Oak Ridge National Laboratory Site Profile Review Pdf Icon[622
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
September 29, 2006 Mr. David Staudt Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Acquisition and Assistance Field Branch Post Office Box 18070 626 Cochrans Mill Road – B-140 Pittsburgh, PA 15236-0295 Subject: Contract No. 200-2004-03805, Task Order 1: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Site Profile Review, SCA-TR-TASK1-0013 Dear Mr. Staudt: SC&A is pleased to submit to NIOSH and the Advisory Board our draft Oak Ridge National Laboratory Site Profile Review. Please note that Attachment 2 of this report, Site Expert Interview Summary, is currently being reviewed by the Site Experts who participated in the interview, and will be forwarded under separate cover as soon as it has been approved. If you have any questions or comments on this report, please contact John Mauro at 732-530- 0104. We look forward to discussing this draft report with NIOSH and the Advisory Board. Sincerely, John Mauro, PhD, CHP Project Manager cc: P. Ziemer, PhD, Board Chairperson A. Makhijani, PhD, SC&A Advisory Board Members H. Behling, SC&A L. Wade, PhD, NIOSH M. Thorne, SC&A L. Elliott, NIOSH H. Chmelynski, SC&A J. Neton, PhD, NIOSH J. Fitzgerald, Saliant S. Hinnefeld, NIOSH J. Lipsztein, SC&A L. Homoki-Titus, NIOSH K. Robertson-DeMers, CHP, Saliant A. Brand, NIOSH S. Ostrow, PhD, SC&A J. Broehm, NIOSH K. Behling, SC&A L. Shields, NIOSH T. Bell, Saliant Project File (ANIOS/001/13) 1608 SPRING HILL ROAD, SUITE 400 • VIENNA, VIRGINIA • 22182 • 703.893.6600 • FAX 703.821.8236 Draft ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Oak Ridge National Laboratory Site Profile Review Contract No. 200-2004-03805 Task Order No. 1 SCA-TR-TASK1-0013 Prepared by S. Cohen & Associates 1608 Spring Hill Road, Suite 400 Vienna, Virginia 22182 Saliant, Inc. 5579 Catholic Church Road Jefferson, Maryland 21755 September 2006 Disclaimer This document is made available in accordance with the unanimous desire of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) to maintain all possible openness in its deliberations. However, the ABRWH and its contractor, SC&A, caution the reader that at the time of its release, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Board for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82. This implies that once reviewed by the ABRWH, the Board’s position may differ from the report’s conclusions. Thus, the reader should be cautioned that this report is for information only and that premature interpretations regarding its conclusions are unwarranted. Effective Date: Revision No. Document No. Page No. September 29, 2006 0 SCA-TR-TASK1-0013 2 of 115 S. Cohen & Associates: Document No. SCA-TR-TASK1-0013 Technical Support for the Advisory Board on Effective Date: Radiation & Worker Health Review of Draft — September 29, 2006 NIOSH Dose Reconstruction Program Revision No. 0 – DRAFT OAK RIDGE NATIONAL LABORATORY Page 1 of 115 SITE PROFILE REVIVEW Supersedes: Task Manager: N/A ________________________ Date: ___________ Joseph Fitzgerald Project Manager: ________________________ Date: ___________ John Mauro, PhD, CHP Effective Date: Revision No. Document No. Page No. September 29, 2006 0 SCA-TR-TASK1-0013 3 of 115 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations ..........................................................................................................5 1.0 Executive Summary .............................................................................................................9 1.1 Summary of Stengths .............................................................................................12 1.2 Summary of Findings.............................................................................................12 2.0 Scope and Introduction ......................................................................................................16 2.1 Review Scope.........................................................................................................16 2.2 Review Approach...................................................................................................18 2.3 Report Organization...............................................................................................18 3.0 Assessment Criteria and Methods......................................................................................20 3.1 Objectives ..............................................................................................................20 3.1.1 Objective 1: Completeness of Data Sources .............................................20 3.1.2 Objective 2: Technical Accuracy..............................................................20 3.1.3 Objective 3: Adequacy of Data.................................................................21 3.1.4 Objective 4: Consistency among Site Profiles..........................................21 3.1.5 Objective 5: Regulatory Compliance ........................................................21 4.0 Site Profile Strengths .........................................................................................................25 4.1 Completeness of Data ............................................................................................25 4.2 Adequacy of Data ..................................................................................................25 4.3 Technical Accuracy/Claimant Favorability ...........................................................26 4.4 Consistency Among Site Profiles ..........................................................................27 4.5 Regulatory Compliance .........................................................................................27 5.0 Vertical Issues ....................................................................................................................28 5.1 Issue 1: Incomplete Dose Data for the Earlier Years............................................28 5.1.1 Internal .......................................................................................................28 5.1.2 External ......................................................................................................30 5.1.3 Air Sampling ..............................................................................................32 5.2 Issue 2: Inadequate Consideration of Missed Dose from Other Radionuclides.........................................................................................................32 5.3 Issue 3: Problems with Neutron Doses .................................................................37 5.3.1 NTA Film Neutron Energy Threshold .......................................................37 5.3.2 Neutron-to-Photon Ratios ..........................................................................38 5.3.3 Neutron Quality Factors.............................................................................38 5.3.4 NTA Film Fading.......................................................................................39 5.4 Information Needed Concerning Early Day Dose Data and Selection of Workers for Badging..............................................................................................39 5.4.1 Dose Data for the Earlier Years .................................................................39 5.4.2 Selection of Workers for Badging .............................................................40 Effective Date: Revision No. Document No. Page No. September 29, 2006 0 SCA-TR-TASK1-0013 4 of 115 5.5 Issue 5: Lack of Dose Assignment Procedure for Unmonitored Workers............40 5.6 Issue 6: Lack of Data Validation and Verification ...............................................41 5.6.1 Data Completeness.....................................................................................41 5.6.2 Data Accuracy............................................................................................43 5.7 Issue 7: The TBD Fails to Adequately Define and Assess Occupational Medical Exposure ..................................................................................................44 5.8 Issue 8: Techniques and Protocols Increase Uncertainty of Dose Conversion Factors Listed in the TBD ..................................................................46 5.9 Issue 9: Frequency and Type of X-ray Exposure is Uncertain. ............................46 5.10 Issue 10: Inadequate Consideration of Environmental Dose from Radionuclides Other than I-131 and Tritium. ........................................................47 5.11 Secondary Issues....................................................................................................48 5.11.1 Secondary Issue 1: Potential for High-Fired Oxides ................................48 5.11.2 Secondary Issue 2: Ingestion Pathway is Not Addressed .........................49 5.11.3 Secondary Issue 3: Lack of Explanation for Determining MDAs ............49 5.11.4 Secondary Issue 4: Other Potential Medical Exposures Have Not Been Identified...........................................................................................50 5.11.5 Secondary Issue 5: Additional Factors Contribute to Uncertainties .........50 5.11.6 Secondary Issue 6: Average Annual Environmental Exposures...............51 5.11.7 Secondary Issue 7: Inadvertent Ingestion and Inhalation of Resuspended Particles Not Considered .....................................................53 6.0 Overall Adequacy of the Site Profile as a Basis for Dose Reconstruction ........................54 6.1 Satisfying the Five Objectives