ML20052F890

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Review of DOE Waste Package Program Subtask 1.2 - Assessment of West Valley Waste Package Program, Draft Rept
ML20052F890
Person / Time
Site: West Valley Demonstration Project
Issue date: 10/31/1981
From: Allentuck J
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY
To: Wick E
NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS)
References
CON-FIN-A-3164 BNL-NUREG-30292, NUDOCS 8205140096
Download: ML20052F890 (19)
v • d • e


Text

m INTERIM REPORT BNL-NUREG-30292

$$ h380d Q Ak of h ntCab kSS/SknId fd Accession No.

Contract Program or Project

Title:

NRC Nuclear Waste Management Technical Support in the Development of Nuclear Waste Form Criteria.

Subject of this Document: Review of DOE Waste Package Program. Subtask 1.2 -

Assessment of West Valley Waste Package Program.

Type of Document: Interim Report

p 9 Y

Author (s): J. Allentuck J N

44 CmVRO 1 Date of Document: October 1981.- -= ,$ y 17g g(

eq. g~m Responsible NRC Individual '.%'

p and NRC Office or Division: Mr. Everett A. Wick f.

High Level Waste Licensing Managemen k Division of Waste Management ,

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission t Washington, DC 20555 This document was prepared primarily for preliminary or internal use.

It has not received full review and approval. Since there may be substantive changes, this document should not be considered final.

Brookhaven National Laboratory Upton, New York 11973 Associated Universities, Inc.

for the U.S. Department of Energy Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Under Interagency Agreement DE-AC02-76CH00016 FIN A-3164 8205140096 811031 PDR RES

, 8205140096 PDR

\ l

BNL-NUREG-30292 *

  • Limited Distribution INFORMAL REPORT i

REVIEW 0F DOE WASTE PACKAGE PROGRNi

. SUBTASK 1.2 - ASSESSFENT OF WEST VALLEY WASTE PACKAGE PROGRNi DRAFT REPORT J.ALLENTUCK OCTG ER 1931 NUCLEAR WASTE MANAGEMENT DIVISION l DEPARTMENT OF NUCLEAR ENERGY BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY UPTON. NEW YORK 11973 It C

[j ,0 0 k3 {#

Prepared for the U S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards

.7 q n; se r Contract No. DE-AC02-76CH00016 Qji t

1 5._ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _

BNL-NUREG-30292 INFORMAL REPORT Limited Distribution REVIEW OF 00E WASTE PACKAGE PROGRAM SUBTASK 1.2 - ASSESSMENT OF WEST VALLEY WASTE PACKAGE PROGRAM DRAFT REPORT J. Allentuck Manuscript Completed October 1981 Prepared by The Nuclear Waste Management Division D. G. Schweitzer, Head Department of Nuclear Energy Brookhaven National Laboratory Associated Universities, Inc.

Upton, NY 11973 NOTICE: This document contains preliminary information and was prepared primarily for interim use. Since it may be subject to revision or correction and does not represent a final report, it should not be cited as a reference without

, the expressed consent of the author (s).

Prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Materials Safety and Safegurards Contract No. DE-AC02-76CH00016 FIN No. A-3164

1. INTRODUCTION In September 1980, Congress enacted Public Law 96-368,(1) the West Valley Demonstration Project (WVDP) Act which authorized the Department of Energy (00E) to carry out a high level nuclear waste management demonstration project at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center (Center).

The bill requires that within one year from the date of enactment the Secretary of Energy shall enter into an agreement with the Nuclear Regulatory

~

Commission (NRC) to establish arrangements for review and consultation by NRC with respect to the project. Review and consultation by the NRC shall be con-ducted informally and shall not include or require formal procedure or action by The it pursuant either to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 or any other law.

agreement ,shall provide for the following:

1. Review by the NRC of DOE's plan for the solidification of the high level radioactive waste at the Center, the removal of the waste for solidification purposes, the preparation of the waste disposal, and the decontamination of facilities used in the solidification process.
2. The DOE shall consult with the NRC with respect to the form in which the waste shall be solidified and the containers to be used in the permanent disposal of such waste.

l 3. The 00E shall submit to the NRC safety analysis reports and such other information as the NRC may require to identify any danger to the public health and safety which the project may represent.

l

! 4. The 00E shall afford access to the NRC so that it may monitor the i

project activities for the purpose of assuring the health and safety of the public.

