ML20040C366
| ML20040C366 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001113 |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1981 |
| From: | Vaughan C GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| To: | Olshinski J NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION II) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040C360 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201270571 | |
| Download: ML20040C366 (45) | |
Text
.
G E N E R A L h E L E:CIRfy,"..
NUCLEAR ENERGY
- 7: A 'JT A, <3 E p r;i,,
PRODUCTS DIVISION W:LMINGTON MANUF ACTURING CASTLE HAYNE ROAD. P.O. BOX 780. WILMihdTN, b, d 28&2 2 DkA5000 DEPARTMENT f
Nove mber 24, 1981 Mr.
J. Olshinski, Direc tor Engineering & Technical Inspec tion Division U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, RII 101 Marie tta Stree t, NW - Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Olshinski:
Re fere nce s:
(1) NRC License SNM-1097, Docke t #70-1113 (2) NRC Inspec tion Repor t 70-1113/81-11, d ated 10/26/81, received 11/2/81 Thank you for your letter referenced above which reported the results of the inspec tion of our fuel fabrication plant by Mr.
L. A.
Franklin of your of fice on September 21-25, 1981.
Pertaining to the one item of apparent noncompliance with NRC requirements in your le t ter, the reply to this item is given in A ttac h men t #1 to this le tter.
With regard to the request for additional information relating to of f site dose calculations, this information is given in Attachment #2 to this le tter.
We appreciate your inspec tor 's commnts and suggestions related to our employee sa fe ty and environmntal protec tion programs.
The se comments and suggestions are helpful to us in our constant e f fc,r ts to improve the se progr a ms, ensure the continued health and safe ty of plant personnel, and ensure our compliance with NRC regulations and license conditions.
We also welcome further discussion with your staff on the items in your letter and in our related reply, if nece ssary, for further clarification of these i te ms.
Your inspec tion repor t referred to above does not contain information which we believe to be proprie tary.
Very truly yours, GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY 04, Charles M.
Vaughan, Ac ting Manager Licensing & Compliance Audits M/C J26 f
hDR OFFICIAL COP [
CMV. bni O
OO 3
NSD-1 C
)
~~
A t tac h mn ts
GENER AL @ ELECTRIC Mr. J.
Olshinski, Direc tor Nove mber 24, 1981 ATTACHMENT 1 The information given below refers to the one item in Appendix A
" Notice of Violation, " in the NRC Inspec tion Repor t 70-1113/81-11, d a ted Oc tober 26, 1981.
The correc tive ac tions de tailed below have already been imple nented or will be imple nented by the dates shown.
" License Condition 9 of the license requires that l icen sed naterial be u sed in accordance with s ta te ne n t s, representations and conditions of Appendix A, as contained in the licensee 's applic a tion.
Appendix A,
Sec tion 4.1 requires that operations and ac tivities shall be direc ted by the designated area manager who shall establish written operating procedure s.
Procedure PROD No. 1CR08, Personal Survey -
Leaving Controlled Area, requires that individuals hold the scanner probe approx imately 1/4 inch away and slowly pass it over the hair, f ace, che st, hands, waists, ankle s, shoe s and TLD badge.
Con tr ary to the above, on Septe nber 23, 1981, approx imately thir ty workers were observed ex i ting the controlled area.
Twe n ty -f ive percen t of these workers were observed holding the probe a much greater distance than 1/4 inch, and mov ing the probe at a rapid rate.
This is a Severity Level V Violation (Su pple ren t IV)."
General Elec tric nei ther admits or denies the alleged violation since only the NRC inspec tor was pre sent to observe the alleged violation.
There was no identification of the workers involved.
Reasons for the alleged violation are not obviou s.
All workers have been provided with tr aining and re training with regard to the survey require nen ts and the proper survey tec hn ique s.
Wr i t ten procedure s are posted and adequate survey equipnent is available.
Radiation surveys by workers has been a subject of concern by the General Elec tric Radiation Safe ty Committee for so ne ti me.
Based on this committee 's recommendation, the WMD training program was ex panded to con tain nore de tailed in for ma tion and to clearly illu strate correc t survey tec hn ique s.
Employees are required to de non s tr a te that they can per for m the ac tivities required by the
e GENER AL ($t ELECTRIC Mr. J. Olshinski, Direc tor Novenber 24, 1981 A ttac h men t 1 - Page 2 change room and survey procedures, and each employee is required to sign a statement acknowledging the training and de non stra tion.
A comprehensive disciplinary action program is also in place to handle violators and - several employees have been formally reprimanded in accordance with these disciplinary procedures.
Informal audita of change room employee surveys have not shown the presence of a problem as significant as tha t found by the in spec tor.
It is important to note that during the week of Novenber 16, 1981, an NRC inspec tor did not note any significant level of improper or omitted survey s.
Notwithstanding the above, as a result of the Septe nber NRC in spec tion, the subjec t of personnel survey requirenents and techniques has been included in routine roundtable mee ting s be tween supervisors and workers.
Fu ture plans include the implementation of struc tured audits of change room survey s by - supervisory personnel ( fore men,
managers).
WMD is also planning a staff review of the sub jec t.
GE has also institu ted a long term study group to follow the survey prac tice, reco mmend improvenents as required and periodically update the WMD staff on results.
General Elec tr ic feels the requirenent for personnel surveys is ef fec tively imple nen ted and that currently the licensed ac tivities are in full compliance with the regulatory I
requ ire nen ts.
As required in Appendix A of the inspec tion report, in for mation contained in the response is provided under oath as follows:
The foregoing is true to the best of ny knowledge and belief based on the information ava Nh7 e to ne at this time.
Signed:
N.
dag
~
Date:
y/g ff gt /
s/
/ 7 C.
M.
Vaughan
- bmw i
1 a
x GEN ER AL @ki, Direc tor ELECTRIC Olshins Mr. J.
Nove nber 24, 1981 ATTACHMENT 2 The informatior, given below refers to your request for a de scription in detail of those ac tions taken or planned to improve the timeliness in assessments of doses for uranium compound releases to ne mbers of the general public following unplanned release s.
(Reference Inspec tion Report 70-1113/81-11.)
General Elec tric feels that with regard to the specific unplanned release of October 15, 1981, conmensurate with the nature of the release, a tinely assessnent was perforned, llowever, based upon discussions with NRC personnel and others, GE does agree that an upgrade of the assessment capability is de sir able.
As a result of the investigation into the area of rapid assessments of public exposure, GE feels that there are three key ' areas required to support this ty pe of ef for t:
(1) con sis ten t, well-de fined me thodology, (2) calculatory tool s which can rapidly perform the voluminous calculations, and (3) source data.
