope factors are calculated by
EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) to assist
HEAST (Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables) users
with risk-related evaluations and decision-making at various
stages of the remediation process. Therefore, the radioactive
contaminants of concern in this risk screening, Strontium-90
(SR-90), Cesium-137 (CS-137), Tritium (H-3), and Gross Alpha
(or) are analyzed as Group A (known human) carcinogens.
The unit risk factors (q/s) for these four radioactive
contaminants appear in Part I, Table 4.These q/s have been
obtained from the most currently available version of HEAST
(November, 1994).
There are six nonradioactive contaminants of concern in this
risk screening: Arsenic (As); Mercury (Hg); Selenium (Se); Zinc
(Zn); Hexachlorocyclohexane, Beta (b-BHC); and 2,2-BIS(p-
CHLOROPHENYL)-1,1-DICHLOROETHYLENE (DDE).
Three of these nonradioactive contaminants of concern are
also carcinogens:
• As is a Group A (known human) carcinogen
• b-BHC is a Group B2 (probable human)
carcinogen
• DDE is a Group B2 (probable human) carcinogen
The q/s for these three nonradioactive contaminants appear in
Part II, Table 10. These q,*s have been obtained from an on
line search of EPA's IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System)
on July 25, 1995.
All six of these nonradioactive contaminants of concern can
cause deleterious non-cancer systemic effects. However,
-------
2
Reference Doses (RfDs) for b-BHC and DDE are not available
at this time in IRIS. Consequently, these two nonradioactive
contaminants of concern were not analyzed further.
The RfDs for four of the nonradioactive contaminants appear
in Part II, Table 5. These RfDs have been obtained from an on
line search of EPA's IRIS (Integrated Risk Information System)
on July 25, 1995.
2. Whal tm f&xs Mlmtiad wxswQsM&ss send! wsHatmi pdBtay
eMS&ts?
Since b-BHC and DDE were not analyzed, due to RfDs for
these two contaminants not being available, it is not known if
consumption of fish with existing levels of these two
pollutants can produce deleterious non-cancer systemic
effects.
B. Dose-Response Assessment
1. Wkift km/mm dbawS Ms/fogfon/l mwskwolsrm smrf dh&s-
int&ipwmp MffuShsoxMpw nfifaaGs olbmvwiidl Ik tifos
IsfkxsmtyBxry ®tr ap&timmlfalfasty afcudBsa powvfdflBvgs dim2b iw
See entries for these contaminants of concern in
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
2. WkmS sm tfiva intMndl aomwtMmt&ts amS mhm&t pafitoy
See entries for these contaminants of concern in
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS).
C. Exposure Assessment
In this subsection several types of risk information are presented on the range
of exposures derived from exposure scenarios and on the use of multiple risk
descriptors consistent with terminology in the EPA Guidance on Risk
Characterization, Agency risk assessment guidelines, and program-specific
guidance.
1. IMxS Is kmwm s&muS 2ft® pttimsfipttt pariSha, pxiSSkk®, tsusB
mss^sB^e @8 Hxsmtrn tmti w§sSMm jux/poews imS swm!b
-------
3
fish to other wetland species such as the raptors ( e.g.,
kingfishers, hawks, owls, cormorants, osprey, and eagles), as
well as several varieties of turtles and alligators. Since bones
and carcass are usually taken whole as prey, the bone seeking
characteristic of SR-90 should be considered, because one
could reasonably hypothesize that levels of SR-90 might be
successively magnified through the food chains of these
predacious species.
The principle human pathway is fish ingestion. All individuals
in the general population who ingest these fish should sustain
some small, but measurable, additional risk. Recreational and
subsistence fishermen, because of higher consumption rates,
should be expected to sustain relatively higher levels of these
risks than the general population.
2. flkv vslkii&tll mmctdUtts amrfl KaStumai paflfaty
islhal&m?
Subsistence fishermen frequently do not release undersized
fish. This is especially true for small panfish like bluegills,
sunfish, and suckers. These small fish frequently are simply
gutted, fried whole and consumed "bones and air. This local
consumption practice would necessarily increase SR-90 levels,
because there would be relatively more SR-90 in the bones of
the fish vis-S-vis the filet.
Additionally, subsistence fishermen frequently don't simply
consume pan fish. Local subsistence fishermen in this area
are known to include other aquatic species such as eels,
turtles, and alligators in their catch. One would expect that
these particular aquatic species, because they are further
along the food chain than pan fish, might successively magnify
levels of SR-90 in the bones of fish that they prey on.
Subsistence fishermen may thereby obtain higher levels of SR-
90 in their diet than either recreational fishermen or fish
consumers in the general population. Therefore, the risks for
subsistence fishermen, who in this analysis are consuming
only fish filets, would probably be underestimated.
Locally grown vegetable crops around SRS are monitored for
radionuclide content. Vegetable crops which normally have
high calcium content, e.g., collard greens, can also have
relatively increased levels of SR-90. As a local favorite,
particularly among people of color, this staple of the local diet
may serve as an additional avenue of exposure, in addition to
that which is obtained by Savannah River fish consumption.