1 i .

Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) is ca7mitted to providing technical assistance to the NRC in the areas covered by items 1-4 above.

At this time, DOE has not decided upon a technical approach to fulfill-ing the requirements imposed on the Secretary of Energy by the WVDP Act though various DOE documents tentatively suggest several such approaches.

~

This report, therefore, will be limited to providing a brief description of the project, to reviewing its current status, and to conmenting on the techno-logical alternatives suggested in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DE IS ). (2)

2. THE WVDP 2.1 00E Actions Required by Congress Under the WVDP Act the Secretary of Energ) (Secretary) is required to do the following:
1. Solidify in a form suitable for transportation and disposal the high level radioactive waste (HLW) at the Center by vitrification or some other technol ogy.
2. Develop containers suitable for permanent disposal of this HLW.
3. Transport the waste to a federal repository.
4. Dispose of low level and transuranic waste produced from the above acti vi ti es.
5. Decontaminate and decanaission the Center's (a) tanks and facilities in which the HLW was stored, (b) facilities used in the solidification of the waste, and (c) materials and hardware used in the project.

2.2 Hiah Level Liouid Waste Inventory The HLW referred to above (and in the Act), stored at WV, is of two types.(3) The largest volume, totaling 2.1-million liters, derived from the 2

normal operation of the Purex process, originally highly acidic, was neutralized by the addition of excess sodium hydroxide before transfer to the waste storage tank. As a consequence of this neutralization process, fission products, with the exception of cesium, have precipitated and now form a sludge at the bottom of the carbon steel waste tank.

The second type of high level radioactive liquid waste stored at the Center was produced from the use of the Thorex process on a small batch of thorium-uranium fuel . Sone 47,000 liters of this acidic waste are stored in a cooled stainless steel tank. It is likely that this waste is a solution.

Referring to the HLW stored at VW the DEIS(4) states:

"The fuels processed at West Valley will, in 1987, have a minimum

'out-of-reactor' time of 17 years, with the average time for the entire group being somewhat over 20 years. In addition, many of the fuels processed had low reactor burn-up. Thus, the radioactivity content of the West Valley HLW in 1987 will be substantially lower than that of canmercial HLW derived by processing current power-reactor spent fuel, but will be higher than that of the various defense HLW. The West Valley HLW are, however, somewhat unusual chemically because of the unusually large quantity of iron in the neutralized sludge and the existence of the i

l separate acidic Thorex wastes.

l "The major difficulty in all of the past studies of the West Valley HLW has been the lack of reliable data concerning their composition. This is particularly true for the actinides, where calculational methods devised l

for other purposes had to be used in the absence of more directly l

applicable techniques and in the nearly complete absence of reliable l

l 3

1 y -p <~ .-~- ,m w

analysis data. This situation should be improved when the Department contractor samples and analyzes the West Valley HLW."

The fact that WV HLW differs substantially from various defense HLW raises important questions about the relevance to the WVDP of waste form research and devel opment performed on defense wastes. These matters will be referred to again when the various technological approaches to solidification suggested in -

the DEIS are discussed. The unique properties of WV HLW are likely to be an important factor in the formulation of the R&D program which the DOE proposes to undertake in connection with the WVDP.

2.3 WV Facilities: Seismic Criteria As we shall discuss later, the availability of funds is likely to weigh significantly in the decision process which leads to the choice of a techno-l og;ical approach. As a consequence, there may be a substantial incentive to the use of existing facilities at WV for waste processing as opposed to new con-struction. The feasibility of using existing facilities for processing the HLW will depend strongly on the issuance of applicable meteorological and seismic criteria. It is likely that NRC will play an important role in this process.

Table 1 below lists the various seismic criteria which have been considered with reference to the facilities at WV.

2.4 WV Facilities: Modifications for HLW Processino Should seismic criteria be established Phich would permit the use of existing facilities, certain preparatarv .ctivities and modifications would be requi red. The areas which are infe v3M m3 iheir function in the WVDP are as foll ows:(10)

a. Chemical process cell - solidification process operations.