At WMD, adequ a te source data is available, except that onsite continuously-recording wind speed and direc tion in stru nen tation versus 'one reliance on the National Weather Service station loc a ted four mile s sou theast of the fuel f abric ation f acili ty may be desirable.
Ite ms (1) and (2) require the major attention.
GE's general approach to the upgrade has been to pattern this f acility 's capability af ter tha t u sed by the NRC.
There have been numerous telephone calls between our f acility and Region II NRC Of fice of Inspec tion & Enforce men t, Health & Safe ty Research
- personnel at ORNL and the NRC Division of ~ Fuel Cycle Licensing env iron men tal per sonnel.
As a re sult of the se e f forts, the following ac tions have been co mple ted :
o Update of the nearest boundary resident information for WMD.
o Agree me n t to u se Regulatory Guide 1.145 me thodology for evaluating dispersion as opposed to Regulatory Guide 3.34.
o Transfer of the DACRIN computer code for dose calculations to WMD for immediate use.
..a
GENER AL $$ ELECTRIC Mr. J. Olshinski, Direc tor Nove nber 24, 1981 - Page 2 o-Selec tion of the ICRP 30 me thodology (exclu sively ) for standard man based on discussions with US-NRC Division of Fuel Cycle Licensing.
Planned ac tions which remain to be completed include:
o Debug DACRIN to run on the GE host compu ter, and modify it to include the dispersion calculations of Regulatory Guide 1.145 and the ICRP 30 standard man dose ne thodology.
o Implement the decision to provide onsite, continuous wind speed and direc tional recording.
Manual calculations for dispersion in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.14 5 and the use of DACRIN as currently programmed will be in place for use by February 1, 1982.
Modifications to DACRIN bo au tomate the dispersion calculations and include the ICRP 30 me thodology for standard man will be completed approximately year-end 1982.
Onsite environnental recording should be available mid-1982.
C. M.
Vaughan
- bmw
/
M
r GENER AL $ ELECTRIC 5656 November 9, 1981 co,ers.
out couu.
oarg.
WMD/QA RC L&CA og,r.
M/C J26 aooatss.
INVESTIGATION REPORT -
suoster.
gF6 RELEASE OF 9/15/81 MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION On September 15, 1981, at approximately 1100, a UF6 release from Vaporization Line 4 occurred.
In accordance with P/P 40-12, " Nuclear & Environmental Incident Investiga tions, " the Acting Manager-Nuclear Safety Engineering classified the incident as Class II based on potential airborne levels in excess of 300 times MPC for a restricted area.
(See. )_
NE20 management was properly notified as evidenced in Attachments 2 and 3.
While there were no apparent requirements to report to the NRC or State, these contacts were made on 9/16/81 at 1030 to GP Cory211, NRC-RII, and at 1315 to Laney Watkins, State.
Neither office expressed any immediate concern.
Under the requirements of P/P 40-12, an investigation team was established by CM Vaughan acting for and at the direction of WJ Hendry who is specified in the P/P.
The investigation team first met on 9/17/81 and was composed of the following members:
Name Title
- CL Beane chm
- WR Secker Manager - Process Engineering GM Bowman Manager - Nuclear Safety Engineering
- DW Brown Manager - Powder Production
- AG Dada Manager - Chemical Technology
- SW Dale Manager - ChME RH Foleck Senior Specialist - Licensing Engineering JL Harmon Manager - MT&EO NJ Hendry Manager - Regulatory Compliance
- RG Lewis Supervisor - Radiation Protection
- DG Linz Manufacturing Engineer - Process Engineering
Memo to Distribution November 9, 1981 Page 2 Name Title GR Mallett Manager - Nuclear Materials Management
.GW McKenzie Manager - ME-Fuels
- CF Shipp Manager - Industrial Safety WB Smalley Senior Engineer - Environmental Protection CM Vaughan Manager - Licensing & Compliance Audits The details and results of the investigation follow.
DESCRIPTION OF INCIDENT The incident is described in Attachment 4 prepared and reviewed by the Investigation Team.
CONSEQUENCES OF INCIDENT There were no serious consequences resulting from the incident.
Regulatory limits for exposures were not exceeded.
The impact to facility operations was minimal.
Property damage was insignificant.
Experience from the incident and associated investigation have resulted in modifications to Line 4 which preclude this type of failure in the future, and have resulted in some changes in operating procedures for other lines which make them less vulnerable to different but somewhat related failures.
Interaction with the NRC will result in improved compatibility for calculating and reporting boundary exposures.
ACTION TAKEN AT TIME OF INCIDENT Immediate actions taken at the time of the incident are described in Attachment 4.
Actions taken prior to restart of the FMO/FMOX conversion are described in Attachment 5.
Actions of the Investigation Team are, of course, continued in this report.
NAMES OF PEOPLE CONTACTED includes a listing of people interviewed by members of the Invastigation Team.
Other WMD personnel were utilized as required and their input is noted within this report as necessary.
Memo to Distribution November 9, 1981 Page 3 REFERENCES TO DOCUMENTS REVIEWED 10 CFR 20.403 10 CFR 20.405 10 CFR 70.52 P/P 40-12 DATES & TIMES OF INVESTIGATION STEPS All items used in support of the investigation either describe dates and times or are dated appropriately.
PHOTOS, SKETCHES OR APPLICABLE DRAWINGS Photographs of the stationary air sampler filters are included in Attachment 7.
No other photographs were taken.
Incident descriptions and corrective actions include appropriate sketches.
CONCLUSIONS RELATIVE TO APPLICABLE COMPANY POLICY &/OR REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS No company policy was violated and all requirements for responding to this type of incident were met.
Personnel exposure considerations required by 10 CFR 20.403 and 10 CFR 20.405 were evaluated using information in Attachments 8,
9 and 10.
This information indicates that there were no reportable overexposures or over limit releases.
Facility lost time and damage to property is denoted in Attachments 11 and 12.
The facility did not lose one day's operation.
In fact, most portions of the facility operations were uninterrupted.
Facility damage was much less than S2,000.
From a safeguards standpoint, the release was extremely small as identified by the material balance in Attachment 13. 4 includes an analysis which demonstrates that the material that was released was either contz.ined or measured by l
one. of the normal discard measurement systems.
RECOMMENDED CORRECTIVE ACTIONS 5 identifies the major corrective actions taken and compares them to the cause of failure.
j l
L
Memo to Distribution November 9, 1981 Page 4 6 identifies other areas which the Investigation l
Team felt should also be addressed separately from this specific incident investigation.
Additionally, it is recommended that GE obtain the most current acceptable software routines to calculate boundary exposures and implement these at WMD.