However, the potential pathway for SR-90 in locally grown
-------
4
collard greens is not analyzed here. The amount of SR-90
consumed by fish consumers thereby may be higher than the
amounts calculated here, and this would tend to underestimate
the risk due to SR-90.
II. Discussion of Uncertainty in the Overall Assessment
The purpose of this section Is to discuss fully the uncertainty in the overall assessment. The quality and quantity
of available data, gaps in the database for specific chemicals, and the quality of the measured data are discussed.
Use of default assumptions is reviewed. Any incomplete understanding of genera! biological phenomena is
discussed here. Importantly, scientific judgments or science policy positions that were employed to bridge
information gaps are presented here.
A. Quality and Quantity of Available Data
1. Variability
There are two separate sets of data which have been analyzed
in this screening-level risk assessment, the nonradioactive
contaminants and the radioactive contaminants were
measured in separate groups of fish samples at two different
periods. Further, there is incomplete overlap of the portions of
the Savannah River selected for sampling the fish. Ideally,
simultaneous analyses of both radioactive and nonradioactive
contaminants should be obtained in the same fish, from the
same locations. However, to the Agency's knowledge these
are the only sets of fish sampling data available for analysis at
this time.
2. Uncertainty
There are many more aquatic species, and many more samples
for each of these species, in the radioactive data set than in
the nonradioactive data set. Therefore, one should be much
more confident about the risks identified in this analysis for the
radioactive contaminants vis-3-vis the nonradioactive
contaminants.
B. Data Gaps
The special circumstance of a lack of data for nonradioactive contaminants
in the Savannah River basin limit a detailed analysis of the impacts of these
pollutants on human health and the environment of this community. There
is relatively much more data on radioactive contaminants for this geographic
area, and the analysis of the potential effects of this class of pollutants is
consequently more robust. The authors are therefore much more confident
-------
5
about the risk characterization of the radioactive contaminants vis-ck-vis the
nonradioactive contaminants.
C. Process of Alternatives Selection
1. Rationale for the Choice
Maximum estimate of average exposure is based on fish
samples taken at random along a 132.8 mile stretch of the
Savannah River, this length being determined by the
availability of sampling data near the Savannah River Site.
Georgia Department of Natural resources provided the data
used in this risk screening.
a. Radioactive Contaminant Data
Source
In December, 1994, the Georgia Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Environmental
Protection Division (Environmental Radiation
Section) had provided EPA Region IV the
document titled: "Environmental Radioactivity
Data: SRS (Savannah River Site) area ...1/1/90 -
4/20/94" (compiled 4/20/94).
Radioactivity levels in fish samples,, reported in
picoCuries per dry kilogram, appear on pp 72-75
of this document, which was the primary source
of radioactive contaminant data used in this risk
screening.
b. Nonradioactive Contaminant Data
Source
Data sheets for the Augusta and Savannah site
sampling of fish on the Savannah River was
collected September 22 - 23, 1993 as part of
the Georgia Department of Natural Resources
River Assessment Project.
c. Scope and Methodology
Levels for CS-137, K-40, H-3, ALPHA. BETA,
BETAS, and SR-90 are reported for several
aquatic species. On advice of the Region IV
Office of Radiation, the alpha levels are
considered to be contributed predominantly by
-------
6
a. This risk screening focuses on only CS-137,
SR-90, H-3, and a levels in fish taken from a
132.8 mile stretch of the Savannah River close
to the Savannah River Site.
Even though levels of radioactivity in both edible
and inedible portions of fish are reported, only
portions designated as "edible" or "filet" have
been used in this risk screening. Lab results (i.e.
dry) were converted to fresh (i.e. wet)
concentrations by multiplying by 0.3, which
approximates the typical Dry/Wet (D/W) ratios
observed in these samples (which were 0.3 +/-
0.1).
Both minimum (9 kg/yr) and maximum (19 kg/yr)
consumption rates, for both urban and rural
residents were used in this risk screening. Risks
for urban residents (consumption period 30
years) and rural residents (consumption period
40 years) were estimated.
Arithmetic means of radioactivity levels in fish
for various locations along this 132.8 mile
stretch of the Savannah River adjacent to the
Savannah River Site (SRS) were calculated.
Next, a mean dose of radioactivity per kg of fish
for various locations along this stretch of the
Savannah River was obtained. This mean dose
of radioactivity was then used to estimate
average cancer risk for both urban residents and
rural residents taking fish from various locations
along this 132.8 mile stretch of the Savannah
River.
In like fashion, a mean dose of radioactivity per
kg of fish was obtained for fish taken at the
Vogtle Electric Generating Plant Discharge
(VEGPD) [which is close to the mouth of Four
Mile Creek], and the confluences of Four Mile
Creek, Steel Creek, and Lower Three Runs
Creek. Similarly, this mean dose of radioactivity
was then used to estimate Reasonable Maximum
Exposure (RME) cancer risk for rural residents
taking fish from each respective confluence.
