SEC Petition Evaluation Report

Petition SEC-00226

 Report Rev #: 0 Report Submittal Date: March 16, 2015 

Subject Expert(s): Michael Kubiak

Site Expert(s): N/A

Petitioner Administrative Summary

Petition Under Evaluation

Petition # Petition 

Type

Petition A

Receipt Date DOE/AWE Facility Name

SEC-00226 83.14 March 13, 2015 Hanford

NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition

All employees of Department of Energy contractors and subcontractors (excluding employees of the following Hanford 

prime contractors during the specified time periods: Battelle Memorial Institute, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 

1990; Rockwell Hanford Operations, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987; Boeing Computer Services Richland, 

January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987; UNC Nuclear Industries, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987; Westinghouse 

Hanford Company, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990; and Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, 

January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990) who worked at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, during the 

period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, 

occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for 

one or more other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

Related Petition Summary Information

SEC Petition 

Tracking #(s) Petition Type DOE/AWE Facility Name Petition Status

SEC-00057

SEC-00152 

SEC-00155 

SEC-00201

83.13

83.14 

83.13 

83.14

Hanford

Hanford 

Hanford 

Hanford Engineer Works

Two classes added to the SEC

One class added to the SEC

No class added to SEC

One class added to the SEC

Related Evaluation Report Information

Report Title DOE/AWE Facility Name

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00057-1

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00057-2 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00152 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00155 

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00201

Hanford

Hanford 

Hanford 

Hanford 

Hanford Engineer Works

ORAU Lead Technical Evaluator: Michael Kubiak ORAU Peer Review Completed By: Joseph Guido

Peer Review Completed By: [Signature on File] 3/16/2015

Sam Glover Date

SEC Petition Evaluation Reviewed By: [Signature on File] 3/16/2015 

J. W. Neton Date

SEC Evaluation Approved By: [Signature on File] 3/16/2015

Stuart L. Hinnefeld Date
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

2 of 56

This page intentionally left blank
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

3 of 56

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00226, Hanford

This evaluation report by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) addresses 

a class of employees proposed for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) per the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 7384 

et seq. (EEOICPA) and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as 

Members of the Special Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act of 2000.

NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition

All employees of the Department of Energy contractors and subcontractors (excluding employees of 

the following Hanford prime contractors during the specified time periods: Battelle Memorial Institute, 

January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990; Rockwell Hanford Operations, January 1, 1984 through 

June 28, 1987; Boeing Computer Services Richland, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987; UNC

Nuclear Industries, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987; Westinghouse Hanford Company, January 

1, 1984 through December 31, 1990; and Hanford Environmental Health Foundation, January 1, 1984 

through December 31, 1990) who worked at the Hanford site in Richland, Washington, during the 

period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990, for a number of work days aggregating at 

least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this employment, or in combination with work days 

within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special 

Exposure Cohort.

Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction Findings

This current evaluation of petition SEC-00226 proposes a class that begins on January 1, 1984 and 

extends through December 31, 1990. NIOSH lacks sufficient information, which includes 

radiobioassay monitoring data for construction trades workers, and sufficient workplace monitoring 

and source term data, to allow it to estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential internal doses from 

radionuclides associated with fuel handling, reactor operations, fuel reprocessing, or research 

activities, to which the proposed class may have been exposed during the period from January 1, 1984 

through December 31, 1990. NIOSH finds that it is likely feasible to reconstruct occupational medical 

dose for Hanford workers with sufficient accuracy.

The NIOSH dose reconstruction feasibility findings are based on the following:

• Construction trades workers conducted a broad range of work activities supporting research, fuel 

handling, plutonium processing, decontamination and decommissioning, and reactor outages

(including work in high-contamination and high-airborne radioactivity areas). Construction trades 

workers conducted work in facilities such as the 100-N reactor, PUREX fuel reprocessing 

facilities, research facilities, and plutonium finishing facilities and vaults. 

• Principal sources of internal radiation exposure for members of the proposed class included

radionuclides such as: isotopes of uranium, thorium and plutonium; neptunium-237; americium241; tritium; and mixed fission and activation products.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

4 of 56

• NIOSH evaluated a group of construction trades workers employed by the prime radiological area 

construction contractor at Hanford through February 28, 1987. The NIOSH evaluation was based 

on interviews and Hanford correspondence that provided evidence that the construction trades 

workers’ fundamental type of work, as well as radiological monitoring practices, were 

substantively different from other Hanford operational workers. NIOSH has determined that this 

condition continued after February 28, 1987, when Kaiser Engineers Hanford replaced J. A. Jones 

Construction Services as the site prime construction services contractor.

• The number of construction trades worker radiobioassay analyses being performed increased after 

February 1987 when Kaiser Engineers Hanford became the site’s prime construction services 

contractor. However, NIOSH has determined that the Kaiser Engineers Hanford bioassay program 

was not performing the expected numbers of periodic (routine) in vitro analyses until into calendar 

year1990. In 1990 the proportion of periodic in vitro bioassays performed for Kaiser Engineers 

Hanford workers (including subcontractor workers) increased to a level commensurate with that of 

other radiological facility operators. Data available to NIOSH indicate that by the end of 1990, 

improvements in the construction services contractor bioassay program allowed the radiological 

work specific to construction trades workers to be represented in the data used by NIOSH to 

produce internal dose coworker distributions.

• NIOSH determined that it lacks sufficient information, which includes sufficient radiobioassay 

monitoring data for construction trades workers, and sufficient workplace monitoring and source 

term data, that would allow it to estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential internal doses from 

radionuclides associated with fuel handling, reactor operations, fuel reprocessing, or research

activities to which the proposed class may have been exposed during the period from January 1, 

1984 through December 31, 1990. The DOL and DOE determined that a NIOSH recommendation 

for a specific class of workers employed by the prime construction trades contractors (and their 

subcontractors) during this time could not be implemented. Therefore NIOSH, in consultation 

with DOE and DOL, has developed a recommended class definition that includes all employees of 

DOE contractors and subcontractors, excepting specifically identified non-construction prime 

contractors, for whom NIOSH, to date, has not identified a dose reconstruction infeasibility.

• The principal sources of external radiation for members of the proposed class included exposures 

to beta and photon radiation associated with various enrichments of uranium, activation and fission 

products, and high-energy betas and photons in the separations and research facilities.

• NIOSH has determined that available external monitoring data may be used in accordance with 

existing procedures on a case-by-case basis for the purpose of partial dose reconstructions. 

NIOSH has also determined that adequate reconstruction of medical dose is likely to be feasible by 

using claimant-favorable assumptions in the technical information bulletin Dose Reconstruction 

from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT-OTIB-0006) and the Hanford site profile 

documents.

Pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(1), NIOSH determined that there is insufficient information to either: 

(1) estimate the maximum radiation dose, for every type of cancer for which radiation doses are 

reconstructed, that could have been incurred under plausible circumstances by any member of the 
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

5 of 56

class; or (2) estimate the radiation doses of members of the class more precisely than a maximum dose 

estimate.

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for the 

proposed class, NIOSH intends to use any internal and external monitoring data that may become 

available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed 

with included contractors and subcontractors during the period from January 1, 1984 through 

December 31, 1990, but who do not qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these 

data as appropriate.

Health Endangerment Determination

The NIOSH evaluation did not identify any evidence supplied by the petitioners or from other 

resources that would establish that the class was exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely 

to have involved exceptionally high-level exposures, such as nuclear criticality incidents or other 

events involving similarly high levels of exposures. However, the evidence reviewed in this 

evaluation indicates that some workers in the class may have accumulated chronic radiation exposures 

through intakes of fuel handling, reactor operations, or fuel reprocessing related radionuclides. 

Therefore, 42 C.F.R. § 83.13(c)(3)(ii) requires NIOSH to specify that health may have been

endangered for those workers covered by this evaluation who were employed for a number of work 

days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for this class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

6 of 56

This page intentionally left blank
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

7 of 56

Table of Contents

Evaluation Report Summary: SEC-00226, Hanford.................................................................................3

1.0 Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................................9

2.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................9

3.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition and Petition Basis...............................................................10

4.0 Radiological Operations and Contractors Relevant to the Proposed Class ................................12

4.1 General Site Operations Description .................................................................................12

4.2 Contractor Operations Descriptions...................................................................................15

4.2.1 J. A. Jones Construction Services Company, 1984 through February 28, 1987...15

4.2.2 Kaiser Engineers Hanford, March 1, 1987 through December 31, 1990 .............16

4.2.3 Westinghouse Hanford Company Contract Consolidation, June 1987 ................16

4.3 Radiation Exposure Potential from Operations .................................................................17

4.3.1 Hanford Internal Dosimetry Program for Site Contractors...................................17

4.3.2 Access Control Systems........................................................................................17

4.3.3 Radiation Exposures Relevant to the Recommended Class .................................18

4.4 Time Period Associated with Radiological Operations.....................................................20

4.5 Site Locations Associated with Radiological Operations..................................................20

4.6 Job Descriptions Affected by Radiological Operations.....................................................20

5.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Proposed Class...............................................21

5.1 Data Capture Efforts and Sources Reviewed.....................................................................21

5.2 Previous Dose Reconstructions..........................................................................................21

5. 3 Worker Interviews .............................................................................................................22

5. 4 Internal Personnel Monitoring Data...................................................................................23

5.5 External Personnel Monitoring Data .................................................................................31

5. 6 Workplace Monitoring Data ..............................................................................................31

5. 7 Radiological Source Term Data.........................................................................................31

6.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Proposed Class........................................................32

6.1 Feasibility of Estimating Internal Exposures.....................................................................32

6.2 Feasibility of Estimating External Exposures....................................................................34

6.3 Class Parameters Associated with Infeasibility .................................................................35

7.0 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00226.........................................................36

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00226 ....................................................37

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00226........................................................................38

10.0 Evaluation of Second Similar Class............................................................................................38

11.0 References...................................................................................................................................39
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

8 of 56

Attachment One: Data Capture Synopsis ...............................................................................................41

Tables

Table 4-1: Hanford Development Chronology.......................................................................................14

Table 5-1: No. of Hanford Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule.............................22

Table 5-2: No. of Construction Workers with Available Monitoring Data............................................24

Table 5-3: Periodic Bioassays Reported - Percent of Total Annual Bioassays......................................27

Table 5-4: Percentage of Dosimetry Badged Workers with Available Plutonium Monitoring Data .....29

Table 7-1: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00226.................................................................37

Figures

Figure 4-1: Hanford Major Operational Areas .......................................................................................13

Figure 5-1: Available Monitoring Data – JA Jones and Subcontractors................................................25

Figure 5-2: Available Monitoring Data – Kaiser Engineers and Subcontractors...................................25

Figure 5-3: “Periodic” In Vitro Samples Reported – Percent of Total Annual In Vitro.........................28

Figure 5-4: Percentage of Dosimetry Badged Workers with Chest Count Data ....................................29

Figure 5-5: Percentage of Dosimetry Badged Workers with In Vitro Plutonium Data ..........................30
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

9 of 56

SEC Petition Evaluation Report for SEC-00226

ATTRIBUTION AND ANNOTATION: This is a single-author document. All conclusions drawn from 

the data presented in this evaluation were made by the ORAU Team Lead Technical Evaluator: 

Michael Kubiak; MJW Technical Services. The rationales for all conclusions in this document are 

explained in the associated text.

1.0 Purpose and Scope

This report evaluates the feasibility of reconstructing doses for employees who worked at a specific 

facility during a specified time. It provides information and analysis germane to considering a petition 

for adding a class of employees to the Congressionally-created SEC.

This report does not make any determinations concerning the feasibility of dose reconstruction that 

necessarily apply to any individual energy employee who might require a dose reconstruction from 

NIOSH, with the exception of the employee whose dose reconstruction could not be completed, and 

whose claim consequently led to this petition evaluation. The finding in this report is not the final 

determination as to whether or not the proposed class will be added to the SEC. This report will be 

considered by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) and by the Secretary 

of Health and Human Services (HHS). The Secretary of HHS will make final decisions concerning 

whether or not to add one or more classes to the SEC in response to the petition addressed by this 

report.

This evaluation, in which NIOSH provides its findings both on the feasibility of estimating radiation 

doses of members of this class with sufficient accuracy and on health endangerment, was conducted in 

accordance with the requirements of EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.14.

2.0 Introduction

Both EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 require NIOSH to evaluate qualified petitions requesting that the 

Department of Health and Human Services add a class of employees to the SEC. The evaluation is 

intended to provide a fair, science-based determination of whether it is feasible to estimate, with 

sufficient accuracy, the radiation doses of the proposed class of employees through NIOSH dose 

reconstructions.

1

NIOSH is required to document its evaluation in a report, and to do so, relies upon both its own dose 

reconstruction expertise as well as technical support from its contractor, Oak Ridge Associated 

Universities (ORAU). Once completed, NIOSH provides the report to both the petitioners and the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. The Board will consider the NIOSH evaluation 

report, together with the petition, comments of the petitioner(s) and such other information as the 

Board considers appropriate, to make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on whether or not to 

add one or more classes of employees to the SEC. Once NIOSH has received and considered the 

advice of the Board, the Director of NIOSH will propose a decision on behalf of HHS. The Secretary 

 1 NIOSH dose reconstructions under EEOICPA are performed using the methods promulgated under 42 C.F.R. pt. 82 and 

the detailed implementation guidelines available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

10 of 56

of HHS will make the final decision, taking into account the NIOSH evaluation, the advice of the 

Board, and the proposed decision issued by NIOSH. As part of this final decision process, the 

petitioner(s) may seek a review of certain types of final decisions issued by the Secretary of HHS.

2

3.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class Definition and Petition Basis

The NIOSH-proposed class includes all employees of Department of Energy contractors and 

subcontractors (excluding employees of the following Hanford prime contractors during the specified 

time periods: Battelle Memorial Institute, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990; Rockwell 

Hanford Operations, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987; Boeing Computer Services Richland, 

January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987; UNC Nuclear Industries, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 

1987; Westinghouse Hanford Company, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990; and Hanford 

Environmental Health Foundation, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990) who worked at the 

Hanford site in Richland, Washington, during the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 

1990, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 

employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more 

other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort. During this period, construction

trades workers conducted a broad range of work activities supporting research, fuel handling, 

plutonium processing, decontamination and decommissioning, and reactor outages (including work in 

high-contamination and high-airborne radioactivity areas). Construction trades workers conducted 

work in facilities such as the 100-N reactor, PUREX fuel reprocessing facilities, plutonium finishing 

facilities and vaults, and research facilities. Consequently the workers were potentially exposed to 

radionuclides such as: isotopes of uranium, thorium and plutonium; neptunium-237; americium-241; 

tritium; and mixed fission and activation products.

