ML20050A770
| ML20050A770 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000142 |
| Issue date: | 11/18/1980 |
| From: | Sullivan M TRANSPORTATION, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Pierson K TRANSPORTATION, DEPT. OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050A764 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-81-481 HMC-09, HMC-9, NUDOCS 8204020249 | |
| Download: ML20050A770 (5) | |
Text
.m r
s C
g'
. Form THWA 121 f aev. 5 73)
UNITED STATES GO'VERNMENT DEPARTMENT Of TRANSPORTATION
- ""^*#"'""""'
g DAS Novecher 18, 1980 h
Ia 9wpif
~
EMC-09 su.incT.
Hazardous Material Incident i
Radioactive Contamination Tsou.
Regional Administrator San Francisco, California
.4 To Mr. Kenneth L. Pierson HMC-10 Director, Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety Washington, D. C.
It 1 i. *
.g*
1.
Involved Parties.
,j a.
General Electric Company (GE)
Vallecitos Nuclear Center P.O. Box 460 Pleasanton, California 94566 b.
Tri State Motor Transit Company, Inc.
P.O. Box 113 Joplin, Missouri 64801 c.
University of California Naclear Engineering Laboratory Los Angeles, California 90024 d.
Exxon Nucicar Company, Inc.
Idaho Falls (Scoville), Idaho i
2.
Sut= nary On June 26, 1980, Tri State arrived at GE to return an empty RAM cask and survey of the vehicle, cask, and driver revealed radioactive contamination.
On July 3,1980, Mr. Warren Olney, KNBC, Burbank, California, inquired about this incident and was referred to MTB as this office had no information to offer.
A sum =ary of a conversation between Mr. Olney and Mr. A. I. Roberts of MTB is in Attachment 1.
3.
Facts Developed Subsequent investigation by John W. Spivey, Regional Hazardous Materials Specialist, revealed the following:
O more 8204020249 811228 PDR FOIA CUSHN I R81-481 PDR r ---
tai
= - - - -
m
6 I
2 Tri State's spokesperson, Mr. Earl Rutenkruger (800-641-7580) a.
reported the trip sequence as follows:
i June 19, 1980 - Tri State vehicle departed GE at 12:30 p.m.
_~
af ter having been loaded with a RAM cask.
June 20,~1980 - Vehicle arrives at UCLA at 11 a.m.
Semitrailer
.: 1 and cask left at fac.ility.
[
.t June 21, 1980 - Irradiated nuclear fuel elements loaded into cask from an intermediate cask (water vat).
Mr. Rutenkruger reported some water may have dripped onio trailer during transfer from vat to cask. Vehicle departed UCLA about 9:30 a.m. "
l 7 June.22, 1980 - Departed Las Vegas, Nevada,after having a l ' { l.
problem with a brake airline, l
June 23, 1980 - Shipment arrives at Exxon Nuclear Co., Scoville, l:
Idaho, at 7:30 p.m.
(
June 24, 1980 - Shipment unloaded, vehicle departs.
June 26, 1980 - Vehicle arrives at GE.
Contamination discovered.
Mr. Rutenkruger also stated he had searched the dispatch records for the trailer back through July 1979, and no record of ltAM transportation was noted.
b.
Mr. Gene Cunningham of GE,' Vallecitos Nuclear center (415-862-2211), stated UCLA had leased from GE a RAM cask (700 Series.
specifications in Attachment 2).
On June 19, 1980, Tri State arrived and a clean, empty cask was loaded on the trailer with a 4x8 foot plywood sheet under the l
cask. No surveys of driver, vehicle, or cask were made as all l
were presumed to be free from contamination.
On June 26, 1980, the cask was returned. Wipe tests and thin end window GM tube tests revealed contamination ranging from less than 100 cpm to 100,000 cpm on direct reading (see Attach-ment 3).. The driver's gloves, tractor cab, and the tie down chains were contaminated as well as the inner fire shield. The highest area of contamination was limited to an area of about 2x2 feet on the lef t side of the floor of the trailer (100K direct,10K smearable) while another approximately equal aren under the plywood sheet tested at 2,500 cpm direct, 500 cpm smearable.
more
..r 3 )s
-g 3.!
o
- p,-
- s s,
s s
,\\
r s
s
,x; t
.c,,
s
'^
3
[
l',
p'. '
c s
,x
[
' AE2ysis of the removable coitamination by full multichannel crectrographic analysis reveeled the contaminant' to be Cobalt 60 i
't g N (0.667HEV) with no traces of Cesium 137 or mixed fission products.
s Y,e(
T p'd/0,G -
Mrp.'.unningham also stated 'the driver had assisted another Tri
4 Saete driver in securing a load of LSA radioactive waste material
'6 -
i
. tzpon return. This assistance invol.?dd walking on the trailer and
{'
l ?.
possibly moving come drums.
It' is believed this occurred after s
j,'
the inboun'd survey was conducted.
, '(;:
i Mr. Jack Hornor, UCIA Health Physicist (213-825-2825), reports the -
.1
}.'
c.
vehicle and cask were surveyed fa on June 20, 1980 and out on June
~
'j e
'21, 1980 by thin end ' Window GM and svApe tests. Attachment 4 is 'a 6
report of their activities and procedures. Ibe surveys showed j-expected normal amcunts of Cesium 137 inside the cask and nonremo-vable contaminatioc.on the outside.
