Chris Schneidmiller
NS&D Monitor
11/6/2015
The Sandia National Laboratories this year lost a device that contained radioactive polonium 210, the Department of Energy’s Office of Enterprise Assessments (EA) said last week.
The New Mexico facility in 2014 leased two static-eliminating inline alpha ionizers that each contained 10 millicuries of the substance, Steven Simonson, director of the EA Office of Enforcement, said in an Oct. 26 letter to lab director Jill Hruby. One was sent to a Department of Defense site in October 2014 for use in a Sandia explosive handling operation. The device was returned to the laboratory in April 2015.
“When the package was opened, the ionizer was not detected inside the box and the package and packing material were placed on the floor and subsequently assumed to have been picked up by building custodial services or another individual within the building,” Simonson stated. “Upon returning to work on April 23, 2015, the individual who opened the package noticed the packaging material was missing and contacted building custodial services to determine if the package was picked up. After an extensive search to locate the ionizer, Sandia declared the ionizer to be lost.”
Polonium 210 is a toxic substance that has been linked to the 2006 death of Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko. However, Sandia spokesman Jim Danneskiold said the source contained only roughly 1.6 millicuries of polonium 210, the total amount having decayed from the original 10 millicuries. The material “is insoluble and inert in most chemicals. If a person found the missing source and carried it in a pocket for a year, 24 hours a day, they would receive an effective dose of 2.6 mrem. This compares to an annual background from natural sources and medical practices of over 600 mrem,” Danneskiold said by email.
Simonson concurred that the nature of the isotope and the sturdiness of the ionizer meant the “nuclear safety consequences” of the lost item were low. Nonetheless, failure to maintain control of the device constituted possible breaches of Department of Energy regulations on nuclear safety management and occupational radiation protection, the DOE official said. The specific failures included not handling the ionizers “in a manner commensurate with the hazards associated” with their use; not conducting inventories of the ionizers at least every six months; and lack of adherence to Nuclear Regulatory Commission general licensing agreement for work with the tool.
While Simonson said the EA letter imposes no mandates on Sandia, he noted that DOE expects the lab will update its internal manual on radiation protection procedures and the procedure for the review and categorization of radioactive materials. It should also validate and confirm the corrective measures taken in response to the incident, according to the letter.
Danneskiold said “Sandia takes its responsibility to protect the public and the environment and to control radioactive material seriously. Sandia responded by initiating corrective actions that resulted in improvements that were identified in an extensive causal analysis. These improvements will mitigate the potential for recurrence.” Steps taken to address the issue included reviewing policies for acquiring the ionizers, improving control of the ionizers, and strengthening procedures for accounting for the devices and all other “accountable radioactive materials,” the spokesman stated.