The evaluation responds to Petition SEC-00226 which was submitted by an EEOICPA claimant whose 

dose reconstruction could not be completed by NIOSH due to a lack of sufficient dosimetry-related 

information. NIOSH’s determination that it is unable to complete a dose reconstruction for an

EEOICPA claimant is a qualified basis for submitting an SEC petition pursuant to 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(b).

There are currently four classes of Hanford workers already designated for inclusion in the SEC. Two 

are associated with two previous NIOSH evaluations of petition SEC-00057 (57-1 and 57-2) under 42 

C.F.R. § 83.13. Together, these two classes cover specified site areas and time periods spanning the 

period October 1, 1943 through December 31, 1968. 

A third class, designated in 2009, is associated with the NIOSH evaluation of petition SEC-00152 

under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14. This class encompasses all employees at all site areas and spans the period 

from October 1, 1943 through June 30, 1972, thus superseding the two SEC-00057 classes. This 

encompassing class came about as a result of NIOSH’s ongoing dose reconstruction and continued 

data capture efforts, which confirmed that additional dose reconstruction infeasibilities exist due to 

work with inadequately monitored radionuclides such as purified forms of polonium, thorium, and 

neptunium. NIOSH further determined that there is insufficient access control information and 

 2 See 42 C.F.R. pt. 83 for a full description of the procedures summarized here. Additional internal procedures are 

available at http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

11 of 56

worker-movement data to accurately assess whether an energy employee, or class of employees, did, 

or did not, potentially enter specific Areas of the Hanford site.

A fourth class, designated in 2012, is associated with the NIOSH evaluation of petition SEC-00201 

under 42 C.F.R. § 83.14. This class encompasses all site areas and spans the period from July 1, 1972 

through December 31, 1983. This class resulted from NIOSH’s ongoing dose reconstruction and 

continued data capture efforts after the implementation of SEC-00152 in 2009. NIOSH determined 

that additional dose reconstruction infeasibilities existed through December 31, 1983, due to work 

with highly-enriched uranium (HEU), U-233, thorium, and neptunium, for which NIOSH had 

inadequate information to bound dose. Consistent with the determinations of the SEC-00152 

evaluation, NIOSH determined that there continued to be insufficient access control information and 

worker movement data to accurately assess whether an energy employee, or class of employees, did or 

did not potentially enter specific Areas of the Hanford site where these hazards potentially existed 

during the period from July 1, 1972 through December 31, 1983.

Detailed information associated with the Hanford worker classes added to the SEC in 2007, 2008, 

2009, and 2012 can be found in the respective NIOSH evaluation reports, SEC Petition Evaluation 

Report, Petition SEC-00057-1 (NIOSH, 2007); SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00057-2

(NIOSH, 2008); SEC Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00152 (NIOSH, 2009); and SEC 

Petition Evaluation Report, Petition SEC-00201 (NIOSH, 2012).

The current class proposed in this evaluation report resulted from NIOSH’s ongoing dose 

reconstruction and continued data capture efforts after the implementation of SEC-00201 in 2012. 

Continued data research efforts included on-site document searches and worker interviews conducted

jointly by NIOSH and the Board. NIOSH evaluated a group of construction trades workers employed 

by the prime radiological area construction contractor at Hanford through February 28, 1987. The 

NIOSH evaluation was based on interviews and Hanford correspondence (Surveillance, 1984) that 

provided evidence that the construction trades workers’ fundamental type of work, and radiological 

monitoring practices, were substantively different from other Hanford operational workers. 

NIOSH has concluded that the type of work and the exposure potential for this group of construction 

trades workers was substantially different than other workers at Hanford, and therefore NIOSH cannot 

use existing coworker data to establish a bounding scenario until such time that the construction 

worker exposures are adequately represented in the worker monitoring data set. Data available to 

NIOSH indicate that by the end of 1990, improvements in the construction services contractor 

bioassay program allowed the radiological work specific to construction trades workers to be 

represented in the data used by NIOSH to produce the internal dose coworker distributions. NIOSH

determined that it lacks sufficient information, which includes sufficient radiobioassay monitoring 

data for construction trades workers, and sufficient workplace monitoring and source term data, that 

would allow it to estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential internal doses from radionuclides 

associated with fuel handling, reactor operations, fuel reprocessing, or research activities, to which the 

proposed class may have been exposed during the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 

1990.

DOL and DOE determined that a NIOSH recommendation for a specific class of workers employed by 

the prime construction trades contractors, J. A. Jones Construction Services Company (often referred 
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

12 of 56

to as JA Jones or JAJ throughout this report) or Kaiser Engineers Hanford (often referred to as Kaiser, 

Kaiser Engineers, or KEH throughout this report), and their contractors and subcontractors, could not 

be implemented. Therefore NIOSH, in consultation with DOE and DOL, has developed a 

recommended class definition that includes all employees of DOE contractors and subcontractors, 

excepting specifically identified non-construction prime contractors, for whom NIOSH, to date, has 

not identified a dose reconstruction infeasibility.

4.0 Radiological Operations and Contractors Relevant to the Proposed 

Class 

The following subsections summarize the radiological operations and some key contractors at Hanford

from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990, and the information available to NIOSH to 

characterize particular processes and radioactive source materials. Using available sources, NIOSH 

has attempted to gather process and source descriptions, information regarding the identity and 

quantities of radionuclides of concern, and information describing processes through which the 

radiation exposures of concern may have occurred and the physical environment in which they may 

have occurred. The information included within this evaluation report is meant only to be a summary 

of the available information.

4.1 General Site Operations Description

In 1943, the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers selected an area of approximately 600 square miles in 

southeastern Washington State for the production of plutonium and other nuclear materials to support 

weapons production for World War II. This area, now known as the Hanford site, was divided into 

three major operational areas devoted to plutonium production. The 100 Areas handled production 

reactor operations; the 200 Areas handled fuel reprocessing, plutonium recovery, and waste 

management; and the 300 Area handled fuel fabrication and general research and development 

activities. In the early 1970s, operations began in another area—the 400 Area, about 6 miles 

northwest of the 300 Area. The facility at this location was an experimental sodium-cooled breeder 

reactor known as the Fast Flux Test Facility. There were other Hanford Areas, but they had little, if 

any, involvement with radioactive materials operations. The 600 Area was the general category 

assigned to facilities that supported multiple operations but were not within the security boundaries of 

other major areas (including road systems, fire stations, environmental and weather monitoring 

stations, and Nike missile sites). Figure 4-1 shows the locations of the major Hanford operational 

areas.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

13 of 56

Figure 4-1: Hanford Major Operational Areas

To ensure continuing plutonium production capacity, many major Hanford plutonium production 

operations were duplicated. In addition, Hanford plutonium production operations were also 

essentially self-sufficient, containing all necessary support services and facilities. However, both 

initially and with changing missions, some operations utilized facilities and services located in other 

Areas. For example, after 1973 most of the radioactive liquid waste from all Hanford operations was 

transferred to the 200 Areas for processing and storage.

Plutonium production at the Hanford site peaked from 1956 through 1965. During the late 1960s, 

plutonium needs decreased and many production facilities were shut down. Initial decommissioning 

of many production-related facilities began in the late 1960s and continued through 1990. In 1988, the 

final Separations Plant (PUREX) and production operations at the Plutonium Finishing Plant were 

placed on standby. As production operations decreased, the era of diversification began; Hanford site 

activities related to peaceful applications of nuclear energy replaced those related to weapons. Table 

4-1 summarizes Hanford site development.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

14 of 56

Table 4-1: Hanford Development Chronology

(This table spans two pages)

Dates Areas Activities

Pre-September 1946 All

Fuel manufacturing (313 and 314), reactors (100-B, 100-D, and 

100-F), and separation/finishing (221/224-T, 221/224-B, 221/224-

U, and 231-Z) facilities completed and operating; ongoing R&D 

activities related to reactors, radiation effects, and radiochemistry 

August 1, 1946 All Atomic Energy Act passed

September 1, 1946 All General Electric Company assumes prime site contractor 

responsibility from E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company

January 1, 1947 All Manhattan Engineer Project replaced by Atomic Energy 

Commission

1947 All Cold War Era begins

1947 - 1949 200 Installation of 42 single-shell waste tanks

1949 200 Startup of Rubber Glove (RG) Line in 234-5Z Plutonium 

Finishing Plant

1949 100 Startup of H Reactor

1950 - 1952 200 Installation of 18 single-shell waste tanks

1950 100 Startup of DR Reactor

1951 200 Startup of 242-T and 242-B evaporators 

1952 300 Startup of Physical Constants Test Reactor 

1952 200 Startup of REDOX (S-Plant), U-Plant uranium recovery 

operations, and Remote Mechanical A Line 

1952 100 Startup of C Reactor, Experimental Animal Farm, and Aquatic 

Biology Laboratory

1953 - 1955 200 Installation of 21 single-shell waste tanks

1954 300 Startup of Thermal Test Reactor

1954 100 Startup of KW Reactor

1955 100 Startup of KE Reactor

1956 200 Shutdown of B-Plant and T-Plant; Startup of UO3 Plant and 

PUREX (A-Plant)

1958 200 Shutdown of U-Plant

1960 300 Startup of Plutonium Recycle Test Reactor

1963 - 1964 200 Installation of 4 single-shell waste tanks

1964 100 Startup of N-Reactor power generating plant; Shutdown of DR 

Reactor

1964 200 Startup of Plutonium Reclamation Facility

January 4, 1965 All Battelle Memorial Institute assumes responsibility for 

management of Hanford laboratories 

November 1, 1965 100/300 Douglas-United Nuclear Inc. assumes responsibility for fuels and 

reactors 

1965 100 Shutdown of H and F Reactors

January 1, 1966 200 ISOCHEM assumes responsibility for chemical processing and 

plutonium finishing

September 1, 1967 200 Atlantic Richfield Hanford Company assumes responsibility for 

chemical processing

1967 100 Shutdown of D Reactor

1967 300 Construction completed on High Temperature Lattice Test 

Reactor

1967 200 Shutdown of S-Plant (REDOX)

1968 - 1988 200 Installation of 28 double-shell waste tanks

1968 100 Shutdown of B Reactor 

1969 100 Shutdown of C Reactor
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

15 of 56

Table 4-1: Hanford Development Chronology

(This table spans two pages)

Dates Areas Activities

1970 100 Shutdown of KW Reactor

1971 100 Shutdown of KE Reactor

1972 200 Shutdown of UO3 Plant

1973 - 1976 200 Startup of evaporator plants 242-S and 242-A

January 19, 1975 All Energy Research and Development Administration replaces 

Atomic Energy Commission

July 1, 1977 200 Rockwell Hanford Operations assumes responsibility for 

reprocessing

October 1, 1977 All Department of Energy replaces Energy Research and 

Development Administration

1980 400 Startup of Fast Flux Test Facility

1983 200 Restart of UO3 Plant

June 29, 1987 All

Westinghouse Hanford Company assumes responsibility for fuel 

manufacturing, reactor operations, chemical engineering, and 

waste management

1987 100 Shutdown of N Reactor

1988 200 A-Plant (PUREX) placed on standby

1989 200 Plutonium Finishing Plant placed on standby

1989 All Cold War Era ends

4.2 Contractor Operations Descriptions

This evaluation deals with an assessment of the radiation monitoring practices of specific site 

contractor companies during the evaluation period. The type and scope of radiological operations 

across the Hanford site are not the main subject of this evaluation; rather, the general bioassay 

monitoring practices put in place by specific site construction contractors, and the internal radiation 

monitoring program transitions as the site construction contracting scheme changed during the period 

from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990, are the focus of this evaluation. The following 

subsections describe examples of the radiological operations support provided by the site’s prime 

construction contractors and are not meant to provide a full assessment of all radiological projects on 

the Hanford site. 

4.2.1 J. A. Jones Construction Services Company, 1984 through February 28, 1987

J. A. Jones was the Hanford site prime contractor for construction services from 1953 through 

February 28, 1987. During this time JAJ construction trades workers conducted a broad range of work 

activities supporting research, fuel handling, plutonium processing, decontamination and 

decommissioning, and reactor outages (including work in high-contamination and high-airborne 

radioactivity areas). Examples of radiological projects for which JAJ construction trades workers 

provided support include:

• 1981, PUREX, millwright work and work in Q, N, and R cells (Rad Survey Cards, 1981);

• 1986, work in Building 231-Z of the 200 Area (Rad Zone Log, 1986);
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

16 of 56

• 1986, 100N with pencil dosimeter readings indicating up to 250 mR per shift (Gamma and Work 

Log, Nov-Dec1986; Exposure Log, Jan1986); and

• 1984-1987, All Areas, union hall workers were used for short duration, high exposure activities, 

allowing 300 mR exposures in a week. Additional personnel were brought in as necessary for 

reactor refueling, etc. Workers would sometimes receive the weekly dose limit in a matter of a 

few hours (Personal Communication, 2014g).

4.2.2 Kaiser Engineers Hanford, March 1, 1987 through December 31, 1990

In October 1986, DOE announced the selection of Kaiser Engineers Hanford for negotiation of a 

contract to perform engineering and construction services in support of DOE programs at the Hanford 

site. This consolidated contract, effective March 1, 1987, combined engineering and construction 

services previously provided separately by the KEH and the JAJ companies (DOE, 1986). Phase-in of 

the contract began December 1, 1986; approximately 1,000 employees were employed by KEH and 

JAJ at the time (DOE, 1986). KEH was required to retain the vast bulk of the present employees.

Examples of radiological projects for which KEH and JAJ construction trades workers provided

support from March 1, 1987 through December 31, 1990 include:

• 1985-1993, work in 300, 400, 200W, 200E, and in 100N during outages with up to 600 mR per 

day if transitioning from one work week to the next (Personal Communication, 2014m) and

• 1988-1993, work in PUREX, 100N, and 300 Area.

• 1987-1993, All Areas, union hall workers were used for short duration, high exposure activities, 

allowing 300 mR exposures in a week. Additional personnel were brought in as necessary for 

reactor refueling, etc. Workers would sometimes receive the weekly dose limit in a matter of a 

few hours (Personal Communication, 2014g).

4.2.3 Westinghouse Hanford Company Contract Consolidation, June 1987

On June 29, 1987, Westinghouse Hanford Company (WHC) assumed contract responsibilities from 

United Nuclear Company (UNC) and Rockwell Hanford Operations (RHO), giving WHC 

responsibility for fuel manufacturing, reactor operations, chemical engineering, and waste 

management. At this time Boeing Computer Services Company also became a fully integrated 

subcontractor of WHC. With the consolidation of facility operations under WHC in June 1987, WHC

became responsible for the implementation of the internal and external dosimetry programs for 

facilities previously operated by UNC and RHO. Facilities under WHC control after June 1987 

continued to utilize the site’s prime construction contractor KEH. KEH maintained control of its own 

radiological control and dosimetry programs. Dosimetry program implementation for construction 

contractor employees in the WHC facilities was not turned over to WHC until October 1, 1993, when 

Kaiser Engineers Hanford became a partially integrated subcontractor to WHC. 
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

17 of 56

4.3 Radiation Exposure Potential from Operations

This evaluation responds to a petition based on NIOSH determining that internal radiation exposures 

could not be reconstructed for a dose reconstruction referred to NIOSH by the Department of Labor 

(DOL). As such, it is not necessary for NIOSH to fully evaluate the feasibility of reconstructing 

external radiation exposures for the class of workers covered by this report; this report concentrates on 

the relevant aspects of internal exposures and internal exposure monitoring during the specified time 

period. 

