Introduction/Administrative News
The TRADE Industrial Hygiene/Occupational Safety Special Interest Group (IH/OS SIG) Steering Committee met on September 24, 2007 through a conference call meeting. IH/OS SIG Steering Committee Chair Ralph Hinterman facilitated the meeting in which the following Steering Committee members/guests participated:
Tom Cornell, Fluor Hanford Inc.,
Ralph Hinterman, Argonne National Laboratory,
Daniel Marsick, DOE, HS-11, Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy,
Deborah McFalls, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE),
Dina, Matz, Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL),
John Peters, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Joel Rabovsky, DOE, HS-11, Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy, and
Kevin Sheffield, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL).
IH/OS SIG Steering Committee Chair notified the IH/OS SIG Coordinator that they could not participate in the meeting:
Bob Kapolka, ORISE,
Rob Nicholas, LANL, and
David Weitzman, HS-11, Office of Worker Safety and Health Policy.
Use of Tungsten Welding Rods Containing Thorium
Joel Rabovsky provided information about the June 2007 DOE HSS Safety Bulletin. The bulletin is called the "Use of Tungsten Welding Rods Containing Thorium." DOE HSS has determined that a number of sites do not have an acceptable hazard analysis for the use of tungsten welding rods containing thorium.
This bulletin was written to provide some guidance in response to the HSS findings. It indicates that there are some extreme conditions where somebody could get some degree of radiation exposure. The National Regulatory Commission did a safety analysis and determined that even in the most extreme condition, nothing would be of any significant health consequence if it occurred. Typically these welding rods contain Thorium which is radioactive. They are widely used in industry along with other materials as welding rods. They can turn into vapors or fumes and possibly be inhaled. The process of preparing the welding rods for use requires grinding that can generate airborne particles. The hazard is primarily inhalation of radioactive materials. There have been a number of studies recommending not to use these rods to avoid any possible radiation exposure. As far as the magnitudes, studies that have been done on these, typically the exposure is < 100 millirem per year. The limit of 100 millirem a year is the regulatory limit for a member of the public. Industrial hygiene work practices should be adequate to address any radiological concerns. In most of the studies where people determine what the potential radiation dose is, the calculation is done conservatively. No credit is given for ventilation. Also a typical dose assessment is determined for the most extreme case (people doing mostly grinding). Under typical work conditions and with reasonable ventilation, there should not be a health issue, however DOE does suggest following the guidance in the bulletin.
LANL Nanotechnology Safety and Health Procedures Dina Matz provided information about the LANL nanotechnology safety and health procedures development approach. To aid in the development of basic requirements for nanotechnology, LANL is looking at:
Sandia National Laboratories CPR400.1.1, MN471001, ES&H Manual, Section 6Q, Nanomaterials,
LANL Institutional Policy IP-300-SD1 "Integrated Safety Management System Description Document with embedded 10 CFR Worker Safety and Health Program,” and
DOE Center for Integrated Nanotechnologies implementation of the Secretarial Policy Statement on Nanoscale Safety (DOE456.1, issued 9-15-05).
Dina understands there is an ASTM standard that’s imminent called the “Standard Guide for Handling Unbound Engineered Nanoparticles in Occupational Settings.” They want to review that document. There was an Environmental Protection Agency technology Web seminar with some excellent features last week. LANL’s challenge is to come up with a document that keeps pace with the ever changing issues and concerns about nanotechnology activities.
One potential bone of contention is with medical monitoring. There is an Inspector General (IG) report that seemed to indicate that people were not doing medical monitoring and the medical people are saying monitor how and for what? LANL is identifying who is working with engineered nanomaterials and some information about what the materials are and what they are doing with them.
LANL does not have nanotechnology training laboratory wide but does have some within the specific facility. Kevin Sheffield from PNNL mentioned that his site is looking at training in three different areas. One would be awareness training. Another training focus would be formalizing what the scientists do on their own already which is to determine in their own minds whether someone is qualified to do a certain procedure or use a certain piece of instrumentation. The third is training for maintenance workers. Kevin suggested DOE wide that something needs to be developed for safe practices gleaned from the knowledge base available within the DOE complex. He suggested developing safe practices and possibly an awareness training programs for maintenance staff supporting not only the five DOE Nanoscale Research Centers but for all the nanotechnology research activities at the different DOE sites. As much as fifty percent of the nanotechnology works being done occurs outside the centers.
PNNL Nanotechnology Safety and Health Procedures
Kevin Sheffield provided nanotechnology safety and health related information from the PNNL site. Kevin noted that basically they had started formalizing their program in late July when the word went out about the "DOE Nanoscale Science Research Centers Approach to Nanomaterials ES&H" document. They first looked at what they needed to do for gap analysis from worker safety to waste operations. They just recently completed that process. They have some processes, procedures, and permits in place, that with some slight tweaks, could handle most of the guidance put forth in the DOE Centers' document. PNNL is going to do some awareness training and formalize that training process with the scientists. They are going to use a similar system for the requirements for biological laboratory workers. They are trying to stay consistent with their biosafety group because a lot of the research in nanomaterials also overlaps with biosafety. This seems to be a common theme with other national laboratories too. Kevin is looking for some good guidance on how to maintain a conservative approach for working with maintenance on systems or items that might be contaminated or potentially contaminated.
DOE Nanotechnology Safety and Health News
Dan Marsick reported there was not any new information from DOE about nanotechnology safety and health issues. DOE sent the comments on the Draft IG’s report to the IG’s Office. Dan does not know what kind of recommendations DOE is going to put into place. One of the IG report recommendations was training as well as information dissemination. The information dissemination DOE is directly working on through a Web site. They are also looking at training issues. The IG’s report also addresses medical surveillance/monitoring. According to Dan, DOE Official Paul Wambach believes that DOE needs to gather data for medical surveillance. Dan reported that a DOE related notice was on hold at this time. They are working closely with the Office of Science to establish a best practices guidance document.
Future Steering Committee Conference Call Meeting The next Steering Committee meeting is scheduled for November 6, 2007, 1:15 – 2:45 pm EST.
For additional information, please contact: Deborah McFalls, IH/OS SIG Coordinator
Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
P. O. Box 117, MS 10
Oak Ridge, TN 37831-0117