-------
7
Sport fish data were derived from a creel survey
conducted by the Georgia Department of Natural
Resources from the Savannah River Lock and
Dam to the Atlantic Ocean 1/10/88 -12/24/88.
See report by Dennis Schmidt (DNR-Fisheries
@912-727-2112), "Savannah River Creel
Survey", Report F-30-16.
Two consumption rates were used in this risk
screening: a minimum estimate of 9 kg/yr and a
maximum estimate of 19 kg/yr. These
consumption rates are taken from WSRC-RP-91-
17, "Land and Water Use Characteristics of the
Savannah River Site (U)", published in March,
1991. Nuclear Regulatory commission (NRC)
default values for average and maximum
consumption are 6.3 and 21 kg respectively.
2. Effects of Alternatives Selected on the
Assessment
These Savannah River sampling sites are spread along 132.8
miles of stream near the vicinity of the Savanah River Site
(SRS). The Vogtle Electric Generating Plant discharge is 3.5
miles downstream from the first sampling site and 0.9 miles
upstream of the mouth of Four Mile Creek. Although the
Vogtle Plant is believed to discharge a small quantity of CS-
137, DNR considers SRS to be the major contributor of CS-
137 and the sole contributor of SR-90.
Samples taken at the mouth Four Mile Creek contained the
highest concentrations of SR-90. The highest concentrations
of H-3 were found at the mouth of Steel Creek, and the
highest levels of or were found 50 yards downstream of
VEGPD. The highest concentrations of CS-137 were found in
samples taken near the confluence of Lower Three Runs
Creek.
3. Comparison with Other Plausible Alternatives
Actual risk estimates that might be obtained from a formal risk
assessment could vary substantially from this initial risk
screening; most probably they would be greater than the
estimates presented here. For instance, some risk assessors
may chose to include all portions of the available fish samples
and not restrict the analysis to the edible flesh portions. It is
likely that the SR-90 risk estimates could be substantially
-------
8
greater if the whole fish were to be consumed, because SR-90
is a known "bone seeker"; this would increase risk estimates.
Additionally, some risk assessors may choose to use 70 years
of fish consumption, instead of the 40 year period used in this
risk screening; this would further increase risk estimates
shown above.
III. Conclusions
This risk characterization Is separate from any risk management considerations. In decision-making, risk
managers should use risk information appropriate to their program legislation.
This risk characterization presents several types of information. Information is presented on the range of
exposures derived from exposure scenarios and the use of multiple risk descriptors (e.g., central tendency, high
end of individual risk, population risk. Important subgroups, if known) consistent with terminology In the
Agency's Guidance on Risk Characterization, Agency Risk Assessment Guidelines (RAGsJ and program-specific
guidance.
A. Noncancer Systemic Effects
Hazard Indexes (His) for deleterious non-cancer systemic effects during a
lifetime obtained by ingesting fish which are contaminated with selected
nonradioactive contaminants and are taken from various locations along the
Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
Four nonradioactive contaminants were analyzed. None of the doses of
these four contaminants exceeded their respective reference doses (RfDs)
and are therefore not likely to be associated with any systemic health risks,
however, RfDs for b-BHC and DDE are not available at this time, and any
hazard for these contaminants presently cannot be estimated.
Consequently, the overall hazard for deleterious non-cancer systemic effects
during a lifetime obtained by ingesting fish which are contaminated with
these two pollutants is unknown.
B. Cancer Effects
1. Risk due to selected radioactive contaminants
Estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk for a resident
ingesting fish which are contaminated with selected
radioactive contaminants and are taken from various locations
along the Savannah River near the Savannah River Site (SRS)
a. Estimated risks for rural resident
with RME to SR-90. CS-137. H-3.
and a:
-------
9
An analysis of an individual rural resident with a
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) to SR-90,
CS-137,H-3, and cr was performed for sampling
data from VEGPD, and the mouths of Four Mile
Creek, Steel Creek, and Lower Three Runs
Creek, those locations of this stretch of the
Savannah River which have the highest levels
these radionuclides. The estimated lifetime
excess total cancer risk due to SR-90, CS-137,
H-3, and a for a Reasonably Maximally Exposed
(RME) rural resident ingesting Savannah River
fish taken solely from these locations is 5.46E-5.
fn short, with arithmetic rounding, the risk from
these radionuclides combined for a RME rural
resident should be considered to be a "1.00E-4"
risk.
b. Estimated risks for rural residents
with average exposure to SR-90.
CS-137. H-3. Q:
An analysis was performed of an individual rural
resident consuming fish from various locations
along the Savannah River near the Savannah
River Site (SRS). In this consumption scenario
this rural resident consumes fish from the
VEGPD as well as from the mouths of Four Mile
Creek, Steel Creek, and Lower Three Runs
Creek. Thereby this rural resident obtains fish
with the highest concentrations of SR-90, CS-
137, H-3, and a.