4.3.1 Hanford Internal Dosimetry Program for Site Contractors

The Hanford Internal Dosimetry Program was administered by Battelle Memorial Institute as 

operators of Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL). The internal dosimetry program provided the 

assessment and documentation of occupational doses to workers from intakes of radionuclides at 

Hanford for the purpose of determining compliance with applicable internal dose standards. The 

internal dosimetry program also included the routine bioassay monitoring program specified by site 

contractors for their workers, provided technical guidance to contractors on internal dosimetry matters, 

and established the models to be used for evaluation of internal radionuclide depositions (Meeting 

Minutes, Sep1986, PDF pp. 4-11).

Contractor organizations were responsible for the protection of their workers from internal exposures 

to radioactivity and for determining the extent of application of the internal dosimetry program. This 

included the identification of their needs for bioassay monitoring and for determining when potential 

internal exposures had occurred. The program required that an assessment of an individual's internal 

exposure (in terms of dose equivalent) be performed whenever there was reason to suspect (based on 

contractor-driven field monitoring or bioassay data) that an occupationally derived intake or related 

series of intakes could potentially exceed 100 mrem/year annual effective dose equivalent in any 

single year (Meeting Minutes, Sep1986, PDF pp. 4-11).

4.3.2 Access Control Systems

During the period under evaluation, the Hanford site had implemented a primary system for 

controlling and tracking radiological work, and eventually for documenting and controlling worker 

access to the site radiological areas.

Westinghouse Radiation Area Management System (WRAM)

The WRAM system tracked training and qualifications, radiologically-controlled area activities, and 

personnel working in radiologically-controlled areas. WRAM was a database shared on a local area 

network, operated on computer workstations, and contained information such as (WRAM, 1992):

• Names of the employees who have worked, or were presently working, at the location;

• Personnel data such as identification numbers, dosimetry exposure records, training records, and 

medical data;

• Area access management
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

18 of 56

o Radiation Work Permits (RWP)

o As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) Reviews

o Training requirements

o Dosimetry requirements

o Mask fit requirements; and

• Personnel exposure information

o Online exposure records

o Weekly (7 day) exposure records

o Exposure measured by dosimeter badges and self-reading pencil dosimeters.

The WRAM system was intended to allow for verification and display of an employee's qualifications 

for entering a radiologically-controlled area. Dose tracking records, including self-reading dosimeters

which were issued and returned, were maintained and applied to specific work locations and RWPs for 

purposes of ALARA trending (WRAM, 1992).

The WRAM system was implemented sometime after 1987 (Personal Communication, 2014a), and 

was brought to the 200 Areas from N Reactor. WRAM was used in the late 1980s to start checking 

worker compliance, but “it wasn’t very good at first” (Personal Communication, 2014a). WRAM was 

a system used only in Westinghouse-controlled facilities into the early 1990s. WRAM was populated 

from paper and hand written readings and was simply a digitized record of those manual transactions 

(Personal Communication, 2014c). Construction workers were required to have the same monitoring 

as prime contractors, but prior to the WRAM implementation it was difficult for the facility health 

physics staff to check the workers for compliance (Personal Communication, 2014a). 

4.3.3 Radiation Exposures Relevant to the Recommended Class

The potential for internal and external radiation doses associated with this evaluation existed when the 

Hanford prime construction contractors, JAJ and KEH, supplied their construction trades worker

forces to conduct a broad range of work activities supporting research, fuel handling, plutonium 

processing, decontamination and decommissioning, and reactor outages in Hanford operational 

radiological facilities such as those controlled by WHC, Rockwell, United Nuclear, and Battelle. 

Construction trades workers’ duties included work in high-contamination and high-airborne 

radioactivity areas in facilities such as the 100-N reactor, PUREX fuel reprocessing facilities, research 

facilities, and plutonium finishing facilities and vaults. As presented in Section 4.2, construction 

trades worker radiological work locations included fuel fabrication, reactors, separations and waste 

management, and research locations of the 100, 200, and 300 Areas. The potential radiological 

exposures for such areas of the Hanford site are presented below (ORAUT-TKBS-0006-2; NIOSH, 

2012).

Fuel Fabrication Facility Support

• External exposures at the fuel fabrication facilities were primarily from beta and photon radiation 

associated with various enrichments of uranium.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

19 of 56

• Internal exposures at the fuel fabrication facilities were primarily associated with inhalation of 

various enrichments of uranium, including recycled uranium.

• Radionuclides of internal dosimetric concern included Th-232, U-235, U-238, Np-237, Pu-238, 

Pu-239, and Am-241.

Reactor Facility Support

• External exposures at the production reactors were primarily due to the presence of activation and 

fission products (FPs).

• Internal exposures at the production reactors were primarily due to the inhalation or absorption of 

activation products and, to a lesser degree, FPs during refueling and maintenance operations.

• Radionuclides of internal dosimetric concern included metal oxide corrosion products such as Mn54, Fe-59, Co-58, and Co-60, with Co-60 being the predominant contributor to dose and activity.

Fuel Reprocessing Facility Support

• External exposures at the PUREX and UO3 reprocessing facilities were primarily from highenergy betas and photons in the separations facilities associated with FPs.

• Internal exposures at the PUREX and reprocessing facilities, primarily associated with 

contamination incidents, could be due to FPs or plutonium or uranium isotopes.

• Radionuclides of internal dosimetric concern included H-3, Co-60, Sr-90, Ru-103, Ru-106, I-131, 

Cs-137, Ba/La-140, Ce-141, Ce-144, U-234, U-235, Pu-239, and Am-241, and possible legacy 

quantities of U-233, Np-237, and Th-232/228. 

Plutonium Finishing Facility Support and Area 300 Research Facilities

• External exposures at the plutonium finishing facilities accounted for the majority of personnel 

external exposures to neutron radiation. Worker external exposure in the vault rooms was due to 

low-energy photons and neutrons during inspection activities.

• Internal exposures in the finishing plants related primarily to contamination incidents involving 

americium and plutonium. 

• Radionuclides of internal dosimetric concern included U-233, Np-237, Pu-238, Pu-239, Pu-240, 

Pu-241, Pu-242, and Am-241.

The type of work and the exposure potential relevant for this group of construction trades workers was 

substantially different than other workers at Hanford; therefore, NIOSH cannot use existing coworker 

data to establish a bounding scenario until such time that the construction worker exposures are 

adequately represented in the worker monitoring data set.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

20 of 56

4.4 Time Period Associated with Radiological Operations

As stated in Section 3.0, in 2012 HHS designated a class of Hanford employees for inclusion in the 

SEC for the period from July 1, 1972 through December 31, 1983. Based on its ongoing dose 

reconstruction and continued data capture efforts since 2012, NIOSH performed an evaluation based 

on interviews and Hanford correspondence that provided evidence that the construction trades

workers’ fundamental type of work, and radiological monitoring practices, were substantively 

different from other Hanford operational workers. NIOSH has concluded that the type of work and the 

exposure potential for this group of construction trades workers was substantially different than other 

workers at Hanford, and therefore NIOSH cannot use existing coworker data to establish a bounding 

scenario until such time that the construction worker exposures are adequately represented in the 

worker monitoring data set. Data available to NIOSH indicate that by the end of 1990, improvements 

in the construction services contractor bioassay program allowed the radiological work specific to 

construction trades workers to be represented in the data used by NIOSH to produce the internal dose 

coworker distributions. Thus, the time period associated with this NIOSH evaluation, extending from 

the end of the currently-designated SEC class, is from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990.

4.5 Site Locations Associated with Radiological Operations

Consistent with the NIOSH, DOE, and DOL determinations associated with the evaluations of 

SEC-00152 in 2009 (NIOSH, 2009) and SEC-00201 in 2012 (NIOSH, 2012), NIOSH has determined 

that the Hanford site-specific and claimant-specific data available for the time period under evaluation 

continue to be insufficient to allow NIOSH to characterize construction trades worker movements 

across the radiologically-controlled site facilities, or among the major 100, 200, and 300 Areas, during 

the period under evaluation (January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990). As presented in Section 

4.3.2 above, deficiencies existed with the WRAM tracking system employed during the time period 

under evaluation. NIOSH is unable to accurately assess whether individual, or groups of construction 

trades workers, did or did not potentially enter radiologically-controlled work areas at the Hanford site 

having the potential for internal radiation dose during the period under evaluation. Therefore, NIOSH 

cannot define individual worker exposure scenarios based on specific Hanford work locations during 

the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990.

4.6 Job Descriptions Affected by Radiological Operations

As stated in Section 4.4 of this report, through the course of ongoing dose reconstruction, NIOSH has 

determined that the Hanford site-specific and claimant-specific data available for the time period of 

this evaluation are insufficient to allow NIOSH to characterize construction trades worker movements 

across the site, or among the 100, 200, and 300 Areas. The data available to NIOSH on a claimspecific level are also often insufficient for NIOSH to limit a worker’s potential exposure scenarios 

based on job titles and/or job assignments. The areas associated with this evaluation include all areas 

of the Hanford site, and NIOSH is unable to eliminate any specific worker from any of the listed 

potential exposure scenarios based on worker job descriptions.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

21 of 56

5.0 Summary of Available Monitoring Data for the Proposed Class

The primary data used for determining internal exposures are derived from personal monitoring data, 

such as urinalyses, fecal samples, and whole-body counting results. If these are unavailable, the air 

monitoring data from breathing zone and general area monitoring are used to estimate the potential 

internal exposure. If personal monitoring and breathing zone area monitoring are unavailable, internal 

exposures can sometimes be estimated using more general area monitoring, process information, and 

information characterizing and quantifying the source term.

This same hierarchy is used for determining the external exposures to the cancer site. Personal 

monitoring data from film badges or thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) are the primary data used 

to determine such external exposures. If there are no personal monitoring data, exposure rate surveys, 

process knowledge, and source term modeling can sometimes be used to reconstruct the potential 

exposure.

A more detailed discussion of the information required for dose reconstruction can be found in OCASIG-001, External Dose Reconstruction Implementation Guideline, and OCAS-IG-002, Internal Dose 

Reconstruction Implementation Guideline. These documents are available at: 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/ocasdose.html.

5.1 Data Capture Efforts and Sources Reviewed 

As a standard practice, NIOSH completed an extensive database and Internet search for information 

regarding Hanford. The database search included the DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites 

database, the DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) database, the Energy 

Citations database, and the Hanford Declassified Document Retrieval System. In addition to general 

Internet searches, the NIOSH Internet search included OSTI OpenNet Advanced searches, OSTI 

Information Bridge Fielded searches, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Agency-wide 

Documents Access and Management (ADAMS) web searches, the DOE Office of Human Radiation 

Experiments website, and the DOE-National Nuclear Security Administration-Nevada Site Officesearch. Attachment One contains a summary of Hanford documents. The summary specifically 

identifies data capture details and general descriptions of the documents retrieved.

In addition to examining its Site Research Database (SRDB) to locate documents supporting the 

evaluation of the proposed class, NIOSH and the Board conducted organized site visits in August and 

December of 2014 in an attempt to gather documents and data relevant to dose monitoring practices 

for the construction trades workers after the end of the currently-designated SEC class (i.e., after 

December 31, 1983). NIOSH’s SRDB currently contains over 2,795 documents and subdocuments 

associated with the Hanford site that have been added since the June 2012 evaluation of SEC-00201. 

Attachment One contains a summary of Hanford data gathering efforts and documents. 

5.2 Previous Dose Reconstructions

NIOSH reviewed its NIOSH DCAS Claims Tracking System (referred to as NOCTS) to locate 

EEOICPA-related dose reconstructions that might provide information relevant to the petition 

evaluation. Table 5-1 summarizes the results of this review. (NOCTS data available as of February 

20, 2015)
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

22 of 56

Table 5-1: No. of Hanford Claims Submitted Under the Dose Reconstruction Rule

Description Totals

Total number of claims submitted for dose reconstruction 5,384

Total number of claims submitted for energy employees who worked during the period under 

evaluation (January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990) 2,175

Number of dose reconstructions completed for energy employees who worked during the period 

under evaluation (January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990) (i.e., the number of such claims 

completed by NIOSH and submitted to the Department of Labor for final approval) 1,801

Number of claims for which internal dosimetry records were obtained for energy employees who 

worked during the period under evaluation (January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990) 1,532

Number of claims for which external dosimetry records were obtained for energy employees who 

worked during the period under evaluation (January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990) 2,125

NIOSH reviews each claim to determine whether internal and/or external personal monitoring records 

could be obtained for the employee.

5. 3 Worker Interviews

There have been multiple worker interviews (individual and group interviews) with current and former 

Hanford personnel. These interviews have been considered and referenced throughout this evaluation. 