Negotiaticns are currently underway with the NRC to secure these codes.
zk k CM Vaughan, Acting Manager, i
Licensing & Compliance Audits &
Acting Investigation Team Leader CMV:bmw Attachments 1
i
. =. = - -
November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 1
"'" MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION GEN ER AL h ELECTRIC o n comu*
5369 oAtta September 15, 1981 cop'tS* B.
F.
Bentley A. Dada oter.
WMD QA Regulatory Compliance G. W. McKenzie G.
E. Powers
~
aooncss.
M/C J-26 C.
F.
Shipp y
W.
B.
Smalley susitet.
SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 N C. M. Vaughan UF
^
L^
6 W.
J.
Hendry, Manager Regulatory Compliance Based on chemical analyses of the 9 air sampler filters in the ADU vaporization room, preliminary results reported by Ed Powers indicate that airborne levels averaged over a twenty-four hour period probably exceed 300 times the maximum permissible concentration.
In accordance with P/P 40-12 criteria " Airborne levels in a restricted area averaged over a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> period in excess of 300 times MPC.
(MPC is 1 X 10-18 pCi/cc)", this has been classified as a Class II incident.
W G.
M.
Bowman, Acting Manager Nuclear Safety Engineering dh 4
1 5
aus
-,.nmae.em-=-mm v
Fwe-g a.--
- - --- +-
w.,--Y r
+9
,A.-4.-
--,.m4----m
-r
- ~.
,. + >,
--t 4
'=.-'-em
- u MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION
';ovember 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 2 GEN ER AL h ELECTRIC oiat comu. 8*292-5748 oart.
September 17, 1981 corits-oter. WILMINGTON MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT AoCHss. M/C J-02 sussret. ITEM OF INTEREST J. A.
Long, General Manager Wilmington Manufacturing. Department FOLLOWUP ON UF6 GAS RELEASE As reported earlier, a UF6 gas release occurred Tuesday morning in the FMO vaporization area.
Although the release was well contained, the incident had to be reported to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> because of the time required for cleanup activities.
The recort was made Nednesday morning within the required time oeriod.
Subsequently, J.
P. O'Reilly, Director - USNRC Region II, called to inquire for more information, including details of employee exposures, stack measurement.3, and site boundary conditions.
We supplied the information, which clearly indicated that there had been no exposures to employees or the public in excess of allowable limits.
It is accarent that Mr. O' Reilly was concerned for the potential inquiry by the press or others, and he wished to be well crepared for it.
To the best of our knowledge, there has been no ex*.ernal interest in the incident.
'z AM E. IN Lees, Manager Quality Assurance
/sbm
-~
~
I MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - NOVEMBER 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 3 G EN ER Al. h ELECl310 8*292-5666 September 16, 1981 JM Hobbs e
out couu.
m,
_,,y,,,
BA Podheresky WILMINGTON MANUFACTURING DEPARTMENT GA Senn i,
ocer.
LD Schrepple M/C J20 WMD Staff 1
acoggss.
ITEMS OF INTEREST 3,,ucer.
W.
H.
Bruggeman, Vice President and General Manager Nuclear Enercy Business Operations M/C 821 - San Jose
_U F c. RELEASE If Cn Seotember 15 at approximately 11 a.m.,
the vaporization area
- \\
of FMO experienced a significant UF6 release.
All FMO Conversion operatons were immediately shutdown.
The release was successfully brought under control by excellent emergency actions by Shoo Operations, Manufacturing Engineering, and Radiation Safety personnel, and contamination was constrained to the vapori:stion area.
There was no significant release to the atmosphere.
A recently ccepleted major revision to the vaporization area air 4
conditioning system was a major factor in containing the release.
A full-fledged investigation was initiated immediately and is excected to be conpleted on Thursday.
i Although ther were no employee exposures or atmospheric release t!. it dictate a requirement for NRC reportino, the NRC will ce advised of the incident since the clean-up activities are expected to take 48-72 hours.
/*
- 0. lJ~; /&
..,, rse 1
James A.
Long i
e
)
g h
.~
- ^ -.
~
MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 4 I
Description of Incident - 9 fiff"al (4 F b bh Y u
The gas release was a result of a failed gasket in the UF line from Line 4 6
t Vaportzern A and n to the hydrolysis receiver tant. The release started at about 11:U7 a.m. EDT. A schematic of this system is shown in Figure l The vaporiscrs are closed chambers in which hot air is circulated to heat the cylinders and vaporize the UFr3 The cylinder temperature is controlled to approximately 200-T10 of (7% puly, max).
'Ilie renni t Ing prennure in the cylinder (meanured by the prennure transmitters) allows UF to flow to hydrolysis 6
when the UFr, " hydrolyze" valve is opened. The UFr, line is 1" Sch. 40 stainless uteel welded pipe which is resistance heated by directLy passing current at low voltage (7.8 VAC) through the pipe. Electrically isolating flanges (insul-
]
flanges) which prohibit the passage of current between mating flanges, are i
located at the ends of the pipe line and at junctions such as tees.
Line 4 was down at the time of the Incident. Both vaporizers 4A and 4B were in operation und the cylinders were up to temperature and pressure (Table 1). The line had been shut down the previous evening (Monday, 9/14/81) at 8:00 p.m.)
This was a normal, scheduled shutdown. Cylinder 4B was in service when the line was shut down and approximately 130 kg UF6 had been used from the cylinder.
Bo th 3 manual valve and automatic valve were in the open position at the time of the incident.
It cannot he determined if 4B valve was closed during the shutdown and later reopened, or if it was in the open position the entire time. Some time durlug the morninr. of 9/15/8L. a protective circuit on the UF, line electric c
heating system tripped out the system. At approximately 10:00 a.m., the operator investigating the problem reset the heating system and noted that the temperature had cooled to 150"F (normal setpoint 250 F). By about 10 :4 5 a.m., the 3 Operator reported the temperature was up to 200 F and rising.
1 e
g 6
C h
S x
w 4-E X
ll- - -
~,
m m
U2 22 N,
-O een Q
=>
<4
=
=<
=;
APu:
U3 4
Sr e
Ed Z
M x
5 m
1k x
=
k b
m m
N C
~
'l-c 4
a e
a w
l u)
- 4
=
c3 4 f
M A
=2 w
P \\-
X ff-i
-m 4__
s mm5 4
~
4 i
q
If ii E
"D NEGO "A
~
I A
X T
S l
I!
R i
I E
S B
Y M
L A
O l
R E
C l
D "A L V
Y l
" A l
V y
M ET S
YS 4
I I
E
=
N E
l.
