Suit Filed Against Battelle Over 2011 Contamination Incident at INL
WC Monitor
6/27/2014
The family of a worker contaminated by a 2011 incident at the Idaho National Laboratory is suing INL managing contractor Battelle Energy Alliance for damages related to the event. The suit centers on a Nov. 8 , 2011, event in which 16 workers were exposed to plutonium while preparing nuclear material stored at INL’s Zero Power Physics Reactor, which a subsequent DOE investigation found was “preventable.” As a result of that event and another contamination incident earlier that year, DOE fined BEA $412,500 for violations of DOE quality assurance and occupational radiation protection regulations. In the suit filed this month, Jodi Stanton, family of contaminated worker Ralph Stanton, claims BEA “negligently or intentionally inflicted emotional distress” and requests a trial by jury for damages related to the incidents.
The contamination incident occurred as workers were preparing a fuel plate that had been used in fast reactor research for shipment to DOE’s Nevada site. The plate, which was wrapped in plastic, was stored in what lab officials described as a “clamshell” container that had last been opened in 1981. “On instruction by INL supervisors and managers, one of the workers, Ralph Stanton, opened two fuel storage containers that had unusual labels indicating potential abnormalities with the fuel plates located inside. When he did, an uncontrolled release of radioactive contaminants occurred, resulting in the contamination of 16 workers and the facility,” states the June 10 complaint for the U.S. District Court for the Idaho District.
BEA allowed Stanton to leave the facility “without adequately decontaminating him and without accurately measuring the plutonium, americium, and other potential contaminants,” the complaint states. The Stantons are also questioning BEA’s claims that there was no contamination beyond the ZPPR facility, stating that tests performed on samples from their home found that there was potential plutonium and americium contamination.
Lab Contractor Disagrees With Suit’s Claims
However, INL’s contractor disagrees with many of the claims in the suit, though it says it has not yet been served with the suit. “The Stantons have repeatedly refused the laboratory’s offers of help and home surveys. So claims of laboratory inaction and intentional infliction of distress are nothing short of incredible,” BEA said in a statement. “As we’ve stated previously, the exposure at our facility was unacceptable and we take it very seriously. We deeply regret that it occurred and were relieved when extensive independent analysis revealed that none of the employees received a radiological dose exceeding health safety limits. Sensitive independent analyses also found no radioactive particles from INL in the homes of employees who asked for testing. We are truly sorry the Stanton family refuses to accept these facts.”
Lab Fined For Incidents
In 2012 DOE’s Office of Enforcement and Oversight levied the fine against BEA for the incidents after finding four Severity Level 1 violations and one Severity Level 3 violation. Both 2011 contamination incidents involved “deficient work control documents and failure to perform work consistent with approved procedures,” according to an October 2012 letter from Office of Enforcement and Oversight Director John Boulden. While BEA had recognized prior to the incidents that improvements were needed in work management and radiological control and had worked to take corrective action, “the implementation was not sufficiently mature to prevent either of these events,” according to DOE.
IWTU Hits New Hurdle in Startup Process
CH2M-WG Idaho (CWI) appears to have hit a new hurdle in its efforts to get the Idaho Integrated Waste Treatment in operation. Last week, the contractor began introducing steam into the facility as part of startup testing now underway, but had to halt the process after “some engineering and equipment issues were identified that required evaluation,” CWI spokesman Erik Simpson said in a written response late this week. “A purpose of the test program is to identify these issues in a safe and methodical manner. When the facility completes the evaluations and determines it is safe to proceed, the project will continue testing with steam and simulant,” he said. Simpson did not respond when asked for more details about the engineering and equipment issues identified.
The IWTU is intended to treat the approximately 900,000 gallons of remaining liquid waste at the Idaho site through a steam reforming process for disposal and to allow for closure of the site’s remaining waste tanks. DOE currently faces a commitment to the state of Idaho to complete processing of the waste by the end of this year, and it remains to be seen when the facility will begin processing actual material. “Once the system tests are complete and test objectives using simulant are met, we will be able to better determine the start of radioactive operations timeframe,” Danielle Miller a spokeswoman for the Department’s Idaho Operations Office said in a written response late this week.
