Hanford Special Exposure Coh

Petition Evaluation Report (SEC‐0

Samuel Glover, PhD

Research Health Scientist

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

Division of Compensation Analysis and Support

December 2012

Knoxville, TN
Talking Points

 Quick petition review

 Discuss Hanford’s bioassay program during t

period

• Focus on Super S and fecal sampling

 Discuss OTIB‐0049 Discuss application of OTIB‐0049 at Hanford 

cases involving fecal sampling
Petition Overview

 Petition received on November 10, 2009

 Petitioner proposed class definition:

• All personnel who were internally monitored (

fecal), who worked at the Plutonium Finishing 

the 200 Area at the Hanford Site, from January 

1987 through December 31, 1989

 May 3, 2010: Petition qualified for evaluat

• Accepted petition basis: Radiation monitoring 

for members of the proposed class have been 

falsified, or destroyed
Petition Overview—cont.

 Four SEC classes previously added at Hanfo

1. October 1, 1943 through August 31, 1946, for s

areas of Hanford (SEC‐00057‐1)

2. September 1, 1946 through December 31, 196

selected areas of Hanford (SEC‐00057‐2)

3. October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, for all 

Hanford (this class subsumed previous two cla

00152)

4. July 1, 1972 through December 31, 1983, for a

Hanford (SEC‐00201)
Petition Overview—cont.

 SEC‐00057 petition requested the SEC class 

continued through 1990

• Advisory Board and NIOSH continue to review 

1983

 The timeframe associated with SEC‐00155 

encompassed by SEC‐00057

 SEC‐00155 was specific and focused on dat

falsification and was deemed appropriate f

separate review
Petition Overview—cont.

 The petitioner’s specific evidence of accus

by the U.S. EPA of purposeful wrong doing 

Testing (UST) resulted in NIOSH determinin

issues regarding quality of bioassay data

required further investigation as a separatfrom the continuing Board evaluation ofSEC‐00057

 The intent of NIOSH’s separate evaluation 

SEC‐00155 was to ensure that issues ident

with UST’s non‐bioassay analytical program

not also adversely affect the company’s bi

analysis operations in Richland, WA
Periods of NIOSH Evaluation

 NIOSH evaluated the time period requeste

the petitioner January 1, 1987 through

December 31, 1989

 While the location was specified as emplo

who worked at the Plutonium Finishing Pl

the evaluation was primarily focused on th

overall program which applies to all of Han
Some Sources of Exposure: 1987

 Plutonium Finishing Plant (1987‐9)

• Weapons grade metal production, Remote Mechanical C L

• Plutonium Reclamation Facility

• Miscellaneous treatment system glovebox operations

• Analytical laboratory operation

• Development laboratory operations

• Polycube processing (a polycube is a solid mixture of poly

plutonium oxide)

 PUREX

• Oxide production line was run during the early part of thi

frame*

*Identified at Hanford as being a potential source of insolub

plutonium with low 241Am content (fresh plutonium)
Personal Monitoring Data

 Internal monitoring data

• US Testing processed many thousands of bioas

samples during the period in question

– Urinalysis was the principal plutonium bioassay met– Workers deemed to have a higher risk or those invo

potential incident may also have fecal samples

– Americium typically monitored with in‐vivo countin

methods, usually as an indicator of plutonium intak

• Hanford maintained an extensive area monito

program (was not the focus of this review)
Background

 Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (P

was responsible for overseeing the quality 

data produced by US Testing for Hanford fr

1979 thru the 1991

• Quality assurance program included blind bioa

samples (~250 blanks and quality control durin

thru 1989)

• Annual reports during the time period of inter

were reviewed by NIOSH as part of this evalua
Background—cont.

 Hanford modernized its

bioassay methods from

total alpha to recovery

corrected alphaspectrometric methods(use of an isotopic tracer)

in about 1983

 UST developed methods to

respond to expeditedsamples (such as todetermine if chelation was

needed) which may have

different Minimum

Detectable Activities

(MDA’s).
Background—cont.
Number of Plutonium Urine (U) 

Fecal (F) Bioassay Samples Per P
Bioassay at Hanford related 

Potentially Super S

Plutonium Compounds

 Hanford presented overview of technology shortfal

Super Class Y (aka Super S) in a 1988 document, “M

Improve Pu Monitoring”

 Document uses ICRP 30 biokinetic models and data 

modified retention in the ICPR 26 lung model and foboth urine and lung counting would be insufficient 

DOE orders to determine intakes of 100 mrem AnnuEffective Dose Equivalent

• The amount of Pu going to the urine was too low to be ob

using the alpha spectrometric methods

• Hanford had several processes that produced freshly sepa

plutonium during this time period which reduced the capa

the lung counting program since it relies on 241Am measur
Target Intake Amounts from

1988 Document
Bioassay Challenges

(from 1988 document)

 For both graphs

A is the excretio

urine from acut

measurable at o

 Curve B shows w

the expected ur

excretion would 

the ‘target’ inta
Pilot Program Notes

 1986‐87: Pilot fecal program conducted to e

the feasibility of a routine program. Approx50 workers participated, quarterly sampling

regarding providing samples and sample am

reported.

