09.12.2012 Views

A Review of Criticality Accidents A Review of Criticality Accidents

A Review of Criticality Accidents A Review of Criticality Accidents

A Review of Criticality Accidents A Review of Criticality Accidents

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

During the next shift, radiation safety supervisors<br />

decided that the room could be reentered since the<br />

remote readout <strong>of</strong> the criticality alarm system detector<br />

measured a radiation level <strong>of</strong> less than 0.15 R/h.<br />

Working from special instructions, three operators<br />

entered the room. Consciously limiting their time in<br />

the room and using three 20 l bottles, they were able<br />

to remove the 5 l <strong>of</strong> solution in R3 and make two<br />

transfers <strong>of</strong> 6 and 8 l from the holding vessel. The<br />

three 20 l bottles were placed in a specially designated<br />

storage location with the contents eventually<br />

being returned to the recovery process.<br />

An investigation was carried out to reconstruct the<br />

events leading up to the accident. The investigation<br />

determined that the accident occurred because the mass<br />

limits per batch in vessel R0 had been exceeded.<br />

Table 5 presents the chronology leading up to the<br />

overloaded batch in vessel R0.<br />

Nitric waste solutions deposited in vessel R0<br />

typically had a plutonium concentration <strong>of</strong> a few grams<br />

per liter. <strong>Criticality</strong> safety for the entire operation<br />

relied entirely on the mass limit for vessel R0. This<br />

mass limit was 400 g <strong>of</strong> plutonium. As can be seen in<br />

Table 5, the mass limit was exceeded on 2 December<br />

when the third batch <strong>of</strong> waste solution arrived at R0.<br />

Following the fourth transfer <strong>of</strong> solution on 3 December,<br />

vessel R0 contained a total <strong>of</strong> 682 g <strong>of</strong> plutonium.<br />

However, the shift production engineer deliberately<br />

changed the R0 vessel log to show only 400 g in the<br />

vessel. On 4 December the oxalate precipitate in<br />

vessel R0 was dissolved and transferred in the form <strong>of</strong><br />

plutonium carbonate solution to an empty vessel, R2,<br />

in glovebox 10. The same shift production engineer<br />

then violated procedures again by transferring an<br />

additional 30 l <strong>of</strong> carbonate solution to R2. This latter<br />

transfer contained 115 g <strong>of</strong> plutonium. Consequently<br />

vessel R2 contained a total <strong>of</strong> 798 g <strong>of</strong> plutonium in a<br />

little less than 50 l <strong>of</strong> solution in the early evening <strong>of</strong><br />

5 December. The plutonium in R2 was then<br />

precipitated with approximately 15 g <strong>of</strong> plutonium<br />

discharged with the supernatant. The precipitate was<br />

again dissolved, and the carbonate solution was<br />

transferred to the holding vessel, leading to the<br />

criticality accident.<br />

Following the accident, the vacuum system trap, the<br />

holding vessel, and vessels R2 and R3 were carefully<br />

flushed. The flushing <strong>of</strong> the holding vessel resulted in<br />

40 l <strong>of</strong> discharge which contained 180 g <strong>of</strong> plutonium.<br />

The contents <strong>of</strong> the three 20 l bottles which had<br />

collected the contents <strong>of</strong> the holding vessel and<br />

vessel R3 were analyzed. Table 6 presents the results<br />

<strong>of</strong> these analyses.<br />

Table 6. Analysis <strong>of</strong> Accident Solution Recovered<br />

from Holding Vessel and R3.<br />

Bottle<br />

Number<br />

Volume<br />

( l)<br />

Plutonium<br />

Conc. (g/ l)<br />

Plutonium<br />

Mass (g)<br />

1 5 39.4 197.0<br />

2 6 37.7 226.0<br />

3 8 36.4 291.0<br />

Total 19 714.0<br />

To reconstruct the volume and plutonium mass that<br />

were in the holding vessel at the time <strong>of</strong> the accident,<br />

the 714 g from Table 6 were combined with the 180 g<br />

from the holding vessel flush to obtain 894 g <strong>of</strong><br />

plutonium in 19 l <strong>of</strong> solution and precipitate. The<br />

flushing <strong>of</strong> vessel R3 resulted in 10 l <strong>of</strong> flush containing<br />

43 g <strong>of</strong> plutonium recovered from non–dissolved<br />

precipitate. The total mass <strong>of</strong> plutonium recovered<br />

from all the vessels plus the three 20 l bottles was<br />

1003 g, suggesting that 66 g was held up in vessel R2.<br />

During the accident and the subsequent cleanup<br />

phase, five individuals received doses in the range<br />

0.24 rem to about 2.0 rem. There was no contamination<br />

or damage to any <strong>of</strong> the equipment. Following the<br />

accident, the holding vessel was immediately replaced<br />

with a favorable geometry vessel. The total fission<br />

yield was estimated to be about 2.5 × 10 17 fissions.<br />

Table 5. Chronology <strong>of</strong> Batch Composition Leading to Overloading <strong>of</strong> Vessel R0 in Glovebox 9.<br />

Date<br />

Volume<br />

( l)<br />

Concentration<br />

(g Pu/ l)<br />

Pu Transferred<br />

(g)<br />

Pu Discharged<br />

(g)<br />

Running total <strong>of</strong><br />

Plutonium in R0 (g)<br />

1 Dec 160 1.67 267 51.0 267 – 51 = 216<br />

2 Dec 80 2.20 176 21.0 216 + 176 – 21 = 371<br />

2 Dec 100 3.28 328 39.0 371 + 328 – 39 = 660<br />

3 Dec 80 0.58 46 24.0 660 + 46 – 24 = 682<br />

21

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!