Interviews have been conducted via telephone and in person. They were conducted in accordance 

with site procedures for both classified and unclassified activities and are referenced below:

• Personal Communication, 2014a, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Telephone Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; November 4, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141150

• Personal Communication, 2014b, Personal Communications with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interviews by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; August 4, 2014, August 7, 2014, and December 11, 2014; 

SRDB Ref ID: 141002 & 141003

• Personal Communication, 2014c, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee;

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; December 11, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141004

• Personal Communication, 2014d, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; December 9, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141005

• Personal Communication, 2014e, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee;

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; December 11, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141006

• Personal Communication, 2014f, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; December 9, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141008
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

23 of 56

• Personal Communication, 2014g, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; September 25, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141009

• Personal Communication, 2014h, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; December 10, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141010

• Personal Communication, 2014i, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; September 25, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141012

• Personal Communication, 2014j, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; September 25, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141013

• Personal Communication, 2014k, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; December 10, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141014

• Personal Communication, 2014l, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; September 24, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141015

• Personal Communication, 2014m, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; September 25, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141016

• Personal Communication, 2014n, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; September 25, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141017

• Personal Communication, 2014o, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; December 10, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141018

5. 4 Internal Personnel Monitoring Data

NIOSH dose reconstructions for unmonitored workers, including construction trades workers, assign 

unmonitored internal radiation doses per Attachment C – Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the 

Hanford Site of the site Technical Basis Document (TBD) ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, Hanford Site –

Occupational Internal Dose. NIOSH evaluated a group of construction trades workers employed by 

the prime radiological area construction contractor at Hanford through February 28, 1987. The 

NIOSH evaluation was based on interviews and Hanford correspondence (Surveillance, 1984) that 

provided evidence that the construction trades workers’ fundamental type of work, and radiological 

monitoring practices, were substantively different from other Hanford operational workers. NIOSH 

has concluded that the type of work and the exposure potential for this group of construction trades

workers was substantially different than other workers at Hanford, and therefore NIOSH cannot use 

existing coworker data to establish a bounding scenario until such time that the construction worker 

exposures are adequately represented in the worker monitoring data set. Identification of Battelle 

Dosimetry observations in a 1984 letter (Surveillance, 1984) introduced uncertainty as to whether the 

construction trades workers’ radiological exposures were adequately represented in the data used by 

NIOSH to produce the internal dose coworker distributions of ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

24 of 56

For investigation into the status of construction trades workers’ internal dose monitoring data, NIOSH 

reviewed an updated version of the Hanford dosimetry database (REX). For the years of concern in 

this evaluation, the monitoring data for JAJ employees, and for the employees of JAJ contractors and 

subcontractors, were normally entered into the REX database under a common company identifier 

code. NIOSH examined the availability of monitoring data for the JAJ company code for the period 

through February 28, 1987. Beginning March 1, 1987, under a consolidated contract with KEH, the 

architectural and engineering services contract and the construction services contract previously 

provided separately by KEH and JAJ, respectively, were combined for consolidated management by 

KEH (DOE, 1986). NIOSH also examined the availability of REX monitoring data for the KEH 

company code (including KEH contractors and subcontractors) for the period under evaluation after 

February 28, 1987. Table 5-2 and Figures 5-1 and 5-2 present the monitoring data for JAJ and KEH 

(and their contractors) available to NIOSH in the Hanford REX database for the years shown. 

Table 5-2: No. of Construction Workers with Available Monitoring Data

JA Jones Construction and Subcontractors Kaiser Engineers Hanford and Subcontractors

Year In Vitro In Vivo External In Vitro In Vivo External

1983 3 178 2,786 132

1984 6 232 2,725 96

1985 7 312 2,954 116

1986 20 386 1,930 1,227

1987* 48 86 4 649 2,238

1988 336 1,017 2,345

1989 281 935 2,242

1990 362 827 2,070

1991 650 1,039 2,306

* Kaiser Engineers Hanford replaced J. A. Jones Construction as the construction services prime contractor on March 1, 

1987.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

25 of 56

Figure 5-1: Available Monitoring Data – JA Jones and Subcontractors

Figure 5-2: Available Monitoring Data – Kaiser Engineers and Subcontractors
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

26 of 56

Table 5-2 and Figure 5-1 illustrate that the JAJ dosimetry program appears to have been ordering 

minimal internal bioassay analyses during the period from January 1, 1984 through February 28, 1987, 

as compared to the 2,700 to 3,000 JAJ workers being monitored for external exposure in 1984 and 

1985. The apparent scarcity of JAJ internal radiation monitoring during this period is supported by 

various documents (Surveillance, 1987) and interviews conducted with past and present Hanford site 

workers. For example, JAJ radiation protection management documentation (Personal

Communication, 2014g) indicates that:

• Many JAJ employees were not involved with bioassay programs; and

• JAJ management was not receptive to bioassay program implementation due to costs (additional 

$1M per year to conduct bioassay).

Table 5-2 and Figure 5-2 indicate that KEH expanded the in vivo and in vitro bioassay programs upon 

assuming the JAJ site support and construction responsibilities in March 1987. This is supported by a 

February 22, 1988, Battelle Internal Dosimetry Program Monthly Report (Monthly, Feb1988) that 

stated:

Kaiser Engineers Hanford Co. has informed PNL that they are establishing a routine bioassay 

monitoring program for their workers. KEH has estimated that about 100 strontium-90 

urinalyses, 400 plutonium urinalyses, 400 chest counts and 900 whole body counts per year 

will be requested once the program is in full swing. KEH plans to begin the routine 

monitoring in March but will distribute their requests over the next twelve months.

However, a subsequent May 23, 1988, Battelle Internal Dosimetry Program Monthly Report (Monthly, 

May1988) stated:

The routine bioassay program for Kaiser Engineering Hanford has had a somewhat 

inauspicious beginning. Although the program, which commenced in March, included in vivo 

and urinalysis measurements on several hundred workers, there have yet to be any in vivo 

measurements performed. Because of funding shortages at KEH, the commencement of 

routine in vivo measurements will not begin until July at the earliest. Also, during April, KEH 

scheduled 21 routine urine bioassays for which valid samples were received from only two 

workers.

To further investigate the changes in the construction contractor bioassay program implemented when 

KEH assumed the consolidated construction services contract in March 1987, NIOSH examined the 

breakdown of the types (i.e., analysis reason codes) of the in vivo and in vitro bioassays being 

implemented by KEH for the years 1987 onward. NIOSH compared the relative frequencies of 

various bioassay reason codes (baseline, periodic, termination, and special). For the comparison

during the years under evaluation, NIOSH evaluated the statistics for the KEH construction worker 

bioassay program against: 1) the entire sample population in the Hanford REX database; and 2) the 

combined sample population for three major site radiological facility operators. The three facility 

operators chosen for the comparison were WHC, UNC, and RHO. Table 5-3 presents the relative 

frequencies of periodic (routine) bioassays found in the Hanford REX database, associated with each 

calendar year during the period from 1987 through 1991.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

27 of 56

Table 5-3: Periodic Bioassays Reported - Percent of Total Annual Bioassays

In Vivo In Vitro

Year Kaiser

Westinghouse

UNC

Rockwell

All Kaiser

Westinghouse

UNC

Rockwell

All

1987 58.2% 67.6% 68.8% 0.0% 87.0% 85.5%

1988 47.8% 78.3% 73.5% 30.8% 76.4% 71.9%

1989 51.3% 76.3% 71.7% 31.7% 72.2% 68.1%

1990 61.4% 70.0% 68.1% 67.5% 72.6% 73.3%

1991 54.0% 78.9% 74.2% 58.7% 65.9% 66.2%

Regarding in vivo analyses, Table 5-3 indicates that KEH was performing a lower proportion of 

periodic in vivo analyses, as compared to the in vivo data examined for the WHC/UNC/RHO dataset 

and the all-monitored-workers dataset. NIOSH’s additional examination of the four major in vivo

reason codes from 1987-1991, indicates that KEH performed a higher percentage of baseline and 

termination analyses than were found in the data for the chosen radiological facility operators (i.e., 

WHC/UNC/RHO). This is to be expected due to the high worker turnover rates observed in the 

construction contractor work-force. This higher proportion of baselines and terminations performed 

by KEH reduces the proportion of periodic in vivo analyses seen in Table 5-3 for KEH. Table 5-3

indicates that the KEH routine in vivo program appears to have been already more comprehensive than 

their routine in vitro bioassay program in the years immediately after KEH assumed the consolidated 

construction services contract in March 1987. 

Regarding the in vitro analyses, Table 5-3 indicates that the KEH implementation of improvements to 

the routine in vitro bioassay program appears to have lagged. Figure 5-3 presents the Table 5-3

relative frequencies of periodic in vitro bioassays found by NIOSH for the period from 1987 through 

1991.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

28 of 56

Figure 5-3: “Periodic” In Vitro Samples Reported – Percent of Total Annual In Vitro

Figure 5-3 indicates that KEH’s in vitro bioassay program was increasing the number of periodic 

(routine) in vitro analyses performed during the years 1987 through 1990. In 1990 the proportion of 

periodic in vitro bioassays performed for KEH workers (including KEH subcontractor workers) 

increased to a level commensurate with that of the comparison WHC/UNC/RHO facility operators. 

These data are consistent with the observations noted above in the May 23, 1988, Battelle Internal 

Dosimetry Program Monthly Report (Monthly, May1988) indicating that KEH met with some 

difficulty implementing their planned bioassay program improvements after assuming the consolidated 

construction services contract in March 1987. 

After assuming the consolidated construction services contract in March 1987, KEH construction 

trades workers continued to conduct a broad range of work activities supporting research, fuel 

handling, plutonium processing, decontamination and decommissioning, and reactor outages

(including work in high-contamination and high-airborne radioactivity areas). Construction trades

workers conducted work in facilities such as the 100-N reactor, PUREX fuel reprocessing facilities, 

plutonium finishing facilities and vaults, and research facilities. Consequently, the workers were 

potentially exposed to radionuclides such as: uranium isotopes, thorium and plutonium, neptunium237, americium-241, tritium, and mixed fission and activation products. NIOSH examined the 

available Hanford REX exposure data for indications that the observed KEH bioassay program 

improvements routinely included appropriate analytes for such radiological work (e.g., bioassay for 

plutonium intakes). NIOSH examined the frequencies of in vivo chest count analyses and in vitro
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

29 of 56

plutonium analyses performed by KEH after assuming the consolidated construction services contract 

in March 1987. For the comparison, NIOSH again evaluated the statistics for the KEH construction 

worker bioassay program against: 1) the entire sample population in the site exposure database REX; 

and 2) the combined sample population for three major site radiological facility operators (WHC, 

UNC, and RHO). Table 5-4, and Figures 5-4 and 5-5, compare the percentage of dosimetry badged 

workers that have in vivo chest counts and in vitro plutonium samples in the Hanford REX exposure 

database for the years shown.

Table 5-4: Percentage of Dosimetry Badged Workers with Available Plutonium Monitoring Data

Percentage with In Vivo Chest Counts Percentage with In Vitro Plutonium Samples

Year Kaiser and 

Subcontractors

Westinghouse

UNC

Rockwell

All Kaiser and 

Subcontractors

Westinghouse

UNC

Rockwell

All

1987 0.5% 10.0% 8.3% 0.1% 11.5% 8.7%

1988 9.0% 10.3% 7.3% 12.2% 13.1% 8.8%

1989 12.4% 10.0% 7.6% 11.1% 12.2% 8.3%

1990 18.3% 12.7% 9.2% 15.3% 11.2% 8.0%

1991 25.9% 9.7% 8.4% 25.5% 13.1% 10.1%

1992 18.7% 10.0% 8.4% 16.5% 12.3% 9.0%

1993 16.5% 14.8% 11.1% 12.5% 20.0% 12.8%

Figure 5-4: Percentage of Dosimetry Badged Workers with Chest Count Data
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

30 of 56

Figure 5-5: Percentage of Dosimetry Badged Workers with In Vitro Plutonium Data

Figures 5-4 and 5-5 present the number of workers included in KEH’s implementation of chest 

counting in vivo analyses, and plutonium-specific in vitro analyses, performed for the years 1987 

through 1991. The number of dosimetry badged KEH workers (and subcontractors) included in 

monitoring programs appropriate for detection of plutonium intakes appears to have increased quickly 

after KEH assumed the consolidated contract in March 1987.

As stated previously, NIOSH evaluated whether the construction trades workers’ radiological 

exposures were adequately represented in the data used by NIOSH to produce the internal dose 

coworker distributions in ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5 for the assignment of unmonitored doses. The 

NIOSH evaluation of available internal personnel monitoring data for JAJ and KEH workers (see 

Table 5-2) confirms that NIOSH lacks available in vitro exposure monitoring data appropriate for the 

diverse radiologically-significant work performed by JAJ during the years 1984-1987. Although 

indications are that KEH expanded the in vivo and in vitro bioassay programs upon assuming the JAJ 

site support and construction responsibilities in March 1987, Figure 5-3 above indicates that expected 

numbers of periodic (routine) in vitro analyses were not being performed by KEH until into calendar 

year1990. In 1990 the proportion of periodic in vitro bioassays performed for KEH workers 

(including KEH subcontractor workers) increased to a level commensurate with that of the comparison 

WHC/UNC/RHO facility operators. NIOSH has concluded that the type of work and the exposure 

potential for this group of construction trades workers was substantially different than other workers at 

Hanford, and therefore NIOSH cannot use existing coworker data to establish a bounding scenario 
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

31 of 56

until such time that the construction worker exposures are adequately represented in the worker 

monitoring data set. Data available to NIOSH indicate that by the end of 1990, improvements in the 

construction services contractor bioassay program allowed the radiological work specific to 

construction trades workers to be represented in the data used by NIOSH to produce the ORAUTTKBS-0006-5 internal dose coworker distributions.

5.5 External Personnel Monitoring Data

This evaluation responds to a petition based on NIOSH determining that internal radiation exposures 

to construction trades workers employed by, or subcontracted to, the Hanford site construction 

services prime contractors, J. A. Jones Construction and Kaiser Engineers Hanford, could not be 

reconstructed. In light of this internal monitoring-based conclusion, NIOSH did not perform an 

exhaustive evaluation of external monitoring data for the evaluation period of January 1, 1984 through 

December 31, 1990. Although this evaluation draws no specific conclusions about the external data 

and the ability to bound external dose for the class under evaluation, NIOSH has drawn the following 

general conclusion: available external monitoring data may be used in accordance with existing 

procedures on a case-by-case basis for the purpose of partial dose reconstructions. This determination 

is consistent with NIOSH’s previous evaluation of SEC-00201 for the preceding period through 

December 31, 1983 (NIOSH, 2012).

5. 6 Workplace Monitoring Data

As the site construction services prime contractors, J. A. Jones and Kaiser Engineers Hanford were 

required to deploy their construction trades employees (and the employees of their contractors and 

subcontractors) to perform a broad range of work activities supporting research, fuel handling, 

plutonium processing, decontamination and decommissioning, and reactor outages (including work in 

high-contamination and high-airborne radioactivity areas). Construction trades workers conducted 

work in facilities such as the 100-N reactor, PUREX fuel reprocessing facilities, plutonium finishing 

facilities and vaults, and research facilities. Currently, NIOSH does not have access to the associated 

workplace contamination or air sampling data for each of the areas potentially occupied by the 

construction trades workers during the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990.

5. 7 Radiological Source Term Data

As discussed previously relative to workplace monitoring data, the site construction services prime 

contractors were required to deploy their construction trades employees and the employees of their 

contractors and subcontractors to an array of radiological work-sites across the Hanford facility. 

Currently, NIOSH does not have access to the associated source term information or radiological 

material inventory data for each of the areas potentially occupied by the construction trades worker

forces during the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

32 of 56

6.0 Feasibility of Dose Reconstruction for the Proposed Class

42 C.F.R. § 83.14(b) states that HHS will consider a NIOSH determination that there was insufficient 

information to complete a dose reconstruction, as indicated in this present case, to be sufficient,

without further consideration, to conclude that it is not feasible to estimate the levels of radiation doses 

of individual members of the class with sufficient accuracy. 