The upper bound estimate of lifetime excess
total cancer risk due to SR-90, CS-137, H-3, and
a for a rural resident ingesting the upper limit of
an average amount of Savannah River fish taken
solely from these locations is 8.40E-6. In short,
with arithmetic rounding, the upper bound
estimate of this risk from these radionuclides for
an average rural resident should be considered to
be a "1.00E-5" risk.
The lower bound estimate of lifetime excess
total cancer risk due to SR-90, CS-137, H-3. and
O for a rural resident ingesting the lower limit of
an average amount of Savannah River fish taken
solely from these locations is 3.98E-6. In short.
-------
10
with arithmetic rounding, the upper bound
estimate of this risk from these radionuclides for
an average rural resident should be considered to
be a "1.00E-6' risk.
2. Risk Due to Selected Nonradioactive
Contaminants
Estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk for a resident
ingesting fish which are contaminated with selected
nonradioactive contaminants and are taken from various
locations along the Savannah River near the Savannah River
Site (SRS)
a. Estimated risks for rural resident
with RME to As, b-BHC, and DDE
i. Arsenic (As)
An analysis of an individual rural resident with a
Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) to As
was performed for sampling data from various
locations along the Savannah River near the
Savannah River Site (SRS).
The estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk
due to As for a Reasonably Maximally Exposed
(RME) rural resident ingesting Savannah River
fish taken from these locations is 1.86E-9. In
short, with arithmetic rounding, this risk from As
for a RME rural resident should be considered to
be a "1.00E-9" risk.
ii. b-BHC
Likewise, an analysis of an individual rural
resident with a Reasonable Maximum Exposure
(RME) to b-BHC was performed for sampling
data from the from various locations along the
Savannah River near the Savannah River Site
(SRS).
The estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk
due to b-BHC for a Reasonably Maximally
Exposed (RME) rural resident ingesting Savannah
River fish taken from these locations is 2.68E-5.
In short, with arithmetic rounding, the upper
bound estimate of this risk from b-BHC for a
-------
11
RME rural resident should be considered to be
"1.00E-5".
iii. DDE
Again, an analysis of an individual rural resident
with a Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) to
DDE was performed for sampling data from the
from various locations along the Savannah River
near the Savannah River Site (SRS).
The estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk
due to DDE for a Reasonably Maximally Exposed
(RME) rural resident ingesting Savannah River
fish taken solely from these locations is 5.06E4*.
In short, with arithmetic rounding, this risk from
DDE for a RME rural resident should be
considered to be "1.00E-5".
iv. As, b-BHC, and DDE
{nonradioactive combined)
Therefore, the estimated lifetime excess total
cancer risk due to As, b-BHC, and DDE
(nonradioactive combined) for a Reasonably
Maximally Exposed (RME) rural resident
ingesting Savannah River fish takenfrom various
locations along the Savannah River near the
Savannah River Site (SRS) is 1.06E-5. In short,
with arithmetic rounding, this risk from As, b-
BHC, and DDE combined for a RME rural resident
should be considered to be "1.00E-5".
b. Estimated risks for rural resident
with average exposure to As, b-
BHC. and DDE
An analysis of an individual rural resident with a
maximum estimate of average exposure to As
was performed for sampling data from various
locations along the Savannah River near the
Savannah River Site.
i. Arsenic (As)
The upper bound estimate of lifetime excess
total cancer due to As risk for a rural resident
-------
ingesting an average amount of Savannah River
fish taken from these locations is 7.45E-10. In
short, with arithmetic rounding, the upper bound
estimate of this risk from As for an average rural
resident should be considered to be "1.00E-9".
The lower bound estimate of lifetime excess
total cancer due to As risk for a rural resident
ingesting an average amount of Savannah River
fish taken from these locations is 3.53E-10. In
short, with arithmetic rounding, the lower bound
estimate of this risk from As for an average rural
resident should be considered to be "1.00E-10".
ii. b-BHC
Likewise, an analysis of an individual rural
resident with an average exposure to b-BHC was
performed for sampling data from these
locations.
The upper bound estimate of lifetime excess
total cancer risk due to b-BHC for an average
rural resident ingesting Savannah River fish
taken solely from these locations is 1.73E-5. In
short, with arithmetic rounding, the upper bound
estimate of this risk from b-BHC for an average
rural resident should be considered to be "1.00E-
5".
The lower bound estimate of lifetime excess
total cancer risk due to b-BHC for an average
rural resident ingesting Savannah River fish
taken solely from these locations is 8.24£¦€. In
short, with arithmetic rounding, the lower bound
estimate of this risk from b-BHC for an average
rural resident should be considered to be "1.00E-
5".
iii. DDE
Again, an analysis of an individual rural resident
with an average exposure to DDE was
performed for sampling data from the from
various locations along the Savannah River near
the Savannah River Site (SRSI.
