Shannon H. Gaffney

From 1999 through 2010, a team of scientists and engineers systematically reviewed approximately eight million classified and unclassified documents at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) that describe historical off-site releases of radionuclides and chemicals in order to determine the extent to which a full-scale dose reconstruction for releases is warranted and/or feasible. As a part of this effort, a relative ranking of historical airborne and waterborne radionuclide releases from LANL was established using priority index (PI) values that were calculated from estimated annual quantities released and the maximum allowable effluent concentrations according to The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (USNRC). Chemical releases were ranked based on annual usage estimates and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) toxicity values. PI results for airborne radionuclides indicate that early plutonium operations were of most concern between 1948 and 1961, in 1967, and again from 1970 through 1973. Airborne releases of uranium were found to be of most interest for 1968, from 1974 through 1978, and again in 1996. Mixed fission products yielded the highest PI value for 1969. Mixed activation product releases yielded the highest PI values from 1979 to 1995. For waterborne releases, results indicate that plutonium is of most concern for all years evaluated with the exception of 1956 when ⁹⁰Sr yielded the highest PI value. The prioritization of chemical releases indicate that four of the top five ranked chemicals were organic solvents that were commonly used in chemical processing and for cleaning. Trichloroethylene ranked highest, indicating highest relative potential for health effects, for both cancer and non-cancer effects. Documents also indicate that beryllium was used in significant quantities, which could have lead to residential exposures exceeding established environmental and occupational exposure limits, and warrants further consideration. In part because of the close proximity of residents to LANL, further study of historical LANL releases and the potential impact to public health is recommended for those materials with the largest priority index values; namely, plutonium, uranium, and selected chemicals.

Although occupational benzene exposure of refinery workers has been studied for decades, no extensive analysis of historical industrial hygiene data has been performed focusing on airborne concentrations at specific refineries and tasks. This study characterizes benzene exposures at the ExxonMobil Baytown, TX, refinery from 1978 to 2006 to understand the variability in workers' exposures over time and during different job tasks. Exposures were grouped by operational status, job title, and tasks. More than 9000 industrial hygiene air samples were evaluated; approximately 4000 non-task (> 3 h) and 1000 task-related (< 3 h) personal samples were considered. Each sample was assigned to one of 27 job titles, 29 work areas, and 16 task bins (when applicable). Process technicians were sampled most frequently, resulting in the following mean benzene concentrations by area: hydrofiner (n=245, mean=1.3 p.p.m.), oil movements (n=286, mean=0.23 p.p.m.), reformer (n=575, mean=0.10 p.p.m.), tank farm (n=9, mean=0.65 p.p.m.), waste treatment (n=446, mean=0.13 p.p.m.), and other areas (n=460, mean=0.062 p.p.m.). The most frequently sampled task was sample collection (n=218, mean=0.40 p.p.m.). Job title and area did not significantly impact task-related exposures. Airborne concentrations were significantly lower after 1990 than before 1990. Results of this task-focused study may be useful when analyzing benzene exposures at other refineries.

Objectives: Setting occupational exposure limits (OELs) for odorous or irritating chemicals is a global occupational health challenge. However, often there is inadequate knowledge about the toxicology of these chemicals to set an OEL and their irritation potencies are usually not recognized until they are manufactured or used in large quantities. Methods: In this paper, the importance of accounting for risk perception and communication; conditioned responses; and interindividual variability in tolerance, detection and susceptibility with respect to setting an OEL are discussed in relation to three chemosensory models. These parameters and models were then used to construct a flowchart-style methodology that can be used to set an OEL for a specific chemical. Results: The OEL identified for a chemical odorant or irritant will depend on the type of chemosensory effect that the chemical is likely to exhibit. For example, experience has shown that chemicals with a low odor threshold often require low OELs even though many are not toxic or do not cause irritation at those air concentrations. Conclusion: In order to establish the appropriate OEL, organizations need to agree upon the percentage of the workforce that they are attempting to protect and the types of toxicological end points that are sufficiently important to protect against (e.g. transient eye irritation, enzyme induction or other reversible effects). This is particularly true for sensory irritants. The method described in this paper could also be extended to setting limits for ambient air contaminants where risk perception plays a dominant role in whether the public views the exposure as being reasonable or safe.

Objective: This paper reviews current research regarding the relationship between odor perception or irritation and setting an occupational exposure limit (OEL). Special focus was directed at those settings where a small fraction of persons report unacceptable responses to concentrations well below the OEL. Methods: We evaluated the published literature on the topic of irritation and olfactory response to exposure to industrial chemicals. More than a dozen researchers have been active in this area over the past 10 years. Results: It was found that for some chemicals, even when one maintains airborne concentrations below a particular OEL, this level of exposure may not be adequate to prevent all persons from reporting an appreciable adverse response. In some cases, worker’s pre-existing belief systems about the source of an odor may be sufficient to require that they have not be exposed to any detectable concentration. In addition, detection of odors by workers may tap into the person’s aversion to odors, in general. In both situations, it is often necessary to address these specific issues through risk communication and dealing directly with risk perception. Conclusions: For practical reasons, the current objective of organizations charged with setting OELs for chemicals is to identify concentrations that do not cause irritation or widespread reports of unpleasant sensory stimulation in the vast majority of workers (e.g., about 80–95%).