R 1
UG S
I l
l F
F O
I VE E
R G
P NA L
A-FLU E
S
" V E N BL V
I A
"V LA 7
V E
B l
"C G
X
.T1 l
i A
R L
E F
B L
0 i
U M
S l
l l
C l
I y
e sg n
.D
Q TABLE 1 Cyl lnildr Te intu. rat uri nnil l'ressure Time of Incident
- ylinder A
n Temperature F 220 2'30 l'ressu re l'S ic 65 75 p
- i 1
I Because both the B automatic and manual valves were open and the UF line 6
wau cooler than the cylinder, UF6 condenned in the line all the way up to the
' UF,., "hyd rolyze" valve. As the line cooled further to 150"F, UF6 " 1idIfI"d in cold ~spota (such as the val.ves), trapping 11guld UFr,.
When the line heat nyntem wan rentarted and the llF 1 quid beg:pn to expand and to vaporize, very 6
high pressures were bu tit up between the UF, " hydrolyze" valve and the solid 7
blockages. The nasket in the flange labeled insulflange (Figure l
), being the weakent point in the llFn line, failed due to hydraulle rupture resul tin;; f rom -
rehentinn ol' the i Ine cons a in inn i rapped UF I lep Id.
6 i
Action Taken at the Thne of the incident i
The ficut indleation of a problem in the Control Room was that the gas leak alarms on Vaporizers 4A and 4B went of f.
The Control Room Operator immediately j
paged the Vaporization Operator to Inves ti ;a te.
t Meanwhile, the Vapor izat lant Operator saw evidence of a UF, leak at the Vaporization r
i Door (t rom the Chemleal Area) and went f or a full lace mauk. When he returned, he could not enter the VaporizaLlon Area to find the source of the leak, so he turned on the CO-2 system to 1A, 3n, 4A, and 41: to f reeze down the cylinders.
The Control Houm Operator turned of f the heat to all of the vaporizers.
liy this time, enough UF, gas had been released to reqn"rc Scott Air Pak entry into r
the Vaporization Area.
Visibi1LLy in the Vaporization Area was only 4-6 inches.
A nmall amount of gas seeped into the Chemical Area when the doors were opened and so the entire area was placed on full face mask.
All personnel not involved in utoppin>; the leak were evacuated f rom the area. Air samples in the Press Room and East Roem taken during the incident, showed that the UF6 gas was c ntained in the Chemical Area.
t
I
-3_
e.
Operators entering Vaporization first f rom the Cliemical Arca and then from the Cyl inder Dock were unable to turn t!e cylinder valve stem to close the valve.
- llie manual CO3 valven were opencil to Vaporizern 4A and 411 to annure that CO 2 was flowing.
'Ibo Maintenance men were abic to op'en the vaporizer lid and get enough leverage to close the 41: cylinder valve. Operators closed all of the pintall hand valves and the manual UF valves n all f the lines. These actions 6
utopped the UF6 gas release and secured the lines. This was about 11:40 to i
11:45 a.m. EDT.
l The roof nerahlier uniin were nwItched slurInn the incident. Containment of the UF gas in the Vaporization Area was excellent. No Ul'6 escaped to the unc ntr 11ed 6
cyl J nder dock area.
J 1
9 I
t i.
+
i 1
)
'idEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 5 GENER AL h ELECTRIC ME/F-81-68
)
not couu.
8*292-5835 ra r,.
September 18, 1981 c c t-, n. WR Becke JE Bergman c p "o < g y cut.
WMD - ME/ Fuel
-'A DW Brown AG Dada on,v.
K33 JL Harmon W 3 HENORY M
- .u n r e c t.
RE-START OF FM0/FMOX CONVERSION CF Sh pp
~
RECElvEO B SEP 231981 B. F. Bentley, Manager Fuel Chemical Operation C. M. VAUCNAN Based upon the meeting held at 8:30 a.m., 9/13/81, MT&E0 Conference Room wherein all elements of control, procedures, equipment and safety resources were considered, the operation of vaporization on lines 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 is considered to be safe to start.
Key items:
o CO replenished 2
e Procedures on 6, 7, 8 modified to reflect incident findings (via TOI) e Vaporization lines on ADU lines 1, 2 and 3 tc be free of UF /
6 UO F2 2 plugs e Operators re-instructed of special issues such as reset of stereo heat system (contained in NI/ PROD) e Continuation of investigation of incident Continued operation of lines based upon no new findings which e
negate the casis of this re-start h/V l
G.
'.J. McKenzie, Manager Manufacturing Engineering / Fuel GWM:em l
l
MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 6
~
PERSONS I NTEl(V I EWEI) !!Y INVESTIGATING TEAM NAME ORGANIZATION
- E.
C. lierring Maintenance
- PI11y.Norrla Ma i n tuttance it.irney Hungh t on Maintentence Steve Smith Rad Safety
- Dean Nance Rad Sal'ety
- ttarv in Wa tkinn Shop Operations-
- Ken llenLon Shop Operations
- llale llenton Shop OperatJons
- C.il Gardner Shop Operations Fred Pearsall Shop Operations
". foe Pierce Shop Operations
- J im Ca r r Shop Operations Charles Clemons Shop Operations l
W. A. llenderson Shop Operations
~
- 15. J. Heane Chemical Manuf acturing i:ngIncering
- Wore Scot t A i r Packs and were in Vaporization at come time during the release period.
_u
_._a-.a-s.
A.m maae4 em a_a 2._
-a+
j MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 7 1
l Stationary air sampler filter disks immediately after the UF6 release on September 15, 1981:
I m-l l
l l
~
bf,. x_
l
.~
7 ' J. O.
- 02 s.1 ti g
' ^
I i"
.,,, aw I
h
=~4
~*ee
//
Y. \\
\\-
l:
C.
u.
- :u-e f
i 1
}..& '., ;.,, ' ^~ * '..*. : *.
u. ~
=
ya --
-y.
i
. u. ~; :
_..;,',,"* -'.:. ' n.yz 3 _
c
~
m l
.5
~
.m
~.
O C
.---.. _....2'.-
- -,.,,- - - y.,_.
I i
I j
l MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 8 UF6 GAS RELEASE 9/15/81 PERSONNEL EXPOSURE
SUMMARY
AIRBORNE' EXPOSURE
SUMMARY
THE IPEP program used at GE Wilmington to calculate airborne concentrations and oersonnel exoosures indicated via the time in area (TIA) data that a total of 147 employees were present in the FMO/FMOX complex controlled areas during day shif t on the day of the UF6 release (9/15/81).