In the case of a petition submitted to NIOSH under 42 C.F.R. § 83.9(b), NIOSH has already 

determined that a dose reconstruction cannot be completed for an employee at the DOE or AWE 

facility. This determination by NIOSH provides the basis for the petition by the affected claimant. 

Per § 83.14(a), the NIOSH-proposed class defines those employees who, based on completed research, 

are similarly affected and for whom, as a class, dose reconstruction is similarly not feasible.

In accordance with § 83.14(a), NIOSH may establish a second class of co-workers at the facility for 

whom NIOSH believes that dose reconstruction is similarly infeasible, but for whom additional 

research and analysis is required. If so identified, NIOSH would address this second class in a 

separate SEC evaluation rather than delay consideration of the claim currently under evaluation (see 

Section 10). This would allow NIOSH, the Board, and HHS to complete, without delay, their 

consideration of the class that includes a claimant for whom NIOSH has already determined a dose 

reconstruction cannot be completed, and whose only possible remedy under EEOICPA is the addition 

of a class of employees to the SEC.

This section of the report summarizes research findings by which NIOSH determined that it lacked 

sufficient information to complete the relevant dose reconstruction and on which basis it has defined 

the class of employees for which dose reconstruction is not feasible. NIOSH’s determination relies on 

the same statutory and regulatory criteria that govern consideration of all SEC petitions.

6.1 Feasibility of Estimating Internal Exposures

NIOSH has evaluated the available personnel and workplace monitoring data and source term 

information and has determined that there are insufficient data for estimating internal exposures, as 

described below.

As presented above, current NIOSH dose reconstructions for unmonitored Hanford workers, including 

construction trades workers, assign unmonitored internal radiation doses per ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, 

Attachment C – Internal Dosimetry Coworker Data for the Hanford Site. Identification of the Battelle 

dosimetry observations in their 1984 letter (Surveillance, 1984) introduced uncertainty as to whether 

the radiological exposures for construction trades workers working for J. A. Jones were adequately 

represented in the data used by NIOSH to produce the internal dose coworker distributions in 

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5. The JAJ period as the site prime construction services contractor ended on 

February 28, 1987, after which Kaiser Engineers Hanford assumed the consolidated constructions 

services contractor role. NIOSH evaluated a group of construction trades workers employed by the 

prime radiological area construction contractor at Hanford through February 28, 1987. The NIOSH 

evaluation was based on interviews and Hanford correspondence (Surveillance, 1984) that provided 

evidence that the construction trades workers’ fundamental type of work, and radiological monitoring 

practices, were substantively different from other Hanford operational workers. NIOSH has 

concluded that the type of work and the exposure potential for this group of construction trades
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

33 of 56

workers was substantially different than other workers at Hanford, and therefore NIOSH cannot use 

existing coworker data to establish a bounding scenario until such time that the construction worker 

exposures are adequately represented in the worker monitoring data set. 

NIOSH’s examination of available JAJ internal monitoring data, presented in Section 5.4 of this 

report, for the period from January 1, 1984 through February 28, 1987, indicates that the JAJ 

dosimetry program appears to have been ordering minimal internal bioassay analyses during the period 

from January 1, 1984 through February 28, 1987, as compared to the 2,700 to 3,000 JAJ workers 

being monitored for external exposure in 1984 and 1985. 

The data presented in Table 5-2 of this report indicate that when Kaiser Engineers Hanford took over 

the consolidated construction services contract in March 1987, additional bioassay monitoring was 

initiated by KEH beyond that previously performed by JAJ. This is supported by the February 22, 

1988, Battelle Internal Dosimetry Program Monthly Report (Monthly, Feb1988) discussing KEH 

planned program improvements (see Section 5.4 above). However, during this period of forecasted 

and observed improvements in the number of construction trades worker bioassays performed by 

KEH, NIOSH continued to see indications that available monitoring data sets may not have yet 

included monitoring data representative of construction trades workers’ potential exposure scenarios, 

including:

• A Battelle [Redacted per Privacy Act] observed in May 1988 (Monthly, May1988) that “Because 

of funding shortages at KEH, the commencement of routine in vivo measurements will not begin 

until July at the earliest. Also, during April, KEH scheduled 21 routine urine bioassays for which 

valid samples were received from only two workers.”

• The implementation of improvements to the routine in vitro bioassay program appears to have 

lagged. Although indications are that KEH expanded the in vivo and in vitro bioassay programs 

upon assuming the JAJ site support and construction responsibilities in March 1987, the expected 

numbers of periodic (routine) in vitro analyses were not being performed by KEH in 1987 or 1988. 

The type of work and the exposure potential for this group of construction trades workers was 

substantially different than other workers at Hanford, and therefore NIOSH cannot use existing 

coworker data to establish a bounding scenario until such time that the construction worker 

exposures are adequately represented in the routine worker monitoring data.

During the years 1987 through 1990, KEH’s in vitro bioassay program continued increasing the 

number of periodic (routine) in vitro analyses performed. NIOSH finds that in 1990 the proportion of 

periodic in vitro bioassays performed for KEH workers (including KEH subcontractor workers) 

increased to a level commensurate with that of a chosen comparison group of three radiological 

facility operating contractors (WHC, UNC, and RHO). Beginning January 1, 1991, NIOSH has 

determined the personnel monitoring data available in the Hanford REX exposure database contain 

sufficient routine internal monitoring results for construction trades workers, including in vivo

monitoring chest count data and in vitro plutonium monitoring data, to adequately represent 

construction trades workers’ exposures scenarios. 
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

34 of 56

Development of the Recommended SEC Class Description

NIOSH determined that it lacks sufficient information, which includes sufficient radiobioassay 

monitoring data for construction trades workers, and sufficient workplace monitoring and 

source term data, that would allow it to estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential internal 

doses from radionuclides associated with fuel handling, reactor operations, fuel reprocessing, 

or research activities, to which the proposed class may have been exposed during the period 

from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990. DOL and DOE determined that a NIOSH 

recommendation for a specific class of workers employed by the prime construction trades 

contractors (and their subcontractors) during this time could not be implemented. Therefore 

NIOSH, in consultation with DOE and DOL, has developed a recommended class definition 

that includes all employees of DOE contractors and subcontractors, excepting specifically 

identified non-construction prime contractors, for whom NIOSH, to date, has not identified a 

dose reconstruction infeasibility. 

NIOSH does not have access to sufficient personnel monitoring, workplace monitoring, or source term 

data to estimate potential internal exposures to fuel handling, reactor operations, fuel reprocessing, or 

research-related radionuclides during the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990. 

Consequently, NIOSH finds that it is not feasible to estimate, with sufficient accuracy, potential 

internal doses from radionuclides associated with fuel handling, reactor operations, fuel reprocessing, 

or research activities for the class of employees covered by this evaluation.

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct internal radiation doses for the 

period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990, NIOSH intends to use any internal 

monitoring data that may become available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using 

existing NIOSH dose reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for 

individuals employed with included contractors and subcontractors during the period from January 1, 

1984 through December 31, 1990, but who do not qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed 

using these data as appropriate.

6.2 Feasibility of Estimating External Exposures

This evaluation responds to a petition based on NIOSH determining that internal radiation exposures 

to construction trades workers employed by, or subcontracted to, the Hanford site construction 

services contractors, J. A. Jones Construction Services Company and Kaiser Engineers Hanford, and 

their contractors and subcontractors, could not be reconstructed for a dose reconstruction referred to 

NIOSH by DOL. As noted above, HHS will consider this determination to be sufficient without

further consideration to determine that it is not feasible to estimate the levels of radiation doses of 

individual members of the class with sufficient accuracy. Consequently, it is not necessary for NIOSH 

to fully evaluate the feasibility of reconstructing external radiation exposures for the class of workers 

covered by this report.

Although this evaluation draws no specific conclusions about the external data and the ability to bound 

external dose for the class under evaluation, NIOSH has drawn the following general conclusion: 

available external monitoring data may be used in accordance with existing procedures on a case-bycase basis for the purpose of partial dose reconstructions. This determination is consistent with 
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

35 of 56

NIOSH’s previous evaluation of SEC-00201 for the period through December 31, 1983 (NIOSH, 

2012).

Consistent with previous NIOSH determinations associated with the evaluations of SEC-00057, SEC00152, and SEC-00201, NIOSH has determined that adequate reconstruction of medical dose is likely 

to be feasible by using claimant-favorable assumptions in the technical information bulletin Dose 

Reconstruction from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT-OTIB-0006) and the Hanford 

site profile documents.

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for all workers 

for the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990, NIOSH intends to use any external 

monitoring data that may become available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using 

existing NIOSH dose reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for 

individuals employed with included contractors and subcontractors during the period from January 1, 

1984 through December 31, 1990, but who do not qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed 

using these data as appropriate.

6.3 Class Parameters Associated with Infeasibility

In 2012, HHS designated a class of Hanford employees for inclusion in the SEC for the period from 

July 1, 1972 through December 31, 1983. Based on its ongoing dose reconstruction and continued 

data capture efforts since 2012, NIOSH evaluated a group of construction trades workers employed by 

the prime radiological area construction contractor at Hanford through February 28, 1987. The 

NIOSH evaluation was based on interviews and Hanford correspondence that provided evidence that 

the construction trades workers’ fundamental type of work, as well as radiological monitoring 

practices, were substantively different from other Hanford operational workers. NIOSH has 

determined that this condition continued during the period from January 1, 1984 through December 

31, 1990. NIOSH therefore recommends that the class include the time period from January 1, 1984 

through December 31, 1990.

Consistent with the previous Hanford site SEC evaluations, NIOSH has determined that there 

continues to be insufficient access control information and worker movement data to accurately assess 

whether an energy employee, or class of employees, did or did not potentially enter specific areas of 

the Hanford site, thus having the potential for exposure to fuel handling, reactor operations, fuel 

reprocessing, or research-related radionuclides during the period under evaluation. NIOSH 

recommends that the class definition include all buildings and all areas of the Hanford site during the 

specified time period.

As described in Section 6.1, NIOSH, in consultation with DOE and DOL, has developed a 

recommended class definition that includes all employees of DOE contractors and subcontractors, 

excepting specifically identified non-construction prime contractors. NIOSH has determined that the 

data available are insufficient for NIOSH to limit a worker’s potential exposure scenarios based on job 

titles and/or job assignments during the specified time period. NIOSH therefore recommends that the 

class include all employees of DOE contractors and subcontractors, excluding specific nonconstruction prime contractors, regardless of job titles or job/work descriptions during the proposed 

time period.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

36 of 56

7.0 Summary of Feasibility Findings for Petition SEC-00226

This report evaluates the feasibility for completing dose reconstructions for employees at Hanford 

from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990. NIOSH determined that members of this class may 

have received radiation exposures from fuel handling, reactor operations, fuel reprocessing, or 

research-related radionuclides. NIOSH lacks sufficient information, which includes radiobioassay 

monitoring data for construction trades workers, and sufficient workplace monitoring and source term 

data, that would allow it to estimate with sufficient accuracy the potential internal doses from 

radionuclides associated with fuel handling, reactor operations, fuel reprocessing, or research 

activities, to which the proposed class may have been exposed.

NIOSH has documented herein that it cannot complete the dose reconstructions related to this petition. 

The basis of this finding demonstrates that NIOSH does not have access to sufficient information to 

estimate either the maximum radiation dose incurred by any member of the class or to estimate such 

radiation doses more precisely than a maximum dose estimate.

Although NIOSH found that it is not possible to completely reconstruct radiation doses for the 

proposed class, NIOSH intends to use any internal and external monitoring data that may become 

available for an individual claim (and that can be interpreted using existing NIOSH dose 

reconstruction processes or procedures). Therefore, dose reconstructions for individuals employed 

with included contractors and subcontractors during the period from January 1, 1984 through 

December 31, 1990, but who do not qualify for inclusion in the SEC, may be performed using these 

data as appropriate.

Table 7-1 summarizes the results of the feasibility findings associated with the NIOSH evaluation of 

SEC-00226 at Hanford for each exposure source during the time period from January 1, 1984 through 

December 31, 1990.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

37 of 56

Table 7-1: Summary of Feasibility Findings for SEC-00226

January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990

Source of 

Exposure

Reconstruction Feasible

(January 1, 1984 through 

June 28, 1987)

Reconstruction Feasible

(June 29, 1987 through 

December 31, 1990)

Reconstruction 

Not Feasible

(January 1, 1984 through 

December 31, 1990)

Internal Employees of:

- Department of Energy

- Battelle Memorial Institute

- Westinghouse Hanford 

Company

- Hanford Environmental 

Health Foundation

- Rockwell Hanford 

Operations

- Boeing Computer Services 

Richland

- UNC Nuclear Industries

Employees of:

- Department of Energy

- Battelle Memorial Institute

- Westinghouse Hanford 

Company

- Hanford Environmental 

Health Foundation

ALL OTHER employees 

of the Department of 

Energy contractors and 

subcontractors

Reconstruction Feasible

(January 1, 1984 through 

June 28, 1987)

Reconstruction Feasible

(June 29, 1987 through 

December 31, 1990)

Partial Reconstruction 

Feasible 1

External Employees of:

- Department of Energy

- Battelle Memorial Institute

- Westinghouse Hanford 

Company

- Hanford Environmental 

Health Foundation

- Rockwell Hanford 

Operations

- Boeing Computer Services 

Richland

- UNC Nuclear Industries

Employees of:

- Department of Energy

- Battelle Memorial Institute

- Westinghouse Hanford 

Company

- Hanford Environmental 

Health Foundation

ALL OTHER employees 

of the Department of 

Energy contractors and 

subcontractors

 - Gamma X X X1

 - Beta X X X1

 - Neutron X X X1

 - Occupational

 Medical X-ray

X2 X2 X2

1 NIOSH has determined that available external monitoring data may be used in accordance with existing procedures, on a 

case-by-case basis for the purpose of partial dose reconstructions.

2 NIOSH has determined that adequate reconstruction of medical dose is likely to be feasible by using claimant-favorable 

assumptions in the technical information bulletin Dose Reconstruction from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures

(ORAUT-OTIB-0006) and the Hanford site profile documents.

8.0 Evaluation of Health Endangerment for Petition SEC-00226

The health endangerment determination for the class of employees covered by this evaluation report is 

governed by EEOICPA and 42 C.F.R. § 83.14(b) and § 83.13(c)(3). Pursuant to these requirements, if 

it is not feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy radiation doses for members of the class, NIOSH 

must determine that there is a reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the 
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

38 of 56

health of members of the class. The regulations require NIOSH to assume that any duration of 

unprotected exposure may have endangered the health of members of a class when it has been 

established that the class may have been exposed to radiation during a discrete incident likely to have 

involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear criticality incidents. If the 

occurrence of such an exceptionally high-level exposure has not been established, then NIOSH is 

required to specify that health was endangered for those workers who were employed for a number of 

work days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for the class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC. 