• Only 58 of 84 scheduled samples received.

• 1719 Pu urinalysis samples for 1987

• Not well received by the workers
Pilot Program Notes—cont.

 1988: Pilot program was continued for 100 

at the Plutonium Finishing Plant. Fecal samshowed 40‐50% of the workers statistically g

than controls (details in 1993 Health Physics

publication), and the results confirmed by sp

air sampling.

• Pu urinalysis: 2008 routine, 130 special

• Pu fecal analysis: 37 routine and 34 special
Pilot Program Notes—cont.

 1989: In April, after 12 months as a pilot pro

sampling frequency was changed to annual provision of obtaining approximately equal 

of samples each quarter

• 1989 Pu urinalyses: 2156 routine + 70 specials• 1989 Pu fecal analyses: 259 routine + 16 special
Pilot Program Notes—cont.

 Implemented using the experiences learned 

the pilot program

 Mandated by the employers

 While external spike fecal samples were not

provided, they did still use standard radioch

required practices

• Reagent blank with each batch

• Spiked quality control sample with each batch
Pilot Program Notes—cont.

 1990: Routine fecal program operated normally 

contract default with UST on June 1, 1990

• May samples never analyzed

 In September, before an interim contract could 

place for routine analysis of fecal samples, Hanf

terminated the program. This was done becaus

Hanford facilities were no longer processing mathat could be classified as freshly separated sup

Y plutonium.
Pilot Program Notes—cont.

 Dose determinations made for workers in th

program at the start of the year, assumed chexposure January through September, based fecal results obtained December 1989 throu

1990

• 1990 Pu urinalyses: 759 routine + 56 specials

• 1990 Pu fecal analyses: 35 routine + 44 specials
Pilot Program Notes—cont.

 1993 published paper on the experiences of a r

fecal sampling program

 Approximately 100 workers

 Quality control samples using artificial and kno

natural samples included to compare the result

workers

• 391 samples from workers provided

• 47 control samples (blanks), consisting of 31 artificia

samples from unexposed individuals
OTIB‐0049: Estimation of Doses 

Plutonium Strongly Retained in th

 Sampling and radiochemical methods used

described

 Estimation of doses for plutonium strongly r

in the lung

 While the newer International Commission 

Radiological Protection (ICRP) insoluble plutincreased the retention time compared to IC

various accident cases show longer retentio
OTIB‐0049: Estimation of Doses 

Plutonium Strongly Retained in the L

 OTIB‐0049 developed based on nine cases fr

Rocky Flats and one case from Hanford that well‐defined intakes and exhibited long rete

times

 Upper bound cases used to establish bound

for Super S materials

 Data compared to US Transuranium and Ura

Registries (USTUR) autopsy cases
OTIB‐0049 Adjustment Facto

 TIB‐0049 developed dose

adjustment factors basedon intakes from bioassay

data using the type SICRP model

 Dose adjustment

depends on the type ofdata being used to

determine intake (air,urine, lung, feces)
Adjustment Factors—cont.
Adjustment Factors—cont.
Fecal Adjustment Factor

 OTIB‐0049 specifically addresses adjustment of feca

 Fecal samples collected less than 2 months after an 

inhalation intake or less than 2 months after the en

chronic intake should be evaluated with the standa

model

 Once intake is determined, dose is adjusted using d

measurement factors (e.g. air monitoring)

 Fecal samples collected after this 2 month time sho

modeled as if they were urine samples and the dosadjusted upward by a factor of 3
Correction Factors for Super S D

Based on Fecal Data
Urine/Fecal Activity Ratios fro

System Plutonium
Application at Hanford

 During this period, standard DCAS procedur

applied to Hanford bioassay data

 Assumptions include the age of plutonium, t

plutonium isotopic makeup (fuel grade or w

grade), solubility class (including Super S if

appropriate), and evaluation of the informaavailable for a case
Dosimetry Assumptions

 NIOSH TBD currently uses the contractual MDA’s

 Methods during this time period for SEC‐00155 in th

current TBD indicates 10 year old plutonium should 

 Weapons grade and fuel grade may be evaluated

 Rarely is fecal data available, but OTIB‐0049 should 

to evaluate and compare it with other intake indica

 Sometimes intakes are not favorable assumptions i

would result in detection by other methods used

 Case specific data must be reviewed since in vivo da

make some assumptions not claimant favorable