ML20055E649

The Incineration of LOW-LEVEL Radioactive Waste.A Report for the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste

ML20055E649
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/30/1990
From:	Long S NRC ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON NUCLEAR WASTE (ACNW)
To:
References
NUREG-1393, NUDOCS 9007120183
Download: ML20055E649 (75)

Text

_

\\

NUREG-1393

~.

The Incineration of Low-Level Radioactive Waste

,l

.I A Report for the Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste I

s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste S, W long pr asc,q, e

4 k

a rj

• %...../

1 9007120103 900630

]

$$$3 f" PD" r

j d

i

- - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

AVAILABILITY NOTICE Avallobility of Reference Materials Cited in NRC Publications Most documents cited in NRC publications will be available from one of the folowing sources:

1.

The NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW, Lower Level, Washington, DC 20555' 2.

The Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082 Washington, DC 20013 7082 3.

The National Technical information Service, Springfield, VA 22161 Although the listing that follows represents the majority of documents cited in NRC publica-tions, it is not intended to be exhaustive.

Referenced documents available for inspection and copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room include NRC correspondence and internal NRC memoranda; NRC Office of Inspection and Enforcement bulletins, circulars, information notices, inspection and investi-gation notices; Licensee Event Reports; vendor reports and correspondence; Commission papers; and applicant and licensee documents and correspondence.

The following documents in the NUREG series are available for purchase from the GPO Sales Program: formal NRC staff and contractor reports, NRC sponsored conference proceed.

Ings, and NRC booklets and brochures. Also available are Regulatory Guides NRC regula-l tions in the Code of Federal Regulations, and Nuclear Regulatory Commission lesuances.

l Documents available from the National Technical Information Service include NUREG series reports and technical reports prepared by other federal agencies and reports prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission, forerunner agency to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Documents available from public and special technical libraries include all open literature items, such as books, journal and periodical articles, and transactions. Federal Register notices, federal and state legislation, and congressional reports can usually be obtained from these libraries.

Documents such as theses, dissertations, forongn reports and translations, and non-NRC conference proceedings are available for purchase from the organization sponsoring the publication cited.

Single copies of NRC draft reports are avsilable free, to the extent of supply, upon written request to the Office of Information Resources Managoment, Distribution Section, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are maintained at the NRC Library, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, and are available there for reference use by the public. Codes and standards are usually copy-righted and may be purchased from the originating organization or, if they are American National Standards, from the American National Standards Institute,1430 Broadway, New York, NY 10018.

k

, ~,

NUREG-1393 The Incineration of Low-Level Radioactive Waste A Report for the Advisory Committee l

on Nuclear Waste l

Manuscript Completed: April 1990 Date Published: June 1990 S. W, long l

l l

Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

Washington, DC 20555 gk

( w,}

%,e...+/

4

_ _. _..... -.. ~. _. -..

AUSTRACT

'Ihis report is a summary of the contemporary use of Specific types of incineration technologics nie addressed incineration technology as a method for volume reduction

. in this report, including designation of the kinds of wastes of LLW. It is intended primarily to serve as an ovenicw of that can be processed, the magnitudes of volume reduc-the technology for waste rnanagement professionals in-tion that are achievable in typical operation, and require-volved in the use or regulation of LLW incineration. It is ments for ash handling and off-gas filtering and scrub-also expectcd that organir.ations presently considering bing. A status listing of both U.S. and foreign incinerators the use of incineration as part of their radioactive waste provides highlights of aethitic; at government, industry, management programs will benefit by gaining a general institutional, and commercial nuclear power plant sites.

knowledge of incincrator operating experience.

The Federal and State legislative structures for the regu.

lation of 11W incineration are also described.

t l

iii NURI!O-1393.

Contents Page Abstract................................................................................

ill ix Ex ecu t ive S u m mary.......................................................................

Xi-Acknowledge ments........................................................................

PrefDCe.........,.......................................................................

xiii, 1 I n t rod uct io n...........................................................................

1 1.1 Incineration and Related y pative Methods of Volume Reduction.......................

1 1.2 Sources and Quantities o. > O Production............................................

1 1.2.1 Oveniew...................................................................

1 1.2.2 Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Programs.....................................

I 1.2.3 Medical / Institutional Facilities.................................................

2 1.2.4 G overnment !D011 Facilities.........................................,........

2 1.3 Physical and Chemical Characteristics of 11W.........................................

3 2 Incinerator Technology.. o.... ~ ~ ~. ~ ~. ~.... ~......... ~ ~. u............. u.......

13 2.1 Types of Systems and Typical Operation...............................................

13-i 2.1.1 Overview...................................................................

13 2.1.2 Volume Red uction Ratio......................................................

' 13 2.1.3 G enert.l Design Requirements.................................................

13 2.1.4 Specific Incinerator Technologies..............................................

14 2.1.4.1 Excess Air I ncineration...............................................

14 2.1.4.2 Controlled Air incineration...........................................

14 2.1.4.3 Fluidized Bed incineration.............................. ;.............

14 2.1.4.4 Incineration in Molten Salt............................................

15 2.1.4.5 Slagging I ncine ration.................................................

15 2.1.5 Al ternative Technologies....................................................

'15 2.1.5.1 Pyrolysis............................................................

15 2.1.5.2 Acid Digestion......................................................

15 2.1.5.3 Eva poration........................................................

16 2.1.5.4 Plasma Torch Incineration............................................

16 2.1.6 'I)P cal Incinerator Ope ration.................................................

16 i

2.1.7 Costs......................................................................

17 2.2 Tech nical Probl e ms................................................................

17 2.2.1 Incom plete Combustion......................................................

17-2.2.2 Insufficient Waste Sorting & Preparation.......................................

17 2.2.3 Radioactive Contamination of the incinerator....................................

17 2.2.4 System Corrosion and Wear...................................................

18 2.2.5 Non. Optimal Waste Types & High or Low Calorific Values........................

18~

2.2.6 - Complexity of Off gas Treatment Systems and Uncontrolled Release of Radionuclides.

18 2.2.7 Maint enance R equire men ts...................................................

'18 2.3 Special Requirements For Certain Radionuclides....................................,..

18 2.3.1 Plutonium..................................................................

18 2.3.2 Tritium....................................................................

19 2.3.3 O t h e r Rad io n u clid es......................................................

19 v

NUREG-1393

~,

+

i 1

t 3 i Prod uct's Of I ncineration........................................................ o m.....

23 3.1 Off gas Cha ract eristics............... ;..........................'....................-

23 3.2 Off. gas Scrubbing & Particulate Filtration.............................................

23

- r 3.2.1 Wet versus Dry Off. gas Treatment.............................................

24 3.2.2 Ceramic Filters-Swiss Facility...............................................

24-t 3.2.3 Bag Filters-Mol Plant, Belgium...............................................

24-3.2.4 Wet Off. gas Scrubbing-DOE Mound Facility...................................

25<

3.2.5 High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) Filters...................................

25

-l 3.3 Ash Treatment And Disposal........ i......................................... ~.......

25 29 4 Operational Experience And Status.......................................................

m 4.1 U.S. Government Facilities.......................................................... -

29-4.1.1. INEL Waste Reduction Facility.............................. '.................

29 '

4.1.2 SRP Beta Gamma Incinerator and the Consolidated incinerator Facility..e..........

29

.i 1

4.2 Domestic Utility / Industry Facilities...................................................

30.

f4.2.1 Aerojet Full. scale Prototype, Sacramento, Ca....................................

30' 4.2.2 Byron N uclear Power Station..................................................

30 4.2.3 B raidwood Nuclear Power Station..............................................

31 t

4.2.4 Vogtle Nuclear Power Station.................................................

31.

4.2.5 Oconee Nuclear Power Station................................................

31 4.2.6 - Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station.............................................

31 4.3 Domotic Medical and Educational Facilities...........................................

31 4.3.1 Overview.................................................................-

31 4.3.2 Reasons for ' "

Sn era t ion..... e.....................................

32 4.3.3 Operational 14m.....................................................-

32-l 4.3.3.1 Pu r ' e U n! c rsity...................................................

32.

4.3.3.2' Ur arsity of MaryF.1-Baltimore City.................................

32-33 4.4 Foreign Facilitics.

4.4.1 Tokal Mura F

<iu

1. m (J a pan) -.....................................

33 v.

n 4,4.2 Karlsruhe" - v mm 3 C N e r (FR G)......................................

33 34 4.4.3 Studsvik(Ss v4 4.4.4 Juelich (FIN 34 4.4.5 Mol Nuclear Stuoy Cemer (Belgium)...........................................

34 i

4.4.6 B ruce Nuclear Power Station (Canada).........................................

35 5. Lice nsin g Issu es........................................................................

43

- 5.1 Federal / State Licensing Requirements.................................,.......,......

43; 5.1.1 Overview of Federal Legislation...............................................

43 5.1.2 States Requirements: The State of Illinois.......................................

44 5.1.3 Chronology of Licensing: Battelle Columbus.....................................

44 5.2 Publ ic Accep tance..................................................................

44

-i 6 Co n c l u sio ns...........................................................................

51 t

! 71 R e fe r e n ce s......................................,.....................................

53-I Appendix A: Conceptual Designs for'lypical LIAV Incinerators Appendix B: Incinerator Manufacturers, Designers, & Contractors NUREG11393 vi 3

._.o~.

I

' Tables 1-1 Waste Classification per 10 CFR Parts 61.7 and 61.55.......................................

3 1-2 ' Radionuclide Limits for Near. Surface Disposal per 10 CFR 61.55.............................

4 1-3 _ Average Total LLW Generation Rates for Commercial Reactors.............................

4 1-4 _ State of Illinois LLW Generation by Source & Class,1986...................................

5 1-5. Sources of Wet and Dry 11W..................... <....................................

5 1-6 Composition of Dry ComMrMe LLW from Power Plants..................................

6 1-7. Composition and VobmN Wee 11W from Power Plants..................................

6 1-8 Types of Institutional!W ptal B#....................................................

7 1-9 Low level Pluton 1.rvn Owminated Waste in the U.K......................................

7 1-10 Calorific Values d! LLW................... s 8

1-11 Important Chemical Properties of ILW Related to inckcmtion 8-1-12 Chatacteristics of Radionuclides Associated with Nuclear Facihty Waste.......................

9 1-13 Characteristics of Radiopharmaceuticals Associated with Hospital /lliolo},1 cal Research Waste.....

10 1-14 Characteristics of Radiopharmaceutical Generators Associated with Hospital / Biological R esea rc h Was t e.......................................................................

11 1-15 Anticipated Radionuclide Combustion Compounds.........................................

12 2-1 ' Economic Analysis of LLW Incineration by Ontario Hydro..................................

19-2-2 Examples of Costs for Incineration and LacJ Burial........................................

20 2-3 Basic Maintenance Requirements for LLW Incinerators.....................................

21 3-1 Aqueous vs. Dry Off. gas Treatment for LLW Incinerators...................................

27 3-2 Ceramic Filters Without Scrubbers-Swiss Experience......................................

27 3-3 Performance Data for Mound Cyclone Incinerator with Wet Scrubbing System.................

28 4-1 U.S. Gmernment Facilities with Incinerators..............................................

36 4-2 Domestic Utility and Industry Facilities with Incinerators...................................

37 4-3 Survey of Medical / Institutional Facilities Conducted by the University of Maryland at Baltimore...

38 4-4 Foreign Government, Research. & Power Plant Facilities with Incinerators....................

39 4-5 Estimated Capacity Factors for Foreign Incinerator Facilities................................

41 5-1 Sources for License Authorization for LLW Incineration....................................

45 5-2 General Federal legislation Related to LLW Incineration...................................

46 5-3 NRC/ DOE / EPA Requirements Related to LLW Incineration................................

46 5-4 Details of NRC Regulations Related to LLW Incineration...................................

47 5-5 Scope of States' Responsibilities: Agreement State Program.................................

48 5-6 Licensing Chronology for Centralized LLW Incineration Facility at Battelle Memorial Institute-Columbus, Ohio...........................................

49 5-7 Local Public Survey About Proposed LLW Incinerator in Rural Pennsylvania...................

50

\\

vii NUREG-1393

_. - -. - ~. _

i I

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

l

'lhe incineration'of low level radioactive waste (LLW) is incineration methodologies. Normally, most industrial, one of several technologies currently available for redue-academic, and research LIAV has only very low concen-ing the volume of LLW prior to disposal. Incineration is trations of radioactive materials. Furthermore, typictd both effective and technically feasible as evidericed by medical waste is characterized by even lower concentra-typical volume reduction factors, before final ash immobi-tions, with the majority of the contaminating lization and packaging, of 30:1 to 100:1. Even after final radionuclides being short lived with halflives ranging packaging, the net volume reduction is still 2 to 5 times from tens of hours to a few months.

greater than competing technologies such -as super.

compaction. Incineration as an alternative to direct shal-LLW ncinerator operators include nuclear power plant low-land burial of LLW at licensed radioactive waste sites s tes, government researth and production facilities such also has 'Menefits of providing a very limited and moni-as military production activities, and institutions like hos-tored releau of radionuclides to the environment and of pitals and universities. Incineration of LLW is a world-providing a waste that is readily stabilized, which mini

• wide practice with West Germany, France, U.K., Sweden, mizes long term ground subsidence and leaching by rain Canada, and Japan being some of the most active coun-and ground water, tries. The U.S. is on a par with Western Europe, Canada, and Japan in terms of government laboratory research The technology for the incineration of LLW is a special-and demonstration of LLW incineration technology, but ized and carefully engineered form of incineration devel-falls significantly behind on commercial power plant ap-oped to ensure essentially complete combustion of the plications. U.S. utilities are seemingly rejecting the incin-burnable waste and positive retention of the radionu.

eration option for two major reasons: First, it is still rela-clides. Early experience at laboratories and plants in the tively inexpensive and easy to bury untreated (compacted 1950s and 1960s highlighted a mimber of technical prob-or non-compacted) LLW and, second, incinerator licens-lems with LLW incineration that have been essentially ing and operation is perceived to be difficult and publicly resolved with contemporaiy designs.These current tech-unpopular. In fact, at least four U.S. nuclear power plant nologies range from the common types of excess and sites have complete and fully licensed, state-of-the-art controlled air incinerators, including fluidized bed sys-incinerator facilities that have either never operated or tems, to the advanced concepts of high-temperature slag-have conducted only limited operations; however, two of ging, pyrolysis, and acid digestion.These LLW incinera-these sites do have plans for more extensive operation tors are highly efficient at controlling both radionuclide following startup testing and resolution of some minor releases and conventional waste emissions such as acid technical issues.This situation is currently in a transitian gases, heavy metal compounds, and toxins; in addition, phase, which may ultimately encourage more use ofincin-the magnitude of these conventional emissions is farless cration, since Federal legislation now requires that indi-than the level of similar releases from fossil-fueled or vidual States or States in compacts provide for their own waste-fueled power plants because of the relatively small LLW disposal by 1993. In contrast to power plants, insti-volumes of waste processed in the incinerators.

tutions in this country like hospitals and universities tend to operate small, on-site incinerators, which were origi.

LLW appropriate for incineration typically consists of nally installed and are primarily still used for biological radioactively contaminated paper, wood, rubber, rags, waste disposal; their overseas counterparts, on the other plastics, oils, solvents, sludges and resins, as well as indus.

hand, are usually supported by regional, State-operated trial, medical, and biological research wastes. Average n ctnerators.

LIAV is about 80-99 percent combustible, although the pre-+.cineration sorting process may leave small amounts

'the incineration of LLW generates a hot off gas stream, of ron. combustibles such as glass and metal parts. LIAV is with entrained particulate matter and fly-ash, that is fil-generally classified as dry or liquid waste. L.LW is also tered and scrubbed before release. by high efficiency, mul-o sra ally designated by 10 CIM Part 61 as Class A waste tiple-stage, wet and/or dry treatment systems. Incinera-Murns of shallow land burial requirements, but may be tion also resultsin the volume reduction of the LLW to an

.sificiently contaminated to be Class 11 or C waste.

ash by-product.Thedisposalof thisincineratorash,which Wastes contaminated with transuranics (typically alpha-is normally mixed with the filtered particulate matter, emitting radionuclides)are designated as Class A or Class may be accomplished by shallow-land burial of the ash C waste if the activity levels do not exceed 10 or 100 packed in high-integrity containers or permanently im-nanocuries/m3, respectively. Greater than Class-C TitU mobilized in cement, concrete, polymer or bitumen. Al-waste is also considered to be LLW because of vagueness though the requirement forash disposal can be character-in the legal def'mitions. With very low levelt of contamina-ized as a drawback of incineration, in reality it is a much tion,TitU waste can be incinerated using standard LLW better form of LLW for burial than was the original form ix NUIEG-1393

2.__ _...

..m.

_. ~ _., -. _. - _ -.. ~,

Executive Summary i

since it is biologically and structurally stable, and usually the potential in this country to significantly contribute consists of insoluble compounds.

toward the astute,long term management of LLW.nc U.S. commercial nuclear power industry, in particular, De public does, nevertheless, have concerns about the stands to benefit from use of the incineration option, use of incineration, especially as related to a perceived assuming that appropriate regulatory requirements and risk of environmental damage from release of toxic mate-economic incentives are or will be in place. ncre is con-rials in the ash and off. gas. Other public concerns are tinuing world-wide interest and activity involving LLW manifest in a view that an incineration facility is an unde-incineration, although some of the countries, most nota-

)

sirable industrial plant that would add truck traffic and bly Japan, are much more committed in their use of incin-lower property values in the surrounding community. It is cration than others. As emironmental concerns continue believed, however, that public education programs in to grow and as land use becomes more restricted, it is conjunction with community and industry cooperation expected that incineration will become an increasingly ctm do a great deal to alleviate these public concerns.

important choice for LLW volume reduction both in the U.S. nnd abroad.

Overall, incineration is an effective and advanced, though still maturing, technology for volume reduction that has l

1 NURIIG-1393 x

. ~ _... _. - _ - _, - -. - _. - - - -.,.,.. _ _ - _. _

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. Dade Credit should also be given to Advisory Committee Staff W. Moeller, Chairman of the ACNW, and to Dr. Melvin Interns Andrew J. Ilieniawski and Charles Daily for their W. First of the Harvard Air Cleaning 12tix>ratory for their assistance with portions of the research. Mr. Lionel Wat-guidance in the preparation of this report. ACNW Mem-kins of the NRC staff is to be credited for his preparation bers Dr. William J. Hinze and Dr. Martin J. Steindler are of the diagrams in Appendix A.

also thanked for their critiques and suggestions.

Finally, appreciation is expressed to the numerous senior The members of the ACNW staff-in particular Dr. Sid-engineers and managers in industry, at utilities, and at the ney J.S. Party, who is now with the DOB Nuclear Waste national laboratories who provided up-to-date informa-Technical Review iloard, and Mr. Richard K. Major-are tion on incinerator operations and planning at U.S.

acknowledged for their helpful comments on the draft, facilities.

I l

l

-l i

xi NUREG-1393

i

-i e

PREFACE This report was originally prepared for the use of the references, is believed by the author to provide an accu.

I Members of the ACNW.The Chairman of the ACNW, rate assessment of contemporary incinerator technology Dr. Dade Moeller, subsequently requested that the re-including foreign and domestic operational practices.

port receive wider distribution as a NUREG document in -

Also, it should be noted that some of the references are order to provide general information on LLW incinera.

up to 12 years old; where practical, updates on current tion technology and its benefits, and to summarize opera-activities at incinerator sites have been obtained through tional experience. As noted in the abstract, this report is telephone conversations.The reader is, nonetheless, en-

-)

intended primarily to serve as an overview of the technol-couraged to directly contact the facilities and/or incinera-ogy for waste management professionals involved in the

. tor manufacturing companies in which he or she may have use or regulation of LLW incineration.

a strong interest. Finally, the numerical values presented in this report have been converted, where necessary, to An extensive survey of the availabic literature on LLW metric units in order to facilitate direct comparisons; con-incineration was conducted as the basis for this report.

sequently, some of these values may not be consistent.