NIOSH has determined that members of the class were not exposed to radiation during a discrete 

incident likely to have involved levels of exposure similarly high to those occurring during nuclear 

criticality incidents. However, the evidence reviewed in this evaluation indicates that some workers in 

the class may have accumulated chronic radiation exposures through intakes of radionuclides and from 

direct exposure to radioactive materials. Consequently, NIOSH is specifying that health was 

endangered for those workers covered by this evaluation who were employed for a number of work 

days aggregating at least 250 work days within the parameters established for this class or in 

combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more other classes of 

employees in the SEC.

9.0 NIOSH-Proposed Class for Petition SEC-00226

The evaluation defines a single class of employees for which NIOSH cannot estimate radiation doses 

with sufficient accuracy. This class includes all employees of Department of Energy contractors and 

subcontractors (excluding employees of the following Hanford prime contractors during the specified 

time periods: Battelle Memorial Institute, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990; Rockwell 

Hanford Operations, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987; Boeing Computer Services Richland, 

January 1, 1984 through June 28, 1987; UNC Nuclear Industries, January 1, 1984 through June 28, 

1987; Westinghouse Hanford Company, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990; and Hanford 

Environmental Health Foundation, January 1, 1984 through December 31, 1990) who worked at the 

Hanford site in Richland, Washington, during the period from January 1, 1984 through December 31, 

1990, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring either solely under this 

employment, or in combination with work days within the parameters established for one or more 

other classes of employees included in the Special Exposure Cohort.

10.0 Evaluation of Second Similar Class

In accordance with § 83.14(a), NIOSH may establish a second class of co-workers at the facility, 

similar to the class defined in Section 9.0, for whom NIOSH believes that dose reconstruction may not 

be feasible, and for whom additional research and analyses is required. If a second class is identified, 

it would require additional research and analyses. Such a class would be addressed in a separate SEC 

evaluation rather than delay consideration of the current claim. At this time, NIOSH has not identified 

a second similar class of employees at Hanford for whom dose reconstruction may not be feasible.
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

39 of 56

11.0 References

42 C.F.R. pt. 81, Guidelines for Determining the Probability of Causation Under the Energy 

Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule, Federal 

Register/Vol. 67, No. 85/Thursday, p 22,296; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 19391

42 C.F.R. pt. 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000; Final Rule; May 2, 2002; SRDB Ref ID: 

19392

42 C.F.R. pt. 83, Procedures for Designating Classes of Employees as Members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 

2000; Final Rule; May 28, 2004; SRDB Ref ID: 22001

42 U.S.C. §§ 7384-7385 [EEOICPA], Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation 

Program Act of 2000; as amended; DCAS website

DOE, 1986, Kaiser Engineers, Inc. Selected as New Hanford Engineering/Construction Contractor, 

DOE News Release; Department of Energy (DOE); October 16, 1986; SRDB Ref ID: 140515

Exposure Log, Jan1986, Exposure Timesheet for Area 100N; J. A. Jones Construction Services 

Company; January 10, 1986; SRDB Ref ID: 140505

Gamma and Work Log, Nov-Dec1986, Gamma Pencil and Work Time Register for NovemberDecember 1986; J. A. Jones Construction Services Company; various entries from NovemberDecember 1986; SRDB Ref ID: 140504

Meeting Minutes, Sep1986, Minutes for Hanford Personnel Dosimetry Advisory Committee Meeting 

on September 4, 1986 and Hanford Internal Dosimetry Program (July 1986) Attachment; M. J. Sula; 

September 12, 1986; SRDB Ref ID: 135319

Monthly, Feb1988, Monthly Report – February 1988, correspondence to Jim Houston; Monte Sula; 

February 22, 1988; SRDB Ref ID: 140682

Monthly, May1988, Monthly Report – May 1988, correspondence to Jim Houston; Monte Sula; May 

23, 1988; SRDB Ref ID: 140688

NIOSH, 2007, SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00057-1, Hanford Engineer Works; 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); May 15, 2007; SRDB Ref ID: 72279

NIOSH, 2008, SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00057-2, Hanford Engineer Works, 

Rev. 01; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); March 26, 2008; SRDB Ref 

ID: 72305
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

40 of 56

NIOSH, 2009, SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00152, Hanford; National Institute 

for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); September 28, 2009; SRDB Ref ID: 106105

NIOSH, 2012, SEC Petition Evaluation Report for Petition SEC-00201, Hanford Engineer Works; 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH); May 31, 2012; SRDB Ref ID: 141094

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-2, Hanford Site – Site Description, Rev. 02; ORAU Team Dose Reconstruction 

Project for NIOSH; Effective Date February 22, 2010; SRDB Ref ID: 79424

ORAUT-TKBS-0006-5, Hanford Site – Occupational Internal Dose, Rev. 05; ORAU Team Dose 

Reconstruction Project for NIOSH; Effective Date November 5, 2012; SRDB Ref ID: 120177

Personal Communication, 2014a, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Telephone Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; November 4, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141150

Personal Communication, 2014c, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; December 11, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141004

Personal Communication, 2014g, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee;

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; September 25, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141009

Personal Communication, 2014m, Personal Communication with Former Hanford Employee; 

Interview by EEOICPA NIOSH Team; September 25, 2014; SRDB Ref ID: 141016

Rad Survey Cards, 1981, Radiation Survey Cards for Hanford PUREX Facility, cards for 1981; 

Hanford; various dates in 1981; SRDB Ref ID: 109604

Rad Zone Log, 1986, Radiation Zone Entry Log for Area 200 W, Location 231-Z; J. A. Jones 

Construction Services Company; various entries throughout July 1986; SRDB Ref ID: 140615

Surveillance, 1984, Routine Internal Dosimetry Surveillance Program, correspondence to David 

Foust; Monte J. Sula; July 27, 1984; SRDB Ref ID: 82643, PDF pp. 6-7

WRAM, 1992, Examine Current System, Survey of the Existing System, chapter regarding the WRAM 

Database; October 23, 1992; SRDB Ref ID: 140524
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

41 of 56

Attachment One: Data Capture Synopsis

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

Primary Site/Company Name: Hanford

DOE, 1942-present

Alternate Site Names:

Hanford Engineer Works (HEW)

Physical Size of the Site:

The full Hanford site is approximately 586 square miles. 

SEC00155 involves all workers at the Plutonium Finishing Plant 

complex, which is in the 200 Area (approximately 60 square 

miles and encompasses more than 60 buildings).

Site Population:

The entire Hanford workforce in September 1990 was nearly 

9,000.

Air sample data, ALARA program, americium and neptunium recovery 

processes, internal dosimetry program reports and procedures, chest X-ray 

requirements, concentration of NP-237 relative to PU-239, departmental 

reports, particle size determination, dose data from Hanford DuPont 

personnel applicable to the Mancuso Study, diethylenetriamene 

pentaacetate (DTPA) treatment data, environmental data, highly enriched 

fuel program, history of Hanford exposure limits, hot particle data, internal 

exposure sources at Hanford, neutron and gamma field surveys, neutron 

badge data, process descriptions, radiation incidents, radiation protection 

standards, radioactive shipment records, reactor power levels, retrospective 

evaluation of data submitted by US Testing, review of US Testing annual 

quality report, safety analysis reports, special work permits, stack gas 

particulates report, US Testing records, US Testing audits, feed stock 

records, neptunium shipment reports, a 1988 document stating that Kaiser 

was establishing a routine bioassay monitoring program for their workers, a 

1988 document stating that because of funding, Kaiser had been unable to 

conduct any in vivo measurements, trip reports, the 10/2014 updated REX 

database, U-233 and thorium nitrate specifications, stack gases studies, 

incident reports, polonium production, catalogs of buildings and facilities, 

plutonium assessments, Health Instrument Division periodic reports, 100 

Area technical activities reports, Radiological Sciences Department 

periodic reports, Radiation Protection Department periodic reports, 

radiation monitoring periodic reports, fuel and target failure data, tank 

inventories, radionuclide releases, slug rupture data, hazards reviews, 

personnel exposure reductions, "N" Reactor videotapes, material transfers, 

recovery of neptunium, promethium and facility photographs, engineering 

drawings, US Testing documents, radiological surveys, and material codes. 

Personnel interviews with former and current site workers have been 

conducted.

NOTE: Awaiting release of three PNNL boxes, document relating to REX 

history and chain-of custody information, summary of the interaction and 

periods of WRAM, ACES, Sentinel, and other radiological tracking/access 

systems, copies of any contracting documents and transition plans for the 

OPEN 4,970
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

42 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

1987 and 1993 Westinghouse contract expansions, list of “contractor” 

finding aids, validation of the flow chart, list of ‘contracting officers’ 

names for the 1993 Westinghouse expansion, and an Excel spreadsheet of 

contractor box listings.

State Contacted: NA Contacting the state was not considered necessary since Hanford is an 

active DOE site and cooperates with relevant data collection. 

09/03/2009 0

Albany Research Center (ARC) DOE remediation efforts at ARC, an environmental report, operating 

procedures for the Project Owl vacuum melting laboratory, the 

metallography of thorium, and separation of U-233.

03/20/2013 6

Ames Laboratory Industrial Medicine on the Plutonium Project 1977 and histories of Ames 

Laboratory.

07/25/2006 3

Argonne National Laboratory - East Evaluations of intake and deposition based on bioassay data, meetings on 

proposed high temperature oxide pile, and plutonium scrap processing.

04/04/2008 7

Battelle Memorial Institute Procurement of thorium for U-233 separation studies, material inventories, 

a soil sample analysis, a 1962 isotope procurement application, and 

personnel monitoring record of a former Hanford employee.

08/18/2014 5

Brookhaven National Laboratory Compilation of ambient air monitoring parameters at DOE facilities and 

accelerator radiation exposures in 1974.

10/23/2011 2

Cincinnati Public Library Radiation safety in the Manhattan Project, Manhattan Project and Atomic 

Energy Commission histories, and a paper on the decommissioning of the 

Ames reactor.

02/10/2011 5

Claimant Provided Environmental monitoring data, study of uranium losses, in vivo cross 

comparison studies, how plutonium specimen disintegrates under pressure, 

behavior of Chinese weapons tests fallout, a bioassay blind audit program, 

a tank vapor assessment, and information on reducing the concentration of 

radioisotopes in effluent water.

10/30/2014 16

Curtiss-Wright Plutonium Fuel Development Laboratory special procedure, packaging 

archive waste containers for shipment, shipping records and orders, and 

methods of separating U-233 from thorium.

04/26/2009 11

Dade Moeller Investigation of personal monitoring film, accidental irradiated fuel 

discharge from N Reactor, radiation exposures of Hanford workers dying 

from cancer and other causes, Hanford historical production history of all 

reactors, separations at the Purex Plant, and departmental descriptions and 

organizational charts.

08/11/2008 35

Department of Labor / Paragon Vitrification of Niagara Falls Storage Site residues, progress reports, 

shipment of thorium oxide slugs, tabulation of Sylvania's outstanding 

01/23/2012 33
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

43 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

orders, disposition of 763 reject Hanford slugs, complex-wide mixed waste, 

and an environmental impact statement.

DOE Albuquerque Operations Office Hazard level classification and the final environmental impact statement for 

continued operation of Pantex and associated storage of nuclear weapons 

components. 

04/15/2010 2

DOE Carlsbad Field Office Threshold helium generation reaction rate measurements in FFTF and SP100/SP-2 irradiation test. 08/12/2010 6

DOE Environmental Management Business Center (EMCBC) -

Denver

The 1989 DOE Performance Indicator Pilot Program. 08/15/2013 1

DOE Germantown Calculations and poisonous effects of various materials, communications 

between AEC and Westinghouse, procedures and policies, oxide fuel 

materials, feasibility of Hanford to provide U-233, fission distribution in 

uranium oxide pellets, forecast for discharge of thorium, Hanford codes, 

irradiation of thorium, Manhattan District history books, monthly material 

accountability, NYOO uranium operations flow chart, organizational 

charts, radiation exposures, thorium as pile flattening material, trip reports, 

U-233 production, waste recovery centrifuge test, radiation surveys, and the 

matrix of Hanford Reporting Information Symbols (RIS).

08/26/2014 73

DOE Legacy Management - Grand Junction Office Mixed waste oil by Hanford, C and D materials produced at Hanford, 

contract documents, plutonium in soil, production reports, elimination of 

feed production at Linde and Electro Metallurgical, enriched uranium 

account report, extrusion of uranium for Hanford, history of refinery 

operations and site material accountability, Manhattan District history, 

metal requirements for X-10, monthly progress reports, waste 

characterization data and management of radioactive tank waste, rolled 

uranium and fabrication yields, scrap material from Chapman Valve, 

shipment of rods, spent nuclear fuel project 324 and 327 Buildings material 

classifications, Tonawanda progress reports, slug production report for 

AEC including canning, coating, and treating, billet requirement schedule, 

plutonium concentrations in soil, off-site waste disposal, and thorium 

shipment information.

08/30/2011 186

DOE Legacy Management - Morgantown Accomplishments of the National Lead Company of Ohio in operating the 

AEC facilities at Fernald, bibliography of epidemiological papers, control 

technology for radioactive emissions, environmental survey, preliminary 

summary report of the defense production facilities, health and mortality 

study, monthly reports, plutonium content information, quality assurance 

report, activities of the Center for Epidemiologic Research, recycled 

12/01/2011 152
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

44 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

uranium reports, Fernald shipment reports, an update of quantity in storage 

for radioactive mixed wastes, material transfer reports, and Grand Junction 

Facilities dosimetry reports with some Hanford data. 

DOE Legacy Management - MoundView Personnel at risk in plutonium-238 operations, re-irradiation of radium, 

effluent information system/onsite discharge information system, 

evaluation of high assay Pu-238 oxide for use in fabrication of plasma-fired 

microspheres, external radiation levels, development and use of actinium, 

Hanford wastes, production machining of uranium, incineration of 

radioactive solid wastes, Battelle occupational exposure history, production 

reports, radiological incidents, shipping documents, standard operating 

procedures, thorium accountability documents, U-233 as a contaminant in 

thorium nitrate solution, monthly progress reports, summary of production 

orders, assessment of the health and mortality studies of federal nuclear 

workers, U-233 concentration in thorium residues at Fernald, and quality 

assurance activities.

01/17/2011 143

DOE Legacy Management - MoundView / Albany Research 

Center

A 1958 symposium on uranium industry occupational health experience 

and practices.

09/30/2003 1

DOE Legacy Management - Westminster Office The 2003 MED/AEC/DOE external dosimetry technical basis document, 

status of stable metal tritides at Mound, and lung counter inter-comparison 

studies. 

02/04/2013 6

DOE Oak Ridge Operations Office Paducah hazardous waste disposal, internal dosimetry, industrial hygiene 

documents which refer to Hanford, storage and disposition of U-233, and 

the recovery of Np-237 from Hanford recycled uranium.

