Hazards Ahead: Managing Cleanup Worker Health and Safety at the Nuclear Weapons Complex

86 Pages·1995·1.97 MB·English

Hazards Ahead: Managing Cleanup
Worker Health and Safety at the Nuclear
Weapons Complex
February 1993
OTA-BP-O-85
NTIS order #PB93-163368
GPO stock #052-003-01316-9
Recommended Citation:
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Hazards Ahead: Managing
Cleanup Worker Health and Safety at the Nuclear Weapons Complex,
OTA-BP-O-85 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1993).
For sale by the U.S. Goverment Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents.Mail Stop.Stop SSOP Washington, DC 20402-9328
ISBN 0-16 -041667-1
F
oreword
c
old War nuclear weapons production has left a legacy of environmental
contamination that is unprecented in scope and complexity. The
Department of Energy has begun cleaning up pollution at the Nuclear
Weapons Complex (NWC)-an expensive, decades-long task that will
require a workforce numbering tens of thousands of scientists, technicians, and
laborers. Protecting their health and safety must be a major goal of this cleanup
effort. Achieving this goal will require DOE to successfully confront significant
technical and managerial challenges, but it also poses a unique opportunity to
advance state-of-the-art occupational health and safety technologies and practices.
The Senate Committee on Armed Services asked OTA to undertake this
project as part of OTA’s evaluation of environmental restoration and waste
management at the DOE Nuclear Weapons Complex. The Committee directed
OTA to examine risks workers might face in cleaning up contamination at the
Complex and to evaluate the effectiveness of DOE’s occupational safety and health
programs for cleanup workers.
This background paper concludes that, thus far, DOE and its contractors
have devoted little attention to cleanup worker health and safety. They have not
convinced workers and managers that a “new culture” of accountability in
environment, safety, and health is truly ascendent. DOE’s plans call for ambitious
increased capability in occupational safety and health matters, but DOE has
devoted few resources to these efforts. Policies and programs needed to protect
cleanup workers are not yet in place.
Yet DOE could apply to great advantage both its own technical strengths
and the lessons learned by the Nation’s experience with protecting cleanup workers
at non-Federal waste sites. If the Department aggressively addresses its
organizational problems, it could become a major force in establishing the
principles, practices, and technologies needed to restore contaminated
environments to safe conditions-in a manner that ensures that the “cure” for
contaminated environments does not do more harm than the pollution itself.
In the course of preparing this background paper, OTA received important
assistance from many individuals and organizations. Workshop participants,
employees of OSHA, EPA, and DOE, and numerous contributors and reviewers
from academia, industry, and organized labor gave generously of their advice and
time. In the absence of such expert advice and guidance, OTA would have been
unable to accomplish this study. The analysis and conclusions of this background
paper are, of course, OTA’s, and OTA assumes full responsibility for the paper and
the accuracy of its contents.
. . .
Roger Herdman, Acting Director Ill
w
orkshop Participants
DOE CLEANUP WORKER Robert Goldsmith Michael Silverstein
HEALTH AND SAFETY Office of Health Surveillance and Occupational Safety and Health
Epidemiology Washington State Department of
Ed Bergin
U.S. Department of Energy Labor and Industry
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration Lanny Graves Sandra Tillet
U.S. Department of Labor Atomic Trades and Labor Council Occupational Health Foundation
Y-12 Plant
Joseph Cocalis
Office of Solid Waste and William H. Greendyke HAZARDOUS WASTE ACTION
Emergency Response Los Alamos National Laboratory CONTRACTORS (HWAC)
U.S. Environmental Protection WORKSHOP
Agency Ellen J. Mangione
Disease Control and Environmental Richard C. Gerlach
Steven Cordova Epidemiology Health Sciences Division
Joint Company Union Safety Colorado Department of Health Halliburton NUS Environmental
committee Corp.
James Melius
Rocky Flats Plant
Division of Occupational Health Thomas Bailey
U.S. Department of Energy
and Environmental Kleinfelder, Inc.
Denny Dobbins Epidemiology
Martin S. Mathamel
Worker Education and Training New York State Deparatment of
Health and Safety Division
Branch Health
CH2M-Hill
Occupational Health and Technical
John Moran
Services
Carolyn M. Kiely
Safety and Health Laborers’
National Institute of Environmental
Hazardous Waste Action
National Health and Safety
Health Sciences Contractors
Fund
John Serocki Brad Whitehurst
Diane Morrel
Office of Environmental State & Technical Affairs
Health & Safety
Restoration and Waste Hazardous Waste Action
Ebasco Environmental
Management Contractors
U.S. Department of Energy
Glenn Paulsen
Illinois Institute of Technology
NOTE: OTA appreciates and is grateful for the valuable assistance and thoughtful critiques provided by the workshop partici-
pants. The participants do not, however, necessarily approve, disapprove, or endorse this background paper. OTA assumes
full responsibility for the background paper and the accuracy of its contents.