'!his survey, although not intended to include all existing with their format in the original sources.

t t

xiii NUllEG-1393

e-1 INTRODUCTION J

1.1 incineration and nelated Alterna, plasma torch incineration. All of these methodologies tive Methods of Volume Reduction resun in om pmducu n f new foms of waste (nomany ash or slag), which must be solidified and/or packaged

[1,2,4,70]

before transportation and disposal, and of an off-gas stream which must be scrubbed, filtered, and monitored -

The disposal of LLW at government facilities, reactor-before release to the atmosphere. He technology for sites, and medical / institutional facilities is an important treating these incineration waste products is, however, facet of the overall radioactive waste disposal problem.

wc!! proven and highly effective and is licensable at both The very nature of LLW is both an advantage and a the Federal and State levels, disadvantage in selecting a disposal methodology. De advantage is that the low concentration level of radioac-tive materials allows for caster, more direct handling of 1.2 Sources and Quantit,es of LLW i

the waste and more options for disposal. He disadvan-Production tage is that LLW is generated in large volumes with the associated difficulties of storage, packaging, and transpor-1.2.1 Overview [1,4,5) tation to disposal sites. Consequently, much attention has been directed at controlling the volume of LLW.

Sources of LLW include the following:

Commercial power plant programs e

LLW is technically, although indirectly, defined as radio, e

Medical / institutional facilities active waste that is not classified as high level waste 0-ILW), spent nuclear fuel, by-product material specified Naval reactor program in Department of Energy (DOE) Order 5820.2, or waste Nuclear weapons program highly contaminated with transuranic nuclides (TRU).

Uranium enrichment program lypically, LLW consists mostly of slightly contammated DOE research & development programs plastics and cellulose-based products such as paper, wood, rags, and clothing in solid form and includes spent Each of these.LLW sources produces waste that is charac-ion resins and contaminated oil and solvents in liquid terized by the nature of the program, although therc is form. Also, some LLW in the form of animal and other

- also much waste commonality. For the purpose of this biological waste resuhs from medical use of radionuclides report, therefore, the last four sources will be grouped as as tracer material.

Government / DOE facilities, since it is not unusual for LLW waste from a number of these government pro-LLW shallow land burial requirements per 10 CFR Part grams to be handled at individual govemment or govern-61 are categorized as Class A,11, or C and are summarized ment owned, contractor operated facilities. In addition,

~ in hble 1-1. Specific radionuclide concentration limits it should be noted that data from foreign plants and facili-are provided in Table 1-2. LLW not appropriate for shal-ties have been included in this report, but unless specifi-low-land burial is categortzed as Greater-than. Class-C cally stated the presented information refers to domestic (GTCC) waste As far as TRU-contaminated LLW is programs.

concerned, the designation is Class A or Class C for, activity levels up to 10 or 100 nanocuries/m3, respectively; 1.2.2 Commercial Nuclear Power Plant however, a vagueness in the legal definition means that GTCC-TRU waste is also classified as LLW.

Programs [1]

Table 1-3 shows average annual LLW volume production Incineration and related alternative methodologies are per lloiling Water Reactor OlWR) and Pressurized highly effective in red ucing LLW volume. Typical volume Water Reactor (PWR) unit. Generation per llWR at reduction is in the range of 70-90%, although it can be as about 920 cubic meters / year is twice the PWR unit rate of high as 95-99% for sorted LLW that is completely com-about 425 cubic meters / year. National annual production bustible. The most common and widely used of these can be approximated at 65,000 cubic meters by using a methodologies are excess air and controlled air incinera-base of 110 plants with a one third llWR and two-thirds -

tion. Fluidized. bed incineration is now also a commer-PWR composition, which results in a U.S. plant weighted cially viable technology. Other methods of incineration, average of about 590 cubic meters / year. (Note: This na-generally stillin the R & D and demonstration stages of tional volume estimate is likely to be only an upper limit use, are molten salt incineration and stagging incinera-because of the success in recent years of utility programs tion. Alternative technologies related to incineration are aimed at lowering LLW production rates.) Table 1-4 pyrolysis, acid digestion, microwave evaporation, and provides a listing of 1986 LLW producers within the State 1

-NURl!G-1393

w

= -. ~. -

1 Introduction L

i of Illinois, including nuclear power plants, and itemizes have come to be used for LLW incineration as a secondary waste volumes by class.

mission. For waste that is both biologically and radioac-tively contaminated, the biological contammation may be 11W can be categorized as " dry active waste" (DAW) or the more serious public threat and is most effectively as " wet" waste. Nearly all LLW is Class A as defined in destroyed by the incineration processi Also of interest is 10 CFR Part 61.55. Sources of dry and wet ILW from the short half-life nature of most of the radionuclides commercial nuclear power plants are listed in Table 1-5.

used for biological / medical work. One approach taken by HWR/PWR dry waste typically consists of wood, paper, some institutions is to hold the waste, either in its pre-plastics, metal parts & tools, cloth, and rubber. DAW is incineration form or as ashes, until decay allows disposal normally between 50 and 80% combustible, while sorted as non radioactive waste. A similar method is allowed for DAW (after the removal of the bulk of metal and glass facility decontamination; as described in NUREG-1754, -

components)is between 90 and 100% combustible. Table if an institution is only licensed to use short-lived '

1-6 provides a breakdown of the composition of dry, nuclides, "ccasing to receive new shipments and certifying sorted (combustible) 11W based on surveys donc for this with the appropriate regulatory agency may be all European power plant waste. Wet waste is typically com-that is required to terminate the license". In addition, prised of ion exchange resins, sludges, and evaporator because of the exceptionally low contamination levels of concentrates. Table 1-7 shows the volumes and volume institutional waste, two of the important, relatively long-percentages for wet LLW from BWR and PWR units. It lived research radionuclides, carbon-14 and triti im, may can be noted, from the data in Tables 1-3 & 1-7, that wet be disposed of as non-radioactive waste, per 10 CFR -

waste for both BWRs.md PWRs makes up roughly one.

20.306, at below-regulatory-concern (URC) concentra-third of the total 11W volume generated per unit. Wet tions; however, this regulation applies at present only to waste, with the exceptions of contaminated oils and sol-carbon-14 and tritium in scintillation fluids and animal vents, is ant directly combustible. Wet waste may be incin-carcasses.

3 crated, however, by combination with dry waste or by dehydrating the wet waste in an evaporator / dryer to pro-duce solids which may be incinerated.

1,2.4 Government / DOE Facilities [3,52]

1.2 3 Medical / Institutional Facilities-Government and DOE facilities are responsible for many

[6,7,35,36,37,53]

diverse operations related to the naval reactor program, the nuclear weapons program, the uranium enrichment A survey of 142 medical and institutional facilities in 1979 program, and DOE research & development programs, indicated that 46 (or about one third) of the facilities were These programs produce both a significant amount of i

incinerating at least a portion of their LLW.This institu-HLW, which is not appropriate for incineration, and a tional low level waste usually has only very low concentra-large volume of LLW, which is very similar to commercial tions of radionuclides. An earlier 1975 study of 607 insti-nuclear power plant waste. Also, government and DOE tutions highlighted this very low level of contamination by programs involving weapons and fuel cycle operations finding that institutional 11W shipments to burial sites produce plutonium-contaminated low level waste that made up 11% of the number of all LLW waste move-can be volume reduced using incineration technology.

ments, but less than 1 % ofThe total amount of radioactive i

The DOE manages LLW through the Office of Nuclear Energy-LLW Management Program and the Office of The volume of LLW incinerateu at these facilities is also ense Waste and Bypmducts Management hogram.

l very modest. It is estimated from the survey results that In addition, the Office of Defense Programs-LLW Tech-a the 46 institutions incinerated about 530 cubic meters of n I gy Pmgram h r sponsible for field testmg of im-11W in 1979 for a 12 cubic meters / year per institution proved disposal technologies, includmg incmeration.The average. Actually, most institutions reported less than 3 DOE inventory of 11W, consisting mostly of dry waste cubic meters / year, while a few large university / medical suc as contamm, ated sou and cqmpment, was appsb school / hospital facilities had much larger incinerated mately 2 million cubic meters m, 1982 with a yearly pro-LLW volumes, duction rate of 76,000 cubic meters.

Types of LLW from medical and research institutions are what would be expected from activities primarily involv-Treatment programs for HLW and reactor fuel reproc-ing trace amounts of radionuclides in biological, medical, essing activities may result in the generation of low level and research programs. Table 1-8 lists typical types of waste in the form of TRU.LLW. Table 1-9 shows the institutional / hospital LLW. In general, most institutional scope of management requirements for this type of waste incinerators were initially constructeu to dispose of non-in the U.K. by indicating the quantities of TRU-LLW in radioactive animal carcasses and infectious waste and storage and the production rates.

NUREG-1393 2

, _. _. _ _. ~. _. _

1 Introduction 1.3 Physical and Chemical Character.

that must be controlled as incineration by products are highlighted in Table 1-11.

istics of LLW [2,5,6,9,18,19,20,25, 29,33,34,36,51,54]

A partial list of the most common radionuclides in 11W from nuclear power, research, fuel, and defense facilities the physical and chemical characteristics of 11W are is compiled in Table 1-12. Not e that transuranic radionu.

detcimined both by the nature of the waste materialitself clides are also included. Significant TRU contamination and by the contaminating radionuclides. In addition, since levels (primarily from isotopes of plutonium) are nor.

the 11W is serving as a fuel in the incineration process, a mally associated with fuel processing and defense activi-quantificationof thecalorificvalueof thefuelis necessary ties, but these facilities also haveTRU waste with very low to determine feed rates and to maintain proper combus-levels of contamination appropriate for incineration.The tion temperatures. Finally, the incineration process leads principal radionuclide contaminants, as noted in a 1975 to chemical changes of the contamination radionuclides study of IlWR/PWR waste, are the isotopes of cobalt and and generates combustion products from the 11W. The cesium, with manganese also being important for 11WRs.

formation of these new chemical compounds, both radio-Additionallists for radionuclides associated with hospital /

active and non-radioactive, must be understood to allow biological use are provided in Tables 1-13 and 1-14.

proper design of fly-ash /off gas scrubbing and filtering -

systems.

Radionuclide compounds anticipated to be formed during high temperature combustion in modern incinerators are Calorific values of some wet and dry types of LLW are presented in Table 1-15. The solubility of these new provided in Table 1-10. The calorific values for ion-compounds in a strong alkali (i.e., pH 8-10) solution is exchange resins are for those resins that have been par-noted in this table to indicate the difficulty of maintaining tially dehydrated by mixing with ethanol; ethanol dis-a low radionuclide contamination level of the off gas places the water and provides approximately the same scrubbing liquid; insoluble compounds are preferred calorific value as dry resin. Chemical constituents of LLW since they can be casily filtered from the liquid.

Table 1-1 Waste Classification per 10 CFR Parts 61.7 and 61.55 Class "A" -

Consists of a minimum concentration of radionuclides important for disposal; waste instability is not a concern.

Class "11" -

Consists of higher activities than Class A; waste must be stabilized (against moisture and microbial activity) to prevent subsidence and teaching. Waste can be stabilized by solidification or storage in.

i high. integrity containers; the goal for effective stabilization is 300 years. Activity of Class "B" waste will I

decay within 100 years to a level which presents an acceptable hazard to intruders.

Class "C" - Consists ofhigher activities than either Class A or 11, but lower than the highest activities that are still suitable for shallow-land disposal. Waste must be stabilized in addition to being protected by an intruder barrier (e.g., at least 5 meter underground burial). Activity of Class "C" waste will not decay within 100 years to a level which presents an acceptable ha7.ard to intruders.

l l

i l

3 NUREG-1393

..s.a._,_---

1 Introduction Table 1-2 Radionuclide Limits for Near. Surface Disposal per 10 CFR 61.55 c

l Concentration Limit, curies /m3 Radionuclide Class "A" Class "B" Class "C" C-14 0.8 8

C-14 (in activated metal) 8 80 Ni-59 (in activated metal) 22 220-Nb-94 (in activated metal) 0.02 0.2 Tc-99 0.3 3

1-129 0.008 0.08 -

Alpha-emitting transuranic nuclides with half lives greater than 5 years 1.0E-8 1.0E-1 Pu-241 3.5E-7 3.5E 6 Cm-242 2.0E-6 2.0E 5 Total of all nuclides with half-lives less than 5 years 700 H-3 40 Co-60 700 Ni-63 3.5 70 700 Ni-63 (in activated metal) 35 700 7000 Sr-90 0.04 150 7000 Cs-137 1

44 4600

• No Class "B" limits are specified for these nuclides.

• No Class *ll' or "C" linuts are specified for these nuclides; practical limit is determined by radiation and heat restrictions during handling.

Note: If waste contains only radiometides not listed in this table, then waste is Class "A". It waste contains more than one of the listed radionu. --

clides, then " fractions" of each maximum concentration limit must be used to determine if higher waste classification is required.

Table 1-3 Average Total LLW Generation Rates for Commercial Reactors [1]

Year As. Shipped er Unit, Cubic Meters / Year p

BWR PWR 1977 1020 455 1978 965 425 1979 880 425 1980 1075 455 1981-880 455 1982 820 370 1983 850 400 1984-880 425 Yearly Average 920 425

' NURiiG-1393 4

. [.--.__.

~

-._.._-__..a.__-.

1 Introduction Table 1-4 State of Illinois LLW Generation by Source & Class,1986 pl)

Class A Class Il Class C Total Source Vol (m3)

Vol (m3)

Vol (m3)

(m3)

Power Plants 4227.

641 10 4878' Fuel Cycle 661 0

0 661 Medical 108 0

0 108

- Industrial 66 1

1 68 Academic 94 0

0 94 Other 390 0

0 390 Total 5546 642 11 6199 Total Vol %

89.5 10.3 0.2 -

100

' Note, specific sources of the power plant waste are:

PWRs Dyron (2 units).......... 318 m3 Zion (2 units)........... 331 m3 Braidwuod G units)........ O m (not operating in 1986) 3 IlWRs Dresden G units)....... 2162 m3 Quad Cities G units).... 1317 m3 12Salle G units)........ 750 m3 Clinton (1 unit)............. O m3 (not operating in 1986)

Table 1-5 Sources of Wet and Dry LLW [1]

Dry LLW from IlWRs and PWRs -

Modifications e

Corrective / Preventive Maintenance e

NRC Requirements e

House. keeping e Decontamination

. Health Physicsfrech Spec Surveillance Opemtions e

Wet LLW from BWRs Reactor Coolant System e

Condensate Polishing System

- Spent Fuel Pool System e

Liquid Radwaste Chemical Wastes e

Wet LLW from PWRs Reactor Coolant System e

Condensate Polishing System i

e Spent Fuel Pool System Boron Recovery System e

e Steam Generator Blowdown L.iquid Radwaste e Chemical Wastes e Decontamination Solutions

• Doric Acid Wastes 1

5 NURl!G-1393

l

. wa.

.w.,~.~ - ~~ ~ -

w

~

1 Introduction Table 1-6 Composition of Dry Combustible LLW from Power Plants [5]'

(European Data,1984)

Typical' eight Percent W

Material -

Combustibles 93.

.i Plastics 37 Cloth 27 Wocxl 16

)

Paper 8

Rubber 5

Non Combustibles 7

Total 100

)

Table 1-7 Composition and Volume of Wei LLW from Power Plants [1]

(As Shipped from U.S Plants, 1978-1981)-

BWR Waste

' Average Volume Percent Spent Ion Exchange Resins 17 Studges 45 Evaporator Concentrates 38 Average Volume 350 cubic meters / year PWRWaste Average Volume Percent Spent Ion Exchange Resins 21 Evaporator Ccncentrates'

'79 Average Volume

- 145 cubic meters / year i

4 l

NIJREG-1393 6

1 Introduction t

Table 1-8 Types of Institutional /llospital LLW [6,35,37]

Biological Carcasses,' animal wastes, bedding, tissue Dry, Solid Medical research waste including syringes, tubes, paper, and gloves Liquid Scintillation Organic solutions used as tracers in biological studies (e.g., H-3, C-14, P-32, S-35, Ca-45) in plastic or glass vials Other Organic Liquids Laboratory solvents including alcohols, aldehydes, ketones, and organic acids Aqueous Liquids Waste liquids from medical uses of radionuclides Table 1-9 Low Level Plutonium Contaminated Waste in the U.K. [11,28].

U.K. Nuclear Research Facilities:

In Storage, 1984 - 130 cubic meters Production Rate - 92 cubic meters per year 0.037 TBq/m3 Average Activity, Alpha.cmitters.

Average Activity, Beta / gamma.cmitters =

1.48 TBq/m3 Magnox Fuel Reprocessing Facility, Sellafield:

In Storage,1984 - 5485 cubic meters Production Rate _ = 800 cubic meters per year 0.44 TBq/m3 Average Activity, Alpha.cmitters

=

Average Activity, Beta / gamma-emitters 18.1 TBq/m3

=

l-Note: Total production of LIAV in the U.K. from all sources in 1988 was -

estimated to be about 40,000 m3/yr.

(1 Tera. Becquerel - 27.03 Curies) 7 NURiiG-1393

e.;._.-

4 s

1 Introduction'

. q Table 1-10 Calorine Values of LLW [2,25,54]

j Dry Waste Typical Calorific Value (KJ/kg)

Rubber 41,000 Polyethylene 37,000 PVC Plastic 26,000 Paper, Cardboard 17,000 to 25,000 Wood 15,000 to 20.000 Cotton Cloth 17,000 Wet Waste Typical Calorific Value (KJ/kg)l Fuel Oil. (No. 2 & 4) 38,000 to 40,000 lon-Exchange Resin (Cation) 20,000 lon Exchange Resin (Anion) ~

'30,000-Organic Solvent 37,000 to 46,000 Table 1-11 Important Chemical Properties of LLW Related to incineration [2,5,18,20]

Dn Waste Property -

PVC Plastic Contains chlorine which forms acid gas -

L Paper / Wood / Organic Material Forms dioxins, furans, and polynuclear hydrocarbons -

l Metals Form metal-chlorides -

('

Organic Material Containing Proteins Forms nitrogen oxides from oxidation of amines Property Wet. Waste No. 4 Fuel Oil Contains up to 1.5 percent sulfur which forms acid gas "FIREQUEL"(fire resistant oil)

Contains up to 8 percent phosphorus which forms acid gas j'

NUREG-1393' 8

l 4,,

_ --.~.-...--._ _ ~...._._ -.__......_.

