Knowing Endangerment - Hanford Challenge

downgrading to a lower, yet still adequate, level.” 97 OSHA standards for hazardous waste sites and
RCRA treatment, storage, and disposal facilities 98 reinforce this selection criteria by requiring air
supplied respirators for exposures to unknown or inadequately characterized emissions from waste.
In the face of repeated worker complaints of vapor odors and adverse health effects, CHG‟s failure to
require basic respirator use and refusal to allow employees to wear skin protecting or supplied air
respirators upon request is egregious conduct and may constitute “knowing endangerment” under
federal and Washington State law. 99
D. CHG Response to Chemical Vapor Exposures and Concerns
CHG has taken several steps to “curb employees‟ anxiety” 100 about the rise in chemical vapor
exposures, none of which acknowledge the root problems of unknown constituents venting off of the
tanks, inadequate monitoring equipment and procedures, and the alarmingly high potential risks of
contracting cancer from exposure to the tank vapors. 101
In response to numerous Problem Evaluation Requests (PERs) filed by concerned workers, CHG
formed a Chemical Vapor Solution (CVS) Team in March 2002. 102 The CVS Team‟s tasks were to
document employees‟ questions pertaining to vapors and to provide management with suggestions
regarding matters such as vapor identification and control. 103 CHG management acted on the CVS
Team‟s suggestions by writing and publishing formal answers to over 70 of the employees‟ questions
and by hiring two consultants, Kathy Lavaty of Prezant Associates and Harvard toxicologist Rudy
Jaeger, to conduct independent reviews of the industrial hygiene sampling methodologies and of
toxicological issues. CHG developed improved chemical training for interested workers, and
purchased additional organics monitoring equipment such as the ppbRAE. Recently, CHG has
revamped and reactivated the CVS Team, to address the most recent concerns raised in 2003. CHG
also recently invited DuPont Safety Resources onsite to assist in review of CHG‟s industrial hygiene
program. 104
Yet, even a cursory glance beyond the surface of CHG‟s responses indicate that there are no
significant improvements in protection of tank farm worker health and safety since the CVS Team
was formed in March 2002. The answers CHG published for its concerned employees relied on the
97 Allan P. Heins, Rick J. Cee, Stephen W. Prawdzik, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, letter to David Brown, DOE-RL, at p. 5 (April 14, 1992).
98
See 29 CFR 1910.120.
99
The Hanford tank farms are subject to Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulation by the State
of Washington. RCRA‟s “knowing endangerment” provision states that, “Any person who knowingly transports,
treats, stores, or disposes of any hazardous waste identified or listed under [the Act] in violation of [the criminal
provisions of the Act] who knows at the time that he thereby places another person in imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment for not
more than 15 years, or both.” 42 USC § 6928(e).
100 Email from a CHG Senior IH Safety Manager, to Richard DeBusk and numerous other CHG management. Sept.
6, 2002, 6:51 pm.
101 PNNL, 1997 C-103 Vapor Health Risk Assessment, supra note 13, at 8.1.
102 In November 2002, CHG also formed an Employee Response Team to allow another avenue for employees to
report concerns.
103 Chemical Vapor Solutions Team, Charter, Mar. 20, 2002, modified April 11, 2002.
104 E-mail from Ed Aromi (via CH2M General Delivery) to all CHG Employees and Subcontractors, June 27, 2003,
4:06pm, Subject: “Vapor Concerns Update.”
23