-------
The upper bound estimate of lifetime excess
total cancer risk due to DDE for an average rural
resident ingesting Savannah River fish taken
solely from these locations is 1.26E-€. In short,
with arithmetic rounding, the upper bound
estimate of this risk from DDE for an average
rural resident should be considered to be "1.00E-
6".
The lower bound estimate of lifetime excess
total cancer risk due to DDE for an average rural
resident ingesting Savannah River fish taken
solely from these locations is 5.94E-7. In short,
with arithmetic rounding, the upper bound
estimate of this risk from DDE for an average
rural resident should be considered to be "1.00E-
6".
iv. As, b-BHC, and DDE
(nonradioactive combined)
Therefore, the combined upper bound estimate
of lifetime excess total cancer risk due to As, b-
BHC, and DDE (nonradioactive combined) for an
average rural resident ingesting Savannah River
fish taken from various locations along the
Savannah River near the Savannah River Site
(SRS) is 1.86E-5. In short, with arithmetic
rounding, the upper bound estimate of this risk
from As, b-BHC, and DDE combined for an
average rural resident should be considered to be
"1.00E-5".
Similarly, the lower bound estimate of lifetime
excess total cancer risk due to As, b-BHC, and
DDE (nonradioactive combined) for an average
rural resident ingesting Savannah River fish
taken from various locations along the Savannah
River near the Savannah River Site (SRS) is
2.78E-6. In short, with arithmetic rounding, the
lower bound estimate of this risk from As, b-
BHC, and DDE combined for an average rural
resident should be considered to be "1.00E-6".
Estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk for a resident
ingesting fish which are contaminated with selected
radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants and are taken
-------
from various locations along the Savannah River near the
Savannah River Site (SRS)
a. Estimated risks for rural resident with RME to
radioactive and nonradioactive contaminants
i. The estimated lifetime excess total
cancer risk for an individual rural
resident with a Reasonable
Maximum Exposure (RME) to
radioactive contaminants (see
above) is 1.19E-4.
ii. The analysis of an individual rural
resident with a Reasonable
Maximum Exposure (RME) to
nonradioactive contaminants (see
above) is 1.06E-5.
iii. Therefore, the estimated lifetime
excess total cancer risk due to
radioactive and nonradioactive
contaminants combined for a
Reasonably Maximally Exposed
(RME) rural resident ingesting
Savannah River fish taken from
these locations is 1.30E-4. In
short, with arithmetic rounding,
this risk from both radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants for a
RME rural resident should be
considered to be a "1.00E-4" risk.
iv. Stated in other terms, this is
roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 10.000
individuals with maximum
exposure.
b. Estimated risks for rural resident with average
exposure to radioactive and nonradioactive
contaminants:
i. The upper bound estimate of
lifetime excess total cancer due to
all radioactive contaminants
studied for a rural resident
-------
ingesting an average amount of
Savannah River fish taken from
these locations is 8.40E-6, roughly
a 1.00E-5 risk.
The lower bound estimate of
lifetime excess total cancer due to
all radioactive contaminants
studied for a rural resident
ingesting an average amount of
Savannah River fish taken from
these locations is 3.98E-6. roughly
a 1.00E-6 risk.
The upper bound estimate of
lifetime excess total cancer risk
due to all nonradioactive
contaminants for an average rural
resident ingesting Savannah River
fish taken solely from these
locations is 6.19E-6, roughly a
1.00E 5 risk.
The lower bound estimate of
lifetime excess total cancer risk
due to all nonradioactive
contaminants for an average rural
resident ingesting Savannah River
fish taken solely from these
locations is 2.78E-6, roughly a
1.00E-6 risk.
The upper bound estimate of
lifetime excess total cancer risk
due to radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants
combined for an average rural
resident ingesting Savannah River
fish taken from various locations
along the Savannah River near the
Savannah River Site (SRS) is
1.46E-5. In short, with arithmetic
rounding, this risk for a RME rural
resident from nonradioactive and
radioactive contaminants
combined should be considered to
be a "1.00E-5" risk.
-------
The lower bound estimate of
lifetime excess total cancer risk
due to all radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants
combined for an average rural
resident ingesting Savannah River
fish taken solely from these
locations is 6.76E-6. In short,
with arithmetic rounding, this risk
for a RME rural resident from
nonradioactive and radioactive
contaminants combined should be
considered to be a "1.00E-5" risk.
iv. Stated in other terms, this is
roughly equivalent to one extra
case of cancer in every 100,000
individuals with average exposure.
Information Regarding Strengths and Limitations of this Risk Assessment
For:
A. Other Risk Assessments
The Office of Radiation of APTMD uses a different method which compares
levels of environmental radioactivity to radiation protection standards, not
the estimation of excess cancer. This may be problematic, in that a level of
radioactivity which may be deemed "safe" under these radiation protection
standards may nevertheless account for an excess total number of cancers
that can be estimated using standard risk screening methods.