Since the IPEP program would automatically assume a person was in the area the whole time and calculate high concentrations into a oerson's exposure, who as an example left the area until the release was cleared, time in area and these exposure corrections had to be oerformed by the Radiation Protection personnel.
These corrections were performed using time framino (examole:
employee left area for entire time of release), job function area corrections (example:
employee went to a different iob function area during the release); and mask orotection factors (deoendent on mask type - full face or SCRA.- worn and time).
Based on personnel actions during the incident, a total of 36 exposure corrections were made.
Eleven of these 36 were corrected after the shift report (IPEP) was run with the eleven printing out on the IPEP detail report (the detail report prints out when a person reaches 3/4 of the weekly exposure limit).
After all corrections were performed, the results indicated that no GE internal action guidelines for personnel airborne exposure were exceeded due to the UF6 cas release.
( See attached Airborne Expo Iure Summary).
E L. k F m
- '"A' se,G as
- 3 Uli Gns*2aense 9hf81 m.a4 sssiwro As&owen
-g: m y-IPER Expcsa c exe suie
'*##E' Y'*"A MWED pgwi poixnur su-M/e p.c-da,b
$4Y f NAME~
~
-- x/b"#
- 10 ~
/3fa /D AA/NN4SY, 8. ll N
980
- 2. T
/3864 rzz10 r7*. D. D.
/o02 7 AudAS 2.6.
_($
J9297
.sPrsaNAN,
.7* L.
22645' AL47'7V.
- 3. D.
22 +'32 4)o40858y]
J. 7~
2 2 44fo Afaffay'.
ZA 2373/
$0S7?N '
A M.
2A 124 evrAr' *7 G: D 7
229&8 A4NEA A$
2A 97/ d)/zuan5 AN J3/22
- 1sMMoNS
- d. R X
98 0 K* 2.
/o 442 A/d4N
- d. E JA/96 m;
EE M359 AeD21N.w/
S.
/9977 Acca4.
Al.
22008 M/4ADb2 EA 22/97 7o*o D,.
. TL.
22222 AeN7bH.
G. D.
2227W A4ard) d' E 2 235*5_.Sardt./FF.
W. E 224/4 MtHENZ//.
WJ 32 90/ 3,8230Wl 4A U
2 2 f %i~ A zz cly_.
4fJ.
2222/
W/uMRQ A L.
1 23204 cox as 23235* Gopb/M, EA.
Lat'of~
57anLn' L W.
6 90 0
/0L37 4EzoNA a'4 6 90 O
/6((2.L JARR XE R4D
/80
\\ -
/6413 LarA2 LH 6 90 D
/&&f4 naco_l DD
& 90 A7 232&D demax' J~D.
X_
620 D
2 3 777 #sND/Ni,
- C2 X.
r_,9n D
R2.02/
Poue u.M X
mo S7 1'
R2022_jaraAdH G.A X_
2 + 7e C. 7
f EXAMPLE - EXPOSURE CORRECTION Employee:
S.
Bodzinski JFA:
14 2.5 x 10-11 uCi/cc 9/14/81 Avg. for-JFA 14
=
Since the release would not allow for 9/15/81 shift average to be used, the previous day shift average concentration 9/14/81 was i
used.
S. Bodzinski worked in JFA 14 for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> on 9/15/81 but was not present during the gas release incident.-
Therefore,.since the concentration for the shift average is not the true exposure concentration for him on 9/15/81 the concentration of the previous-day shift was used since most production activities were similar.
The calculation is as follows:
2.0 hr x 2.5 x 10-11 uCi/cc = 5.0 x 10-11 uCi-hr/cc This value was then This is the assigned entered into the exposure and potential exposure correction program "LDAUD" for S.
Bodzinski.
(See Release Time Frame, attached) 4
4
.,1
. _._.. - _.y
__.7._.___.
__i t
a n
_g v.
t n.
.1
. v 1
_..... _ _. __. s g
. y 2
4.
- t... --- - - --
- ___.. _.. _.... _ _. _..._ _.. __..~...
t t,. _......
- 4.. _.__ _. _.. ;
.__.._..i i
q
- _.__._.. _ -._. s
,s 4
,s 3
__I 1;
g..._.__._...._
n
.__._... ~._.
i
.._e_.
. ~.._ _. - -
_e 9..___.______.______._---
w s
L w
w
- q. -.__
q
__.. _=__
< 'o t
y O.,.
a
_ 1 w
i o
_ _. ~,
.__.n._---
g
\\g 7,,
y g
x... _.. _
s i
e._ ;; __ >
g%
j sa g
s n_
+
_ _ e.;.t ( ?<
. c
-2.-.__. _g o
-, s 3_
l s
______._____e___..__
.w-l
._j y,s
. a
_.g_...
i
_ _ _ _ _ v.
%g a
o
..s.> _ _.._
_ _. _,....>y 7 : _
_.+,
M o? E4N. _.. _ _ _.... o. e to... g do.
~
~
m.____.__..-.__._.______-
..g_
t. n... ~~y... _ N _ N. u.. _. %. _ __ _..... _
a,
.....v
. _. &. *g*... h
-__.q_e-.
I e
a e- -#
- + _ _ _
-e...._
_e
=..
. g
$g
,*)
,,R U
_%d _ _ N
_s q
.---.3
__. 3 l
J.,_ Q
___..p...
..- u ggf
_ _.,.J h
..,u..-
4
_ = _.. _ - _. _ _._ _.
j
...._.c}__._____..._____.Q._.___...__.._____
4 4..
_. _. _... _ _... _. _ ~.._.___.
__. _. ~.
__.>.='
'(
1
..-g.J _. (
-g i
. **.M
...... (Q hQh.30...% } fy g '4 >,. -..,
_.=_.
_._--..n M.
=.
, __ _. h. _
j a.
d N
.o.._..__..
e m
e..
v
+
+g e
.-e
+..
h
..e-.h
..e.eg_.m a
__._N
-.h e
,6..
a,
.a_-
.=-
.M_
.-= +
a
_ " - - ~ - _ -
- - -s
=%
j
.._.....'g,
BIOASSAY SAMPLING
SUMMARY
Based on Time-In-Area data for the UF6 conversion area, personnel were requested to submit bioassay samples.
Since some of these people were in locations not related to the UF6 gas release, some samples were not submitted.
The results are as follows:
- Bioassays Requested 55
- Bioassays Submitted 35
- Bioassays > 35 un U/L 8
Highest intake mg U (daily) 1.27 (back calculated)
These bioassay results indicate that no GE internal action guidelines on uranium uptake / exposure were exceeded (see attached Bioassay Summary)
Ref.