4

Table 1 Seismic Criteria: West Valley Seismic Criteria Authority Code Remarks Zone III, Reinforced (5) --

Uniform Buil d- D r*.ing facility

  • Concrete Structure ing Code Conceacted in 1960s 0.12 g Peak Ground (6) USAEC 10 CFR 100 Applicabie to Re-Accel eration actors (1970) 0.2 g Peak Ground (7) USNRC -- Applicable to Repro-Acceleration cessing Plant (1975) 0.1 q Peak Ground (8) -- 10 CFR 50 Applicable to Rad-Accel e ration 10 CFR 100 waste Facility
  • According to a recent study (9) the cells of the existing facility can withstand an acceleration of 0.15 g which would collapse the outer walls-.
b. Scrap removal room - preparation and packaging of salt cake.
c. Equipment decontamination room - decontamination and temporary storage of sealed HLW canisters.

Prior to use for the WV0P, each of the above areas would require extensive decontamination, thus permitting personnel entry for process equipment installa-tion.

l Of the several alternatives discussed in the DEIS, the borosilicate glass, separated salt / sludge option, it is stated, will require most space in the chemical process cell and in fact will fully utilize that space.(ll) It is unlikely that any other ?rocess leading to a terminal waste form can be accommodated in existing space.

The available area for temporary storage of the solidifled wastes seems barely adequate if the borosilicate glass, separated salt / sludge option 5

l

resulting in a total of 300 containers is selected. The only area available which can accommodate this amount of product is the spent fuel pool.(12) The borosilicate glass, unseparated salt / sludge option will generate 1300 con-tainers. This would require construction of temporary storage at the site if .

immediate removal of the product from the site could not be accomplished.(13)

It should be noted that the proposed space allocation of existing facilities does not appear to allow for possible required quality assurance activities. One of these might be sacrificing a statistically selected sample of filled containers by extracting waste form cores for verification of predicted characteristics.

3. TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES IN THE DEIS In the DEIS, four (4) alternatives for management of the West Valley HLW are summarized. These alternatives are as follows:(14)

Alternative 1 - On-site Processing to Terminal Waste Form, Alternative 2 - On-site Processing to Interim Waste Form, Alternative 3 - In-tank Solidification, Alternative 4 - No Action.

3.1 Technological Alternatives and the WVDP Act*

It appears questionable that Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are compatible with '

the intentions of Congress as expressed in the Act and implied by its Legis-lative History.(15) For this comment, we rely on the following provisions of the Act:(16)

Section 2(a) (1) The Secretary shall solidify in a form suitable for .

transportation and disposal, the high level radioactive waste

  • These comments were previously submitted in the letter (davis to Wick) dated 08/31/81 and the report by this writer attached thereto.

6

at the center by vitrification or by such other technology which the Secretary determines to be the most effective for solidification.

, Section2(a) (2) The Secretary shall develop containers suitable for the permanent disposal of the high level radioactive waste

~

solidified at the Center.

The requirement that the high level radioactive waste be solidified in a form suitable for transportation and disposal appears to require on-site processing to a terminal waste fom. The requirement of 2(a) (2) that containers suitable for the permanent disposal of high level waste he developed under the WVDP is meaningless if Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are pursued. Final ly, included in the Legislative History is the report of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Comarce which contains a section-by-section analysis of the Act. The analysis for the above Sections states in part:(17)

" Subsection 2(a) (1) requires that the Secretary shall solidify, in a form suitable for transportation and disposal, the high level radioactive waste at the Center by vitrification or by such other technology as the Secretary may, in his discretion, prescribe.

, "This subsection then defines the scope of the program to include the I

solidification of the high-level liquid radioactive waste which presently exists at the site as the result of the reprocessing activity which were conducted at the facility during the course of its commercial operation from 1966 through 1972. The Secretary is given the discretion to select the appropriate technology for solidifiying these wastes, and is directed to solidify the waste in a fonn which is suitable for transportation and 7

l

di sposal . Thus, the technology selection process is to be based not simply on converting liquid wastes to a solid form, but is instead to be also directed towards identifying a waste form which will not only be capable of facilitating their anticipated transportation from the site and their ,

ultimate disposal in a licensed Federal repository, but also be capable of complying with applicable regulatory requirements for the transportation and disposal of these high level radioactive wastes.