Importantly, of many potential human health risks, only lifetime excess total
cancer risks from two radionuclides, strontium-90 (SR-90) and cesium (CS-
137), are estimated in this analysis. Even though data may exist for a
variety of radionuclides in these waters, only cancer risks from ingestion of
fish containing concentrations of these two radionuclides have been
evaluated. Consideration of other radionuclides which are known to exist in
this stream would increase the risk estimates derived in this risk screening.
One should realize that the individual levels of contaminants used in the
Reasonably Maximally Exposed (RME) estimates were, in fact, high-end, not
maximum, values. The radioactive contaminant levels of all fish samples for
each sampling station (STN) were averaged for that respective location.
Next, those locations with the highest levels of specific radionuclides were
selected as loci for further RME analysis. This RME approach is consistent
with the Administrator's policy guidance on risk characterization.
-------
17
This risk screening is based on preliminary data provided by the Georgia
Department of Natural resources. The Georgia Department of Natural
Resources is cooperating with EPA on further analysis of non-radiological
contaminants in this waterway. We have learned that the Georgia
Department of Natural Resources has new fish sampling data, but these data
are not available to the Agency at this time. We hope to obtain these new
data for further analysis of the risks in this community.
B. Relevance of this Risk Assessment for EPA Decision-Makers
The SRS F & H Area groundwater plume drains into Four Mile Creek. EPA
Records of Decision (RODs) require groundwater remediation to prevent
additional contamination of Four Mile Creek.
There is one perspective of this analysis which deserves special mention.
Fish consumers in the Savannah River community may be highly exposed.
In this community some of these fish consumers have been identified as
poor people of color. EPA has evidence that some of these same people are,
in fact, subsistence fishermen. Selection of this population segment was a
matter of discovery of a highly exposed subgroup during the assessment
process, and not a matter of a priori interest in the subgroup because of
environmental justice considerations. These findings must be given careful
consideration.
C. Caveats for the Risk Manager
For the most part, this risk screening addresses human health
considerations, not ecological risks. There are other potential adverse
human health effects, besides cancer, that could be produced by other non-
radiological contaminants. The contributions of non-radioactive toxic
compounds to the production of adverse human health effects, including
cancer, are not analyzed here.
D. Public Involvement Issues
1. Ecological Considerations
a. Alligators and aquatic turtles (especially soft
back and snapping turtles) have not been
included in this risk screening. Even though
these species are know to be harvested by local
fishermen, creel survey-type data on these edible
game species have not been located to date.
b. Another species of special interest are
catadromous eels of the genus anguilla. These
eels are apparently a favorite delicacy of local
-------
residents, some adult eels reaching about three
feet in length. These eels migrate from the
Savannah River to the Sargossa Sea (part of the
North Atlantic between the West Indies and the
Azores) to spawn. Some of these eels have
been found on the Savannah River Site,
specifically in Par Pond. However, to date,
neither the Georgia DNR or Region IV's
Environmental Services Division (ESD) have
sampled these eels for heavy metals or
radionuclides.
c. In consideration of these potential
ecological impacts the reader
should note that this risk screening
focuses primarily on potential
human health risks, not ecological
risks. Nevertheless, in so far as
several of these aquatic species
are part of the human diet in this
community, there are probably
shared adverse impacts.
Human Health Considerations
1. Wfon ar® ttSu® pKBaplla ®t snrasntaft riak?
The people at greatest risk are subsistence
fishermen, who in this area have been identified
as primarily poor people of color.
2. rfrfs OaWta xcm tihay to?
The estimated lifetime excess total cancer risk
due to radioactive and nonradioactive
contaminants combined for a Reasonably
Maximally Exposed (RME) rural resident
ingesting Savannah River fish taken from these
locations is 5.08E-4. In short, with arithmetic
rounding, this risk from both radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants for a RME rural
resident should be considered to be a "1.00E-3"
risk.
In other terms, one would expect one extra case
of cancer in 1,000 such individuals with similar
exposure.
-------
19
3. WDoatt ten fiihxsy do&rogj, wrlh«r« do fifasy B5w«,
cto., uUm® omJ®ht ptoas (Swam «tt Me MfSiwe
rieik?
These individuals are placed at greater risk by
fishing at the Savannah River confluences of
Four Mile Creek and Steel Creek, because these
are the locations along the Savannah River with
the highest concentration of radioactive
pollutants.
4. Wkaitt Be fei axwsQits ufefe to MMkuutOe to
Hfl-xs paiffC'Sacliiim ©(J
The upper bound estimate of lifetime excess
total cancer risk due to radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants combined for an
average rural resident ingesting Savannah River
fish taken from various locations along the
Savannah River near the Savannah River Site
(SRS) is 6.25E-5. In short, with arithmetic
rounding, this risk from radioactive and
nonradioactive contaminants combined for a
RME rural resident should be considered to have
a "I.OOE-4" risk.
In other terms, one would expect one extra case
of cancer in 10,000 such individuals with similar
exposure.