1 Introduction Table 1-12 Characteristics of Radionuclides Associated with Nuclear Facility Waste [9,19,33,34,51,55]

Nuclide llalf Life Emission Mode Typical. Percent Abundance

• PWRs BWRs PHWRs Cr-51 28 d Gamma 3

14 Mn-54 312 d Gamma 5L 26 Co-57 272 d Gamma 1

Co-58 71 d Beta, Gamma 35 1

Fe-59 45 d Beta, Gamma Co-60 5.3y Beta, Gamma 31 29 30 Zn-65 245 d Beta, Gamma 2

7 St-90/

29 y lleta Y-90 64 h Beta, Gamma Zr-95/_

66 d Beta, Gamma

<1 5

Nb-95 35 d Beta, Gamma

<1

<1 5

Ru-103 39 d Beta, Gamma Ru-106 373 d Beta

<1 Cd-109 462 d Gamma Sb-125/

2.8y Beta, Gamma

<1 Te-125 58 d Gamma 1-125 60 d Gamma 1-131 8d Beta, Gamma Cs-134 2.1y Beta, Gamma 9

9-Cs-137 30 y Beta, Gamma 17-14 14 Cc-141 33 d Beta, Gamma Ce-144 284 d Beta, Gamma 11 U-235 7.04E8 y Alpha, Gamma -

U-238 4.47E9 y Alpha, Gamma:

Pu-239 2.41E4 y Alpha, Gamma L

Notes:

PWRs -

U.S. Pressurized Water Reactors; 1% of nuclides not specified.

BWRs -

U.S. Boiling Water Reactors; 15% of nuclides not specified.

PilWRs - Canadian Pressurized IIcavy. Water. Moderated and Cooled Reactors (i.e., CANDUs); 13% of nuclides not specified.

(* Radionuclides listed in this table but not associated with PWRs, BWRs, or PHWRs may be found in LLW at other types of reactor /nuc! car facilities.)

l l

9 NUREG-1393

a..au

= - - -. - -. -.

~,

r I

- 1 Introduction

-l l.i i

s Table 1-13 Characteristics of Radiopharmaceuticals Associated with Hospital / Biological Research Waste *

[6,29,36,55,56,76,77,78,79]

Nuclide Half Life Emission Mode (s)~

Beta-11-3 123 y

'Deta f

C-14 5730 y P-32 14 d Beta S-35 87 d

Beta K-43

- 22 h '

Beta, Gamma -

Ca-45 165 d Beta, Gamma Sc-46 84 d lleta, Gamma Cr-51 28 d

-Gamma Co-57 270 d Gamma Co-58 71 d Beta, Gamma Fe-59 45 d Beta, Gamma Zn-65 244 d lleta, Gamma Gamma Ga-67 78 h

. Beta, Gamma Kr-85 10.7 y '-

Sr-85 65 d Gamma Nb-95 35 d Beta, Gamma Ru-97 2.9 d Gamma In-111 2,8d Gamma Sn - 117" 14 d Gamma -

1-125 60 d Gamma Te - 125" 58 d Gamma Cs-129 32 h Beta, Gamma-I-131 8d Beta-Ba - 133" 39 h Gamma Xe-133 53 d Beta, Gamma Cc-141 33 d Beta, Gamma e

Tb-157 150 y Gamma Tm-167 9.3d Gamma-Ta-182 115 d Beta, Gamma Hg-197 65 h Gamma Hg - 197" 24 h Gamma Au-198 2.7 d lleta, Gamma Au - 198" 2,3 d Gamma.

Hg-203

' 47 d Beta, Gamma o

TI-204 3.78 y 11 eta.

Po-210 138 d Alpha, Gamma Pu-237 45 d Alpha, Gamma

• Radiopharmaceutieah listed in this table have half lives of I day or longer, nuclides with shorter half-lives exist, but these are unlikely to become a LLW problem. 'lhe nuclides are accelerator or reactor produced.

l L.

i i:

l JNURIIG-1393 10

m_._,.-.m.._____-...._._.,_

., -, ~ _

1 Introduction Table 1-14 Characteristics of Radiopharmaceutical Generators Associated with Hospital / Biological Research Waste

[6,29,36,55,56,76,77,78,79]

1 Parent / Daughter Nuclides Half Lives Emission Modes Mg-28/

Al-28_

21 hl 2.3 m lleta, Gamma Ge-68/

Ga-68 271 d/ 68 m lleta, Gamma Br-77/

' Se - 77" 57 h/ 17 s lieta, Gamma Kr-77/

Ilr-77 1.2 h/ 57 h lieta, Gamma Sr-82/

Rb-82 26 d/ 6.5 h lieta, Gamma Rb-83/

Kr - 83" 86 d/ 1.9 h Gamma Y-87/

Sr - 87" 3.3 dl 2.8 h lleta, Gamma Mo-99/

Te - 99" 66 h/ 6h lieta, Gamma Sn-113/

In - 113" 118 d/ 1.7 h Gamma l

Cs-127/-

Xe-127 6.2 hl 36 d Deta, Gamma lla-128/

Cs-128 2.4 d/ 3.6 m lleta, Gamma -

Os-191/

Ir - 191" 15 d/ 4.9s lleta, Gamma 1Ig-195/

Au-195 40 h/ ' 186 d Gamma Hg - 197"/ Hg-197 24 hl 65 h Gamma Pb-201/

TI-201 9.3 hl 73 h Ileta, Gamma 111-203/

Pb-203 12 hl 52 h lleta, Gamma Notes:

1. The parent nuclides are produced in a cyclotron or reactor and shipped to institutional facilities; some institutions have their own accelerators on site.

2. The daughter nuclides are chemically separated from the parent nuclides only when needed because of the short daughter half-lives.

3 Only parent / daughter nuclides with half lives of at least 1 day are -

listed in this table, Fince Shorter half-lived nuclides are unlikely to '

become a LLW problem.

4. The final nuclides in the decay chain, although not radioactive, may still be toxie (e.g., some are heavy metals).

4 11 NURI!G-~1393 r

m 4l

.... -. ~.. ~.., -,.., - - -. - -. -... - ~... -.

I

- 1 Introduction.

t i

I Table 1-15 Anticipated Radionuclide Combustion Compounds (51]

Nuclide Compound

• Alkali Solubility Cr-51 Cr2O Insoluble 3

Mn-54 Mn30 Insoluble 4

Co-57, 58, 60 coo Insoluble Zn-65 ZnO Insoluble i

Fe-59 Fe2O Insoluble 3

Zr-95

ZrO, Insoluble Insoluble Nb-95, 97

.Nb 03 2

Ru-103,106

RuO, Insoluble I-125,131 1,

103 Very Solub!c 1

Cs 134,137 CsCl Very Soluble Insoluble La-140 14 03 Cc-141,144

CeO, insoluble

• Note:These combustion compounds are being described as they exit the final incinerator chamber, prior to entering the off gas treatment system, Consequently, since combustion was likely to have occurred in an oxygen-deficient environment and since the off gas stream is typically saturated with water vapor, less stable products may form. These products include instead of elementaliodine or io-RuO,instead of RuO, and I /103 2

4 dinc oxide.

NUlmG-1393 12

i 2 INCINERATOR TECHNOLOGY 2.1 Types of Systems and Typical ments of the overall potential cost savings from the use of I""" '"*1 " "' " SP'"fiC Sh"-

Operation Typical incineration VR ratios that are achievable range 2.1.1 Overview [23,25,75) from 30:1 to 100:1, although industry reports indicate that actual values of LLW stream VR ratios are closer to 10:1.

Incineration technology as used for LLW volume reduc-nese LLW stream VR ratios are very plant specific and

' tion is actually a specialized extension of existing technol-may be lower than expected because of ash stabilization ogy that has been used for manyyears. In fact, many of the and packaging requirements as well as because of difficul-advances in LLW incineration technology are also appib ties or inefficiencies in separating combustible from non-cable to the pocessing of non radioactive waste because combustible waste. By comparison, the competing tech-air borne' emissions are being increasingly limited nologies of compaction and super-compaction generally through State and Federal regulations. The primary dif-provide a 3:1 and a 8:1 reduction in volume, respectively.

ference between radioactive and non-radioactive waste Even after the addition of ash stabilizing materials and incineration is that incineration of radioactive material final packaging (i.e., using the LLW stream definition for requires refinement of the technology to ensure greater the VR ratio), the incineration process is still 2 to 5 times positive control of the radioactive ash and off gases in more volumetrically efficient than super compaction.

order to minimize releases to the environment.

2.1.3 General Design Requirements There are a number of types of LLW incinerators operat-

[2,5,9,10,11,13,23,25,48) ing today and several advanced incinerator designs are presently in the R& D and demonstration stages. A major Most modern incinerator systems have a number of com-factor in the successful operation of these incinerators is mon basic features, These include:

careful control of waste selection and sorting. This con.

Waste sorting & pre-processing system trol of waste input, in terms of both kinds and mixes c; LLW, has direct impact on the completeness of comtos-Waste feed system e

tion and on the ability to limit radioactne and non-Combustor: Primary, scaled (or sub-atmospheric) radioactive emissions. Secondary factors for Necessful e

incinerator operation that must also be addre'. sed include main combustion chamber with auxiliary heaters j

efficiency, automation,andeost effectiver.ssincompari-Afterburner: Secondary, afterbuming combustion son to other volume reduct,on method. Detailed infor-chamber with auxiliary heaters (Note: some systems i

mation on incineration technology may be found in Ap-do not have afterburners) pendix E of NUREG/CR-2206 [23] and Chapter 7 of Ash collection system Radioactim IVaste Technology [25).

e Dry and/or wet off gas and fly-ash scrubbing / filter-e 2.1.2 Volume Reduction Ratio {25,83]

ing system g s release monhodng system e

Before addressing the specific aspects of incineration technology, it is important to clarify the meaning of "vol-Incinerator systems also have a number of experienced-ume reduction ratio". This VR ratio is generally defined based limitations on operating parameters and waste in.

l in two ways: First, it is a comparison of the LLW volume put concentrations; although these limitations are not l

before and after incineration (i.e, sorted, combustible strict design requirements, they do represent good prac.

j LLW volume versus ash and residue volume); second, it is tices that can minimize maintenance and monitoring this same comparison except that the pre-incineration requirements. Currently accepted practices include:

volume is based on the unsorted and/or packaged LLW, Minimum primary and secondary combustion cham-

. while the post-incineration volume includes the stabiliz-

=

ing/ binding agents, containers, and over. packs. The for-ber temperatures, typically in the 500-1200a C mer of these definitions yields larger VR ratios (since it is range, to ensure complete combustion.

closely tied to the physical process of incineration) and it Maximum allowable input amounts of plastics (such is the value stated by manufacturers, as well as being the e

basis for VR values used in this report.The latter defini-as polyvinyl chloride) and sulfur-bearing wastes to tion, although really more of an LLIVstream volume re-limit the amount of chlorine to about 5-10 weight %

duction mtio than an incincration volume reduction ratio, and sulfur to about 1-5 weight % (to limit acid-gas yields smaller ratios that can be usefut in economic assess-formation to manageable levels).

13 NUREG-1393

l 2 IncineratorTechnology o

Maximum allowable input amounts of certain waste and volatile gases takes place in the secondary radionuclides such as tritium, carbon-14, and sul-chamber at high temperature (1000-1500

• C)in an excess fur-35 which are weak beta particle emitters diffi, air environment. Furnaces (vertical & horizontal), agi-cult to monitor in the off gas stream, tated hearth incinerators and some rotary kiln incinera-tors also fall into this category. Fly ash and off gases are 2.1.4 Specific Incinerator Technologies scrubbed and/or filtered before release.

[2,5,9,10,11,13,23,25,48,67)

IVaste Typer (Same as listed for excess air incineration)

The following section provides basic details on the various Advantages types of incinerator technologies; highlights are included la)w turbulence combustion in the primary chamber on the kinds of wastes that can be handled, the advantages e

and disadvantages of each specific technology, and the minimizes fly ash / particulate entrainment expected volume reduction ratios, in addition, Appendix Commercially available e

A presents some diagrams of conceptual mcmcrator designs.

Disadvantages Control system required to maintain appropriate e

2.1.4.1 Excess AirIncineration sub-stoichiometne oxygen level The excess air incineration process uses a primary cham-la)wer combustion rate in the primary chamber ber with an operating temperature range of 800-1100* C e

and a stoichiometric cxcess air (i.e., oxygen) cmironment means extended operation of auxiliary gas or oil of 30 to 100% Complete combustion is subsequently heaters to maintain minimum temperatures achieved in a secondary, afterburning chamber. Furnaces (vertical & horizontal), high-temperature glass-melting Volume Reduction ratios range from 30:1 to 80:1 furnaces, cyclone drum incinerators, moving grate incin-erators, and rotary kiln incinerators all use similar excess 2.1.4.3 Fluidized lied Incineration air technology. Cyclone incinerators, however, rely on The fluidized bed m.cmeration process requires prepared turbulence in the primary chamber to ensure efficient combustion and have no afterburner. Fly-ash and off, waste (sorted and shredded to proper size pieces) and gases are scrubbed and/or filtered before release-uses a pneumatically suspended bed ofinert fine particles such as sodium carbonate, sodium metaborate, sodium IVaste 7) pes sulfate, or aluminum oxide as the combustion media.The bed is preheated and maintained at about 500-650* C Wood, paper, oil, solvents, plastics, rubber usmg auxihary electnc, gas, or od heaters. Combustion is c

lon-exchange resins and sludges (normally in con-very quick and thorough because of the large surface area o

centrated form) of the inert particles; acid-gas formation is also climinated if sodium compounds are used in the inert bed. A small o

Iliological wastes amount of the inert bed is entrained with the fly-ash and Advantage, must be made up. The inert bed is self cleaning from agitation caused by the pneumatic suspension of the inert o

Simple, well proven technology particles. Fly-ash and off-gases are scrubbed and/or fil-tered before release.

o Most widely used; commercially available Disadvantages innte Types (Same as listed for excess air incineration)

A relatively low primary combustion chamber tem.

Advantages o

perature and combustion charaber turbulence (be-An afterburner is optional e

cause of excess air) result in more fly-ash / particulate Caustic action of inert bed scrubs acid-gases entrainment Commercially available e

Volume Reduction ratios range from 30:1 to 100:1 Combustion chamber refractory lining is not re-2.l A.2 Controlled AirIncineration quired because of low operating temperature The controlled air incineration process also uses a pri-Disadvantages mary chamber, but operates at cooler temperatures More complex design than excess / controlled air in-e (500-800, C) than those found m excess air incinerators.

1. "#*I #8

. Acontrolled (orlimited)airenvironment maintains sub.

llequires sorting and shredding of waste material stoichiometric levels of oxygen. Complete combustion of e

NUllliG-1393 14

2 IncineratorTechnology Volume Reduction ratios range icom 30:1 to 80;1 Advantags Ilasalt like slag is highly insoluble which effectively 2.1 AA lucineration in Melten Salt bonds radioactive material The molten salt incineration process uses a molten mix-Slow comb'ustion process produces little fly-ash e

ture of sodium carbonate (90%)and sodium sulfate (10%)

at 800-850' C to combust waste.%e salt bath tempera-Disadvantages ture is mamtained by gas or oil burners. Off gases and Stillin R&D and demonstration stage _

fly ash are forced to pass through the molten mixture e

before leaving the combustion chamber which results in a e

Shredding of waste material may be required

. high degree of scrubbmg. Final filtering occurs before Process rate is slow release of the off-gases.

Volume Reduction ratios range from 30:1 to 50:1 Tys o

Combustible materials (same as listed for excess air 2.1.5 Alternative Technologies [23,25,73]

incineration) 2.1.5.1 Pyrolysis Many inorganic solids including HEPA filters and o

metal tubings The pyrolysis process involves the heating of waste at j

500-700' C in the absence of oxygen which produces a

" carbonaceous char" and off-gases containing H 0, CO, 2

Advantage CO and a condensib!c organic mixture. Pyrolysis is es-2 Afterburner not needed sentially an anaerobic form of controlled air incineration; however, the process is endothermic and requires con-Caustic action of molten mixture scrubs acid-gases -

tinuous operation of the auxiliary burners.The char and e

the volatile products are subsequently oxidized in a secon-Molten mixture also scrubs fly-ash e

dary chamber. Fly-ash and off-gases are scrubbed and/or filtered before release.

Disadvantages Still in R&D and demonstration stage Waste 7) pes (Same as listed for excess air incineration)

Requires shrelding of feed material

' Advantages -

e low temperatures result in lower corrosion levels in e

Soluble salt residue becomes contaminated with ra-e dioactive ash and must be replaced on a periodic

. the incinerator basis.

low turbulence reduces fly-ash / particulate entrain-e Volume Reduction ratios range from 30:1 to 40:1 ment in the off-gases 2.1.4.5 Slagging incineration Disadvantages Significant residual amounts of carbon remain in the The slagging incineration process uses a high tempera.

ture (1500-1600* C) " flame chamber" that heats the ash combustion residue, along with intentionally added min' Accurate control of air required a

cral wastes, beyond their melting points. Waste is fed to e

Process rate is slow the combustion chamber in such a manner that the flames heat and melt the residues at the center of the chamber, Volume Reduction ratios range from 30:1 to 50:1 while the residues against the chamber walls are much:

cooler and actually extend the life of the furnace byacting 2.1.5.2 Acid Digestion as a wall thermal shield. The molten residue is tapped from the chamber center at the bottom and' quench-The acid digestion process is used to carbonize organic cooled into basalt-like slag granules.The afterburner op-waste using hot (250' C) concentrated sulfuric acid and to -

erates at about 1100-1200' C with about 40% cxcess air.

then oxidize the waste, forming carbon dioxide, using -

. A high temperature, glass-melting furnace is a type of nitricacid. In addition to the CO, final products are H 0, 2

2 slagging incinerator that melts glass waste with the LLW HCI, and sulfate residues. This process could be adapted ash to produce a stable, glassy waste residue. Off-gases for treatment of common types of LLW, but at present it and fly-ash are scrubbed and/or filtered before release.

is used for plutonium recovery from PCM (probably GTCC-LLW)resultingfrom HLW processes.Theoff gas IVaste Types (Same as listed for molten salt incineration) is treated before release.

15 NUREG-1393

2 IncineratorTechnology

]

Waste 1) pes 2.1.5A Plasma Torch incinemtion o

Primarily plutonium contaminated organic matcrial ne " plasma torch" incineration process is an experimen-tal technology currently under development.nc concept is similar to that of an electric are welder and can generate Advantages temperatures up to 5500* C.He intended use of the Useful pretreatment process in recovery of pluto-plasma torch is for disposal of liquid chemical wastes, in o

nium from plutonium-contaminated waste; process particular hazardous organic compounds and solvents forms plutonium sulfate from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Super-fund sites; conceivably, this process could also be adapted o.

Acids are recyciab!c to handle liquid low-level wastes.

o No fly-ash formation Waste Types o

No afterburner is needed Organic liquids.-

Disadvantagn Advantages Fast processing rate (8 to 11 liters / min) o Highly corrosive nature of the acids Complete destruction of hazardous component of Off gas treatment system is complex e

o o-Possible nuclear criticality risk when processing PCM^

Disadvantages Expensive Volume Reduction ratios range from 20:1 to 30:1 2.1.5.3 Evaporation Volume Reduction ratios can be as large as 1000:1 The evaporation or drying process is a water removal method used to concentrate resins, sludges, and waste 2.1.6 Typleal incinerator Operation liquids. Evaporation is also referred to as crystallization

[2,5,7,23.25,37,39,40,44,46).

and dehydration; calcination is a term used sometimes as well, although the calcination process drives off both Most incinerators are of the excess or controlled air type, water and volatile oxides. An advanced, highly experi.

although fluidized bed systems have also been installed at mental microwave evaporator has been developed, but several U.S. nuclear power plant sites. This generalha.

existing conventional evaporators use oil, gas, or electric tion about the use of excess and controlled air incinera.

burners Somesystemscombineanevaporator/dryerwith tors applies especially to foreign power plant sites and to an incinerator in order to feed the evaporator / dryer both foreign and U.S. hospitals / institutions %e newer, output of resin and sludge concentrates (as well as con-more advanced incinerators are genemlly located at na-centrated incinerator waste scrub liquid) directly into tional laboratories, nuclear research centers, and fuel the incinerator for further volume reduction and reprocessing facilities and are being run on an R&D or stabilization.

demonstration basis.