07/09/2012 12

DOE Oak Ridge Operations, Records Holding Task Group Film badge and exposure correspondence, material requirements and 

transfers, Np-237 recovery, thorium shipments, feed materials production 

reports, uranium production statistics, and NIOSH researcher notes.

06/25/2013 90

DOE Oak Ridge Public Reading Room Nationwide accountability of source and fissionable materials. 04/08/2011 1

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI) Ionium, uranium-232, and thorium-228 properties, applications, and 

availability, survey of irradiation facilities, meeting on collection and 

measurement of radioactive air contaminants, preliminary hazards report 

for a reactor experiment at CANEL, a proposed Purex Separations Plant 

study, trip report, Mallinckrodt reports on Hanford feed material and crosschecking of samples, zirconium cladding information, breeder fuel 

development, progress reports, laboratory surfaces decontamination, film 

badge modifications, UO2 pellet fabrication, Np-237 processing, isotope 

inventories, and a request for six irradiated Hanford slugs.

08/21/2014 64

East Tennessee Technology Center (ETTP) Records Center The history and description of Hanford recycled uranium at the DOE 05/05/2014 1
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

45 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

Gaseous Diffusion Plants.

Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML) Hanford Uranium Bioassay Program and reference to the 1962 criticality 

incident.

01/21/2011 2

Federal Records Center (FRC) - Chicago A working group meeting on radioactive waste management. 09/27/2006 1

Federal Records Center (FRC) - Denver Radiation exposure reports, beryllium usage and incidents, a review of 

criticality accidents, a plutonium worker health study, multi-site 

radiological protection and dosimetry inventories, and the identification of 

mixed waste streams.

01/25/2012 8

Federal Records Center (FRC) - Kansas City / Bannister Task proposals for ANL fuel cycle and waste management field work. 08/15/2008 1

Federal Records Center (FRC) - San Bruno Air sampling equipment and procedures at reactor sites throughout the

United States, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory work authorizations 

and surveys, operations documents, and logbooks of isotopes received.

08/02/2012 17

General Atomics Nuclear material shipping and receiving reports, and Health Physics and 

Medical Department reports.

01/09/2006 2

General Electric Vallecitos TLD and film badge technical information. 05/18/2007 2

Hagley Museum and Library Activity of DPW-100 slugs, bioassay manual, canning enriched slugs and 

Li-Al alloy slugs, continuous incineration of plutonium-bearing scrap, 

fission product activity, fuel element failures, gamma activity of tritium 

slugs, monthly reports, slug failures, plutonium button fabrication, 

plutonium coupling - neutron monitoring, plutonium waste recovery, 

postum production, radiation readings, reactor shielding, continuous 

monitor for I-131 in stack gases, thorium program, trip reports, U-237 in 

UNH processing, uranium isotope analyses, comparison of Chalk River and 

Hanford slugs, Hanford history, monthly reports, radiographic inspection, 

reactor operation following slug failures, report of meeting Battelle 

Memorial Institute, aid of new fuel elements, status of P-10 program, and 

waste management tank design.

10/01/2010 110

Hanford / SC&A Incident reports, technical section reports, routine fecal sampling, thyroid 

monitoring review, whole body counting, a waste encapsulation report, the 

redox ruthenium problem, a 1948 review of the stack discharge particulate 

problem, and a September 1946 monthly report.

01/20/2009 13

Health Physics Society Bioassay criteria for environmental restoration workers. 03/22/2007 1

Idaho National Laboratory (INL) A review of Hanford fuel processing at INL, INL reports referencing 

Hanford, US reactors operating histories, a Rocky Flats incident involving 

Hanford feed material, and shipping and receiving records.

11/18/2014 30

Indiana Department of Homeland Security US Army Corps of Engineers presentation documenting work done at 07/05/2012 1
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

46 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

Joslyn Steel for Hanford.

Interlibrary Loan Thorium production technology, a criticality short course, environmental 

levels of radioactivity at AEC installations, Seaborg's journals, and the 

proceedings of the 1993 incineration conference.

08/22/2012 16

Internet - Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) Annual reports to Congress, DOE internal dosimetry standard, mixed oxide 

and breeder reactor reports, low-level waste reports, a global fissile 

material report, a toxicological profile for plutonium, and the US Navy's 

manual of radiological safety.

10/04/2013 24

Internet - DOE An analysis of airborne radioactivity release fractions and the DOE Guide 

of Good Practices for Occupational Radiation Protection in Plutonium 

Facilities.

12/04/2008 2

Internet - DOE Comprehensive Epidemiologic Data Resource 

(CEDR)

No relevant data identified. 05/12/2010 0

Internet - DOE Environmental Management Linking Legacies, Chapter 3 - Wastes. 10/28/2007 1

Internet - DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites Decontamination and decommissioning of the Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel 

Facility at Cheswick, PA, a Ventron remedial action certification docket, 

mixed waste inventory report, and 1951 Tonawanda Area progress reports. 

04/24/2012 6

Internet - DOE OpenNet Absorption and translocation by plants of radioactive elements from 

"jangle" soil, human radiation experiments information, air pathway report, 

Columbia River pathway dosimetry report, fission product iodine during 

early Hanford operations, hematological effects on heavily irradiated 

Japanese fishermen, history of the Inhalation Toxicology Research 

Institute, Manhattan District history book, monthly activities, products, 

operations and progress reports, Newell Stannard interview, Bikini fall of 

1978, plutonium release estimates, radiation dose estimates from Hanford 

radioactive material releases to the air and the Columbia River, radiological 

incidents, a thyroid disease study, purchase order, trip reports to Joslyn 

Steel, Pu-238 shipments, the assay of Fe-55 and Fe-59 in biological 

samples, and status reports. 

11/11/2014 100

Internet - DOE OpenNet / Hanford C.C. Gamertsfelder interview. 11/26/2007 1

Internet - DOE OpenNet / NIOSH A 1960 annual report to Congress. 01/11/2008 1

Internet - DOE OSTI Thorium metallurgy and ORIGEN reports. 05/30/2007 3

Internet - DOE OSTI / SC&A A summary of radiation accidents and incidents, 1945-1955. 02/21/2007 1

Internet - DOE OSTI Energy Citations Pinellas Plant feasibility study, radioactive waste shipments to Hanford, 

characterization of UO-2 and Pu-O2 powders, process description for the 

retrieval of earth-covered transuranic waste containers, decontamination 

08/01/2013 75
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

47 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

and decommissioning information, wrap module 1 sampling and analysis 

plan, monthly activity reports, beta treatment of uranium, production of 

medical radioisotopes, technical progress reports, radioactive waste 

processing, chemical processing reports, and fuel fabrication and 

irradiation. 

Internet - DOE OSTI Information Bridge Risk of transporting plutonium oxide and liquid plutonium nitrate, early 

reactor waste, contaminated sites within the DOE Complex, environmental 

management report, external dosimetry technical basis information, 

americium recovery and purification, monthly reports, hazard analyses, 

human radiation experiments, plutonium safety evaluation report, hazards 

evaluation for enriched uranium-thoria, processing E-metal in the 200 

Areas, production tests, protective measures for personnel manual, 

radiation control standards and procedures, radiation survey report, 

reprocessing uranium - molybdenum alloy fuels, 300 Area history, lowlevel waste vitrification melter, iodine-131 releases, an ionium for 

radioisotope preparation status report, buried waste integrated 

demonstration program DOE complex buried waste characterization 

assessment, hazardous waste shipment data collection from DOE sites, 

incineration of DOE offsite mixed waste at the INEEL, inter-calibration of 

counting laboratories, N-Reactor monthly reports, shipment of TRU waste 

from West Jefferson, Ohio, spent fuel background report, summary of the 

environmental dose models, surface radiological investigations, tritiated 

wastewater treatment and disposal evaluation, fuel reports, reactor research 

reports, a stockpile management report, a safety analysis report, thoria 

development activities, fissile materials control and disposition, preparation 

of neptunium peroxide, Chemical Processing Department reports, and a 

tank content estimate.

11/30/2013 383

Internet - DOE OSTI Information Bridge / Hanford A fuel element technical manual and a report of a plutonium oxide storage 

container rupture.

10/22/2009 2

Internet - DOE OSTI Information Bridge / SC&A 324 building closure waste assessment and closure plan, heat source 

processing, and a waste classification sampling plan.

03/15/2012 5

Internet - DOE OSTI SciTech Connect The Hanford Bioassay Program, incident reports, the 1996 radiological 

protection support services report, high-level waste reports, tank 

remediation reports, fire prevention for sodium coolant and spent nuclear 

fuel, and decontamination and decommissioning reports.

11/04/2014 30

Internet - Energy Employees Claimant Assistance Project 

(EECAP)

Incident reports, environmental contamination assessments, and a summary 

report on high-level waste repository concepts.

03/31/2014 16
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

48 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

Internet - Global Security Weapons of Mass Destruction Website: Polonium. 09/14/2009 1

Internet - Google Radiological surveys, B Reactor museum association history of 100-B/C 

reactor operations, separation of the uranium isotopes by gaseous diffusion, 

General Atomics hot cell facility decontamination, monthly reports, healthphysics, instrumentation, and radiation protection, history of the department 

of nuclear science and engineering, nuclear weapons data-book, Project 

Trinity information, FUSRAP reports, site operating report, annual site 

environmental report, US nuclear weapons research, development, testing, 

and production, long-term management of nuclear materials, annual report 

on waste generation and minimization, environmental restoration and 

management, Manhattan Engineer District history, low-level radioactive 

wastes, practices and problems in disposal of radioactive wastes into the 

ground, subsurface behavior of plutonium and americium, summary of 

contaminated sites and initial cleanup work, mission transition reports, a 

timeline of the Manhattan Project, general environmental reports, storage of 

Rocky Flats material, technology trends of DOE sites, DOE occupational 

radiation exposure reports, air cleaning conference proceedings, separation 

of plutonium and neptunium, and building histories.

12/22/2014 351

Internet - Google / SC&A The dry cask storage project and planning for hot cell closure. 03/28/2011 2

Internet - Hanford The 300 Area history, Ra-226 waste tank inventory, building radiological 

characterizations, facility status change forms, and the characterization and 

disposal plan for tank farm long-length equipment.

06/05/2013 12

Internet - Hanford Declassified Document Retrieval System 

(DDRS)

Alpha hand monitoring, americium recovery, radiological surveys, 

attenuation of a neutron and gamma ray beam, calibrated neutron sources 

and area monitoring chambers, power levels versus Po-210 production, 

dosimetry and spectrometry of fast neutrons by radio-activation, dosimetry 

in the Hanford gamma irradiation facilities, double moderator neutron 

dosimeter, iodine release, sensitivities of reactor neutron flux monitors at B 

Reactor, measurements produced neptunium, integrated thermal neutron 

exposure, determination of the radon content of water, neptunium recovery, 

neutron dosimetry and irradiation of solids, neutron flux monitor detector, 

power and exposure levels of Hanford reactors, notes on dosimetry 

problems, production statistics of N Reactor operations, radiation exposure 

data, radiological incidents, safety analysis report, slow and fast neutrons, 

scintillation count-rate and dose-rate meter, monthly and weekly reports, 

thorium U-233 separation, trip reports to Joslyn Steel, production of high 

exposure plutonium for ZPPR, shipments to Rocky Flats, and tritium 

08/16/2013 2,077
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

49 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

exposures.

Internet - Hanford Declassified Document Retrieval System 

(DDRS) / SC&A

1948 100 and 300 Areas reports and a 1957 Irradiation Processing 

Department report.

11/01/2007 2

Internet - Health Physics Journal An airborne radioiodine dispersion study and I-129 in rabbit thyroids near 

the Idaho National Laboratory. NOTE: A further review of this source is 

planned.

OPEN 2

Internet - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health No relevant data identified. 07/20/2010 0

Internet - Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) The radiochemistry of the elements. 07/10/2013 1

Internet - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection A report which mentions Ventron shipments to and from Hanford. 04/19-2012 1

Internet - National Academies Press (NAP) DOE weapons complex management of health, safety, and environmental 

issues, characterization and treatment of radioactive wastes, analysis of 

cancer risks of populations near nuclear facilities, management and 

disposition of excess plutonium, and a National Research Council report on 

the cleanup technology roadmap. 

08/19/2013 5

Internet - National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) -

Nevada Site Office

No relevant data identified. 05/12/2010 0

Internet - National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Feasibility studies of the correlation of lifetime health and mortality of 

AEC and AEC contractor personnel.

08/21/2006 2

Internet - NIOSH Residual radioactive and beryllium contamination reports and SEC Petition 

Evaluation reports.

03/22/2013 6

Internet - NRC Agencywide Document Access and Management 

(ADAMS) 

NRC's decommissioning procedures and criteria, environmental statement 

on the use of recycled plutonium in mixed oxide fuel in light water cooled 

reactors, a survey of waste solidification process technologies, an 

evaluation of potential recycling scrap metals from nuclear facilities, waste 

tank remediation reports, waste disposal reports, environmental impact 

statements, basalt waste isolation reports, I-129 in groundwater reports, 

storage and disposition of weapons-grade material, storage and leaching 

from spent fuel, improving confinement ventilation systems, special form 

capsule testing, audit reports, quality assurance for waste repositories, 

waste retrieval criteria, and weld inspections of Pu sealed sources. 

03/28/2013 289

Internet - Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) ORNL Laboratory and Metallurgy, Operations, Chemical Technology, and 

Radioisotope Distribution Division periodic reports referencing Hanford 

and solvent stability in nuclear fuel processing. 

04/08/2013 156

Internet - USACE/FUSRAP No relevant data identified. 05/12/2010 0

Internet - Washington State University (U.S. Transuranium and 

Uranium Registries)

No relevant data identified. 05/12/2010 0
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

50 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

Iowa State University Library An interview about Ames Laboratory work which mentions Hanford. 09/18/2013 1

Kansas City Plant Annual environmental summary reports and a 1951 Hanford trip report. 10/10/2013 2

Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) Isotopic content and specific activity of pile-produced plutonium, 

radioactive waste disposal and related issues, monitoring of certain 

personnel for internal plutonium contamination, human studies, 

radiological incidents, radiological releases, and quantities and 

characteristics of the contact handled low-level mixed waste streams for the 

DOE Complex.

12/13/2007 27

Lovelace Respiratory Research Institute (LRRI) Annual reports including Hanford data. 05/22/2007 5

Massachusetts Department of Public Health Waste disposal practices and shipments from Nuclear Metals to Hanford. 04/12/2012 1

Metals and Controls Corporation, Attleboro, MA Documentation that Metals and Controls supplied fuel to Hanford. 08/24/2004 1

Missouri Department of Natural Resources Individual interviews, history of the St. Louis Uranium Processing Plant, a 

plutonium working group report on plutonium storage, and a feasibility 

study for the St. Louis site.