\\-
Biosassov smi,,a,,
- f. f4 &
G~ W/[ll)
Ql0 Abs 41 gbat-tALettt+ rep sosssM 4^* W garnge ib (*
A/dr AfvP 44 6 0
>8(u.jll/l tA
~ 3. owy A AriuWLE4'
> fralo
- n. etuor 1926 4 A. ?OCAA foo Z'7 N
0~ ~SM4RN4N
/9997 Y
A. H,4 N x t N.6
/9987
~$. JSA77v 22_of(_...
- d. AHAN 2234f E. 8HEA7N4 7" 22397
<1~ A e vs'At 9 3 22400 1~ skapAeRAY 22 4.s2.
.'J' //udPa v 224'/fo k
A AddaA/
7 %?2 y
- s. eosu 23 73i X
- c. aaar, 2nav X
L. whrz 23750 7~ A4YC 2A?_CY A A4xeA 29943 A. 9/44/dM.$
2397/
f d.d&pMnoss 11122
- 0. RygN sow 2 A. AsNaN
/2/T3 X
Y
. / 2.
e esa.
i3ts
_X.
bad [MAY3
/3za Y
X
. ar A".*.fs+n.$44,L
/$ Z&_O S. AtD2ix.w/
LS~359 k
c.s,raous a.a w
.x 3~AdxA -.
/&55Z.
W W
f 2-
- 4. 2ecut
/ 9. 9 1 7 RAptdnD 22co?
Y 3 '?0_00 22/28 X
~
itearos 12z22
_Y X
.sv As<-se z 2277
.X X
.rG a suru w 2isss-
- 1. ~Sd YR$bM 2L<fc/
W
(.,
r%R GionmY 6 Ac.g - cat.ews.41 erd (pomW
%Kar INT 4str (A.
In menneo
> 3%f)/t
~ y u.
u.c4 8 NtNM2/5 2 2 4/t/
N O Af4AD/3bAl 2 2 9/f D.
Atten 21wr X
.N
- 8. D/udAM6 2247/
D. doX 2370Y E. ACQld/N 23'71f k
L.
SEMNSON
/loro
- d. AL12cDN 23 32.4 k
- d. ADGEN 22V8/
X T ALAND 22490 k
- r e.: rom x
X
_c9 1e. maeu.-
X D. AAA/d6
/4,CC/
X
. 7f(
C. MEGN
/OO &Y f
R 40RR/6
/C9o X
Y
/,2 7 n.e. nmeme,-
/oizr X
IO.R NA6_R_ E2_
2 2.3 S Y k
4ADA/4aER N
A. LEN/3
/c079 N
/2 S4V8 Y 2222C Yf, t/. M>us-//
25 7/ ^)
- ~.
+e
=
6EP
(
(
Wi9/91 MEMO TO DISTRIBUTIOM - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 9 b
sTAcil EEWi1CC D8M S2mmAhly Ders--l Sepb..16).L981 Ti nte '
I 3. :00 f
- rdmospber$c._yssare A 9. 9.7.$
/0 / M 96 m b
=.
Ts t.shcLie,,,pocJace
.9 T = a, bs., b fe, pa,.Le ~ _so 'f
- rv. w 'c n_u y 'x
~
=
g 85'l= = 19. sq % = no_a. 5 9 ' N ZikehreEase.__:
c.R 8_mln sascs _of_calemI= hon.s Sa.mpIkg _% e
-l.l.52 mln
=
_S-fa ek con c edra O--
- 3. gg_-[_uo ', dfa t*r Wr" * -s a ~ P
- d.
=._
iig g,,,,,
/
~
Di.k fancx _h_y_ enc a Q.k_a yoc_m
- P O i.s. 'c,>c < 6 p c,.,
..~.~ p. Ji k e.
97Km.
6 cefeare.l = _ 33A.1 % B
,a
.. _. _ _._ -_ r e.l= a c..rz h
~
..o. 3 '/ s d ' /s e c._ _ -
o n cen ktErn._a f _J ek. =
.l __? 6_. K /C d'/e c_
. -Con cen!rdido
. a f..,-eee /ik.o =- 8. 5 7. X I o_' U; C /u..-
j>coj> < r yl bd e = A 16 X IO ~-.
d '/c. c.
. ' -.. - -.. -- /0 CFRa.7 hmM.a n od a ve...
1.O_Xo0 6%c
_wwmn_
m o
,_4_
m P
-*a=-en
,see.
m o
- ehm-a=**w-
- Pw
-m-=-e.
w.
-w ene..m.
ww-we.
oh e,oge
.=h,
+-%a
-emme-1
._*=mm--h-meee 4
eh-e w
- W
- -ee.tve
- 3
,-ww n, -
y-g.
g y
v r.-
el
GEP g
9/t7/81 2._.,3 MMER S AL RELEASED 2.4I93 y d' /c Sp Q s AoNuka Gluan :
=
?
Caayan3 - c&r-GE /6 79 )
C. vs's Ldm> v WE
&$b*
'Ne.~
$W+N r
- s tt 3/mm scc:H NSheN 3.2 II5.2 Ab_QCo Ia2.2o S_4bh 50 310 Ab A00 11s 2
e Ab 14 79 I Aco 1A1 A ls 60 1479 1700 30A cai.rneas:
1-#5bk d'
188ZEl5 go,,,,6, 1, a-Ic13 04pmp d' s
AA,J' x.2.83AX/0%I
, g.j g 2 1.tto",1/SA men b'
m A.nle I
.hA21X10 6'g_AkAcoff3 y_AuS32x1o%{ y_L1EA ming.332.1Lp4 M
m;n ff' ce/,.4.I 3_3 2. 1 3,u _ d*_ x _ a
/a6.S36 -4
.hkL9Sf'
=
eya Odeaf
.33A 2Hp6' x_L.3 27o $;
4.90 7Jy wG
l.0ll0llX & C0lllllally
~
' ^ ' " ^ - " " " = = =
g as g g,,.,,,,,,., _,,,7_,,,,s._,,,,,,,,m. r,1,,m,.. = = =
w REPORT OF ANALYSIS No.- _ _1024590.--. --_____
July 30, 1981 GE-1674 Q
Our analysis of the sample of UF6 b: C.
@g I'
- Goodyear
)[-8'& g/
?.brhd: ZLDU-43
(.S and sulynitted to us. shows:
1014 To ta l U raniuu -------------------- 6 7. 6 0%
67.59%
IK)T CORRECTED FOR FIETAT.LIC IlfPURITIES Isotopic Analysis
'f[/[/
/
2*
Uraniun 234 ------------------------0.03 6%u 6 m 9. d 2'#Y Uranium 235------------------------3.955%e*
Uranium 2 3 6 -- ------------------ ---- 0. 0 0 3%0 x 63 56
.ooI9
=
.3 M _
Uranium 238-----------------------96.006%f,5 Si d.