Typical incinerator operation at power plants or hospi-

1. 1. 1. 1. 1. DP" tals/ institutions involves LLW sorting and shredding (if Resins and sludges necessary) at the incinerator. Regional use of an incinera-tor such as the Studsvik incinerator in Sweden does, how-Liquids from wet filtering systems ever, require pre-sorting and labeling of the waste con-e tainers at the site where the waste is generated. Most Advantage incinerator facilities use a semi-automatic batch feed sys-tem, although automated / continuous feed systems are Easily controllable being developed. In addition, many incinerators have ca-Produces compact feed for dryer / incinerator pabilities that exceed the waste quantities to be processed

=

on an annual basis by a factor of as much as ten-which Disadvantages implies low utilization rates. For this reason, plus the requirement that an incinerator be pre-heated during i

- Limited purpose use-no solids nitial startup, it is usually.most efficient to collect the e

waste and to conduct a continuous incinerator run of Expensive (for microwave powered version) several weeks on a once or twice peryear basis. Incinera-Volume Reduction ratios c:m be as large as 1000:1 tor maintenance and cleaning are performed in the off-NURl!G-1393 16

-. _ _ -- -. _. - -. _.~. _ _.._. _..__ _ _ -

2 IncineratorTechnology periods between runs. Release limits for emissions on an 2.2 Technical Problems annual or quarterly basis are still adhered to with this approach of usmg short periods of continuous operation.

(2,4,23,25,33,35'37,75)

Smaller incinerators, such as those at hospitals, may be A number of technical problems were identified during operated efficiently on a weekly or monthly schedule.

the development of LLW incinerator technology. In the j

U.S., much of this development work was done at the Ash is not normally stored permanently at an incinerator nationallaboratories in the 1950's and 1960's. Most of the site. It therefore must be packaged, either directly as ash significant problems have been very solvable from an or in solidified form, for transport and burial off site.

engineering perspective, although many also require After volume reduction by incincration and packaging, compromises in terms of the incinerator process effi-most LLW ash / residue is still classified as LLW in terms ciencyand/orcost effectiveness.Themajorproblemsand of its concentrations of radioactive materials, their resolutions are discussed in the following sections.

Treatment of the off-gas for removal of fly-ash, particu-2.2.1 Incomplete Combustion late matter, and acid-gases is accomplished typically by a two-stage filtering and scrubbmg system. This system m-less than complete combustion leads to excessive ash volves wet or dry scrubbers (using a, caustic scrubbm, g -

buildup and puts a greater load on the off gas cleanup media) and/or dry (ceramic or cloth) pnmary filters with a system,in particular the dry filters. Operators of the most secondary High Efficiency I articulate Air (HEPA) filter.

effic ent incinerators achieve high degrees of combustion Overall filtering efficiency is very high and generally ex-

. c mpleteness by carefully controlling the primary and ceeds 99.99 percent for ash and micrometer-sized par.

secondary oxygen levels, chamber temperatures, resi-ticulates; acid-gases can be scrubbed from the off. gas to dence time, type of waste material, and effectiveness of below rneasurab!c levels. Given careful waste sorting and pre-processing.These parameters must be optimized for proper operation, filters can function for periods of days the size of the inemerator. For example, a small,institu-without being cleaned or replaced.

tionalincinerator may have an opt,imal residence time of 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />, while a large commercial umt (like Ontan,o Hydro's B ruce facility) requires a 36 hour4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br /> period. In addi-2.1.7 Costs [1,20,30,31,33,35,36l tion, waste in compacted form may necessitate different combustion parameters than those appropriate for the incinerator costs are highly dependent on the specific same non. compacted waste.

application. In addition to capital costs, which are propor-tional t,o capacity and the type of incinerator technology, operational and maintenance costs are also incurred.

2.2.2 Insufficient Waste Sorting &

LLW disposal costs are sigmficantly reduced because of Preparation the volume reduction factors achieved, but are not en-One of the factors limiting incineration of LLW is the tirely eliminated because of the continuing need to dis-sorting requirement that must be performed, at least j

pose of incinerator ash as well as non combustible waste.

partially, by hand. Higher activity levels of waste will Furthermore, because not all LLW may be appropriate necessitate a greater degree of automation to minimize for incincrution, a realistic, reduction in the volume (and operator and waste handler exposure. Sorting is essential cost) for off-site LLW disposal may be only 50% for a to prevent damage to the shredding machines and to the nuclear power plant with a modern radwaste/ incineration feed mechanisms that could result from large and/or facility. The real economic figure-of merit for an incin-metal objects. In addition, sorting helps to ensure cration facility should therefore be taken as the total cost combustion and filtering efficiency by excluding non-for incinerator purchase and operation, plus the cost to combustibles and acid-gas foaning materials. Complete dispose of both ash and non-burnable waste, as amortized automation of the waste sorting and preparation process and averaged on an annual basis. An example of this type is a difficult task, of economic analysis has been completed by Ontario ilydro for the Bruce centralized incineration facility that 2.2.3 Radioactive Contamination of the supports Canadian power plants; the analysis is summa-Incinerator rized in Table 2-1.'lypical costs over the last twelve years, adjusted to 1990 dollars, for LLW incineration and land incinerators can become contaminated when waste resi-burial for other types of facilities and sites are provided in due collects on interior chamber walls.The cause can be Table 2-2. Finally, the annual utilization rate for a given from incomplete combustion, from cooling of the off-gas

. incinerator is an important factor in the determination of stream to below the dew point while stillinside the incin-overall cost effectiveness. Also to be considered, as previ-erator duct works, and from the melting / softening of ously mentioned, is the fact that LLW incinerators are waste glass resulting in bonding to the furnace walls.The usually not operated at full capacity. (See Table 4-5 for resolution of these difficulties involves improving com-estimates of cnpacity/ utilization factors.)

bustion efficiency, maintaining minimum off gas 17 NUREG-1393

.b

2 IncineratorTechnology temperatures, and either r '*iding glass or maintaining tor or otherwise disposed of as liquid LLW. Dry filters are i

peak furnace temperatures high enough for good effi-sensitive to high tempemture deterioration and can be ciency but below the glass softening point. Failure to the source of soot fires if clogged with ash from inefficient minimize internal incinerator contamination greatly combustion. Dry filters eventually must be replaced and lengthens outage cleaning and maintenance periods and become dry waste for disposal. Also, as previously men-may eventually create unacceptably high radiation levels tioned, some mdionuclides are difficult to remove from for the operators.

the off gas stream and can only be effectively controlled by precluding their entry into the incinerator. Tritium and 2.2.4 System Corrosion and Wear carbon-14 are two examples of difficult to control radio-nuclides, but timited incineration of waste containing H-3 Acid gases can lead to significant system corrosion, while and C-14 is still possible because both have relatively high temperatures in association with non-uniform tem' high BRC allowances for emission.

perature distributions and turbulent flow can result m wearing, spalling, and warping of the combustion cham-2.2.7 Maintenance Requirements ber walls. This problem is essentially a materials issue, although it can be alleviated somewhat by controlling the Maintenance is necessary for all complex systems and input of acid-gas forming waste and bylimiting the inten-11W incinerators are no exception, in general, however, sity of the combustion process to a level still consistent the maintenance requirements are basic: First, the incin-with high efficiency. In applicaticns where lower tem-erator and the off gas treatment system must be kept peratures are not feasible, more durable refractory mate-clean and, second, the incinerator must be operated in a rials are being successfully introduced.

manner that protects the inner surfaces-especially the refractory fining. De specifics of basic maintenance in 2.2.5 Non Optimal Waste Types & Iligh or these two categories are shown in Table 2-3.

Low Calorific Values 2.3 Special Requirements For Certain incinerators function most efficiently when configured to handle one or two specific waste types. Unfortunately, Radionuclides [11,20,47,52) waste from normal sources is a constantly varying mixture Certain radionuclides require special consideration when of a number of waste types. Non combustibles such,as ncinerated and disposed of as llAV. These radionuclides metals and non destrable wastes such as acid-gas formmg include alpha-emitting transuranics (such as plutonium),

plastics can be controlled, but probably not completely those that are casily absorbed and retained in the body, climmated-at least not economically. In addition, the and those that have limited maximum permissible con-remammg combustibles can be either solids or hquids and centrations for near surface burial, may require special meincrator features such as spray nozzles for the liquids. Calorific values of the wastes as 2.3.1 Pluton.tum incinerator fuels also vary considerably and thereby di.

rectly impact the incineration process by adding too little Plutonium contaminated material (PCM)is usually asso-or too much energy.The net result is that even combus-ciated with fuel reprocessing and defense materials pro-tioles may need to be sorted and/or properly mixed to duction /research operations. Activity levels may be low, produce optimal combustion efficiency, but the quantity of PCM I1W mayjustify recovery of the plutonium. In other situations, only volume reduction of 2.2.6 Complexity of Off-gas Treatment Sys-the PCM LLW may be needed and the resultant ash tems and Uncontrolled Release of would be disposed of as waste. Table 1-9 may be refe:Ted Radionuclides to again for a summary of PCM.LIAV volumes and pro-duction rates in the U.K., where low level limits are de-The potentially unhealthful nature of airborne products fined as less than 20 microcuries of alpha activity and 60

- generated during incineration necessitates a complex microcuries of beta / gamma activity per cubic meter of treatment system to restrict release to the environment.

waste. In the case where plutonium recovery is desired This treatment process starts by maintaining control of (such as for the waste stored at the Sellafield facility),

the products within the primary and secondary combus-incineration temperatures must be maintained below tion chambers, which are designed to be air-tight and are 800* C or a highly insoluble, refractory plutonium oxide j

normally operated at sub-atmospheric pressure to pre-will be formed.

clude off-gas and particulate travel paths other than through the treatment system. The scrubbing and litter-Incineration of PCM-11W or any alpha-emitting tmns-ing systems themselves can be either wet or dry or a uranic contaminated LLW necessitates an air-tight incin-1 wet / dry combination. Wet filters are effective, but also erator system to ensure positive control of the alpha-l produce wastes in the form of scrub liquids that must be emitting ash and off-gases. In addition, the processes that i

sent back through an emporator/ dryer into the incinera-concentrate the plutonium in the ash may have increased NUill!G-1393 18

a 2 IncineratorTechnology I

activity levels to beyond allowable limits for burial at a waste burial problem can be found at the Maxey Flats site 11W site, in Kentucky, which contains tritium-contaminated solid and liquid waste in shallow trenches and ponds. lloth this 2.3.2 Tritium pond liquid and trench leachate (with activity as high as 100 microcuries per milliliter) are now being processed Tritium is an especially difficult radionuclide to control through an evaporator, although it is very possible that while processing 11W. Two basic approaches are possi-much of the original 11W could have been directly s

ble, starting with simply restricting entry of tritium bear-incinerated, ing waste into the incinerator. In cases where such waste J

must be incinerated (as with infectious medical waste). a 2.3.3 Other Radionuclides tritiated water vapor results as one of the incineration products.This tritiated water vapor may be filtered via a There are a number of other radionuclides that require wet filtering system or may be passed through to the special handling.The volumetric concentration of these atmosphere with a dry filtenng system. Although the wet radionuclides is used to determine whether the waste is filtering system is highly efficient at removing the tritiated Class A, II, or C and therefore generally suitable for 1

water vapor, the filtering liquid becomes a secondary shallow-land burial. As with plutonium,11W contami.

waste source. It is therefore preferred, if possible within nated with certain other nuclides may qualify for shallow-the radionuclide release limits, to allow a controlled pas-land burial before incineration, but the higher concentra-sage of the tritium to the atmosphere, tion of radionuclides may mean that the ash can no longer be categorized as low level waste. As mentioned previ-Ground burial of unprocessed 11W containing tritium ously. Table 1-2 summarizes radionuclide disposal limits may seem preferable to incineration until it is realized specified in 10 CFR Part 61.55. In general, lower limits that buried waste will eventually allow uncontrolled re-are set for radionuclides with long half lives and for those lease of the tritium into the air as a gas and into the with a propensity to be taken up directly by the body or ground water as water. One example of a serious tritium indirectly through the food chain.

Tabic 2-1 Ikonomic Analysis of LLW Incineration by Ontario llydro [33,82]'

(Ilruce Facility Opemtion,1978)

(Costs Adjusted by Factor of 1.79 to 1990 Dollars)

\\

Annual Cost Without incineration:

Combustible 11W Disposal / Storage Cost (2000 m3 at $1895/m3)

$3,790,000 l-1 Annual Cost With incineration:

Annual Fixed Cost

$1,570,000 Annual Operation / Maintenance Cost (estimated) -

$1,070,000 Ash Disposal / Storage (87 m3 at $1895/m3)

$ 165,000 l

i Total Cost

$2,805,000 '

I

(

Annual Net Savings With Incinerntion.

(

Delta 13ctween Costs, With & Without

$ 985,000 l

l' Note: Incineration unit cost is $1403 per m2 1

19 NUIEG-1393

~~.~.-_a.-.-.

3 IncineratorTechnology _

Table 2-2 Examples of Costs for Incineration and Land Burial [1,20,30,31,33,35.36,80.82)

(Adjusted to Constant 1990 Dollarst Multipliers as Indicated)

Incineration -

Type of Facility.

Cost

• Year Commercial, non radioactive waste incinerator

$18 to $58/ tonne plus $5_to $11/ tonne 1988 for dry scrubbing [1.05]

Small institutional incinerator (Purdue)

$13,000 for incinerator excluding 1982 operating costs [1.30]

Iarge institutional incinerator (U Maryland)

$45,000 to $450,000 (proposed) for 1980 incinerator excluding operating costs [1.51]

U.S. nuclear power plant, PWR (Oconce)

$3160 per m3 of LIAV to reduce total annual' 1987 site LLW volume from 935 to 470 m3 for off site burial [1.09]

Foreign regional facility (Canada)

' $1403 per m' [1.79] _

1978 Land Hurial Type of Site Cost

• Year U.S. commercial LIAV sites (Barnwell, Deatty,

$1630 to 3470 per m3 ($960,000 to $2.0 million 1984 Richland, Sheffield) _

for typical, single unit U.S. power plant)[1.20]

Foreign LLW site (UK)

$945 to $1890/m3 [1.05]

1988 Foreign LLW site (Canada)

$1895 per m3 [1.79]-

-1978 U.S nuclear power plant, PWR (Salem)

$4240 per m3 [1.00]

1990 U.S. nucicar utility (Commonwealth Edison)

$1265 per m3 (average of two PWR and two BWR -

plants)[1.13]

1986

' Note: Costs for incincrqtion and/or burial at specific facilities cannot be compared directly using these data, even though adjustments have made to 1990 dollars, because actual costs for land and equipment are different for different years and because increasingly stringent waste management regulations make all current methods of LIAV treatment and disposal more expensive than similar activities in the past.

i

-NUREG-1393 20 4

2 incineratorTechnology i

Table 2-3 liasic Maintenance Requircinents for LLW Incinerato s j

i Periodic Cleaning Requirements:

Remove ash; Clean and/or replace dry filters and renew wet and dry scrubbing solutions and compounds; j

Clean liquid injectors to remove gumming and prevent plugging during operation.

Good Operating Practices to Maintain Efficiency and Extend Equipment Life:

Keep glass materials out of non slagging type incinerators to prevent melting and adhering of the waste to the incinerator lining;-

Avoid waste materials that can explode when heated, like glass vials, which may cause damage to the refractory lining:

Avoid operations at excessively high temperatures that can directly damage the refractory linin'g and may cause' thermal fatigue of the underlying steel shcIl; Avoid low temperature operations that would lead to heavy deposits of soot and tar, as well as encourage the condensing of volatile vapors; Avoid cold starts of the incinerator that may cause materials to melt rather than volatilize as is more likely to occur when using hot starts;-

Minimize occurrences of incomplete combustion that can ov.rload the off gas treatment system and lead to premature replacement of the HEPA filters; Clean dry filters, such as bag house filters which can be cleaned with reverse air flow, on a frequent (possibly daily) basis to minimize any buildup of fly ash that would reduce filtering efficiency and could increase fire risk; 4

Insure that the flue riser between the primary and secondary combustion chambers is frequently checked and cleaned when required.

s i

1 l

21 NUREG-1393"

i j

1 3 I'RODUCTS OF INCINERATION 3.1 Off gas Characteristics combustion products (as discussed previously in section 2.2.4)is required to preclude damage to the incinerator-

[20,25,33,50,51,84]

cven though this control level may be well below the permitted emission level Consequently, for toth envi-

'Ihc off gas stream from a LLW incinerator is a corn lex ronmental and operational reasons, off gas treatment is mixture of gases, condensible vapors, entrained liquid rtant to hmit the release of non-water, and solids. *lhe high temperature cornbustion im[mactive effluents such as:

ra process itself is the first step in chemically stabilizing the input waste, since the large organic molecules tend to be Acid gases (e.g., sulfur, chlorine, and phosphorus broken down into simp!ct, less reactive compounds. As was noted carlierinTabic 1-15, many of the radionuclide compounds),

combustion compoundt that form arc insoluble, thereby Volatilized heavy metals (c.g., mercury, arscalc, cad-allowmg them to be casily filtered (and reptocessed in the mium' and lead) and case of plutonium). Although the increased chemical sta-bility of the off gas is a positive feature, most of the Organic and inorganic particulates (as stated avove e

resulting combustion products are still noxious and po-for r% active materials),

tentially harmful to individuals and to the environment.

'lherefore, the proper treatment of this off pas stream is an essential element in preventing the uncontrolled te.

3.2 Off gas Scrubbing & l' articulate lease of both radioactive and non-radioactive material.

Filtration [25]

Radioactive materials may be released directly as:

Off gas scrubbing and particulate filtration systems for t

LLW incinerators are highly cfficient in their primary role Volatilized radionuclides (e.g., iodine, ruthenium, of controlling release of radioactive combustion products, e

and cesium) and as wc!! as in their secondary role of limiting release of non radioactive products and protecting the incinerator Radioactive gases (e.g., CO,,11,0, and SO formed from corrosion. Off gas treatment systcms have four prin-e with C-14,11-3, and S-35, respectively);

ciple functions related to the control of the off gas Orindirectly, combined with:

Par &ulate Control-which consists of scrubbing (us-4 Organic particulates (i.e., burned / unburned com-ing a venturi scrubber) and particulate filtration (us-e bustion residucs) and ing dry mechanical filters and final H EPA filters) for Inorganic salts (l.c., neutralized acid residucs and particular removal.

e iluidized-bed material)'

Gas Contml-which consists of wet and dry treat-e Ali combustion processes 1whether from LLW incinera.

ment for gas absorption (in particular, to remove tors, conventional waste incinerators, or conventional acid gases by combining them with caustic com-power plants-generate well known, but undesirable by, pounds) products such as CO, CO, SO,, and NO, Certain fuels 2

7cmperature Control-which consis:s of temperature (as well as an incomplete combustion process)also lead to reduction (though the addition of ambient air to the the production o,f new complex compounds such as off gas stream, water quenching, or cooling through polycyclic aromatics, furans, and dioxms. Concern is a heat cychanger) and reheating for humidity control growing about release of these by products and the laws (to avo;u condensation in the dry filters) regulating the associated emissions are becoming more sinngent, in general, ILW incinerators have require-Afoisture Control-which consists of demisters (for ments to control release !cvels of both radioactive and liquid water removal) cnd reheating for humidity normal (non radioactive) combustion products. Even so, control (as stated above under LemperWe con-since the waste vo;umes processed by LLW incinerators trol"),

are generally much less than the waste volumes handled by conventional waste incinerators and very much less

'Ihe specific design rcquirements for an off gas treatment l

than the volumes of fossil fuels consumed by conventional system are closely tied to the incineration method to be power plants, LLW incinerators usually have no difficulty used and the waste types to be processed. Some general meeting the existing (non radioactive) emission release characteristics of treatment systems and examples of im-1 limits. In so ne instances, control of certain corrosive plementation at operating facilitics are der.cribed below.

