After two and a half hours of arguments Wednesday in a hearing over a preliminary injunction request for Hanford Site worker safety, U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice said he would issue a detailed written order as promptly as he can.
Plaintiffs Washington state, Hanford Challenge, and Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union 598 have asked for a preliminary injunction requiring increased protection of workers who could be exposed to vapors associated with tank waste left by decades of plutonium production at Hanford. The preliminary injunction would stand until a lawsuit on the plaintiffs’ safety demands is resolved; trial is scheduled for September 2017. In turn, the Department of Energy and the case’s second defendant, tank farm contractor Washington River Protection Solutions (WRPS), have asked the judge to dismiss the state as a plaintiff, saying it does not meet the requirements for legal standing in the case.
Most of Wednesday’s hearing focused on the preliminary injunction motion, with plaintiffs saying DOE’s history shows it cannot be trusted to protect workers. Hanford is in a continual cycle of worker exposures, followed by increased protection requirements, after which safety measures lapse, and additional worker exposures result, said plaintiff attorneys.
Attorneys for DOE said the plaintiffs had not shown in initial court filings that any workers had been harmed by tank vapors in recent months, the time frame that was the focus of the preliminary injunction motion. The only case plaintiffs had initially briefed for that time period involved a worker whose medical records showed that lung problems were caused by an infection rather than chemical exposure, according to the federal agency.
However, the state added documentation to the case on Oct. 5 regarding a May 2 incident; DOE said the filing came so late it did not have time to thoroughly review the worker’s claims. An instrument specialist said he was overcome by a strong odor just as an industrial hygiene technician’s monitor sounded. The worker experienced symptoms that included dizziness, coughing, a nose bleed, and a headache and then began to vomit, according to the plaintiffs. The technician’s monitor detected a sufficient amount of ammonia to cause immediate harm to respiratory tissues, plaintiff attorneys said. Exposure to vapors also presents a long-term risk of cancer, according to a plaintiff expert.
DOE and WRPS said it was an unusual incident, unrelated to vapors venting from the headspace of underground tanks when waste was disturbed. Workers were performing maintenance on May 2 on a contaminated piece of equipment. Some rinse water trapped inside the equipment’s protective plastic wrapping vaporized and escaped over one to two seconds, said defense attorneys. WRPS has halted similar maintenance work until it has corrective actions in place to better protect workers, they said.
Lawyers for DOE said there is no evidence that exposure to tank vapors causes cancer. Former Hanford workers have fewer cancer deaths than the general population and live longer, they said. They argued that symptoms reportedly linked to chemical vapors, such as headaches and coughing, are common in the general population.
The personal monitor worn by the instrument specialist on May 2 did not record a vapor event, court documents state. That was to be expected, said plaintiff attorneys. The latest expert review of chemical vapor protection, which was led by the Savannah River National Laboratory and made public in early 2015, said Hanford was not equipped to monitor short, intense releases of chemical vapors. But defense attorneys argued that vapors can disperse within a few feet and the monitor that detected the ammonia was closer to the release than the worker who reported symptoms. Two other employees working on the equipment also reported symptoms, according to court documents.
Rice asked if the worker cited by plaintiffs in the May 2 incident could have asked to wear a supplied air respirator, which likely would have protected him from the vapor release. Plaintiff attorneys said workers who request supplied air respirators when they are not required risk ridicule by management or loss of work assignments. “Hanford has a culture of fear and retaliation,” said attorney Meredith Crafton, representing Hanford Challenge and Local 598. DOE supports WRPS’s supplied air respirator protocol, said Department of Justice attorney Mark Nitczynski. “If you request it, you may use it,” he said.
Among the temporary protections requested by plaintiffs is an expansion of the vapor control zone, an area in which workers must wear supplied air respirators. They are asking that the zone be expanded to 200 feet beyond a tank farm fence when work is being done, such as emptying a tank, that disturbs waste and increases the likelihood that chemical vapors will be released. Defense attorneys said the distance was arbitrary. Plaintiff attorneys responded that the current tank farm fence lines are arbitrary, but the requested 200 feet extension is based on the distance at which workers have reported suspicious odors or experience symptoms consistent with chemical vapor exposure.