"Under Subsection 2(a) (2), the Secretary is directed to develop con-tainers suitable for the permanent disposal of the high level radinactive waste solidified at the Center.

"Ry including as part of the program the requirement that the Secretary design and construct containers suitable for the permanent disposal of the solidified waste, the scope of the project is expanded to include the de-velopment of containers which are suitable for the ultimate disposal of the wastes which are solidified as a part of the project. As these con-tainers will eventually be placed in a licensed repository, the Commit-tee expects that the Secretary will develop these containers in a manner which complies with all applicable requirements of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Committee further expects that the Secretary will consult the Nuclear Regulatory Commission at each stage in the design and con-struction of tnese containers to insure that such containers comply with l all regulatory requirements and would be suitable for placement in a l

licensed repository."

l i

8 l

1

3.2 Technolooical Alternatives 3.2.1 Interim Waste Forms The DEIS proposes two interim waste form alternatives:

1. fused salt,
2. aggi amerate-cal ci ne.

Both of these processes lack a strong scientific basis for consideration as viable solidi fication methods.

3.2.2 Terminal Waste Form: Borosilicate Glass 3.2.2.1 Generic Problems *

1. The composition of the waste at West Valley is different from any that has been studied to date by the DOE community. It is therefore pos-sible that the properties of a solidified form will be very different from properties of similar forrs that have been considered to date.

The report recognizes this problem and recommends " Studies on glass formulations that take into account the unique composition of the West Valley wastes, e.g., very high sodium level in neutralized-waste tank supernate, ver'y high iron content in sludge, and very high thorium content in the acidic waste."(18)

2. Since the reference waste fonn itself (borosilicate glass) cannot

! comply with the NRC criteria for burial of waste in a licensed repository, the NRC would require information on a waste package. The problem of a waste package design is not addressed either in the DEIS or the RFP. It may, however, he a subject of the WVDP R&D plan to be submitted by the DOE contractor.

l *These comments in part, were previously submitted in the letter (Davis to Wick) j dated 08/31/81.

9

3. A large number of assumptions were made in the engineering and pro-cessing schemes proposed in the DEIS for the solidification. None of these assumptions has been adequately analyzed for the consequence of errors, or the possibility of accidents resulting from incorrect assumptions.
4. One step in the processing scheme involves removal of the waste from the tanks. Again, while it is implied that a homogeneous waste stream will be pumped from the tanks for solidification, this assumption has not been adequately confirmed. In fact, there is a high probability that the waste stream will not be homogeneous. If a homogeneous nix-ture cannot be obtained, the variability of the resulting waste fann could cause severe problems in predicting leach behavior, etc.

3.2.2.2 Speci fic Problems

  • Th'e use of borosilicate glass for solidifying West Valley waste raises other problems which will impact on the durability of this waste form.

i 1. West Valley waste from the Purex process contains not only high al uminum but al so a high iron content. There are two distinct waste streams to be dealt with: neutralized waste from the Purex process and acidic Thorex waste with a high thorium content.

2. There are possible problems associated with waste stream variability, l even if the Purex wastes are processed separately.

I 3. If sodium salts are not separated from the Purex waste stream, the .

l variability of the waste stream and the presence of high sodium salt levels will affect the glass durability.

l l

l *These comments were previously submitted in the letter (Davis to Wick) dated 08/31/81.

10

4. CilRRENT STATtlS OF THE WVDP 4.1 DOE Contractor DOE has selected Westinghouse as the contractor for the management, opera-tional maintenance of the Western New York Nuclear Fuel Service Center at West Valley and for other activities for the WVDP. The contractor received a notice to proceed on October 2,1981 and is presently organizing a site office at WV.

A project manager has been appointed.

4.2 00E Project Administration DOE has assigned the administration of the WV project to Idaho Operations Office. A DOE site office at WV will be established shortly. As of October 9 a site manager had not formally been designated.

4.3 WVDP Schedules .

Schedules for the WVDP were originally set forth in the RFP which resulted in the selection of Westinghouse as the contractor. These are included here as Tables 2 and 3. These schedules are presently being reconsidered. New sched-ules have not been determined nor are they likely to be for several months. The princi pal reason for schedule revision appears to be a desire on the part of DOE to resolve at an early date remaining uncertainties as to site conditions. Only after this has been accomplished will the contractor be asked to prepare a pro-gram plan.