23 NUREG-1393

.m.._._-~.-

_.....m l

3 Incineration Products I

3,2,1 Wet versus Dry Off gas Treatment correctly, of the wet / dry type since a llEPA (dry) filter is

[25,50]

normally the final stage in a wet system.

Off gas treatment systems can be generally categorized as 3.2.2 Ceramic Filters-Swiss Facilliy [14]

dry systems, which are mechamcal in function (but may use dry chemicals as well), and as wet or aqueous systems, The government of Switzerland's Federal Institute for which usually combine dry and wet filtering but leave the Itcactor Research kicated in Wurentingen operates an off gas stream saturated with water vapor. Table 3-1 excess air incinerator (vertical furnace) equipped with a identifies typical components which may be found in each dry ceramic filter system that uses what are known as hot type of filtering system, ceramic candle filters.These filters act essentially as me-chanical high temperature traps that hold unburned ash

'the overall efficiencies of wet and dry systems are the until it is completely combusted. Ceramic filters arc, how-same since both normally use 11 EPA filters as the final ever, inherently high delta pressure filtcrs and necessitate stage of particulate removal; however, the IIEPA filters either very low flow rates or forced air flow from turbo-will have different life times depending on the actual compressor fans. Experience obtained from this Swiss particle loading. Upstream from the 11 EPA filters, there incinerator has shown that a dry filter system (without any are some major differences. Dry systems tend to bdm-wet scrubbers) can be effcetive as long as pmcess parame-pler than wet systems, although the primary dry futers are ters and the content of the waste input stream are well also less efficient (with respect to particulate filtering) controlled. Stack release limits that have been observed and are more prone to need frequent maintenance. In for this system and actual amounts of releases applicable addition, dry systems have to operate at higher tempera-in Switzerland are provided in Table 3-2. *lhe following tures than wet systems since they do not have the benefit conclusions have been reached:

of cooling of the off pas stream by direct quenching; dry An excess air incinerator is needed for use with t

systems can, nevertheless, achieve off gas cooling via air e

dilution, heat recovery, or water quenching. Wet systems ceramic filters (partly because of the high delta pres-with caustic scrubbers are generally more effective than sure characteristics of these filters),with proper mix-dry systems with dry neutralizers (in terms of acid gas ing of the air being important.

removal), although dry systems like fluidized bed incin-No filtering system, wet or dry, can compensate for crutors can have comparable efficiencies.

incomplete combustion.

'Ihc following specific problems are associated with dry e

Ceramic filters work well for climination of flue treatment systems:

ashes, but unbumed hydrocarbons short en filt er life, Condensation of volatile metal com pounds and inor-e Slow air flow guarantees a long oxidation time and ganic salts (on heat excimngers or other surfaces) e complete combustion; a high pmcess temperature liigh corrosion rates (if condensation occurs) and an after burning chamber are also needed to e

Plugging of high temperature filters (caused by ensute complete combustion, e

carry-over of unburncd material)

A continuous waste feeding system is needed to e

maintain uniform combustion and steady, high tem-Itapid degradation of IIEPA filters (with inefficient e

combustion and/or high levels of particulate carry-pcraturcs, over from the primary filters)

Additional dry low temperature filtering is possible Production of secondaty solid waste (salts from acid if no evaporated organic material exists in the off gas e

gas removal) and untcacted neutralizing agents.

stream that may condense out at low temperatures.

Dry filtering systems can not remove chlorides, e

Wet firatment systems have the following limitations:

meaning that chlorides must either be climinated Generation of contaminated scrub liquid imm the waste input stream or removed using a wet e

E N*'

Itapid degradation of IIEPA filters (through con-e Dry bag filters can not be used for high temperature densation downstream of the primary filters).

e "E'

Off gas treatment systems are best selected based on requirements for a given incinerator. For example, cy.

3.2.3 Ilag Filters-Mol Plant, llelgitim [15]

clonc mcmerators have high particulate carry-over levels l

becausc oi the turbulent combustion process which would

~Ihe Mol plant uses bag type dry filters in conjunction quickly clog a dry filtering system in genemi, most off gas with 3 stage 1IEPA filters to provide high efficiency filter-treatment systems tend to be of the wet type or, more in'g (at low to moderate temperatures) for incineration of NUltliG-1393 24

1 l

3 Incineration Products Prevention of vaporized metals and oxides from typical power plant and fugl reprocessiug LLW Overall e

decontamination rates, includmg a factor of 10 for the plating out as incinerator contaminants, due to their dilution effect of the stack, are 2.5 x 105 for beta / gamma being condensed out in the scrubber, emitters and 4.6 x 100 for alpha cmitters. In fact, measur-Capture of most of the major problem radionu.

e I

able plant emissions at 1.0 x 10'" and 1.0 x 10'" curies clides; many are insolub!c, but can be tapped off in a per m3 for beta / gamma and alpha, respectively, are lower sluny for immobilization or ym be feed back than background activity levels due to the natural occur, through the inemerator to inimmtze the volume of i

rences of radionuclides in the air and soil, waste liquid that must bc shipped off of the site.

Nearly complete removal of all particulate matter; The bag filters are constructed of a needled Teflon felt e

material and assembled in 2 "bagho':se" structures with a the particulate concentration at the scrubber outlet total of 100 m2 filter surface area. Maximum operating isreducedtoonlyafewpercentof thepre treatment temperature is 260 degrees C. At a waste processing rate concentration, while the concentration at the IIEPA of 40 kg/hr, the off gas flow is about 2500 m8/hr.1hc filter outlet is below measurable levels. (A dry sys-pressure drop across the baghouses is 1500 to 2000 Pa.

tem is also capable of similar performance until the lhe baghouses can be cleaned by reverse flow com-filters become clogged.)

pressed air. Decontamination factors for the baghouses Grently reduced chance for off gas explosion /

e alone are 15 to $8, which correspond to particulate con-centrations of 46 to 173 mg/m$ at the inlet to a maximum deflagration, of 3 mg/m3 at the outlet. 'the HEPA filters contribute lhe actual design of the Mound wet treatment system another factor of 100 to the decontamination, although consists of a two stage wet scrubber followest by a llEPA they would have to be replaced every 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />, rather filter. The wet scrubbers include a primary, caustic solu-than every week, if there were no bag filters.

tion tank with sprays and a secondary, high-energy venturi scrubber; the secondary filter removes sub micrometer 3.2.4 Wet OIT gas Scrubbing-DOE Mound sized particles. Actual performance measures of this sys-tem in terms I particut te removal and the efficiency of Facility [51]

scrubbing of off pases are provided in Table 3-3.

lhe DOE Mound facility uses an excess air (cyclone) meincrator to combust plutonium contammated material 3.2.5 liigh Emelenc3* I articulate Air (HEPA) and typical ILW, including lab trash (paper, plastics, Filters [24,50]

wood, rags, and rubber), ion exchange resins, oils, sol-HEPA f9ters are used almost universally in both wet and vents and other organic liquids. A wet scrubbing system dry treatment systems for the final particulate cleanup of with final iIEpA filter was selected because of the follow-the off gas stream.1IUPA filters are also widely used in ing requirements:

process filtering. For exampic, spent HEPA filters, which provide exhaust filtering for a Japancsc fuel reprocessing Unit must operate at temperatures up to 1260' C.

facility, comprise one fourth of that facility's plutonium e

contaminated material. Consequently, IIEPA filters Combustion may be tdirty" with off gas carry over themselves become LLW or PCM LLW and can be dis-e of fly ash, volatile metals and oxides, and radioactive posed of by incineration, particles, llEPA filters arc inherently low temperature devices and Off gases can be highly corrosive, with high concen-are rated for continuous operation below 200 to 250' C, trations of acid gases, as specified by the manufacturer.11ated flow rates are in the range of 1700 to 3000 m3/hr. IIEPA filters function in meeting these requirements, a wet scrubbm, g system wellin the incinerator off gas cleanup role, but are sensi-1 has a number of clear advantages over a dry system:

tive to conditions of high humidity and corrosive gases, as well as high temperature, since the standard filter media Extremely high capture and neutralization of prob-is pleated paper. Proper pre-conditioning of the off gas e

tem acids created by halides, sulfur, and phosphorus stream by the primary wet and/or dry scrubbers and filters

oxides, is essential to optimum HEPA filter life, Itapid off gas cooling from 1260' C to less than 100' e

C.

3.3 Ash Treatment And Disposal Cooling of acid gases in the scrubber to below the e

dewpoint which results in condensation and effec-Incineration of 11W is a volume reduction t echnique that tive mixing with the neutralizin agent.

generates dry ash or slag granules, and sometimes 25 NUREG-1393 =

... _ - - ~ - -

3 Incineration Products i

contaminated scrubbing liquids, as the waste products.

as insoluble hydroxides or oxides. This process also neu.

i ideally, all of the ash and radionuclides would remain in tralizes any remaining acids.

the primary or secondary combustion chamber ash pits. In actuality, a small fraction of both fly ash and radionu.

1hc treatment and disposal of incinerator ash as radior.c-clides (as fine particulate matter) are carried-over from tive waste ca.4 be handled in several different ways de-the chambers and must be controlled by the off gas treat.

pending on the activity levels and halflives of the i

ment system.lypically, up to 25% of the ash can become radionuclides involved. The simplest approach is to hold fly ash in a high turbulence process like a cyclone incin-the ash in containers at the incinerator facility until the i

crator, but other processes produce considerably less fly-radionuclides have effectively decayed to below maxi-ash. Radionuclides are also retained to a significant de-mum allowable curic levels, as specified in 10 CFR Part gree, sometimes up to 95%,in the furnacc ash und fly ash.

20 Appendix C, before disposing of the ash as non.

Specific measurements of radionuclides held in furnace radioactive waste at a commercial land fill.1his approach ash produced in the DOB Mound high temperature glass is useful for small university or hospital facilitics where furnace indicate retention levels of 40 to 80% for Cs-137 only wastes containing very low concentrations of short-

)

end 70 to 88% for Co-60.

lived radionuclides are incinerated.

A second approach is to seal the ash in containers or 11W is generally classified as Class A waste before enter.

drums and to ship them to a licensed shallow-land burial ing the incineration process. Following incincration, the site for 11W.'ihis second approach is preferred for dis-radionuclide content of the ash may have increased to the posal of ash classified as 11W (which may contain long.

point that it can no longer qualify as Class A. ll, or C waste lived radionuclides, but not transuranics) resulting from and hence is not appropriate for shallow land disposal, it typical waste incineration at power plants, research labo-is also possible that non radioactive contaminants such as ratorics, and large institutional facilitics.

heavy metals have become concentrated in the ash as well and may be categorired as hazardous waste" by thc EPA.

The last and most permanent disposal approach is to a

In either of these cases, the ash would no longer be 11W stabilize the ash in a medium such as cement, concrete, and would require special handling. Fortunately, most polymer or bitumen. Some incinerator facilitics have, or '

11W has sufficiently low concentrations of radioactive are develol,ing, automated facilitics for handling and mix.

materials that the incinerator ash remains classifiable as ing ash with one of these bonding agents and scaling the 11W.

mixture in containers. Positive control of ash containing alpha cmitting or highly active, long-lived nuclides is a clear benefit of automated handling systems and of the

'the chemical properties of the ash must also be consid-resulting permanently stabilized ash. Assuming the activ-cred. Normal practice is to mix fly ash and furnace bot-ity level still permits shallow-land burial, the containers of tom ash before disposal, although the fly ash tends to be stabilized ash are then shipped to lleensed 11W disposal metallaced to a higher concentration than the bottom sites. One example of the use of this ash stabilization tsh. Metal chlorides, for example, are water soluble and technology can be found in the Swedish German agree-are therefore more leachable from buried ash by ground ment that allows shipment of German power plant waste and ruin water than in their original 11W form. *lhis to the Studsvik incincrator; the Swedish government, Icachability can be limitc3 by treating the ash with a however, requires that the ash in stabilized form be re-calcium oxide slurry in watei which precipitates the metal turned to the Federal Republic of Germany for disposal.

- NURl!G-1393.

26

3 Incineration Products Table 3-1 Aqueous vs. Dry Off. gas Treatment for LLW Incinerators [50]

Typical Aqueous Off. gas Treatment System Components:

e Quencher Irw energy spray towers for cooling of hot off gas e

Particle Scrubber Iligh energy venturi or fibrous bed scrubbers 1

e Adsorber Chemical removal of selected compounds and radionuclides Off gas Conditioner Condenser of volatile compounds and off gas reheater j

e e

Final Filter IIEPA filter j

Typical Dry Off gas Treatment System Components

• l e

Particulate Remover Sintered metal, ceramic, or baghouse filters e

Acid Oas Neutralizer in situ fluidized bed caustic compound

• or.

Off gas stream spray of caustic compound to cool and neutralize l

of-Filter coated with caustic compound e

Oas Cooler Spray drying, cool air dilution, or heat recovery e

Final Filter IlEPA filter i

Table 3-2 Ceramic Filters Without Scrubbers-Swiss Experience [14]

Incinerator located at Swiss Federal Institute for Reactor Research, Wurenlingen.

Process technology is excess alt incineration.

Input Waste Waste is 75% nuclear power plant combustible waste.

Remaining 25% is combustible waste from industry, hospitals, and rescarch institutions.

LLW volume processed is about 30 tonnes /yr at 300 m8 over a 10 week period.

Stack Release Limits Alpha-emitters 15 x 10-' curies / week (Pu-239 equiv.)

100 x 10 curies /yr maximum lictalgamma-cmitters 15 x 10-8 curies / weck (mixed nuclides) 100.x 10-8 curies /yr maximum Actual Stack Releases (over a 10 week period)

Alpha emitters 70 x 10-6 curies total release Ileta emitters 15 x 10'8 curies total release 27 NUREG-1393

J 1

3 Incineration l'roducts 1

Table 3-3 l'erformance Data for Mound Cyclone incinerator with Wet Scrubbing System [51]

l 4

l' article laiading of the Off. gas System:

f Combustion Chamber Outlet 505 mg/m8 Deluge (Quench) Tank Outlet 237 mg/m3

($3% reduction)

Venturi Scrubber Outlet 18 mg/m8 (96% reduction)

Primary ill11'A Outlet Non-detectnble' Analy61s of Treated Off. gases" :

Carbon Dicnide 9.0 wt %

Nitrogen Oxides 10 to 600 ppm Nitrogen 66.2 wt %

Oxygen 13.5 wt %

Sulfur Non detectable' Water 11,1 wt %

• Concentration t>che kmcr detection limit of mettux! uwd.

" Waste contained 18 wt % otikrine and 2 wt % sulfur.

L

(

l l

NUltI!G-1393 28 l

)

4 Ol'ERATIONAL EXi'ERIENCE AND STATUS [4,23,35,36,37,67,75]

i Research programs in the Ic60's and 1960's at some of it has been determined that more than 80% by volume of the U.S. national laboratori ss and facilities, including les waste buried at INEL is " lightly contaminated waste" l

Alamos, Mound, Knolls, and Argonne, provided early (i.e., waste that measures less than 1.0 mSv/hr [10 mrem /

experience with prototype 11W incinerators. A number hr] at near contact) and is consequently ideal material for of technical problems (as c'.iscussed in Chapter 2), as well incineration. Incinerator test burn operationsin 1984 and as a general lack of economic incentive, led to the closing 1985 processed about 82 m8 or 6800 kg of LLW. Opera-down of these incinerators after only short periods of tion overall has been very satisfactory, with observed vol-operation. Even so, the operational experiences of two of ume reduction ratios varying between 25 to 1 (for high these early incinerator -onc at Argonne National Labo-cellulose content waste) to 100 to 1 (for high plastic con-ratory (1951 to 1953)and the other at the Yankee Atomic tent waste). Full scale, normal operation is now con.

Power Station (1967 to 1977)-were "quite successful and ducted on a one week round the-clock basis cach month, could be regarded as having demonstrated both the tech.

Following this schedule, it is possible to process the total nology and economic feasibility of incineration of dry INEL site 11W generation of about 1400 m3 per year.

active waste".[67j Today, valuable experience is continu-ing to be gained both here in the U.S. and abroad at 4.1.2 SRI' lieta Gamma incinerator and the governtnent, commercial, and institutional facilitics.

Consolidated incinerator Facility [44,49]

1hc Dcta Gamma incinerator (1101) at the SitP was origi.

4.1 U.S. Government Facilitles [5,25]

nauy an experimentat unitamt wlas put into pn> duction to process 605,000 litcrs of contammated tributyl phosphate (TilP) organic solvent resulting from purex opemtions.

Currently, there are a number of U.S. Government The secondary mission of the !!Ol was to process 600 m3 owned, contractor operated facilities, including national of waste contaminated with beta / gamma emitting laboratories, that have advanced technology incinerators radionuclides. Tritiated waste oil has also been processed, in operation, in development testing, or under construc-which contains, on a yearly average basis, about 600 curies tion as summarized in Table 4-1. More detailed informa-of tritium.

tion is also provided in the following sections for two of these sites, the Idaho National Engineering Lab (INEL)

The 8G1 is a two stage, controlled air incinerator using a and the Savannah lliver Plant (SitP). The INEL and SitP dry off gas filtering system including IIEPA filters.1hc facilities are typical examples of U.S. government incin-process rate for the organic solvent is about 5.5 x 10e crator operatmns.

KI/hr. Monitoring of the ash from the dry LLW has indi-cated that the main contaminating radionuclides arc Ru-106, Cs-137, and Cc-144, while primarily uranium 4.1.1 INEL Waste Reduction Facility [12}

and plutonium are found in the solvent waste stream associated with the purex process. The incinerator ash is A small scale experiment $1 incinerator was constructed stored in drums for burial. Typical radioactive decay rates at INEL at the Waste Experimental lleduction Facility of this ash are 500 DPM/ml(0.00023 microcuries/ml)for -

(WERF) to process beta / gamma emitting LLW (includ-beta / gamma contaminated waste and 50,000 DPM/ml ing LLW combined with hazardous waste) and has been (0.023 microcuries/ml) for transuranic contaminated fully operational since 1985. The incinerator is of the waste.

controlled air (dual chamber) type with fuel oil burners to maintain chamber temperature and a secondary cham-The BOI is not currently operating, although, with the ber/ afterburner (operating at 1400' C) to ensure com-exception of high corrosion rates caused by PVC plastics, plete combustion. Capacity is approximately 180 kg/hr of performance has been satisfactory.The BOI is scheduled 28,000 KI/kg waste. Liquids and evaporator concentrates to be replaced in 1992 by a larger unit, llawn as the can be processed, but dry waste (in 0.25 cubic meter, Consolidated lncineration Facility (CIF).1hc CIF will be polyethylene lined cardboard boxes) is the usual feed a controlled air (rotary kiln) incinerator with a wet off gas material. A dry filtering system, consisting of bag and system and is expected to process benzene (another de-1IEPA filters, is empkiyed with an estimated efficiency of fense waste solvent like TilP) at about 19 x 108 RI/hr.1hc i

99.997% for particle sizes greater than 0.3 micrometert CIF will have solid waste processing capability as well.

