ML19220C961
| ML19220C961 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 04/06/1979 |
| From: | Steyer K NRC OFFICE OF STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT |
| To: | Kenneke A NRC OFFICE OF POLICY EVALUATIONS (OPE) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7905160104 | |
| Download: ML19220C961 (12) | |
Text
-. t
__[42 ~~.7 '2 8
~
.~ 0 U TI N G ' ' ;.> T T.,0 4 5 ! "
' ! LIP l
,,.m.
.. <. m. n
..o...,. a,<.,,,
so,,,,,,.,m I,
l Al bert P. Kenneke, Pr.
<~u-">-
......o,,a t
Gii^ '^
^. < G;&~G~
~
,,,,,,,,,.>.n...
c...
,... ~.
l imettats St. W &
4
~
seu4axs Here is some tackground questiens and ann.ars on C~
reactor decontamination and deccmissicning. --
'7
'n'e understand t'nis subject is not the topic of the Tuesday neeting of Hendrie with Senator Hart..
But sone questions on deconta aination and de-4. m commissioning m.ay'come up and we hope this will'p:
be of use at that time..
a
~
s j
~
j-p>
.. J.
l
_.------4 n
o
. _..____.I.._._..._._
r t,
g-
-.y
~
r..'
1 ).
'--'-?.,.
Do NOT ose this for:n a s a R ECORD of spRrovsls, coacurrences, -A, dis appro vals. cle n: soc e s. and simi!ar actions. '. '.
- ic<-
e a c a p.-
u.<,
r.a.,/o o, uc u<-> a,, /-/
4/6/79 l
/N
.c..>
"n I...
i.
f h.
~. '. !'
Keith G./lteyer, SD:FPSSB.[er, SD:PM '
J-J, 443-5918 i
~
s
""h.,
OP TIONA L F O R'd Al C. 4. '..
.I s -i e-s i ne -a su loa a**'
S*A l-t 3l;
+
l
,T'37 AUGUST 9947 5
r.' S 4 F F=,J R 4 4 8 C F R) 8 0 O '8 8.2 0 S.
- ; F.~ )
.-)
- I234
- - - - - + - _. -
5 &.
'.re O
4 e.,
4
- )
,f.
.. 6. -.
^.
[,. ' ',
f N
a
)
.i l
E.
N
.i "
~f..
~
s s
[Mg 7,.-
- l *8 s' {..
e'
~%
7
. _. _... ~ _. _ - - -.., -. -. _.h.
., s* *
- s * - --
s' r
q_-~_.--=_.
. 1...3.a.
~
f.y
~#
\\
p) 7
,,f i
~
s ts0lC(,;l-*
^,'
.o05
., u
Decontamination Prior to Repair Q.
Should plant be decommissioned and repaired or scrapped?
A.
Decommissioning and repair would represent a small fraction at its replacemer.t cost. The Northeast Fcwer Tool is going to need that power before a replacement plant could be built.
We see no reason why this plant cannot be made safe the next time.
Ecth NRC and.'ietropolitan Edison personnel are a lot wiser now.
Q.
Can the plant be refurbished?
A.
We think "yes" as we are not aware of any significant structural damage to the plant.
Primary coolan'. loops and reactor /assel internals may require extensive repairs.
Q.
Do we have a technological base and experience in this sort of decontamination?
A.
Yes, and companies are in this business.
- 35 years at government plants in which just about everything imaginable has occurred and be_n taken care of.
- 20 years ir Navy programs, detailed procedures, much experience.
- La Crosse (BWR) gross failure of fuel cladding - confined to primary system and fuel storage pool.
Incidents - SLI, ESRI, Redox,' Thorax pilot plant, Calder Hall.
'F0
\\\\
UU
Q.
When can it start?
A.
As soon as most of the short-lived activity has decayed away.
- Probably within about 50 to 90 days.
Q.
How long will it take?
A.
Frobably many, months, but not years. Much depends on how ruch trouble is created by local ' ot spots in places difficult to n
get at and time reqJired for equipment replacement.
Q.
How nuch will it cost?
A.
Cecontamination by itself probaoly in the order of a few million dollars.
Replacement of equipment could raise this figure into the tens of millions.
Q.
Where will decorcmissioning wastes be sent?
A.
Chem-Nuclea r, Barnwell, S.C., NECo, Beatty, Nev. ; Hanford,
Savanna River, Idaho.
Q.
What will be the dose to public? To workers?
A.
To the public, very little. To workers, tens of thousands of man-rems in total, but individually < 5 rem / year..-
118 259
Q.
Can we handle the failed fuel ?
A.
We thin.'
"yes".
Some will require canning - this is a well-known technology.
Q.
What is disposition of fuel?
A.
Store on site in SFSP, not an irrmediate problem.
Some has value for research.
Q.
Can failed fuel be shipped?
A.
Yes, canned in standard casks.
Docontaminatio_n Cnly Repair Tar Reuse
'lersus CeccTaissioning Mild reagents Stronger reagents Careful treatment Rough treatment Down to MPC Only clean enough to package.