iv
P
reject Staff
John Andelin PRINCIPAL STAFF ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF
Assistant Director
OTA Science, Information, and Tara O’Toole Kathleen Beil
Natural Resources Division Project Director Office Administrator
Robert W. Niblock Joan Ham Kim Holmlund
Oceans and Environment Program Principal Analyst Administrative Secretary
Manager
Sharon Knarvik
CONTRIBUTING ANALYSTS
Secretary
Emilia Govan
Senior Analyst CONTRIBUTOR
Peter Johnson Florence Poilon
Senior Associate Editor
German Reyes
Analyst
v
L
ist of Abbreviations
ACE-United States Army Corps of Engineers NIOSH—National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health
DOE-United States Department of Energy
NWC-nuclear weapons complex
EH—-DOE Office of Environment, Safety and Health
OSH-occupational safety and health
EM—DOE Office of Environmental Restoration and
Waste Management OSHA-Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
ERMC-Environmental Restoration Management
Contractor PEL—permissible exposure limit
GAO-United States General Accounting Office PPE-personal protective equipment
HASP-Health and Safety Plan RCRA—Resources Conservation and Recovery Act
HAZWOPER-Hazardous Waste Operations and RFI-Remedial Facility Investigation
Emergency Response Standard RIFS-Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
HWAC-Hazardous Waste Action Contractors USCG—United States Coast Guard
LANL--Los Alamos National Laboratory WAS—Westinghouse Hanford Corporation
M+O-Management and Operation Contractor
vi
c
ontents
1 Overview and Findings, 1
Cleanup Worker Health and Safety Risks, 3
Consequences of Failure To Protect Weapons
Complex Cleanup Workers, 5
Approach Used in This Study, 5
Superfund and RCRA Experience: Worker Protection
Lessons, 6
Cleanup Worker Protection in the DOE Nuclear
Weapons Complex Cleanup Program, 11
Summary of Findings, 13
Chapter 1 Endnotes, 14
2 Lessons From Superfund and RCRA, 19
Worker Protection Issues Within the Regulatory
Process, 19
Problems With Contracting Practices, 24
Effectiveness of Cleanup Worker Health and Safety
Regulations, 27
Chapter 2 Endnotes, 43
3 Cleanup Worker Protection at the DOE
Nuclear Weapons Complex, 49
Management Commitment to Occupational Safety and
Health Priorities, 50
Line Management Responsibility for Occupational
Safety and Health, 52
Oversight of Occupational Safety and Health
Practices, 56
Worker Protection Competes With Other Cleanup
Priorities, 59
DOE Site Characterization Data, 60
Impacts of DOE Contracting Practices, 62
Application of HAZWOPER to DOE Cleanup, 64
Chapter 3 Endnotes, 73
Conclusion–Opportunities and Dangers, 79
vii
Overview
1
and Findings
T
he Manhattan Project-the secret effort to invent and
build the first atomic bomb-was accomplished in less
than 4 years at a cost of approximately $2 billion.l The
project was backed by the resources of America’s
largest and most advanced corporations and engineering fins,
and employed the talents of thousands of the world’s best scien-
tists, technicians, and workers.
A half century later, the institutional descendant of the Man-
hattan Project, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), cofronts
a new mission: cleaning up the environmental pollution left by
cold war nuclear weapons production. This new mission pre-
sents DOE with daunting technical and organizational chal-
lenges as it strives to revise policies that led to widespread pollu-
tion throughout the Nuclear Weapons Complex and to restore
contaminated environments to safe conditions,
It is estimated that cleanup of environmental contamination
from nearly 50 years of nuclear weapons manufacture will cost
more than $100 billion and require more than 30 years to com-
DOE is
plete. The cost and length of the cleanup are uncertain because
the true extent of pollution and the means to remedy it areas yet responsible for
only dimly understood, Some areas of the Weapons Complex
may never be restored to pristine conditions.2 protecting those
The tasks involved in the cleanup of environmental contami-
nation are unfamiliar to DOE. Indeed, the entire field of hazard- who will do
ous waste management and environmental remediation is in its
the work of
infancy. Methods of characterizing contaminate dsites are highly
uncertain,3 and approaches to cleaning up are largely unproved
cleaning up
at both waste sites owned by private industry and government-
owned facilities such as DOE reservations.4 5
It is clear, however, that cleaning up the 14 facilities in 13
States that make up the Nuclear Weapons Complex (NWC) will
1
2 Hazards Ahead: Managing Cleanup Worker Health and Safety at the Nuclear Weapons Complex
demand the application of great talent and re- As DOE turns its attention toward its new mis-
sources. The tens of thousands of people who sion of environmental restoration and waste
will be engaged in cleanup of the Weapons Com- management, the Department assumes responsi-
plex will join a large and growing industry devot- bility for providing safe and healthful working
ed to the characterization and restoration of con- conditions for those who will do the work of
taminated environments. It is estimated that over cleaning up. The vigor and success with which
the next 5 years, DOE’s Office of Environmental DOE implements health and safety programs for
Restoration and Waste Management could re- cleanup workers will be a signal of its willing-
quire the services of as many as 25,000 scien- ness and ability to embrace the “new culture”
tists, engineers, and technicians.6 spoken of by the Secretary of Energy—a culture
Some workers will be involved in collecting that honors protection of the environment,
environmental samples, studying groundwater health, and safety as a fundamental priority.8 If
movement, and designing remediation projects. effectively conducted, the DOE cleanup could
Others will be operating earth moving equip- serve as a model of how workers engaged in haz-
ment; handling, inspecting, and repacking waste ardous waste and emergency response operations
drums; or building dams, digging trenches, and should be protected from work-related illness
constructing complex waste treatment facilities. and injury.