Off gasparameters,includingtemperature, flow, opacity, Contaminated organic solvents like TIlP and benzene are SO content, acid gas content, and radioactive particulate also incinerated at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, 2

content, are monitored. Ash is packed and scaled in con-although that facility uses a fluidized bed calciner/

tainers for burial.

incinerator.

29 NUREU-1393

4 Operational Experience and Status al.2 Domestic Utility / Industry from U.S. government and government,-owned contrac-tapented facmties,is nonnauy associated cher wnh Facilities '5'25]

prototype incinerators (for utility use) or with operational 1

incinerators at commercial reactor fuel processing facili-A few utilitics installed and operated LLW incinerators at tics. More details are provided below on incineration their nuclear plants in the 1960's, but shut down these activitics at a number of power plant sites and on the units in a relatively short time due to technictd problems business actions of a major incinerator vendor.

similar to those experienced with the early incinerators at U.S. government facilities. Industry worked to correct these design deficiencies, however, and was offering new, 4.2.1 Aerojet Full scale Prototype, state of the art systems by the mid-to-late 1970's and Sacratnento, Ca [2,19,39) carly 1980's. A numbc of utilitics ordered these state of-the art incinerators (although some were later cancelled)

The Acrojet Energy Conversion Co. successfully devel-and at least four sites have actually completed construc-tion. Surprisingly, only one of the completed incinerators oped and marketed a fluidized bed dryct/ incinerator sys-tem and a mobile incinerator system in the late 1970's to (at Oconce) has ever been tested, even though all four ar fully licensed, and only two of the plants (Oconce and early 1980's; however'. limited sales led Actfet to leave V

this business in 1984 A full scale prototype has been liraidwood) have intentions to operate the units in the operational in Sacramento, Ca. since 1974 and is capable near future

• of processing 45 kg/hr of solid waste and 100-300 liters /hr of evaporator concentrates. A second prototype, de-

'the reasons for this apparent rejection by the great ma-signed as a mobile (controlled air) incinerator and origi-jority of U.S. utilitics of a very viable solution for process-nally intended for Commonwealth Edison, was sold to ing LLW seem to be a combination of economic and liabcock & Wilcox and was expected to be based and political factors, as wc!! as some minor technical startup operated at the ParksTownship Waste Reduction Center problems. First, however ecologically unwise it may be to in Pennsylvania. This ll&W plan for the mobile incinera-continue to bury unprocessed LLW, the shallow land tor was subsequently cancelled due to public opposition.

burial option is still relatively inexpensive. As land costs (See Section 5.2) increase and as land use becomes more restricted, as is the case in Europe and Japan, economics will make shal-low land burial less and less desirabic. in the interim, U.S.

4,2.2 Byron Nuclear Power Station utilities seem to lie withholding a final decision on incin.

[2,16,19,39,40) erauon while simultaneously evaluating technologies re-quiring less capital investment than incineration, such as

,Ihc Ilyron plant has a completed, fully licensed Aerojet compaction and super compaction, and by establishing incinerator on rJtc. In fact, it was the first Acrojet waste management programs to reduce the on site pro-fluidized bed incinerator system to be licensed. "Ihc sys-duction of LLW, Second, U.S. utilities are politically sen-tem has never been used and is not expected to be used in sitive to public opinion about overt releases of radioactiv-the fut ure. The fluidized bed design combines integrated ity from their sites, even though in the case of emissions evaporator (drycr) and incinerator modules, with the from LIA\\ incinemtors this release is controlled and very evaporator also to be used to process the waste liquid limited. Shipping L13V to a shallow land bunal site, pref-from the wet off gas treatment system on the incinerator, crably kicated in another State, has a lower public icla-Originally, Ilyron was to regenerate ion exchange resins tions risk than does direct on site mcmcration liven so, which would result in the production of the bulk of the radionuclides in untreated LIA\\ may escape from these liquid waste feed for the evaporator. Ilyron is not, how burial sites m uncontrolled and unmonitored ways, creat.

cver, regenerating ion cxchange tcsins; this decisio ing the potential for long term damage to the environ.

means that insufficient waste liquid is available to opemtt ment. Utilities, of course, are only responding to the the evaporator, since only liquid from the wet treatmen existing Federal and State laws and can not be faulted for system would be produced.. It would still be possible to selecting the most economic means of LIA\\ manage-operate only the incinerator, but it would have to be ment. Ilowever, (as noted later m Chapter 5) there may modified for connection to a dry treatment system; alter-be less incentive for utilitics to ship ll3V from thcar sites natively, the waste liquid from the wet treatment system starting in 1993, when States must enter mt,o agreements could be disposed of by a different method. The incinera-with other States or provide their own LIAN disposal sites tor module, as configured for Ilyron, is also not designed he N amendment to the Nudcar

(\\'a te I li to incinerate spent i0n exchange resins (i.e., inorganic ct.

chemicals) that become waste when the regeneration op-tion is not chosen. Technically, these problems are all A summary of utility and industry incinerator facilities is resolvable if the utility (Commonwealth lidison) decides provided in Table 4-2. Industry involvement, as distinct to operate the incinerator.

NUltliG-1393 30

4 Operational 11xperience and Status 4.2.3 Ilraidwood Nuclear Power Station

'Ihc ash and salt by products are solidified in polymer via

[2,19,39,40]

remote handling for disposal.

• lhe tiraidwood plant is in a very similar situation to that

'lhe Oconce radwaste facility staff has experienced sev-of Byron, since it also has an installed and licensed cral technical difficulties with operating the Acrojet sys-Acrojet evaporator / incinerator which has ncycr been tem: incompatible liquids in the evaporetor, clumpmg of used liraidwood, however, plans to operate its evapora.

the inert material in the fluidized bed, and excessive parti-tor / incinerator system for at least a year (tentatively start, c!c carry-over to the filters.'Ihc first of these problems ing sometime in 1990) for the incineration of spent lon.

seems to be due to the large amount of borates entering exchange resins and expects a volume reduction ratio of the evaporator instead of the sulfates for which it was chout 1000 to 1. Resin incincration at Braidwood is possi, designed.'lhi second problem, clumping of the fluidized ble, even though the incinerator is of the same design as bed material into " rocks" when burning resms, has been that at the Ilyron phmt, since it was modified during attributed to an out of specification, high level of sodium construction to reflect the changed plant operating phi.

in the bed material. Finally, the particle carryover prob.

losophy of not regenerating the resins.

Icm has resulted in a large burden on the dry filters and a greater potential for reduced filter life; this problem is directly related to running the incinerator alone (without 4.2.4 Vogtle Nuclear Power Station [2,19,41,42]

the evaporator because of the first problem) and conse, quently not using the more efficient wet filtering system The Vogtle plant has a completed and licensed Aerojet which generates waste liquid intended to be handled by evaporator / incinerator system similar to that at the Byron the evaporator 'lhe Oconec staff expects to resolve these and liraidwood sites. Ocorgia power has decided not to difficultics in the near future and to begin normal operate their incinerator at Vogtle for two rcasons: 1)lt is operation.

convenient and relatively inexpensive to ship 11W to llarnwell, S.C. for burial, and 2) the situation at Byron /

4.2.6 Quad Cities Nuclear Power Station Braidwoodwasapparenti mismterpretedasbemgatech-nical difficulty with the ncinerator, not the result of a gg9'43) change in plant operations. Given the proper circum-Quad Cities, along with Dresden, Zion, and I.aSalle, were l

stances, such as the closing down of Barnwell or reports the plants that Commonwealth Edison originally ex-of successful operation from Braidwood, the incinerator pected to serve with its Aerojet mobile incinerator sys-at Vogtle could still be started up.

tem. *lhls contract was eventually cancelled, however, because of slippages in the delivery schedule by Acrojet.

4,2.5 Oconee Nuclear Power Station Quad Citics is currently managing its own LLW disposal

[2,19,30,45]

'*9"I'C*C"'8"" DISC "SIdC""8""C*C "*'"C'I"' "'5II" super compaction services.

'Ihc three unit Oconec plant,like llyron,liraidwood,and Vogtle, also has an Aerojet evaporator / incinerator sys-4.3 Dornestic Medical and Educational tem. "Ihe incinerator system was constructed between pacjgjgjeg 1982 and 1985 as part of the new rad. waste facility and began a,60 day continuous test run program, using non'.

4.3.1 Overview [6,29,35,36,37,46,74]

radioactive waste, m September 1986. Overall, LIAV vol ume is expected to be reduced by 50%, from 310 to 155 m3 lhe pmetice of LIAV incineration at medical and educa.

on a per unit basis, and is estimated to cost $2900 per m3, tional institutions in the U.S. is fundamentally very differ-Incineration will be the major process used for LIAV ent from that found at commercial nuclear sites and at volume reduction at Oconce, but compaction and super-government research and defense facilitics. The most compaction services will be used as well. Durial of com*

important difference is that most of these institutional pacted LLW and ash will continue to be at the Barnwell.

users are hospitals, although a small number of universi-S.C. sitc.

ties with research reactors also incinerate LLW. Another important difference is that most hospitals already have Technically, the Acrojet system is the standard unit with incinerators and have been using them for many years to the evaporator operating at about 480' C and the incin-safely dispose of infectious biological wastes as well as crator at about 780' C. A two-stage wet (venturi) scrub-other medical wastes. A finalimportant difference is that her with dry filters is employed. Wastes compatible with radionuclides used in medical treatment and experimen-the system include typical DAW, oil, resins, and evapora-tation are normally in extremely low concentrations and, tot concentrates. L13V liquid from stcam generator except for carbon-14 and tritium, are also short lived with cleaning operations is also expected to be concentrated in half lives generally ranging from tens of hours to a few the evaporator, then processed through the incinerator, months.*lhe net result is that most hospitals and medical l

31 NUltl!G-1393

s t

4 Operational Experience and Status schools have simply incorporated the incineration of css, the timing and quantitics of the releases from buried ILW (containing very low levels of radionuclide contami.

waste are unknown." [35]

nation) into their normal, biological waste incineration activitics. One institution even mixes small amounts of 4.3.3 Operational Experience [35,36,37,46]

1 contaminated waste solvent in with the power plant fuel i

oil supply! In terms of the institution's material license, Information on operational experience is not widely pub.

10 CFR Part 20 allows unrestricted (but monitored) re.

lished, although a very comptchensive survey, as shown in lease of many radionuclides at concentrations in air and Table 4-3, was completed in 1979. Examples of major j

universities with inemerators include the University of l

water less than specified maximums. When concentra, Minnesota, Arizona State, Oregon State, Pennsylvania tions exceed these maximums, the waste is sometimes held by the institution before incineration (at least 10 State, University of Illinois, and North Carolina State half lives), while at other times the ash instead of the University. Two other major universitics with incinera-original waste is held before disposal because of its more tors, Purdue University and the University of Maryland at stable, non biological form. As noted earlier, limits 11altimore, have performed detailed institutional studies known as below regulatory-concern (llRC) levels are ap, as highlighted in the following sections.

plied to carbon-14 and tritium per 10 CFR Part 20.306 to 4.3.3.1 Purdue University [36]

allow case of handling, since it is argued that these radionuclides are used institutionally only in very small A DOE funded study to determine the feasibility of using quantitics and are going to be eventually released to the an inexpensive, small capacity (45 kg/hr) incinerator to environment (as 11,0 and CO,) by whatever means they reduce the disposal volume of institutional LLW was are processed, it is also very difficult to monitor these two successfully comaleted at Purdue University in 1981.The radionuclides in the off gas stream at verylo,w concentra-target cost was S10,000 or less. A two stage, excess air tions using cunent technology equipment since both arc incinerator using fuel oil burners, but without an off gas weak beta particle emitters.

filtering system, was selected. A series of tests were per.

formed usinglaboratory animal carcasses, liquid scintilla.

4.3.2 Reasons for Institutional Incineration tion fluids in vials, and normal laboratory trash. Emission measurements were made for particulate concentrations,

[35,74]

fraction of unburned hydrocarbons in the particulates, institutions view incineration of 11W as an extension of andconcentrationsof So NOx Cl,CO,CO,andH,0.

x 2

an existing practice, although one that uses older incin-erators with simpler designs, as opposed to the prevailing g

g g

g j

nuclear industry perception of incineration as a new tech-each of the (1.rce waste categories and that Federal and nology to mintmtze waste burial requirements, llowever, State emission limits were met, except when the labora-the age of these incinerators is of mcreasmg concern an,d g

g many institutions are, currently evaluating whether it is

,Ihc State of Indiana controls both SOa and particulate feasible to modify their existing Urut or whether to pur, emissions; when large quantitics of plastics were inciner-chase a modern incinerator system. Also, institutions are aware that incincration of either biologically or radkiac-ated, the State particulate limits were extceded. Also, tively contaminated waste'is a potentially sensitive issue although not an emissions problem, glass wa ite was found to s iten/ melt and adhare to the pnmary cnamber walls.

and consequently keep a low public profile concerning Radionuclides were adequately ccatamed, either in the incinerator activities.

mcmerator ash or plated out on the incinerator walls, as determined through experimental measurements. Vol-Institutions incinerate their11W for reasons of cost, case ume reduction for biological wastes was determmed to be of waste handling, a desire to avoid the regulatory burden about 40 or 50:1, while trash volume reduction was as high of dealmg with burmi sites, and a commitment to the best as 80:1, Overall, with care applied to screen out plastics l

environmental waste treatment solution. One respon-and glass, this low cost incinerator was found to be well dent to a survey summed up these collective reasons as suited for institutional use, follows: " Incineration is caster, less time-consummg, and cheaper than shipping the LLW to a burial site. Philm 4.3.3.2 University of Mar 3 and-llattimore City [35,46) 1 sophically, mcmention is a very dilute form of disposal

[forolder,institutionalincineratorswithout off gastreat-The DOE 11W Institutional incinerator Program was ment systems which release small amounts of radionu-initiated in 1979 to select and build a demonstratic9 incin-clides to be diluted by the air], as compared to burial in a crator that would have capabilitics to handle a broad drum. Drums contain concentrated waste which, when range of institutional wastes.The University of Maryland rusted, will release the radionuclides and toxic chemicals at its llattimore City campus (UMilC) was chosen for the to eventually enter the water table. Whereas the release location of this demonstration incinerator and UMilC of radionuclides during incineration is a controlled proc-conducted the survey summarized in Table 4-3 to NURiiO493 32

4 Operational Lirperience and Status i

Gstablish general incinerator performance requirements.

tutions. The institutional incinerators tend to be region-In addition to handling all usual categories of institu-ally located, i.imilar to those in Europe, but power plant tional/ medical waste, the incinerator was also sized at 227 incinerators are located directly at cach powcr plant site.

kg/hr forcontinuousoperationonedayper' weck,tomeet 1hree excess air (vertical shaft furnace) incinerators, with the specific needs of UMilC. A two. stage, controlled air capacitics of 50,75, and 100 kg/hr are located at the incinerator design with primary operating temperatures Tokai hiura NPS she. At least 12 other incinerators, of of up to 1100' C, remote ash handling, and off gas treat.

similar design and capacity, are operational at other Japa-ment was selected from five commercially available incin-nese commercial reactor sites.

crator models.1hc off gas stream was to have instrumen-The new rad-waste system at Tokai-hiura, including in-tation to monitor for NO, CO, IICI, and particulate cinerators and compactor /ccmenter, was retrofit to the z

concentrations, llecent discussions with the UhillC plant over the period hiny 1982 to September 1986 to health physics staff have indicated that, although the plan supplement the original General Electric rud waste sys-to mstall this new incinerator is still valid, the project has tem which does not have an incinerator. Power plants yct to advance to the construction phase, started up after Tokal hiura have incinerators as initial equipment. Incinerator operation at the Tokal hiura site Nevertheless, the University continues to gain experience are M,ng achieved as compared to the on,o has been very successful; volume reducti through the operation of their existing incinerator, which gmalcompactor is a dual chambered,contro!!cd air design without a filter-reduction ratio of about 3:1. Ash disposal normally in-ing system.The feed waste is primarily medical waste and v lves cementing the ash in ccmtainers and burymg them is usually 75% animal carcasses. The operator visually either on land or at sea, although the international con-monitors the off gas to watch for entrained ash and can sensus is that sea bunal should be discouraged.The Japa-control the primary and secondary chamber teinpera-cause of the,however, to continue to use sea bunal be nese expect, tures, if necessary, to improve combustion efficiency. Ily ir very limited number of acceptable land comparison, the 136 kg/hr capacity is only about 60% of disposal sites.

the capacity of the new incinerator, Operations with the cristing incinerator have generally been acceptable. 'lhe 4.4.2 Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center incinerator has proven to be durabic, partly because ofits emck resistant brick refractory lining. Plastics seem to be (FRG)[8]

the most difficult to incinerate c!canly because of their The incincrator facility at Karlsruhe, Federai llepublic of high calorific values which make it likely that the con-G ermany, provides a regional service for processing LLW stoichiometric balance. Conversely, am,to maintain a trolled air flow will not be sufficient received from the Nuclear llescarch Center, from a fuel mal carcasses reprocessing plant, from the lladen Wurttenburg State burn slowly and cicanly, but reqmre high burner settings Collection Center (consisting of medical and institutional because of the low calorific values, waste site), and from a limited number of nuclear power P'""#' *""' I' * "' *i""'*d "I'h D '"'8^ * *"

M Forel in Facilities (5,25]

cmittmg radionudides and includes paper, cellulose, E

The incineration of LLW is a wide-spread practice out.

polyethylene, foils, IVC plastics, filter material, and bio-side of the U.S. A partial 1,ist of some of the majorincin-logical waste such as animal carcasses and litter, crator sites located in Canada,Ilolland, Federal llepublic The m.cmcrator is a 55 kg/hr, dual stage, excess air system of Germany, llelgium, France, Switzerland, Sweden, with a 1000 to 1200' C pnmary temperature and a mmi-Great Ilritain, Itaiy, Austria, and Japan is provided in mum 800' C secondary temperature maintained as re-Table 4-4. As noted, some of these facilities primarily serve nuclear research laboratories, while others support quired by oil burners. The dry filtering system uses cc-ramic filters which are not susceptible to corrosion from power plants or medical / institutional LLW producers.

The status of a number of these foreign incinerator facil,

acids formed by combusted }lVC plastics.'the Karlsruhe incinerator has been operational smcc 1963 and similar ties is detailed below. An estimated capacity factor has inemerators, based on the Karlsruhc design, have also also been determined for a few facilities for which the been built at the nuclear research centers at Wurentin-cumulative number of operating hours is known or can be inferred; this capacity factor value, as presented in Table gen, Switzerland and Seibersdorf, Austria. Plans now exist for adding the capability to process alpha-4-5,is simply the ratio of the minimum required number of operating hours to the total hours in the operational ccmtaminated Ll;W (from fuel reprocessing activitics) usmg another m, cmcrator of similar design.

period.

'the perati nalPist ryat Karlsruhehasbeenverygood.