.J, 33-s s
.jk Mr.' Hornor stated the shipment consisted 'of approximately 700 grams of irradiated MTR type fuel elements composed of 93 percent enriched y*\\
Uranium 235 and 7 percent Uranium 235 with possible traces of mixed l*
fissien products is: the 1-megawatt ' range. The fuel was contained
'3 in 4 bundles of 11 plates each,1 bundle of 8 plates with 3 dummy The entire shipment was uranium alumi-I.
plates, and 3 loose 1.
num'eutectic clad
- ed with pure aluminum.
There were no stainless st. eel com,.. gents likely to produce Cobalt 60 as a corro-sion'byproluet.,
i-N i:'
The losfing was conducted without recoval of the cask.
Only the
- i shields and lids were removad. ' Water drippings were wiped and s 2rveyed ne;;ative. Water in the vat was fresh tap water which was, j !.,
surveyed negative after use.
af Driver's gloves were surveyed out negative by GM tube but subsequent gamma spectrum analysis of UCLA vorker's gloves indicated ge pair to have Cesium 137 and Cobalt 60 contamination in the 3x10 micro-II curie range.
d.
Mr. Wayne 01sdn, Exxon Nuclear (FIS 583-3161), reported the driver, 4:
vehicle, and cask were surveyed in by wipe and GM tube. All were surveyed out twice against a background of 0.1 M/R normal.
It was and determined normal by GM tube and wipes.
.h!'
Inspection of the cask prior to unloading revealed the cask to be The fuel elements newly painted and moist on the outside bottom.
. i. ;
vere unloaded frun the cask (without removal from the trailer) into a vater basin..The cask was then cleaned, vacuumed, and dried. No
~
vater dripped onto the trailer.
i more
\\
1
3
- l -
z 4.
Discussion ne reported facts appear to disassociate this shipment from the f
contaminant discovered. GE reports 'the contaminant to have been I *.,
Cobalt 60 with no traces of other radioactive elements. The uranium aluminum'shipmer.t made by UCLA would have produced conta-1~
mination by Cesium 137 at about a 20:1 ratio to mixed fission products including Strontium 90 and possibly traces of Cobalt 60,
.6
'There appea'rs to be no basis for consideration of the possibility of the Tri State driver having transferred the contamination from the other Tri State truck loaded with LSA material. His gloves
..9:'
were surveyed at 503 cpm with much higher readings found on the P
vehicle, including areas (the inner fire shield) not accessible
- d.;
to the driver.
- ) i.,*4 ne second highest level of contamination, 2,500 cpm, was found
'.jh..
under the plywood sheet which had not been removed between the time GE loaded the empty cask on June 19, 1980 and the inbound survey on
",o June 26, 1980. There was no report of contamination of the top side of the plywood sheet. This argues against a transfer of contamina-tion by water, 'either rain or drippings from the water vats, at
'*i either UCLA or Exxon Nuclear had a source for contamination been
- l.
prescrit.
i}
UCIA reports no unsealed Cobalt 60 source but the subsequent gansna i;
spectrum analysis of worker's gloves revealed Cesium 137 and Cobalt
- 6) contamination approximately equal to that found on the Tri State I
i
~ driver's gloves.
Cesium 137.would have been expected but, lacking j.} 'i..
a Cobalt 60 source, this appears to indicate a transferance from l
the vehicle, the cask, or both.
e GE reports the cask had not been in Cobalt 60 service, yet, conta-i..
mination of less than 200 cpm smears was found on the inner fire shield when tested 2 or 3 days after initial discovery. It is un-likely the driver could have transferred this contamination, but GE' workers could have.
Tri State reported no Cobalt 60 source or other RAM transported by this trailer within the past year.
Assuming a prior contamination the. 5.5 year halflife would not have allowed for significant lower-ing of the direct reading but such time would have affected the
...f amount of removable contamination.
i
-[
5.
Conclusions No satisfactcry conclusion can be reached.
It would appear that this shipment could not have caused or produced Cobalt 60 contamina-8, tion. Both UCIA and Exxon deny exposure to a source during loading more e
i.
~
i 5
or unloading. The possibility of prior contamination of the trailer remains, but there is no evidence supportive of this theory as there is no record of prior transportation, and two" surveys at UCLA and three at Exxon Ibelear failed to detect the contamination.
-I '.,
6.
Rec ommenda tions The surveys at UCLA.and Exxon were conducted against measurable back-
.' 3 ';
1l8 :.
ground radiation with the cask on the trailer.
This probably resulted in the failure to detect the contamination.
It is recommended, where I
possible, that surveys be conducted where background is not present.
}(,f s The presumption by GE that both cask and vehicle were clean on initial loading was ill advised.
Both an inbound and outbound survey should
..D,.
be required rather than after use.
. ;%;"?,
An after use survey (49 CFR 173.397(c)) should be prescribed by HT3,
. j;j s.-
copy furnished to the motor carrier, and a retention period established.
3..*
. z. B J.
/
0 I'
. Michael D. Sullivan Associate Regional Administrator for Motor Carrier Safety
.f Enclosures
- f I
I~
l 1
l l
I
.e c.
l
.l.
1 y
3.
l '.
5 i
- - ~
.. -..