Extensive Testing Throw away More Time Less Time
.igher 00se Min. Dose More Waste Less Waste
__ ))0
Decontamination Q.
The contairment building has been too hot for personnel.
If that continues, how can the building be cleaned up?
A.
As a preliminary estimate it should be possible to reduce the radioactive contamination to levels so that personnel can enter by the use of one or both of the following:
1.
The containment building spray can be used to wash contamination from the walls and collect it in water in the sump.
2.
If the spray is..ot satisfactory a robot using a hydrolaser could be used to wash down the wal's.
A hydrolaser is a high-pressure, icw-volume.sater washdown system that is cc.Tmercially available.
Q.
There are large volumes of contaminated water.
'.4ha t will be done with it?
A.
The contaminated water will be pr, cessed to remove the radioactive materials.
Processes consisting of filtration, ion exchange and evaporation will be ured singly or in combination to accomplish this.
Decontamination (Cont.)
Q.
Some of the fuel elements may be broken up.
What is done with them?
A.
The iritact elements are removed to the fuel storage pool after placing them in special cans to avoid contaminating the pool.
Broken fuel elements will be enclosed in shrouds as much as possible right in the core.
The shrouds containing the broken fuel elements will be removed to the fuel storage pool af ter placing them in special cans to avoid contaminating the pool.
Any small pieces of fuel elements that escape the shrouds will have to be collected in cans with aid of pickup tools and vacuum devices.
Q.
Can't the plant be rost easily decommissioned by ente tment?
A.
The technical studies we have conducted show that entombment is only slightly less t; pensive than the icT,ediate dismantlement mode of deccmmissioning.
Entombment requires that all of the radioactive materials from the whole facility be accumulated in the containment building which is then immobilized with concrete.
Since some long-lived radioactive materials are involved a major question involves the long-tern surveillance of the entombed structure and its ability to survive for very long periods of time.
~2-
Ceconmission_ing Q.
How much will it cost to deconmission the facility if it is needed?
A.
We know frca detailed technical studies that it will require about 542 million to decom;aission a large (1175 MWe) pressurized a
water reactor that has not been involved in an accident.
The major differences for the accident case will be higher levels of contamination in the buildings and ruptured fuel elements.
As soon as it is possible to estimate the costs associated with these differences they can be added to $42 million to get total estimate of the decormissioning cost.
Q.
Is the technology available to decommission a large PWR?
A.
Yes, our technical studies show that it is.
Q.
Can a large PWR be safely decommissioned?
A.
Yes, our technical studies for a 1175 MWe plant estimated a very
! mall public exposure of 22 man-rem, mainly associated with transportation of the radioactive wastes from the site and an occupational exposure of 1300 man-rem spread over fc"r years of the decommissioning operation.
S
STATEMENTS, QUESTIONS, AND ANSWERS REGARDING PACKAGING AND TRANSPORTATION OF RADI0 ACTIVE MATERIALS FROM THREE MILE ISLAND I.
.P_RIMARY COOLANT - Assuming the primary ccjlant is contaminated with fission products and, possibly, some fuel material fines.
1.
Q - Can the primary coolant be trcnsported from the 3MI site to a waste disposal site?
A - These liquid high level 5;astes cannot be transported without some processing since there are no packages suitable or approved by NRC, at this time, for this type of material.
2.
Q - What processing would be required for the primary co5lant?
A - Processing would involve normal liquid removal techniques such as filtering and collection on ion exchange resins.
The processing could involve special handling or special equipment depending on the particular circumstances that may be encountered here.
3.
Q - How would these solidified wastes be transported to a vaste disposal site?
A - This is a normal procedure and approved packages and sites are available.
4.
Q - Will the fuel elements have to be transported for disposal?
A - The fuel elements can be canned and stcred at the site ir. definitely.
Some fuel elements, of course, will be transported to laboratories for examination and testing procedures and approved casks are available for transportation. Without special arrangements, sone minimum cooling period is required for the fuel elements before they can be shipped.
5.
Q - What are the neans available for shipping low level liquids which result from clean-up and decontamination procedures?
A - There are normal and adequate procedures which are now used for i
shipping low level wastes such as these.
6.
Q - Will equipment, fixtures, etc. have to be disposed of?
A - Some equipment, fixtures, etc. may not be capable of being decon-taminated to a level where useable and, therefore, may have to be transported for disposal. There are adequate packaging and trans-portation means for this disposal, if required.
7.
Q - What state restrictions exist for transportation of radioactive materials?
A - See " State Legislation" bulletin of February 20, 1979.
n/ A
\\f
{0
INFORMATION REPORT ON f', s a s t., %
[#
/'3 q
3 3
3 2
~
j-
/
i g
'E N
[ kj d(
G,) k_y La ky h',
b.
kh d [ 'Qg) L
)
,0 n
...+
6 OFFICE OF STATE PROGRAMS U. S. NUCLE AR REGULA TORY COMMISSION (301) 492 7794
.v,,,,.-,,~
,.- ~ ~,
,n.,:,,,,, _.,-.
.. - ~ ~,.~~'~
~ ~ ~ '
___ ____qru a ry 2 CI979._
F Vol. S,__No.