4.4.1 Tokai Mura Nuclear Power Station l'otal waste volumes processed amount to 14,500 m3 (or

(.lapan) [26.27,29]

1900 tonnes at about 131 kg/m3) of solids and 360 m3 The Japanese have a very comprehensive IDV incinera-of liquids through 1984. '1he overall average volume i

tion plan for volume reduction at power plants and insti reduction ratio achieved has been 62:1. lladionuclide 33 NUllliG-1393

4 Operational Experience and Status dependent decontamination ratios for each filter stage additional fuct is needed if the waste calorific value is range from 10:1 to 1000:1, except for certain nuclides 1000 kcal/kg or greater.

such as tritium and carixm-14 that pass essentially unhin.

dered through the dry filters. (Even wet screbbers are not Off gas treatment is accomplished with both dry and wet very effective at removing these radionuclides; see Sec.

systems. Fly-ash and particulates are filtered by woven tion 4.4.4.) In addition, tritium and carbon-14 are diffi.

glass fiber and ilEPA filters for a total decontamination cult to detect with the monitoring system and incidents of ratio of 1:105 to 1:108. Wet scrubbing, using a scrub liquid exceeding the authorized emission levels for these of potassium hydroxide,is highly cffective (i.e. cfficiency nuclides have occurred at Karlsruhe.

greater than 99%) at removal of acid gases. 'lhe most common acid gas dealt with is IICI, produced primarily Current practice is to dispose of ash in 100 liter drums from PVC plastics, while SO is less prevalent because of 2

over packed in 250 liter drums, but long term burial in the low sulfur content of biological waste.1he scrubbers mines has now been determined to be no longer accept.

are not very effective at removing tritium, allowing 50%

able. One possible consideration for alternative ash dis.

to pass through, or at removing carbon-14, which is al-posal involves melting the ash into a glass.like product by most totally released to the atmosphere as COz. Nitrepen operating the afterburner at temperatures greater than oxides, produced both from the high temperature oxida-900* C.

tion of nitrogen and of amines (protein material m bio-logical waste), are also monitored. Normal NO, release concentrations are less than 100 mg/m, but a maximum s

4.4.3 Studs 31k (Sweden) [7]

concentration of 230 mg/m3 is allowed. One method of

'lhe Studsvik site is a regional incineration facility that has controlling nitrogen oxides is via the decomposition of been processing most of the combustible, beta / gamma these oxides in the secondary chamber when operated at contaminated LLW produced in Sweden sincc 1976; it has high temperature; however, if sulfur is a,lso in the waste also processed some German nuc! car power plant waste stream, then quick cooling of the off gas is then required

!o produce stable SO.The Juelich incinerator has been since 1983. Typical waste consists of plastics, cloth, wood, 2

paper, and rubber. Radionuclide concentrations in the in operation smcc 1976.Through 1984, about 300 tonnes waste are limited to that producing a maximum of 1.0 of s lid waste, including 45 tonnes of ammal carcassesand mSv/hr (100 mrem /hr) per package, although 90% of the 20 m3 of ligmd waste (consisting of organic oils and sol-waste must have activitics of 0.1 mSv/hr(10 mrem /ht)or vents), had been processed m, 500 days of cumulative less. llospital wastes containing 1-125 are held at the site operation. Also of interest is a new law m the Federal for 2 to 3 years to allow for decay prior to incineration.

Itepublic of Germany that allows incmeration of scintilla-tion material as normal (non radioactive) waste if certam nuclides are below cor limits of

'the incinerator design is a multi stage, excess air type concern as follows: 10'jeentration,0, and 10'ggulatory 4

with minimum temperatures in all combustion chambers

, 10, 10-cunes/g maintained at 800* C using oil burners. Ash treatment is f r tritium, carbon-14, cobalt-60, and strontium, similar to the Karlsruhe process and involves encapsulat-n'spectively, ing 100 liter drums of ash into 200 liter drums using concrete. 'the overall volume reduction ratio for this 4.4.5 Mol Nuclear Study Center (Belgium) [10]

l method is 35:1 for nontompressed LLW. Ash from power plant waste memcrated per agreement with Ger-

'lhe liclgium Nuclear Study Center at hiol(SCK/CEN) man utilitics is homogeneously solidified with concrete has been operating a slagging, high temperature furnace for a 75:1 volume reduct,on (also for non-compressed as a prototype since 1978 for processing wastes containing i

waste)and this solidified ash (in drums)is returned to the beta / gamma cmitting radionuclides and other small Federal Republic of Germany, amounts of alpha cmitting radionuclides. 'this waste is primarily from fuel reprocessing activities and contains plutonium concentrations that are too low to justify re-4.4.4 Juelich (FRG) [6]

covery. 'the main objective of this incineration program, through a cooperative agreement with other European

'lhe incinerator at the Juelich laboratory is a 60 to 100 comreon market countries, is to both reduce the volume kg/hr, controlled air design that is used primarily for the and radionuclide solubility of the alpha / beta / gamma con-experimental processing of biological waste, including taminated LLW before disposal.

scintillation vials. 'the primary chamber operates from low temperature up to 800* C, while the secondary cham-The hiol stagging iurnace is designed for 230 kg/hr and ber, in the presence of excess air, has higher temperatures can handle a wide variety of wastes, including combustible of 900 to 1100' C. Auxiliary burners are used to maintain and non combustible items in solid or liquid form.

these temperatures as required when incinerating LLW Pretreatment of the waste, especially shredding and sepa-with low calorific values such as those associated with ration of hazardous materials. is important; it is also nec-biological wastes with a high water content. In general, no essary to add slagging minerals. hietting of the residual NURl!G-1393 34

i&

4

=

h.

-tee <

g 4 Operational Experience and Status ash, the non combustible solid waste, and the stagging

• Ihe liruce incinerator is a controlled air design with a minerals requires an operating temperature of about primary chamber operating at $50' C and an afterburner 1600' C. The molten slag is quench cooled 1 dripping operating at 900 to 1000

• C. Off gases are cooled through 7

into water, which solidifics the slag material into msol-a heat exchanger and filtered in a bag-house filter using uble, basalt like granules. Off gas treatment begins with Nomex bags. An analysis by Ontario llydro has indicated temperature conditioning via air cooling (from 1000 to that 90% of the particles in the off gas stream are greater 800' C) and water cooling (from 800 to 200* C). Dry than 10 micrometers in diameter and hence can be effec-filtering is then accomplished using a sand-bed filter, bag tively removed with dry filters.

filters, and IIEPA filters. 'lhe building compartment for the incinerator, known as the " alpha-room", is main-The llrucc incinerator is somewhat unusual in that IDV tained at a subatmospheric pressure of minus 20 mm of is burned in a batch mode from a cold start. A complete water to ensure that any radioactive off. gases that might burn cycle takes 50 hours5.787037e-4 days <br />0.0139 hours <br />8.267196e-5 weeks <br />1.9025e-5 months <br />, which includes loading the escape from the incinerator do not leak to the environ-primary chamber with up to 2200 kg (or 17 m8 at almut 129

ment, kg/m8) of waste, burning for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, and cooling down for 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br />. Down loading hot ash, however, can reduce this cycle time to about 36 hours4.166667e-4 days <br />0.01 hours <br />5.952381e-5 weeks <br />1.3698e-5 months <br />.

Two major operational tests have been carried out on the Molincinerator.'Ihe first of these involved the processing g) pical waste is packaged for incineration in polyethylene of 9700 kg of plutonicn contaminated material in 4000 bags, weighing about 5 kg filled and having a specific hours of operation. A second test involved 11,000 kg of activity of about 1 x 10curic/m8. Contact dose rates are simulated waste made by spiking normal waste with 15g of on the order of 10 to 20 mrem /hr. Some of the major plutonium; this simulated waste was processed over a radionuclides are Cs-137, Cs-134, Zn-65, and Co-60.

period of $40 hours. Processing of 3400 kg of the waste produced 800 kg of granules, while the entire 11,000 kE Iloth radioactive and chemical emission limits apply to resulted in 2500 kg of granules, Although the volume the liruce incinerator. " Derived emission limits" on ra-reduction factors were not spccifically reported, this low dioactive emissions are set at 0.72 curie per week for mass reduction ratio of almut 4 to 1 implies that a signif

• l-131,1.4 x 105 curies per week for tritium, and 1.8 curies i

cant fraction of the simulated waste must have been non*

per week for particulates.The Environmental Protection combustible. This trade off is reasonable, however, doc Act of Canada,1971, also set limits on I-ICl, Cla, and SO, to the extra care required when processing waste contain-cmissions with IICI limits being the most restrictive.[33) ing alpha emitting mdionuclides and the benefit of con-Prohibition of the entry of PVC plastic into the incinera-vening the wave into a very stable and highly insoluble tor has been the main method of IICI control. Concentra-form.

tion limits at the plant boundary equate to a maximum of I

10 g/second of IICl, but worker health regulations (to pr tectincinerat r perators)furtherreducethislimit to 4.4.6 Bruce Nuclear Power Station (Canada) 2.6 g/second. In practice, all actual emissions have been l33}

significantly below these authorized maximums.

'The llruce NPS is operatqd by Ontario 11ydro and also Ontario llydro has been very satisfied with the incinera-serves as a regional incinerator site for processing 11W tor operation. An economic analysis in 1978 (l'able 2-1) from Canadian power plants.The incinerator facility was indicated a $98$,000 per year savings over burial of IDV, started up in 1977 and had handled about 1800 tonnes of Ontario 1-lydro has a long term commitment to incinera-waste through 1986. Overall volume reduction is typically tion and views incineration as "one of the most important 4

40:1, while the final total volume reduction including processes in their radioactive waste management pro-burial packaging is 23:1.

gram". [33]

-35 NUlGG-1393

4 Operational 11xperience and Status Table 4-1 U.S. Government racilities with incinerators [$.12.23.25,44,49.57.58.59.60.61.84) 14 cation /Name incinerator Concept & Status Idaho Nat'l Engineering Lab /

Controlled air (dual chamber) with bag filters /lIEPA filtcrs. Capacity of Waste Experimental iteduction Facility 180 kg/hr. Operational since 1985; beta & gamma emitting DAW in (WilitF) 0.25 m3 boxes processed. Vit of 25:1 to 100:1.

Idaho Nat'l Engineering Lab /

Controlled air (rotary kiln) with dry off pas system /ilEPA filters. Con-Process Experimental Pilot Plant (PREPP) struction complete, operation expected by 1991; will process TRU wastes.

Idaho Nat'l Engineering Lab /

Fluidized bed (calciner). Pilot plant operated from 1963 to 1982. New Idaho Chemical Processing Plant (ICPP) unit of similar design but larger capacity has been operational since 1982; 15 million liters of IILW liquid processed.

DOE hiound Facility (Ohio)/

Starging (high temperature, glass melting furnace). EPA permit re-hiolten Glass Furnace quested in 1986, with operation expected in 1991 or 1992; will process

+

hazardous mixed waste.

DOE htound Facility (Ohio)/

Excess air (high turbulence cyclone furnace) with off gas treatment Cyclone incinerator system /IIEPA filters. Capacity of 27 kg/hr. DAW or 4201/d. liquid waste.

Operational from 1976 to 1980, but shutdown now for economic reasons; processed alpha cmitting waste.

Ilanford Engineering Development Lab Acid digestion. Never operational.

(WA)/ Incinerator Facility Los Alamos Nat'l Lab

1. Controlled air with scrubber Capacity of 45 kg/hrfor prototype op-(New hiexico)/ Incinerator Facility crational from 1979 to 1988; 11W including alpha cmitting waste proc-essed. Iteconstructed unit with an increased capacity of 55 kg/hr sohds or 90 kg/ht liquids expected to be operational by late 1990; will process TRU, PCll, and mixed wastes.

2. Controlled air with scrubber, in design phase. Capacity will be greater than existing unit; will process LLW and hazardous mixed wastes. Opera-tion expected to be impacted by State airborne emissions legislation.

Savannah itiver Plant Controlled air with dry off gas /IIEPA filters. Not currently operational; (South Carolina)/Ileta Gamma previously processed beta & gamma wastes (solids & liquids), but will be incinenitor (1101) replaced with a larger unit. Capacity of about 160 kg/hr of liquid solvent.

Savannah River Plant Controlled air with scrubber Capacity of 180 kg/hr. Operational; solid (South Carolina)/ Solid-Solvent Waste LLW and solvents processed.

Incinerator for Testing Savannah Rher Plant Excess air (rotary kiln) with wet off gas filters. Scheduled for operation (South Carolina)/ Consolidated in 1992: will process dry 11W and defense liquid waste, incineration Facility DOE Rocky Flats Plant

1. Excess air (rotary kiln) with scrubber / venturi scrubber. Capacity of (Colorado)/ incinerators 40 kg/hr. Never operational; intended for plutonium recovery from PChi. Needs EPA permit, but DOE has cancelled plans to startup & op-crate this incinerator.

2. Controlled air (agitated hearth) with scrubber / venturi scrubber. Ca-pacity of 68 kg/hr of solid wastes, fed in batch mode. Completed and tested in 1982, but never operated for economic reasons.

3. Fluidized bed with sintered metal filters /liEPA filters. Capacity of 68 kg/hr solid waste, 33 kg/hr liquid waste. Demonstration unit -

operational from 197S to 1981, with restart planned in 1991; du.igned to process low level PChi.

NURiiG-1393 36

4 Operational Experience and Status Table 4-2 Domestic Utility and Industry Facilities with Incinerators

[2.5,16.19.25.38.39,40,41.42.43.45.62.63.64.65,66) location /Name incinerator Concept & Status Aerojet Energy Conversion Co.

Fluidized bed (dryer & incinerator) with wet off gas treatment system.

(California)/ Full Scale Dernonstration Capacity of 45 kg/hr solid waste & 100-300 liters /hr of evaporator Incinerator concentrates. Operational for 1500 hours0.0174 days <br />0.417 hours <br />0.00248 weeks <br />5.7075e-4 months <br /> since 1974; Acrojet out of in.

cinerator business since 1984.

Byron NPS (Illinois)/ Incinerator Concept same as Acrojet incinerator.

Incinerator completc & licensed, but never used; no plan to operate.

Braidwood NPS (Illinois)/ Incinerator -

Concept same as Acrojet incinerator. Incinerator completc & licensed, but never used; one year test operation now planned for 1989-1990.

Oconee NPS (S. Carolina)/

Concept same as Acrojet incinerator, incinerator completc. In test pro-Itadwaste Facility gram since 1986; expected to reduce site annual 11W volume of 935 m8 by one half.

Yogtle NPS (Georgia)/ Incinerator Concept same as Acrojet incinerator, lucinerator completc & licensed, but never used; 11W sent to disposal site at Barnwell.

Commonwealth Edison (Illinois)/

Mobile, controlled air with scrubber & llEPA filters. Capacities of Mobile Volume Iteduction System 23-52 kg/hr for dry wastes,75-380 liters pcr hr for liquids, and 38-1141/hr for resins & sludges. Cancelled; originally to be used for Dresden, Zion, L2 Cal!c, and Quad Citics.

Nine Mile Point NPS Fluidized bed with scrubber /HEPA filter / iodine adsorber. Capacity of (New York)/ Incinerator 92 kg/hr. Cancelled; startup originally scheduled for 1980.

Shearon liarris NPS Concept same as Aerojet incinerator.

(N. Carolina)/ Incinerator Cancelled.

Southeastern Compact Site Controlled air. Capacity of 275 kg/hr. Design contract awarded; unit will (N. Carolina)/ Incinerator process dry waste, tu rbine oil, pathological wastc, and scintillation fluids.

Westinghouse Columbia Plant Controlled air with wet off gas treatment /HEPA filter. Capacity of (S. Carolina)/ Incinerator 115 kg/hr DAW Operational with original unit from 1974 to 1980, with new unit from 1980 to present; fuel fabrication wastes processed to re-cover uranium.

EG & G (Idaho)/Incincrator Controlled air with scrubber. Operational; solid 11W processed.

Hattelle Memorial Institute (Ohio)/

Controlled air with dry filtering system including IIEPA filters. Capacity Volume Reduction Demonstration Facility of 150 kg/hr DAW. NitC License issued in 1987; program cancelled due to loss of DOE funds.

Habcock & Wilcox (Pennsylvania)/

Concept same as Commonwealth Edison mobile incinerator. Planned to Parks Township Waste Reduction Center be a semi permanent facility; cancelled because of local opposition.

Combustion Engineering, W'mdsor 3 xcess air (down-draft cyclone furnace) with ceramic filters / scrubbers /

l (Connecticut)/ Full Scale Prototype JPA filter. Capacities of 100 kg/hr of solid waste & 455 liters /hr of con.

Incinerator centrated liquids.

Genernt Electric (Wilmington. N.C.)/

Excess air. Capacity of 90 m3 per week in batch mode. Operational since Nuclear Fuct Plant incinerator 1981; uranium contaminated waste processed. Original unit, with con-tinuous feed, operated from 1974 to 1980.

37 NUREG-1393 q

t i

4 Operational Experience and Status i

Table 4-2 (Continued)

]

i location /Name incinerator Concept & Status Kerr McGee Nuclear Corp. (Oklahoma)/

Excess air (dual chamber). Operational since 1972; uranium.

Incinerator contaminated waste processed.

Itabcock & Wilcox (Lynchburg, VA)/

Excess air. Capacity of 5 to 10 drums of 208 liter size per 2 days.

Nuclear Fuel Facility Operational since 1972; alpha / beta emitting waste, including uranium-Incinerator contaminated waste processed.

Scientific Ecology Group (Oak Itidge, *lN)/

Slagging. Expected to process about 37,000 m$/yr of DAW from power Nuclear Waste Treatment plants, hospitals, & research labs; " waste stream" VR ratio of 4.3 to 1 Facility expected. Under construction; startup planned for 1990.

Table 4-3 Survey of Medical / Institutional Facilities Conducted by the University of Maryland at flattimore (1979) [35]

A. Survey Population by Type of Institution & License Type Number Agreement State Licenses /

NitC 1.icenses llospital 24 10 / 14 Ilospital, Medical School 26 12 / 14 Ilospital, Medical School, & University 43 24 / 19.

Medical School 11 6/$

Medical School, University 24 11 / 13 University 14 7/7 142 70 / 72

11. Institutions lucinerating Radioactive Waste Type Number Percent of Total tiospital 9

20 1lospital, Medical School 8

17 liospital, Medical School, & University 12 26 Medical School 6

13 Medical School, University 6

13 University 5

11 46 100 1

'l i

-l l

l NUltliG-1393 38

4 Operational Experience and Status Table 4-4 l'oreign Government, Research, & Power Plant l'acilities with lucinerators

[5.6.73.9,10.14.15.23.25.26.27,29.33$4)

Imcation/Name Incinerator Concept & Status Ilruce NPS (Canada)

Pyrolysis with bag filters. Capacity of 2200 kg/ batch. Operational since 1977; total of 1800 tonnes processed; 40.1 VR, Chalk River Nuclear lab Pyrolysis with bag filters.

(Canada)

Capacity of 1135 kg/hr. Operational since 1980; lab wastes processed.

N.Y. Kema (llolland)

Excess air (cyclone furnace similar to DOE Mound unit). Operational; mostly dry power plant wastes processed.

Eurochemic Mol Acid digestion with scrubber /lIUPA filtcrs. Capacity of 1.5 kg/hr. In test (llclgium) operation; 320 kg of waste contaminated with 2.2kg Pu processed.

Mot Nuclear Research Center Slagging (high temperature furnace) sand bed / bag filters /IIEPA filters.

(llelgium)

Capacity of 100 kg/hr. Prototype operational since 1978;11W and trans-uranic wastes (including solids, liquids, sludges, & resins) processed.

KatIsruhe Nuclear Research Center Excess ait (vertical shaft furnace) with ceramic filters. Capacity of (F.R. Germany) 60 kg/hr. Operational since 1971; 1900 tonnes (14,500 mS) processed in 35,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />; 62:1 VR.

l Karlsruhe Nuclear Research Center Acid digestion with scrubber /lIEPA filters. Capacity of 1.5 kg/hr. Still in (F.R. Germany)

R&D phase.