- v1. 6 H 5 ' e - ---
3 I.EDOUX & COMPANY Cencral Electric P3h Nanu tJO WAllil ANTY IS EX TENDED IN ItESPECT TO SEllVICES PflOVIDED BY LEDOUX & COMPANY (PL EASE SFF RE L'ERSE Sit)FI
66
(%.s
(
Wl9/f/
E E E R c E w f ___ _ s I A ct<
HELGHJ~
. __._...-.. Mswe th_He//a n.<l slacb_cis.n__ e7aal1on f 2 -40 EM A
/u/~'f$
_ s 0---(-l.5-+-2 48-%t0 h-f' 4-AA V
~
=
A C As_f_I case _H'
= diamYer _s-velach _(m/sec.)
\\fs._=. stack 13s.S.7
!!.57 cy._.s6c$_Cm) a d
1.. o.,
L o.,
,4._=._._wi nd_.1p en d_._lm /.s ee }
SJ$
K,}&
a.fmes k e rec. -.- rescure-(m L )
LolM.90 1.01N.30
=
sbac era.bu.re.( K)
ACA. 59 317.53
=
gas em JhacN_ as.femp.p.amhsen$'_ temp AS
._ _ _. _ - -._ - _.._ / T. ~
A. b 8. JU 0.'_-_ m *.' rn L ' '
ffechs'ye__.sback' beog bf ' bes'gbl_of shek'_i_4}/
.- _.P
__.CAS E. I.-
_ G'tn.c N.- g as.$c mp _~ _ am N enk_.= _3ca._S3.')<
0 A H.= _ fl 3. 5 7 m /r ee hf l. 0 7m )
y,5_ yg, g p _\\
.._5.1.4 m /s ec Ts
)
a hl.=. S. 9 Y. m
-._. b}jecNv e _a /a ck ls eihhf..= /3. 9 2. m + 9.2 4 m =
/ 2. / 4,yt
__-. _.. case.it - Slad _ga.s Jemp =__3 2 7. Q.*h
_.. __ A H = b3.5 7 BE )[i.07m)_ h gh.o' (,,
( 19 'k
.. (S./.'/ A ) _
m-mb
,JA7.S9,k j_
a N =. 2. 69. m (/.5 20 76 ) =
4, S A m
+
b}ecls ve..shk.b elg !_=._/3.3 A m.k_'.l 82 m b
- 18. 7 'l m_
=
c, - i-(
(
M94/
63
-.._. _...G mund AEVD._Cswreazisiz__Concenraanca-, corn au _EMVATED - SQuRCf.
x.
Once - Lias_.Lycc~)
- Tg, y _y2.q.x
_-- C.-
0-
.e
~~
1rpJj G
- -.:_ef.f echee _ dad.h ethk k_._a le. I 6_m da/a ece.fo_concen/r=.6bn.pt_.-
voo m
p
_w,' a%a/d6 s..itm sce n
=
sM:l@_alass c
=
4'8 n T __.
=
y 0~2.
20 m
=
_..b_.,
G..
=
_. O A Y,a d*be c
--(18.6 )fA(30)
._.._..__._C.=.
.ca y n dhe
$3.!4]{5./Ym/sec)(38-)(30~ b g'
_7
- .,3._ _ _
I. 03 x 10'.a d' 1(. 83) =.8. 5 7 X lO n d'.: _8. 57 k 10, df
=
s) m' m
.. E.._ _.R8 c e eR TY - L I NC ($lO m 0~y : //im Tg 6 7n,
~
' [ig, pg,)L/g(s 7,) 3-C 2. _. c.tM w C A ~
...... -_.. (3. IH ) ( 5. I4mhecl15n )[b'7m ) e _ _ _ _ _...... 7_, ._._ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _..._ __ y
- . ; A. A "Y X l0 )) f 10
- 95) --._ A. / 6. X /C
$/bc ~ 8 ,,a ee h-9 .m h.- -e -.-_e w - -.-_ e -me w-,__,e-- e W-N -6 6-ei... e w,.- ., e
- M o-w wmM
c>oc MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 10 GENER AL $ ELECTRIC oint comu. 5646 oatt. September 17, 1981 cocits. WJ Hendry RL Torres otPt. WMD/QA RC EP CCR'.Valighang GE Powers aooatss. M/C J26 RECEIVED BY susnct. EFFLUENT & ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
Reference:
9/15/81 UF6 Gas Release C. M. VAUGHAN GW Bowman M/C J26 WIND DIRECTION & VELOCITY h 9/15/81 Direction from Velocity Data Source i 1100 SW 2200 10 knots US Weather Service, New Hanover County Airport 1200 SW 240o 10 knots 1315 SW 220 10 knots Visual onsite observance (estima ted) URANIUM ACTIVITY MEASUREMENT - NORTH STACK o Time run - 228 minutes ifor this filter) from approximately 0810 to 1200. o Activity concentration - 2823 pCi/cc at the stack. o No regulatory limit exceeded. FLUORIDE RELEASED - NORTH STACK o Time run - 5995 minutes. (Sample period starts on 9/11 and runs through 1200 hours on 9/15.) o Quantity released - 46 grams, not an unusual quantity for this amount of sample and collection time. AMDIENT AIR SAMPLING STATIONS Samples removed at approximately 1400 hours on 9/15/81. i o i u. __%,-,_.e-4, w ew.
