William Field, Ph.D, member

Hooker Electrochemical 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report 

Technical Basis Document Revie

Henry Anderson, M.D. 

Chairman 

William Field, Ph.D, member 

Mark 

Griffon, member 

Uranium Refining AWEs Work Grou

August 2011 

Richland, WA 
Background
 

• Hooker Electrochemical classified as 

Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) fafrom 1943 to 1948 

• Residual contamination period throu

1976 

• Primarily produced non-radioactive 

chemicals (P-45) for the MED 

• Concentrated uranium-contaminated 

magnesium fluoride slag using waste hydrochloric acid from P-45 process 
•

Background 

(Continued) 

• Building was constructed to perform 

concentrating operation; Building wcompleted on July 11, 1944 

• Most slag -handling conducted outdo

• P-45 operations ended January 15, 19• Concentration of incoming material w

0.2% uranium by mass 

• Material was concentrated to 1% to 2
• Petitioner revised proposed class

Petition Overview
 

• Submitted on March 6, 2009 – propos

class was for the “furnace room” 

• Proposed finding sent to petitioner M

15, 2009 – not qualified for evaluation

• Petitioner revised proposed class 

September 26, 2009 

• Qualified for evaluation October 16, 2• Evaluation Report issued on May 3, 2
Key Review Documents
 

• NIOSH ER – May 2010 • SC&A ER Review – January 2011 • Hooker TBD – April 2011 (Revised June • Allen White Paper (DCAS) – Observation 

Finding F. Hooker Electrochemical SEC Re

April 2011

• Allen White Paper (DCAS) – Surrogate Da

Evaluation: Hooker Electrochemical Comp

April 2011 (revised May 2011)

• SC&A White Paper – Review Of NIOSH W

Paper, “Surrogate Data Evaluation – Hook

Electrochemical Company,” July 2011
Petition Bases and Concern

• Unmonitored workers 

• Petition presented an affidavit 

indicating there was no internal or external radiation monitoring at Ho

• No indication of monitoring was fo

in records. 
Hooker TBD 

• Dose reconstruction methodology wa

originally described in Appendix AA 

Battelle-TBD-6001 

• Hooker TBD replaced Appendix AA a

changed proposed d proposed method of dose reconstruction, including revising approach to use of surrogate data fointernal dose 
the tank and diluted to a h of 4.0

Process at Hooker
 

• C-2 slag was received in 500-pound
 

barrels from Electro Metallurgical
 

• The barrels were dumped onto a convey

that carried slag to one of three digest ta

• Waste HCL from the P-45 plant was adde

the tank and diluted to a ph of 4.0 p 

• The tank was agitated for 20 hours • Once in two days the liquid was decante

more HCL was added. 

• At the end of the digestion, the slurry wa

neutralized with lime and pumped to a fipress 

• The filtered material was rebarreled 
Internal Exposure Modeling 

• Based on air samples for handling C-

slag at Electromet, Fernald, and Mallinckrodt 

• Used 95th percentile of air sampling 

results 

• More than 70% of air samples are BZ More than 70% of air samples are BZ• For residual period deposition/ 

resuspension model used with resuspension factor of 1E-06/m and nsource term decay 
contamination based on MCNP

External Exposure Modelin

• Exposure 

to workers handling slag in 

wooden barrels based on MCNPX calculations 

• Exposure 

to workers from surface 

contamination based on MCNP 

calculations 

of slag dust settling from 

95th percentile air concentrations 

• External doses rates for residual per

same as for operating period 
satisfaction based on new informat

Work Group Review –
 

Resolution of Findings
 

• In its initial review of Appendix AA 

TBD-6001, SC&A developed 10 findand 3 observations. These findings resolved to the Work Group’s satisfaction based on new informatincluded in the Hooker TBD. 

• In its review of the ER, SC&A devel

7 findings and 1 observation. Thesfindings were resolved to the Work Group’s satisfaction based on new information included in the Hooker 
Work Group Review –
 

Use of Surrogate Data
 

• In May 2011, NIOSH issued a white pa

evaluating the use of surrogate data Hooker against ABRWH criteria. 

• The Work Group requested that NIOS

revise the white paper to fully documrevise the white paper to fully documsources of air samples, and requesteSC&A review the revised white paper
Work Group Review of Use 

Surrogate Date
 

(Continued)
 

• SC&A reviewed the revised NIOSH w

paper and concluded that: “Based on review, we believe that NIOSH has addressed the ABRWH surrogate data in an appropriate manner, and that the surrogate data at Hooker is consistent wthe Board criteria. Use of the selected surrogate data will result in plausible bounding estimates for internal exposurHooker.” 
Work Group Recommendatio

• Work Group believes that doses for 

workers at Hooker can be plausibly reconstructed using information in th

Hooker TBD (revised June 2011). 

• Work Group recommends that Petitio

SEC-0014 be rejected.