10/03/2008 5

Mound Museum Plutonium shipments and control, bismuth shipments, periodic Mound 

reports referencing Hanford, plutonium shipments, 1949 liquid waste 

disposal, polonium research, and biological research.

02/01/2012 27

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) - Atlanta Annual reports, review of the existing reactor confinement program at 

Hanford, assay of uranium by-product materials, contamination of express 

cars (Hanford shipment), Dragon Project irradiations, human chromosome 

aberrations, investigative report on X-ray overexposure, list of commission 

and contractor personnel by professional category, Madison Square area 

monthly accountability reports, employee monitoring, monthly progress 

reports, report on health and safety aspects of recycle material, DOE indoor 

radon study, summary of work done at Berkeley, fission of uranium-235 or

plutonium-239, and product specifications.

05/14/2010 43

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) - Atlanta 

/ SC&A

Pu-238 Be neutron source information. 06/10/2004 1

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) - College 

Park

Handling of radioactive waste materials, shipment of Sr-90 and Cs-137, 

criticality accident analysis, actions related to tank leak, US Transuranium 

Registry summary report, personal notes, Hanford thorium requirements, 

fission product distribution, test rolling, thorium special irradiations, 

thorium hot extrusion work, material accountability reports, and trip 

reports.

03/11/2014 59

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) - Kansas 

City

Historical FUSRAP site information including a DuPont contract at 

Hanford and the history of the UMETCO Minerals Company, which 

03/29/2005 2
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

51 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

shipped ingots to Hanford.

Nevada Test Site (NTS) The final NTS environmental impact statement including off-site locations 

and photographs of Hanford workers in protective clothing.

04/26/2005 5

New York State Archives Process development minutes from 1952-1954, 1952-1953, a Tonawanda 

sub-office report showing the shipments to Hanford of Simonds Saw & 

Steel billets, an analysis of the criticality potential of Hanford metal stored 

at the Lake Ontario Ordnance Works, and feed materials excerpts from the 

Manhattan District History Book VII. 

03/21/2012 7

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Nickel plating of uranium slugs at Sylvania for Hanford and an evaluation 

of the powder metallurgy project.

02/25/2008 2

NIOSH Analysis of ignition testing on K-west basin fuel, storage of highly enriched 

uranium, DOE Ohio sites recycled uranium project report, effects of rolling 

on the crystallography and metallography of uranium, excretion of Pu-239 

in a patient with a plutonium contaminated injury, generation and flow of 

recycled uranium, highly enriched uranium working group report, list of 

classified documents, production and recovery of U-233 from thorium, 

reactor production tests, standardization of gold and indium foils and the 

absolute neutron flux determination, technical activities, research and 

development reports, testing prediction capabilities of an I-131 terrestrial 

transport model, worker outreach meeting documents, USTUR active 

registrants living and deceased SEC Petition 00155 support documentation, 

worker outreach meeting minutes, the changes to the Hanford and PNNL 

site descriptions, and process knowledge expert notes on the fecal 

plutonium bioassay program.

07/17/2014 133

NIOSH / SC&A DOE Ohio Field Office recycled uranium report and highly enriched 

uranium working group reports.

02/16/2006 6

Nuclear Information and Records Management Association 

(NIRMA)

A discussion of the FBI's Rocky Flats raid which mentions Hanford as a 

source of Rocky Flats plutonium.

03/04/2013 1

Nuclear Metals, Inc. Index cards documenting reports to Hanford and the feasibility report for 

fuel rod production for Hanford.

05/24/2012 2

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Non-Publicly Available 

Records Collection

Documents related to the construction of the Military Compact Reactor, a 

license for the export of U-235 to Norway, and the evaluation of the 

secondary HTS transient natural circulation test.

06/04/2012 3

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Public Document Room Trip and inspection reports, operating licenses, basalt waste storage units 

reports, reviews of license applications, audits of waste disposal plans, 

environmental release assessments, progress reports on radionuclide 

09/13/2012 60
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

52 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

solubility, and the transfer of irradiated TRIGA fuel elements to Hanford.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Public Document Room / 

Internet - NRC ADAMS

Comparison of Hanford environmental models. 08/31/2011 1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region 1 Documentation of Hanford's assistance in evaluating a uranium uptake at 

Nuclear Metals, Inc.

03/29/2013 1

Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Chelation DTPA data for DOE employees - REAC. 08/06/2009 94

Oak Ridge Library for Dose Reconstruction ORNL and K-25 operational, RALA, and waste disposal reports which 

refer to Hanford, 200 Area stack contamination, evaluation of Hanford soil 

contamination, release of radioiodine during metal dissolution, and a 1984 

atmospheric sciences report. 

06/14/2011 62

Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Safe handling of unprocessed metal, DuPont employee roster, Mancuso 

Study data, spills of Hanford material at ORNL, ORNL periodic reports 

referencing Hanford, a 1947 shielding symposium, the 1944 gamma

irradiation tolerance dose, and a 1948 exposure estimate for insoluble 

particulates lodged in the lungs.

09/13/2011 118

Oak Ridge Public Library Construction for Atomic Bomb production facilities. 11/18/2010 1

Ohio Department of Health Plans for a scaled down aircraft engine test at Hanford and environmental 

restoration plans.

11/03/2008 2

ORAU Library Excerpts from the Nuclear Weapons Databook Volume III. 10/12/2006 1

ORAU Team Basis for thoron concentration and doses for thoria processing, bounding 

estimate of neutron dose based on measured photon dose around single pass 

reactors at Hanford, correspondence on the Mallinckrodt badge program, 

dosimetry data, human radiation exposures related to nuclear weapons 

industries, annual reports, ORAU Team generated spreadsheets, radiation 

dose estimates and hazard evaluation for inhaled airborne radionuclides, 

Savannah River Site thorium processing timeline, study of atmospheric 

contamination in the Melt Plant, technical basis documents, workplace 

measurements of neutron and photon doses, documented correspondence 

related to US Testing, trip reports, an SEC Petition Evaluation Report, and 

documented communications.

09/30/2014 162

Pacific Northwest National Laboratories (PNNL) Hanford environmental surveillance, ORAU Team Project spreadsheets, 

radiation protection procedures, whole body counter activities, 

measurement and evaluation of internal exposure, in vivo bioassay methods 

and sensitivities, preparation of project proposal for new rolling mill, and 

fixed time estimation of counting rates with background corrections.

04/26/2011 15

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant Radioactivity analysis reports, air samples, trace element analysis, ash 09/18/2006 5
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

53 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

results, power results, and sample data unspecified.

Richland, WA Federal Building Documented communications with process knowledge experts, weapons 

development reports, and nuclear materials safeguards. All are sensitive 

documents.

04/18/2012 34

Rocky Flats A lung counter inter-comparison study. 10/30/2013 1

Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site (RFETS) An assessment of the flammability of defense transuranic waste. 5/17/2006 1

S. Cohen & Associates (SC&A) Mortality study, review of low-level waste management ES&H 

vulnerabilities, highly enriched uranium report, recycled uranium mass 

balance project, bioassay at Hanford, description of Hanford personnel 

dosimeter program from 1944-1989, laboratory measurement error in dose 

estimates, progress reports, radioactive contamination environs report, 

combination neutron dosimeter in plutonium environments, retrospective 

assessment of personnel neutron dosimetry, incident investigations, 

summary of recorded external radiation doses for Hanford Workers 1944-

1989, ICPP monthly reports, and a personnel interview.

08/05/2011 136

SC&A / Hanford Monthly reports, control of ground contamination, KW Reactor incident 

report, radiation incident investigation, removal of ruptured slugs, 

examination of selected ruptures, divisions reports, interview with 

petitioners/former and current Hanford workers, reactor effluent water 

disposal, ruptured slugs, and stack gas decontamination - separations plant.

06/24/2010 21

SC&A / Idaho National Laboratory Slug shipments to Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP), summary of 

stack gas discharge, iodine calculations for Radioactive Barium-Lanthanum 

(RALA) production, RALA program and problems, RALA project 

specification letter, shipments to the ICPP, and ICPP production reports.

06/24/2010 43

SC&A / Internet - DOE Hanford DDRS Hanford monthly reports. 11/05/2008 6

SC&A / Internet - DOE OpenNet The first 50 years of plutonium production in the United States. 10/28/2014 1

SC&A / Internet - Google The Savannah River Site 50th anniversary publication. 04/22/2008 1

SC&A / NARA - Atlanta Health and safety report on recycle material and UO3 specifications. 03/17/2004 2

SC&A / NIOSH Recycled uranium generation and flow. 08/14/2003 1

SC&A / Pinellas A 1993 waste generation and minimization progress report. 06/24/2010 1

SC&A / Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) Investigations of environmental contamination at Hanford. 06/13/2011 4

Sandia National Laboratories, California Various employee exposure reports. 03/28/2007 1

Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico Radiation exposure cards including a Hanford exposure. 02/17/2012 1

Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico / SC&A Radioactive material shipping survey for a shipment to Hanford. 09/15/2010 1

Santa Susana Field Laboratory History of Nuclear Materials Development Facility. 12/18/2007 1

Savannah River Site Irradiation of thorium slugs, use of pocket dosimeters, progress reports, 03/19/2012 70
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

54 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

thorium irradiation program, exposure to gamma radiation, thorium slug 

failures, production summary 100 and 200 Areas, dosimetry visitors cards, 

polonium production, Health Physics procedures, exposure data for 

Hanford test badges, Hanford film badges exposed in the plutonium facility 

at the Savannah River Site, Savannah River Site lab notebook, a Health 

Physics methods logbook, monthly status reports which refer to Hanford, 

thorium and U-233 reports, monitoring of tritium, and an ORAU Team 

researcher's notes.

Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) Radiation exposures by AEC Operating Office and summaries of whole 

body radiation exposures.

09/02/2004 8

Senator John Heinz History Center Westinghouse histories and uranium production. 12/20/2007 5

Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville, IL Mallinckrodt uranium information, disposal of radioactive wastes in the 

metropolitan St. Louis area, metal billets for Hanford, inspection of 

uranium casting facilities, shipments of uranium hexafluoride to Hanford, 

and re-melting of Hanford uranium scrap at Mallinckrodt.

11/01/2008 12

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) / SC&A The 1996 SLAC Dosimetry Technical Basis Document. 4/11/2006 1

University of Colorado Norlin Library Background measurements of alpha particle emitters at Rocky Flats where 

the radiochemistry was performed by Hanford.

08/20/2003 1

University of Rochester Miner Library Quarterly review report. 10/14/2008 1

University of Tennessee Library Inhalation program, case studies of uranium and thorium uptakes, Hanford 

whole body donors to the Uranium and Transuranium Registry, internal 

dosimetry research, and Hanford airborne particle releases in 1947 and 

1948.

10/10/2011 15

Unknown Nuclear track emulsions and analysis of urine for very low-level plutonium, 

bioassay procedures, calculation of neutron flux and exposure, film badge 

comparison, decontamination and decommissioning, detection limits, 

bioassay data, environmental reports, estimation of plutonium lung burden 

by urine analysis, external dosimetry manual, fast neutron dose, gamma 

dose measurement with film badges, external dosimetry program, monthly 

reports, site history, medical X-ray exposure study, neutron exposures, 

waste tank inventories, radiation protection aspects of work with 

promethium-147, radioactive contamination reports and investigations, 

radionuclide releases, nuclear track dosimeters exposed to plutonium

sources, shipping documents, site maps, stack release data, Tiger Team 

assessment, Mancuso study progress report number 9, and whole body 

counter activities.

04/14/2011 588
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

55 of 56

Table A1-1: Summary of Holdings in the SRDB for Hanford

Data Capture Information Data Capture Description Completed Uploaded 

into SRDB

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) A document list for Joslyn Steel including letters and memoranda to 

Hanford.

07/31/2012 1

US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Report of a damaged low-level waste shipment which was transported 

through the Hanford site to the US Ecology burial site.

02/14/2014 1

Washington University Libraries - St. Louis A 1953 report on fast neutron monitoring of personnel. 04/27/2007 1

Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Battelle - West Jefferson transuranic waste shipments to Hanford. 11/05/2010 5

West Valley Demonstration Project Shipping of Pu product to Hanford, waste processing description, and 

references to Hanford's internal dose assignment protocol.

01/17/2010 4

Y-12 A history of the Hanford site included in the Oak Ridge historical 

evaluation.

2/21/2008 1

Total 11,417

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Hanford

Database/Source Keywords Hits Uploaded 

into SRDB

NOTE: Database search terms employed for each of the databases listed below are available

in the Excel file called “Copy of Hanford Rev 06, (83 13) 02-12-15 (2).”

DOE CEDR

http://cedr.lbl.gov/

COMPLETED 05/12/2010

See Note above

0 0

DOE Hanford DDRS

http://www2.hanford.gov/declass/

COMPLETED 05/12/2010

See Note above 

168 2

DOE Legacy Management Considered Sites

http://csd.lm.doe.gov/

COMPLETED 05/12/2010

See Note above 

0 0

DOE OpenNet

http://www.osti.gov/opennet/advancedsearch.jsp

COMPLETED 05/14/2010

See Note above 23 1

DOE OSTI Energy Citations

http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/

COMPLETED 05/12/2010

See Note above 

288 0

DOE OSTI Information Bridge

http://www.osti.gov/bridge/advancedsearch.jsp See Note above 528 2
SEC-00226 03-16-2015 Hanford 

56 of 56

Table A1-2: Database Searches for Hanford

Database/Source Keywords Hits Uploaded 

into SRDB

COMPLETED 05/11/2010

DOE OSTI SciTech Connect

http://www.osti.gov/scitech

COMPLETED 04/14/2014

See Note above 

1 1

Energy Employees Claimant Assistance Project (EECAP)

http://www.eecap.org

COMPLETED 03/28/2014

See Note above

23 13

Google

http://www.google.com

COMPLETED 05/11/2010

See Note above

2,261,772 40

HP Journal

http://journals.lww.com/health-physics/pages/default.aspx See Note above OPEN 0

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 

http://www.ijoeh.com/index.php/ijoeh

COMPLETED 07/20/2010

See Note above

1 0

National Academies Press

http://www.nap.edu/

COMPLETED 07/11/2010

See Note above

36 2

NNSA - Nevada Site Office

www.nv.doe.gov/main/search.htm

COMPLETED 05/12/2010

See Note above

0 0

NRC ADAMS Reading Room

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html

COMPLETED 06/14/2011

See Note above

8,511 376

USACE/FUSRAP

http://www.lrb.usace.army.mil/fusrap/

COMPLETED 05/12/2010

See Note above

0 0

U.S. Transuranium & Uranium Registries http://www.ustur.wsu.edu/

COMPLETED 05/12/2010 See Note above 0 0