--.---.,
--e wm w- - =.-, me os, e s = --- %=em*-e emun w-N > q em. 4si. m s.- e. me -mm-. + e h h a we-mm.m-4 -umwe -.wW - m -mem emum me.- . wase, E 6Wh*
- w-
- ---e-e-w=
i w ep m. umie Ne h** .m 4 Ween oee---ee. egusM " wm e 4 m---4 eeme-e eam-4 w- =.-*w we- +--mm
mem-p
= w m-W- e e' era --e.we m.masa h e-e -meam m. em m ee_. gm em,.-m+- -e-ew e -mme m = - - - w --m. 9-h eineh -am u -1h en*mewmee es- -e e e.e-gmammi,. ems. >+eenum> p e-.w .e.m. -m.--,..--p. eneh+h-em-w
==.e ..g.-eise _4 r _e em -mem o.- 6 exub 4musume -
- MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 13 0
g f:AS IJed cal.CillATIONS Cy l i ncli r '19 5tlF(,602'17 (All weir,let: to nearest Kp;) 4 tiet we irlit U of f aill cyl initer 14'15 KC* l.c:.: t il rermiveil lay procer.:iiny, (91 KC) prfor to ru l ca:;e Ca l cul a t eil net we ly. lit of cyl iniler l'144 KC at start of release llet weir, lit of cy! iniler af ter release 1285 KC* Kr.:+ ll jpert lii elca::e 59 KC
- Source MICS
.w m e..kew wm n @ m
'" MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - NovcInber 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 14 GENER AL $ ELECTRIC RECEIVED BY SEP 2 51981 o m couu. 5659 oarr. September 22, 1981 copics. orer. WMD-NMM C. M. VAUGHAlt aeoness. K-88 susicer. UF RELEASE ON SEPTEMBER 15, 1981 6 C. M. Vaughan, Acting Manager Licensing & Compliance Audits M/C J-26 Data on this cylinder is: e Filled at Goodyear on 6/18/81 e From parent cylinder 1014 e Goodyear %U 67.59 e Goodyear %U-235 3.955 e Goodyear gross weight 6087 lbs. e Ledoux analytical request no. GE-1674 e Shipped from Goodyear 7/16/81 e Received by WMD 7/17/81 e Ledoux %U 67.595 e Ledoux %U-235 3.952 e GE cylinder no. GEW 327 e MICS code 395UF60237 e DOE /NRC-741 No. BXA-YLJ-966 e For Second Northern Nuclear e GE gross weight 6090 lbs. e Tare weight 1409 lbs. e Heel net weight 11 lbs. e Net weight U 1,285,496.2 9 e Net weight U-235 50,815.66 g e Cylinder weighted U-factor 0.67586 e Cylinder weighted enrichment 3.953% t
C. M. Vaughan Ssptember 22, 1981 Page 2 e Other isotope values 234 0.036% 236 0.003% 238 96.006% NMM performed an investigation to verify that the gas released from Line 4B was accounted for by the SNM measurement systems. e The vaporization recirculation (2013) pre-filters and HEPA filters were changed. They are in waste boxes for Elephant Gun scanning. e The roof scrubber (514) pre-filters and HEPA filters were changed. They are in waste boxes for Elephant Gun scanning. e The north chemical stack was in operation. The stack sampler (CHMN0541) measured the discharge to atmosphere. e The roof scrubber water was sampled and drained to the FM0 fluoride quarantine tanks. e The mop water t<as dumped to the Rad Waste System. e The rags and mop heads were placed in a waste box. e No vacuum cleaners or other forms of containerization were used. e The UF cylinder, GEW 327, (395UF60237) was weighed after the g gas reTease. The gross weight after the incident was 5,602 lbs. Conclusion All the UF gas released in the incident was measured by an SNM g measurement system. 0pY G. R. Mallett, Acting Manager Nuclear Materials Management GRM/jdd
MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 15
SUMMARY
OF CAUSE AND CORRECTIVE ACTIONS The failure scenario follows a pattern as follows: UF is condensed in cold spots in the line due to a loks of heat or inadequate heating of the line A solid blockage occurs either by solid UF6 plugs forming or valves closing trapping solid or liquid UF6 The UF expands rapidly after restoring the heat hydraukically rupturing gasket (or in the case of ADU Lines 1-3, the copper tubing) i Line 4 was particule.rly vulnerable to this scenario because of (refer to Fig. II): The sequence of A and B automatic valves allowed for one of the valves to be open all the time The location of the failed insulflange "F" was such that it was exposed to the high pressures in the cylinder and it was between two block valves "A" and "C" or "B" and "C" (Important because of the potential of trapping UF6 material.) The layout of the lines allowed for cold spots for UFtoaccumulake, to condense, low spots "D" for liquid UF and large volumes of UF because of the Iength and diameter 6 of the piping. The redesign of the UF piping for Line 4 is shown schematically in The design fektures include: Fig. I. Elimination of valve "C" and modification of valve sequencing such that either valve "A" or valve "B" open only while hydrolyzing The insulflanges are located downstream of valves "A" and "B" in a section of the pipe that is open to the dip tube (not " trapped" between two valves) and is continuously purged by nitregen when not hydrolyzing The layout has been simplified to minimize liquid UF laying in the lines, cold spets, and the volume of Ug 6 contained in the piping Bellows seal valves are used in those sections of the in the vaporization chambers or hydrolysis piping not hood to optimize containment i
SUMMARY
OF CRUSE AND CORRECTIVE RCTIONS A new valve (Tufline plug valve) is being evaluated for use for UF lines. The valves are installed in the chambers where there are secondary containment j and ventilation and UF leak alarm systems in place 6 Other corrective actions include: Revision of the procedures to nitrogen purge before restoring heat to UF lines when temperature drops below a certain.limik cylinder maximum pressure as far as Lowering UF6 practical Installation of start latch relay and ground fault alarm on line heat system Training of operating personnel on new Line 4 system and procedures. 4 5 f i __.,,.___s_ _ -. - ~, -.
"A R E i BM A ll l i C ) E E C V N " L A AA L " V FL M U E S T 1 S S t N I I Y I E S S l l GO r Y E K 1 V L 4 lt O U I T R E G I E D l I l l F G Y i f N l L l A L W F E E L N " V U BL S " A N V I ><>H l i l -r m \\f B M A 'f i l C 4 I ill I l1 ,{, a jIl i
l "D NEGO "A R T 4 S N X Ti1 I _ R I E S 3 B Y M L -C A O ll R E C D "A L V Y l " A l V y M ETS YS 4 I I E = N E R I 1 L 1C S I l F l N F 0 I VE E R G P NA L A-FLU E S "B IV. E N V I A "V LAV "B E "C G X TI l 1_ R tA L E F B [ 1 L l U M S i l C l I "D "D i, 4 i
MEMO TO DISTRIBUTION - November 9, 1981 ATTACHMENT 16 AREAS FOR FURTHER ACTION OR EVALUATION Area Responsible Organization (s) 8 More discrete use of CO in UF 2 6 releases S Re-arrangement of CO, piping and ChME, ME, PPU improvement in method of actuation 8 Training of key operators and PPU, ChME, ME Maintenance personnel for handling excursions involving UF6 S Start latch relays for all UF ne ChME, ME 6 heaters 9 Provision for an emergency exit at the PPU north end of the vaporization room 9 Need for an airlock at the east ChME vaporization door G Sound-pcwer phone network (control PPU, ChME room, end cylinder dock, GECO, FMO-X cylinder dock) for use during UF6 ** #9" 3 TV surveillance of vaporization areas PPU, ChME 3 Automatic or remote closure device for ME, CbME, PPU CF cylinder pigtail valve 6 CNB 10/06/81 ___________ _ ___}}