Hazard Indexes (His) obtained by ingesting fish
which are contaminated with selected
nonradioactive contaminants and are taken from
various locations along the Savannah River near
the Savannah River Site (SRS).
Four nonradioactive contaminants were analyzed
for deleterious non-cancer systemic effects
during a lifetime. None of the doses of these
four contaminants exceeded their respective
reference doses (RfDs) and are therefore not
likely to be associated with any systemic health
risks. The highest Hazard Index obtained was
that for mercury (0.61). However, RfDs for b-
BHC and DDE are not available at this time, and
any hazard for these contaminants presently
cannot be estimated. Consequently, the overall
-------
20
hazard for deleterious non-cancer systemic
effects during a lifetime obtained by ingesting
fish which are contaminated with these two
pollutants is unknown.
E. EPA Region IV Comments
The Office of Risk Assessment of WMD reviewed a draft of this risk
screening. They considered it a balanced presentation of the potential risks
associated with ingesting fish contaminated with CS-137, SR-90, H-3, and a
along this 132.8 stretch of the Savannah River. Also, their technical
comments were incorporated as appropriate.
-------
READING ,
COPY
- '
-------
2
Please find enclosed EPA's proposed plan for your review and
further consideration. This plan is offered only for purposes of
assistance and coordination. We hope that these draft documents
will be helpful as information becomes available that should be
passed on to interested parties and the general public. We would
certainly recommend that the benefit of State experiences be
included in DOE's efforts to involve the public.
Please contact Constance Jones of my staff, or me, for
further information and action on this community involvement
plan. Thank you again for your support and valuable
contributions in better serving the public in this important
matter.
Enclosure
cc: Myra Reece, Aiken
Ann Ragan, Ex officio CAB
Keith Collinsworth, SCDHEC
Lil Mood, SCDHEC
Edward Younginer, SCDHEC
Russell Berry, Beaufort Office
Sandra Threatt, SCDHEC
Randy Manning, GA-DNR
de'Lisa Bratcher, DOE
Mary Flora, WSRC
Rick Ford, DOE
Wade Whittaker, DOE
Ben Gould, DOE
Tom Heenan, Ex officio, CAB
be: Elmer Akin
Carl Terry
Pete Raack
MaryAnn Lynch, OSWER-HQ
David Levenstein, OFFE
Jon Richards
John Stockwell, FFB
Sincerely yours
( farren
DOE Remedial Section
Federal Facilities Branch
-------
2
Please find enclosed EPA's proposed plan for your review and
further consideration. This plan is offered only for purposes of
assistance and coordination. We hope that these draft documents
will be helpful as information becomes available that should be
passed on to interested parties and the general public. We would
certainly recommend that the benefit of State experiences be
included in DOE's efforts to involve the public.
Please contact Constance Jones of my staff, or me, for
further information and action on this community involvement
plan. Thank you again for your support and valuable
contributions in better serving the public in this important
matter.
Sincerely yours,
Camilla Bond Warren
Chief
DOE Remedial Section
Federal Facilities Branch
Enclosure
cc: vHyra Reece, Aiken
vXnn Ragan, Ex officio CAB
\Jfc£1th Collinsworth, SCDHEC
vJiil Mood, SCDHEC
y-Edward Younginer, SCDHEC
^^Xussell Berry, Beaufort Office
vSandra Threatt, SCDHEC
^R^ndy Mann i ng, GA-DNR
N^e'Lisa Bratcher, DOE
x^M^ry Flora, WSRC
iRjLck Ford, DOE
<^ade Whittaker, DOE
JJefl Gould, DOE
^om Heenan, Ex officio, CAB
be: Elmer Akin
Carl Terry
Pete Raack
MaryAnn Lynch, OSWER-HQ
David Levenstein, OFFE
Jon Richards
John Stockwell, FFB
J.R.STOCKWELL/js: 4WD-FFB: 347 -3016/November-2-95/a:FISHYBIZ4.WP
Stoclwell/M^ Warren
-------
Joint DOE/EPA/DHEC Community Involvement Plan for the
Savannah River Site
Purpose
• To fully communicate these findings to all potentially affected communities
• To coordinate with State and federal counterparts on a risk communication
strategy
• To identify important groups to notify regarding risk
How to Prepare for Community Interest in the Joint DOE/EPA/DHEC COMMUNITY
INVOLVEMENT PLAN FOR THE SAVANNAH RIVER SITE
• Step 1
Identify the contaminants, both radioactive and
nonradioactive, in this watershed which are most likely to be
of concern
Note: This critical first step has Just been accomplished.
• Step 2
Obtain additional toxicity and exposure information on these
contaminants, including information on any associated risks
Of particular importance is interpreting the
significance of this technical information to
personal health
• Step 3
Identify the perceptions and concerns of individuals in these
potentially affected communities
If possible, assess the "chemical risk"
awareness in these potentially affected
communities with some type of baseline study
Influencing factors may include proximity to
downstream releases of SRS
It is absolutely critical that we know the public
with whom we are dealing
-------
Step 4
Determine the types of questions, specific to potentially
affected communities, that we might be asked, such as "Is it
safe to drink my water?" and "Is H safe to eat fish taken from
the Savannah River?"