DOE had previously committed to have the waste processed by the end of 2012, but in the summer of that year, startup of the IWTU facility was significantly disrupted by what has been described as a “pressure event” that occurred when the facility’s filters became clogged with carbon material during efforts to get it up to its operating temperature. The facility was shut down and DOE and CWI implemented a set of modifications, the last of which were completed last summer. Once the facility modifications were complete, DOE and CWI worked again to get the IWTU to its normal operating temperature and pressure, and then moved forward with a contractor readiness assessment and subsequent DOE readiness assessment. Now, DOE and CWI are moving forward with the introduction of steam and a waste simulant as part of the next stage of the startup testing.
DOE Agrees With DNFSB on Need for Additional Assessment
Meanwhile, DOE has agreed to a recommendation from the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board on the need for an additional assessment at the IWTU prior to the introduction of actual radioactive material. Last month, the Board sent a letter and report to DOE expressing several concerns with how the DOE readiness assessment was performed, as well as several technical issues found after the assessment was completed. “Throughout the DOE RA, and subsequent startup testing, the need for substantial changes to the facility’s safety basis, credited control set, component design, and operating procedures were identified. These changes have the potential to result in substantial revisions and modifications that have not been subjected to readiness reviews,” DNFSB Chairman Peter Winokur wrote in the May 23 letter.
The additional independent assessment DOE plans to conduct will involve a team consisting of a representative from the Department’s Office of Environmental Management headquarters, a facility representative from the Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management and a radiation protection subject matter expert from the DOE Savannah River Operations Office, according to a letter and report DOE cleanup chief David Huizenga sent the Board last week. The team will conduct “a technical evaluation of safety system performance under normal operating parameters”; “review facility modifications performed since the March 2014 DOE RA to ensure proper implementation”; “independently verify closure of the March 2014 DOE RA radiation protection pre-start findings”; and “provide federal oversight of integrated system operation,” the report says.
DOE Proposes $168,750 Fine for Lab Safety Accident
Battelle Energy Alliance is facing a penalty of $168,750 for an incident that occurred at the Idaho National Laboratory in early 2013 that resulted in a researcher suffering second- and third-degree burns. Late last week, the Department of Energy’s Office of Enforcement issued BEA a preliminary notice of violation, outlining four Severity Level 1 violations and one Severity Level 2 violation of the Department’s worker safety regulations. The incident occurred during a “sparger testing event” at INL’s Engineering Demonstration Facility. “The sparger test involved injecting steam into a bath of molten salt inside a reactor vessel. During the test, an unexpected increase in pressure in the steam line prompted researchers to open the access panel in the test enclosure to adjust the pump flow and reduce the pressure. The excessive pressure in the line vented into the molten salt bath, forcing molten salt and steam out the top of the reactor vessel and striking and severely burning a researcher,” the preliminary notice of violation states.
DOE deemed the incident to be of “high safety significance,” wrote Office of Enforcement Director Steven Simonson in an attached letter. “DOE’s evaluation of the circumstances concluded that BEA did not apply rigor and formality to work planning, control, execution, and oversight at a level commensurate with the hazards and risks associated with the scope of work for the sparger test,” Simonson wrote. “BEA used a laboratory work control document that did not provide sufficient details regarding the complexity of the test, the potential hazards, and the operational safety of the work activity. As a result, responsible BEA management was not aware of the hazards and mitigating measures.”
However, while DOE initially had proposed a fine of $337,500, the Department chose to cut the final proposed penalty in half due to the corrective actions BEA has taken. “DOE has concluded that BEA’s corrective action plan appears to address the deficiencies identified in the March 2013 BEA accident Investigation team report and the violations cited in this PNOV,” Simonson wrote. “DOE recognizes BEA’s substantial progress in strengthening processes for identifying and controlling hazards and for reviewing and revising institutional procedures related to work planning and control, work oversight, training, and pre-job briefings to ensure that workers are properly equipped to meet BEA’s expectations for work performance.”
In a statement this week, INL Director John Grossenbacher said, "Our first and most important priority is always the safety of our people and preventing incidents such as this one from happening in the future. One of our co-worker —a colleague—was injured in this event, and that is never acceptable."