Still others will be plant operators, maintenance Environmental restoration and waste manage-
personnel, and technical experts at vitrification ment activities at DOE provide an opportunity to
plants, wastewater treatment facilities, and incin- advance the state of the art of occupational health
erators. Municipal firefighters, police, medical and safety programs for cleanup workers. DOE’s
experts, and other emergency response personnel stated commitment to attain a new culture that
may be called on in the event of fire, explosion, respects the environment, health, and safety; its
or accidental release of toxic materials. search for new ways of incorporating effective
The NWC cleanup will be one of the largest worker protection programs into contract agree-
environmental remediation efforts ever, and very ments; and its intent to pursue cleanup in a re-
likely the largest undertaken by the Federal Gov- sponsible and cost-effective manner-all place
ernment at taxpayers’ expense. If conducted ef- DOE in a position to become a major force in ad-
fectively, the DOE cleanup could serve as a vancing the programs and technologies needed to
model of how workers engaged in hazardous adequately protect workers from safety hazards
waste and emergency response operations should and from the adverse effects of exposure to toxic
be protected from work-related illness and in- materials.
jury. DOE’s past refusal to acknowledge its Achieving such a leadership position in occu-
obligation to comply with environmental laws pational health and safety will require DOE to
and regulations means that the Department is adopt policies and undertake actions now only in
starting environmental characterization and re- their incipient stages. To apply management
mediation activities more than a decade after the lessons gleaned from experience at non-Federal
private sector began cleaning up Superfund and cleanup operations, DOE must first recognize the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act need for strong management commitment to the
(RCRA) sites. During those years, much has occupational safety and health (OSH) of its
been learned about how to protect the health and cleanup workers. Comprehensive, DOE-wide
safety of cleanup workers; DOE could apply OSH policies, objectives, programs, and means
these lessons to great advantage. of assessing progress must be developed. The co-
operative efforts of line managers and health and
Chapter l–Overview and Findings 3
safety professionals will be required along with
input from experienced workers. Consultation
and interaction with other government agencies
and organizations with expertise in worker pro-
tection issues will also be needed if DOE is to
formulate a timely and effective approach to
cleanup worker protection. The policies adopted
then will have to be implemented and enforced.
Finally, truly independent oversight of OSH poli-
cies will be necessary at DOE facilities, with
mechanisms developed to reward or penalize ad-
herence to or violation of these policies.
CLEANUP WORKER HEALTH
AND SAFETY RISKS
In addition to many of the safety hazards asso-
ciated with conventional construction operations,
such as manual lifting, operation of heavy ma-
chinery, electrical hazards, exposure to extreme
heat and cold, and confined space operations,
workers involved in characterizing or remediat-
ing toxic waste sites may encounter fire and ex-
plosion hazards, as well as the health threats as-
sociated with exposure to toxic chemicals and
radiation.9 10 Stress-related illness can also af-
flict cleanup workers because of the unusual de- Cleanup workers face safety hazards associated with
traditional construction tasks as well as health risks
mands and uncertainties associated with this
work.11 Finally cleanup workers at DOE facili- from exposure to toxic chemicals and radionuclides.
ties will confront-in addition to all of the usual radiation are in dispute.14-17 The long-term con-
risks encountered in hazardous waste work—
sequences of exposure to chronic, low dosages of
other hazards, such as high-level radioactive toxic materials, radiation, or mixtures of these—
waste and mixed waste, that are unique to the the types of exposures most likely to be encoun-
Weapons Complex. tered by cleanup workers—remain largely unin-
It is not known what specific health risks vestigated.
12 No prospective studies
cleanup workers face. The construction trades, which include many
have been done of health effects among workers workers engaged in environmental cleanup, are
employed in the new industry of environmental among the most hazardous occupations in the
remediation. It is highly uncertain what, if any, United States and have long been associated with
specific biologic effects result from exposure to a high rate of worker injuries.18 19 An estimated
toxic substances encountered during work with $8.9 billion is spent annually on costs related to
hazardous waste. The health outcomes associat- construction accidents.20 Indirect costs, includ-
ed with exposure to most of the chemicals in ing reduced productivity, schedule delays, and
commercial use are poorly understood,13 and the damage to equipment or facilities, account for
health consequences of exposure to low doses of most of this amount.