Strategy
1) Communicate findings
a) What findings?
• Contaminants
• Type fish
• Size fish
• Found where?
b) Recommendations
• Don't eat
• Eat limited amount (how much)
• Anyone at risk?
2) Coordination (State & Federal)
• Joint advisory
• State advisory
• Shared press advisory statements with organizations listed
herein
3) Groups
• Subsistence Fishermen
• Sport Fishermen
• South Carolina and Georgia Residents
• Town of Martin
• Town of Barnwell
• City of Aiken
City of Beaufort
• City of Hilton Head
• City of Savannah
Answering Questions
How we handle the calls as they come in?
-------
3
• If we intend to designate people to answer questions, do we
know who within Region IV, State, or locality are the contact
points for answering specific questions?
• How will we document calls as they come in?
• If a serious problem is apparent what do we plan to do?
Assembling Information
• Have we assembled the appropriate materials that may be
needed to answer the questions?
Do we have information related to the health
and/or environmental effects of these
radioactive contaminants?
Note: As of this date the Agency does NOT have
any available Information of this type for
any of these radioactive contaminants!
EPA Hazardous Substance Fact
Sheets; (presently, none exist)
Agency for Toxic Substances
Disease Registry (ATSDR)
Toxicological Profiles; (presently,
none exist)
Printouts from EPA's Integrated
Risk Information System (IRIS);
(presently these radioactive
chemicals do not appear on IRIS)
And Chemical Emergency
Preparedness Program (CEPP);
(presently, none exist)
Do we have a listing of environmental medicine
physicians and certified toxicologists in the
potentially affected areas who are willing to
assist in responding to citizens' health
questions?
Note: To date, no such listing has been compiled
by any Headquarters or EPA Region IV
staff member
Do we know the status of federal regulations on
these radioactive contaminants?
-------
4
Do we know how Georgia and South Carolina
regulate these radioactive contaminants?
Disseminating Information
• Have we made plans to distribute the risk analysis of these
radioactive chemicals that this community involvement
initiative is based on?
Will we distribute an executive summary of this
risk analysis
• Do we have summary information that we can give to the
public concerning:
The Community Right-To-Know Program?
Health and Environmental Effects?
Access to the original risk analysis?
Access to the fish data upon which the original
risk analysis is based?
• Do other programs in Georgia, South Carolina, and the
Savannah River Watershed as a whole know (or actually
have) what we have in terms of materials we have
assembled?
• Will we be developing communication channels for sharing
call information between federal agencies, States, and
localities?
If so, how will we publicize this information?
Important Groups to Notify/Involve
• Key Interagency Liaisons
Savannah National Wildlife Refuge
Georgia State Health Officer
South Carolina State Health Officer
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR)
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Corps of Engineers (COE)
-------
U.S. Geologic Survey
Natural Resource Conservation Service
[Note: previously named Soil Conservation Service (SCS)]
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
South Carolina Department of Natural resources (SCDNR)
Environmental Interest Groups
Coastal Conservation League
Costal Office of the Georgia Conservancy
South Carolina Wildlife Federation
Georgia Wildlife Federation
The Nature Conservancy, Georgia Field Office, Atlanta, GA
[which services the Savannah area]
Greenpeace USA, Atlanta, GA
Sierra Club, Georgia Chapter, Atlanta, GA
Sierra Club, South Carolina Chapter, Columbia, SC
Georgia and South Carolina Bassmasters Chapters
Note: These Environmental Interest Groups are the U.S. EPA Region IV field offices
of the "Top Ten" national environmental groups which are located In either
Georgia or South Carolina
Governmental Contacts
All applicable congressional delegations
All applicable Offices of Mayor and Boards of County
Commissioners
All applicable City and County Health Officers
Water Authorities for City of Savannah, City of Hilton Head,
and City of Beaufort
Corporate Interests
Savannah Seafood Restaurant Association(s)
Savannah Seafood Distributors
All applicable Fish Markets for Savannah River Fish
Georgia Power
All applicable Chambers of Commerce
All applicable Boards of Realtors
All applicable County Medical Societies
-------
6
Intended Audiences
Subsistence Fishermen who take fish from within two miles
of the confluences of either Four Mile Creek, Steel Creek, or
Lower Three Runs Creek
Sport fishermen who take fish from within two miles of the
confluences of Four Mile Creek, Steel Creek, and Lower Three
Runs Creek or within 15 miles downstream of any of these
streams
South Carolina and Georgia Residents who live within two
miles of the banks of the Savannah River from two miles
above the mouth of Four Mile Creek to the Atlantic ocean
Residents of Town of Barnwell; City of Aiken; City of
Beaufort; City of Hilton Head; City of Savannah
All applicable operators of bait shops and custodians of
nearby boat ramps and bridges
------- |