Bearing significantly on NRC's and hence BNL's involvement is the fact that

- it is unlikely that either the Overall Reference System Design Description or the Project R&D Plan will be completed before October 1982.*

l'

  • This information was provided earlier in the Monthly Letter Report for Sep-tember 1981, prepared for FIN A-3163.

11 l

l

Table 2 West Valley Demonstration Project Major Milestones 19 Final Project Environmental Impact Statement 1982 Final Waste Form Environmental Impact Statement 1984 .

Design of Solidification System - .

e Start Conceptual Design 1981 e Complete Conceptual Design 1982 e Complete Preliminary Design 1983 e Complete Final Design 1985 Construction of Solidification System and Support Facilities e Initiate Construction and Long Lead Procurement 1983 e Complete Construction 1 9117 e Complete Checkout of Facilit e 1 911/

e Complete Retrievable Low Leve' Waste Storage Facil i ty 1983 e Complete Radwaste Treatment Facility 1986 e Complete Temporary High Level Waste (HLW)

Storage Facility 1986 Solidification Facility Operation e Start 1987 e Compl ete 1990 Complete D&D of Solidification Facilities 1993 j

Initiate Shipment of Solidified Waste to Repository 1997 Complete D&D of Project Facilities 2000 l

12 l

Table 3 List of Major Deliverables 20 Major Deliverables Expected Date of Deliveries

1. Facility Utilization Report (1st Year)
2. Facility Implementation Plan (2nd Year)
3. Project Research and Development Program Plan (1st Year)
4. Overall Reference System Design Description (1st Year)
5. Initial Safety Analysis Report (1st Year)
6. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (2nd Year)
7. Final Safety Analysis Report (4th Year)
8. Testing Plan (4th Year)
9. Environmental Report (2nd Year)
10. Pro.fect Management Pian (Within 60 Days of Award)
11. Environmental , Safety and Heal th Program Plan (Within 30 Days of Award)
12. Quality Assurance Plan (Within 60 Days of Award)
13. Configuration Management Plan (Within 60 Days of Award)
14. Decontamination and Decommissioning Plan for Initial Operations (2nd Year)
15. Final Decontamination and Decommissioning Plan (5th Year of Contract)
16. Site Baseline Description and Characterization Report (1st Year)
17. Safeguards and Security Program Plan (Within 60 Days of Award)
18. Materials Control and Accountability Plan (Within 60 Days of Award)
19. Construction Management Plan (1st Year)
20. Environmental Management Program and Implementation Plan (Within 30 Days of Award) e 13 l
5. FUNDING, FACILITY REQUIREMENTS, AND TECHNOLOGICAL ALTERNATIVES The choice of a technological approach to WV solidification is ultimately associated with the availability of funds. Aside from the actual sums appro-priated from year to year is the matter of the cost of new facilities or .

facility upgrading which may he required to meet such seismic criteria as may be established. The additional element may be the need for a significant research and development program as a consequence of the unique nature of WV HLW.

l l

14 l

t

6. REFERENCES
1. Public Law 96-369, Second Session, 96th Congress, 94 Stat.137.
2. U.S. Department of Energy, Draft Environmental Inpact Statement Long Term Management of Liquid High Level Radioactive Wastes Stored at the Western New York Nuclear Service Center, West Valley, 00E/EIS-00810, Washington DC, July 1981.
3. Ibid. , at RS-Bil.
4. Ibid., at B-5.
5. Ibid., at B-51
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Ibid.
10. Ibid., at B-52.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid., at B-59.

I 13. Ibid.

14. Ibid., at 2-1.
15. congressional Records Volume 126 (1980), p. 6017-54.
16. Note 1.
17. Note at 6042.
18. Note 2 at B-30.
19. Request for Proposal for the Management, Operation, and Maintenance of the Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley, NY and Other Activities for the West Valley Demonstration Project, U.S. Department of Energy, Request for Proposals No. DE-RP02-BINE44139.
20. Ibid.

15 l

l

-. . _.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20052F890&oldid=2542077"