4 I.
The transportation of radicactive materials has been given wide visibility in the States over the last several years.
Tne following is a partial i
list of State and local statutes.
STATE Connecticut - Permit required Florida - Advance notification Louisiana - Spent Fuel and High-level Waste Shiprents banned
'taryland - Bond and permit required
- tassachusetts - ? 0 travel permitted on the assachusetts Turnpike Minnesota - Prior Notice required New Jersey - Permit required North Carolina - Irior Iotice for shipments of spent fuel Gregon - Prior Notice required Rhode Island - Permit required Vermont - Prior notification required LOCAL New London, Connecticut - Spent Fuel Shipments car >:ied Miami, Florida - All Radioactive shiprents through Port banned Chicaco, Illinois - High Enriched Uranium and plutonium banned from O' Hare airport For Further Infor ation contact Eli abeth McCarthy 118 265
- Local cont.
Wichita, Kansas - Reccmmends routing around city
" ymouth, Massachusetts - All shipments banned Wendell, Massachusetts - Certain shipments banned Carteret, Nov Jersey - Waste shipments banned New York City - Spent Fuel Shipments banned Suffolk County, New York - Prior Notice required Beachwood, Brooklyn, Euclid, Lakewood, "ayfield Village, Olmstead Falls, Richmond Heights, Shaker Heights and South Euclid, Ohio - Spent Fuel Shipments banned
'i.
INTRODlJCTION OF NEW EGISLATION COLO RADO
'laste Disposal San -- H-1162.
'.-lould prohibit tha disposal of radioactive waste or material in Colcrado.
(Introduced 1/3/79)
CONNECTICUT Conditions for
- uclear Plant Construction -- H-5096.
Uculd ban cons truction of nuclear pc'.,er plants in the State until the Cornissioner of Environmental Protection finds that the Federal Government has identified and approved a demonstrable technology or means for the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
(Intrcduced 1/5/79)
Waste Burial Ban -- H-5097.
"No indisidual, partnership, corporation, associ tion or other legal or ccanercial entity, or state or local govern-rent or political subdivision or instrumentality thereof shall bury any nuclear radioactive waste within this state."
(Introduced 1/5/79)
_ Bonding Requirements -- H-420_ Would authorize the Department of Human Resources to require bonds from all licensees to assure funds in the event i
of accident, abandonment, insolvency or other inability of a licensee to decornission his facility.
(Introduced 1/19/79)
. KANSAS Decormissioning Cos t StJdy -- S-87.
Would direct the State Corporation Comission to study the costs of decommissioning a nuclear reactor frcm the viewooint of the costs borne by ratapayers.
The report would be due to the governor and legislature by 1/1/80.
(Introduced 1/11/79)
C'n-Site Was te Prohibition -- S-97. Would prohibit on-si te storage of waste at reactors for a ;'eriod exceeding 5 years, unless a permit for a time extension has been grar ed by the Secretary of Health and Environment.
The permit would only be issued for cne year.
(Introduced 1/16/79)
MASSACHUSETTS Radiation Protection Division -- S-394._
Would create a sepa ra te division of radiation protection tc administer all laws regulating the use of ionizing and nonionizing radiation.
(Introduced 1/3/79)
Radiation Treatacnt to Women -- H-2178.
Would require that any individual who administers radiation treatments of any kind to a wcman shall inquire whether the woman is pregnant, before administering the treatment and inform the.vcman of a potential health hazard.
(Introduced 1/3/79)
Condition for Pcwer Plant Cons truction -- H-2342.
Nculd ban the construc-tion of new nuclear plants until a rathod for permanently s toring radioactive.zaste is developed, tes ted, proven safe, and fully licensed.
The legislature by 2/3 mjority determines that the specific conditions had been met.
(Introduced 1/3/79)
State Notification of Maste Recository Investicaticns -- H-23d3. Would direct that the Legislature be notified before any exploration, testing, drilling or investigatico relating to the siting of a waste repository is conducted.
Thirty-day advance notification would have to be given.
(Introduced 1/3/79)
_ Spent Fuel Storace Ban -- P_ '345.
Would ban construction of storage pools for the te:rporary storage of spent fuel, except that which is built at the time of the reactors construction.
(Introduced 1/3/79)
NEW MEXICO Radioactive Waste Tax -- H-4. Would require a transportation permit prior to transporting radioactive waste by rail, air or comercial carrier. A tax would be 10% of the gross receipts attributable to services performed in the S tate.
(Introduced 1/17/79)
~ ~ '
i18 267
?,.
'lmid require Legislative fgpgal for ',s'as te Repcsitories -- S-2168.
prior legislative approval before radioactive waste could be deposited in the State.
(Introduced 1/4/79)
RHODE ISLAND Reactor Licensing --H-510_2.
"Every city or town shall have the power to regulate the keeping of nuclear reactors by granting licenses there-fore upon such ccmpensation for the benefit of the runicipality as they shall see fit to impose or by > efusing to grant them."
(Introduced 1/3/79) f 5 l7 l j m
Robert G. Ryan, Director Office of State i'rograms i
i 118 260