Juelich Nuclear Research Center Pyrolysis with ceramic filter /H EPA filter. Capacity of 100 kg/hr. Opera-(P.R. Germany) tional since 1976; 300 tonnes of institutional waste (including 45 t of car-casses & 20 m3 of oils and solvents) processed, institutional facility (F.R. Germany)

Concept same as Juclich incinerator. Under construction as of 1984; will process hospital waste.

Fontenay. aux. Roses (France)

Excess air (2 stage furnace) w/ bag filters /IIEPA filters. Capacity of 50 kg/hr. Operational; 80 tonnes of mostly animal carcasses processed.

Marcoule Center for Pu Production

1. Excess alr (2 stage furnace) w/off. gas treatment /IIEPA filter. Capac-(France) ity of 80 kg/hr. Operational; 400 tonnes of solids & 300 tonnes of liquids processed.

1

2. Excess air (2 stage furnace) w/IIEPA filtcrs. Capacity of 1 kg/hr. Uses electric burners. Operational; 13,800 hours0.00926 days <br />0.222 hours <br />0.00132 weeks <br />3.044e-4 months <br /> of Pu waste only processing.

Cadarache Nuclear Study Center

1. Excess air (vertical shaft furnace)with pre-filter / scrubber /lIEPA fil-(France) ter. Capacity of 30 kg/hr. Operational since about 1980.

2. Excess air (horizontal furnace) w/ bag filter /HEPA filter / scrubber.

Capacity of 50 liters /hr. Operational since about 1980.

CEN Grenoble (Fnmee)

Excess air (fixed hearth furnace) with regenerable high-temperature fil-ter. Capacity of 15 kg/hr. Operational since 1970; DAW, oils, solvents, biological wastes, and alpha-cmitting wartes processed.

CNRS Strasbourg (France)

Concept same as Cl!N Grenoble. Capacity of 20 kg/hr. Operational National Center for Scientific Research since 1973; alpha-emitting wastes processed since 1982.

39 NURl!G-1393

=

4 Operational Experience and Status Table 4-4 (Continued) j location /Name incinerator Concept & Status Wurentingen/(Switzerland)

Excess air (vertical shaft furnace) with ceramic filters. Capacity of l'ederal Institute for Reactor Research 25 kg/hr. Operational since 1975; institutional & power plant waste processed in 5000 hr of operation.

Studsvik (Sweden)

Excess air (vertical shaft furnace) with bag filters. Capacity of 200 to 400 kg/hr. Operational since 1976; 1500 tonnes of waste (incl. power plant, hospital, research and fuel reprocessing wastes) processed; 75:1 VR.

f SGAE Selbersdorf Excess air (vertical shaft furnace) with ceramic filters /IIEPA filters. Ca-(Austria) pacity of 60 kg/hr. Operational since 1979; institutional wastes processed, liinkley Point NPS (UK)

Excess air (horizontal furnace) with scrubber /lIEPA filters. Capacity of 70 kg/hr. Operational rince 1977; 1300 m8 (including dry waste and liquid organic wastes) processed annually.

W 1fa NPS (UK)

Concept same as Ilinkley Point NPS. Operational.

3 Windscale (UK)

Controlled air with scrubber /IIEPA filters. Capacity of 20 kg/hr. Opera-tional since about 1985; Pu wastes processed.

Windscale (UK)

Controlled air with scrubber /IIEPA filters. Capacity of 5 kg/hr. Opera-tional for Pu wastes; 34 tona processed.

liarwell(UK)

Acid digestion with scrubber /IIEPA filters. Capacity of 10 kg/hr. Opera-tional since 1979; alpha contaminated wastes processed.

liradwell NPS (UK)

Controlled air (agitated hearth with after burner). Operational since 1960; 8 LW processed.

Ispra (Italy)

Submerged combustion (undefiacd. cxperimental process) with scrub-ber/condenicr/IIEPA filters. Capacity of 25 liters /hr. Operational for testing.

CNEN Casaccia (Italy)

Excess air (vertical shaft furnace) with bag filters /11 EPA filters. Capacity of 20 kg/hr, Operational since about 1980.

Total Mura NPS (Japan)'

Excess air (vertical shaft furnace) with ceramic filters /llEPA filters'. Ca.

pacities of 3 incinerators are 50. 75,100 kg/hr. All 3 incinerators are op.

crational; 40:1 VR.

Japanese Nuclear Power Stations Concept same asTokai Mura.Capacitics from 45 to 100 kg/hr. About 12 (nearly all sites) units operational; 2500 tonnes processed in 42,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br />.

JGC Corp (Japan)

Slagging (high temperature furnace) with scrubbers. Demonstration unit under construction.

1 Chiba Works (Japan)

Pyrolysis with ceramic filter /llEPA filters. Capacity of 30 kg/tu. Demon-stration unit operational since 1983; power plant wastes (including res-ins) processed.

JAERI Oaral Research Establishment Excess air Capacity of 30 kg/hr. Operational since 1973; LLW (Jap m) processed.

Ilhabha Atomic Research Center Excess air (with dual chambers). Capacity of 45 kg/hr. Operational since (India) 1966.

NURl!G-1393 -

40

.~

4 Operational fixpericnce and Status Table 4-5 lhtimated Capacity factors for l'oreign incinerator racilities [$,25]

listimated Capacity l'acility Waste l'rocessed; Operational factor" Maximum l'rocess Period (Utillration Rate; Total time Covered l' actor"')

liruce 194 tonnes or 1500 m8; 1977' =

36 %

(Canada)

I batch (2200 kg)per 36 hrs; 8760 hrs 3200 hri required liruce 1800 tonnes; 1977-1985 =

37 %

(Canada)

I batch (2200 kg) per 36 hrs; 78,800 hrs (75%)

29,450 hrs required

$8,900 hrs actual Karlsruhe 1900 tonnes; 1971-1983 =

28 %

(l'RG) 60 kg/hr; 114,000 hrs (31%)

32,700 hrs required 35,000 hrs actual Wurenlingen tonnes unknown; 1975-1984 =

(6%)

(ItRG) 25 kg per br:

87,600 hrs 5000 hrs actual y

llinkley Pt.

Annually 1300 m$

1977-1984 =

28 %

(UK)

(approx 169 tc);

8760 hrs 70 kg per hr; annually 2400 hrs regulred annually Notes:

First year of operation

" Capacity factor defined as [ Required hrs at maximum rocess rate] / [ Total available hrs operation]; a low capacity factor (kies not necessarily mean poor performance, but more like implies under utilization.

"' Utilization factor defined as [ Actual hrs of operation)![,otal available hrs operation].

V 41 NURiiG-1393-

5 LICENSING ISSUES 5.1 Federal / State Licensing 50 lAppendix lj. Details of these regulations are high.

ughted in Table 54 Requiremelits [20,33,83]

One item of current interest is a proposed rule that would Licensing and operating requirements for L13V incinera-change 10 CFR Part 20.305 (as described in Table 5-4) to tion in the U.S. are based on a complex set of Federallaws allow incineration of slightly contaminated waste oil at and Federal / State agreements. (Licensing requirements nuclear power plant sites. If approved, this rule would in foreign countrics are similar to the U.S. requirements, permit the incineration of waste oil without requiring a but will not be addressed in this report.) The compicxity Part 50 license amendment; however, all radionuclide of the licensing pnicess stems from the fact that not only is emission limits per Appendix ! of Part 50 would still have the incineration process itself regulated, but both the to be met. The regulatory analysis for this proposed rule handling of the unprocessed waste and the incinerator indicates that 1000 to 5000 gallons of waste oil, with 4

4 by. products are also regulated. In addition,1.lAV may typical specific activitics in the range of 10 to 10 contain both radioactive and hazardous / infectious mate-microcuries/ml, are generated annually per power plant, oil) plants at which 11W (including contaminated rials, with the former coming from a combination of short For is already being incinerated under an amended li-and long-lived radionuclides; such a waste combination is sometimes rcierred to as " mixed waste".1herefore,11W cense, the total dose ducjust to the oil has been limited to and mixed waste are regulated by a broad spectrum of a very small fraction (about 0.1 %) of thelr t echnical spcG requirements covering possession, processing, and dis-fication limit. Consequently, the incineration of waste oil pel at both the Federal level-by the NRC, DOli and is a potential candidate for below-regulatory concern IIPA-and at the State levels. Table 5-1 highlights the rulemaking, although the NRC has decided not to include sharing of Federal and State authority in licensing of such a decision as part of this rule.

ILW incineration.

Another unresolved issue concerns the interpretation of Federal regulatory guidance on the disposal require.

5.1.1 Overview of Federal Legislation [17,52, ments for incinerator ash. The Resource Conservation &

68, 70, 72, 81]

Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 established categories of solid waste as hazardous and non hazardous, although it is The basic requirements for incinerator operation arc de-not clear in which category ash belongs.The RCRA de-rived indirectly from the general Congressional legista.

fines hazardous materials as having the characteristics of tion that regulates the overall handling of nuclear waste.

corrosiveness, ignitability, reactiveness, and/or toxicity; of 1hc major Fedemt acts are listed in Table 5-2. From this these characteristics, only toxicity is likely to be a feature basic legislation, authority has passed to the NRC, the of ash. The EPA is responsible for administering the DOE, and the EPA to develop and promulgate specific requirements of the RCRA, but has not set minimum requirements. The NRC has developed appropriate re, concentration limits for specific hazardous materials that quirements under Title 10 CFR to regulate commercial would determine whether ash or unprocessed waste con-nuclear activities, while the DOE retains control of de.

taming only small amounts of any of these materials would be classified as hazardous waste. Therefore, the fense and government operations. Iloth the NRC and DOE, however, incorporate into their guidelines and ash from the memcration of " mixed waste" is likely, at least in the interim, to continue to be treated as hazardous der Titic 40 CFR,quirements published by the EPA un.

regulations the re waste even if the radionuclide contents are below the 10 The separation of responsibilities be-tween these Federal agencies is not always well defined as CFR Part 20-Appendix 11 limits and tlyc hazardous mate-indicated by the recent disagreement between the DOE rials are present only m trace quantities, and the EPA over the need for a license for one of the Overall, Federal legislation favors control of waste vol-Rocky Flats incinerators: Ihe EPA reqmres a heense for ume as an important aspect of waste management. Advo-the memcration of hazardous waste, but the DOE takes cacy of volume reduction is unambiguous in the Imw the position that the incineration activity m, question is lxvel Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act part of a recowry process to reclaim plutom,um from plu-(ILRWPAA) which cites LPc societal benefits of a reduc-tonium contaminated material (i.e., not a waste process) tion in the number of waste shipments and an extension -

and therefore does not need an EPA license. [17]

of disposal site life times. Volume reduction can be ac-complished, according to the NRC 11RW Policy State.

Specific NRC, DOE, and EPA requirements related to ment, by administrative controls to limit the amount of ILW incineration are listed in Table 5-3. Incineration -

waste initially produced and by techniques of reducing the related regulations of most interest to the commercial volume of the waste which is produced [81). Incineration, nuclear industry may be found in 10 CFR Parts 20,61, and along with evaporation, fluidized bed drying, and 43 NUREG-1393

5 1.icensing Issues compaction, are the volume reduction techniques men-bustion gases and pmducts) from a incinerator such as the tioned in this NRC policy statement.

one at flyron, the State EPA has authority to issue a site license using Federal EPA based emission levels. In gen-cal, the anual or quarterly quantitics of these non nu-5,1.2 States Re(Iulrements: The State of clear /non-hazardous emissions from a 113V mcmcrator Illinois [2,16]

ate so much less than similar emissions from large waste incincrutors and fossil power plants that regulation is not

'the States have no mandate to control nuclear waste, in needed. A State El A license was issued for the llyron general, or waste processing (e.g., LIAV incineration), in ncinerator, but only because it was specifically requested articular. States may elect, however, to assume authority by the utility. (Some States do regulate opacity of the rom the Federal government for most commercial actm-off. gas in addition to total quantitics of pollutants, so ties, except for DOE regulated operations. The mecha' even smallincinerators would need State EPA licenses in rusm for transfer of this authority from the NRC is those States.)

through the Agreement State Program.'!he basic scope of this program is presented in Table 5-5.

5.1.3 Chronology of Licensing:llattelle State regulations, as developed by the currently existing Columbus [21,22,38]

28 Agreement States,are umque to cach State. Neverthe-less, all of the States' regulations are required to be essen-

"Ihc actual process of applying for a IJ3V incinerator tially equivalent to their Federal counterparts and differ license can extend over a number of years and involve primarily in areas where the State has decided to set more many exchanges of infonnation and questions betwcen conservative regulatory levels (such as for personnel ra-the regulator and the licensee. A"real world" chronology diation exposures or radioactive / hazardous material of the application process can be seen in Table 5-6, which emissions) than specified by the Federal regulations, describes the steps followed by llattelle hiemorial Insti-tute of Columbus, Ohio, to amend their NRC materials

'the State of I!!inois is an Agreement State which has license in suppert of an incinerator demonstration pro-established a very active and broad scope radioactive ject. A significant effort was made to keep the public waste management program. 'Ihe Illinois Department of informed about program activitics. Also, it should be Nuclear Safety (IDNS) is the responsible organization noted that llattelle had intended to obtain a State EPA and has developed rules almost identical to those pro.

license as well, although they elected to make that appli-vided in 10 CFR Part 61. 'lhe primary basis for the State's cation subsequent to receiving NRC approval. This pro-regulation of radioactive waste is the Illinois LLRW hian-ject has now been cancelled for financial reasons.

agement Act of 1985. Of particular interest is how the management of 11W incineration in Illinois becomes a

• Iwo other examples of the protracted licensing process split Federal / State responsibility; namely, Illinois regu-for incineration facilities include the ll&W Parks Town-lates the ILW disposal sites, while the NRC (for produc.

ship Waste Reduction Center in Pennsylvania (although tion and utilization facilitics such as commercial nuclear that incinerator has also been cancelled as discussed be-power plants) regulates 11W incinerator licensing and low) and the Scientific Ecology Group regional facility in l

operation. A specific example is the incinerator at the Tennessee.

Ilyron Nuclear Power Station: Although this incincrator was authorized by the NRC via a plant license amend-ment, disposal of the waste ash from the incinerator will 5.2 l'ublic Acceptance [32,69]

be regulated by the State through the IDNS. Illinois cur-remly charges each utility a flat fee of $ 1.158,000 per year Public acceptance, or lack thereof, concerning operations per power plant site for disposal of all 11W. Volume in the nuclear industry is difficult to measure. Whether reduction of IJ.W at the 11yron site prior to shipment, the technical issues have been communicated poorly to even though @ocated by the Federal 11RWPAA, is the public or whether the issues themselves are inher-1 clearly not encouraged by this type of fee structure. Nev-ently uncommunicable in non technical language, the net crtheless, the Illinois 11RWh1 A does go beyond the Fed-result is that public perception is presently based on a erallegislation in allowing consideration of the concen-combination of the degree of trust in the regulators and tration of radionuclides in the waste and the degree of the fear of the dangers if the technological safeguards treatment that the waste has received (and hence its sta-should fail.'lhe basis of this public perception, as applied bility) as additional factors that may influence fees. Illi-to 11W incineration, can be seen in the following necount nois will be the host site for the Central hiidwest Compact of reaction to a plan to build an incinerator in a rural for regional disposal of 11W so it is highly likely community. While some of these perceptions are nar-that the fee structure will be adjusted to encourage rowly focused on concerns about the possible release of 11W volume reduction, in terms of non. nuclear /

radioactive material, others are more related to aversions l

non-hanudous emissions (i.e., normal, fossil-fuel com-about incineration in general, NURl!G-1393 44

5 LicensingIssues in 1984, liabcock & Wilcox, Inc. announced its plans to pany or the Federal / State regulators.11&W subsequently construct a low level radioactive waste reduction facility cancelled its plans for the incinerator as a direct conse.

(including an incinerator)in the town of Apolloin South-quence of public opposition.

western Pennsylvania. 'Ihe local economy needed new jobs and had supported the nuclear industry in the past, so This Pennsylvania experience may not necessarily be typi.

,il&W anticipated strong community support. Instead, cal of the U.S. national opinion concerning incinerator when the Company took a survey, the overall public opin-operations, but it does c!carly highlight the need to foster ion was decidedly negative as summarized in Table 5-7.

good public relations and to provide unbiased informa.

Generally,3 out of 4 persons surveyed were very con-tion to allay genuine public concerns about contamination cerned about radiation contamination of the erwiron-of the environment. Given the sound technical basis for ment, while even higher percentages worried about low-LLW incineration, this method of waste volume reduc-cred property values and danger to fish and wildlife. Fur-tion can play an important role in protection of the envi.

thermore, only 1 in 3 believed they could trust the Com-ronment. For this reason, it deserves public support.

Table 5-1 Sources for License Authorir.ation for LLW lucineration [3,16,17,19.21.52]

Type of License Authority for License

• NitC License:

( 1. NRC for Federal government

(

including EPA Dy product hiatcrial

(

hiedical (2. State EPA Source hiatcrial Production & Utilizatiou Special Nuclear hinterial LLW Disposal Site Agreement State License:

( 1. State nuc! car safety office

(

lly-product hiaterial (2. State EPA Source hinterial Special Nuclear Material 11W Disposal Site DOE Liccuse:

(DOE for Federal government (including EPA Defense hiatcrial Production Government R & D LLW/lILW Disposal Site

(* Note: Authority to approve a license is normally a multiple agency responsibility because LLW/

mixed waste incinerator effluents may include a combination of radionuclides, hazardous materials, acid gases, and combustion prmlucts.)

45 NUREG-1393

,. -.. ~

i 5 IJcensingissues j

Table 5-2 General l'ederal legislation Related to LLW Incineration [52,70]

l Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended Resource Conservation & Recovery Act of 1976, RCRA Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 low level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980,11RWPA (PI-96-573)

Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act Amendments Act of 1985, LLRWPAA (Pir99-240)

Table 5-3 NRC/ dol] EPA Requirements Related to LLW Incineration [3,52]

NRC Regulations for Commercial Licensecs:

10 CFR Part 20," Standards for Protection Against Radiation" 10 CFR Part 61," Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste" 10 CFR Part $6-Appendix 1," Numerical Guides for PWR Effluents" NRC Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Statement of 1981 DOE Guidelines for Defense / Government Facility Operations:

DOE Order 5480.1 A, " Environmental Protection, Safety, and llcalth for DOE Operations" l

DOE Order 5480.2,"flazardous & Radioactive Mixed Waste Management" DOE Order 5820.2,

• Radioactive Waste Management" DOlVLLW-38T, " Guidance for DOE $820.2 Chapter 111,11W Management (Feb 85)"

l EPA Regulations Applicable to NRC & DOE:

40 CFR Part 61," National Emissions Standards for llazardous Air Pollutants / Standards for Radionuclides (Feb 85)"

Radiation Protection Guides (issued by the Federal Radiation Council) l I

NUREG-1393 46

5 Licensingissues i

Table 5-4 Details of NRC Regulations Related to LLW lucineration s

10 CFR 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation:

20.106(a,b)," Radioactivity in 11ffluents to Unrestricted Areas": Specific release limits in terms of concentrations of radionuclides as stated in Part 20-Appendix II, Table 2; provision for higher release limits on case-by-case basis.

20302,

• Method for Obtaining Approval of Proposed Disposal Procedurcs": Requirements for obtaining approval of disposal processes not specifically allowed by regulations.

20305, " Treatment or Disposal by incineration": Requirement that LLW incineration must be approved via 20.106(b) and 20.302, except for C-14 and 11-3 in specific wastes as provided for in 20306.

20306," Disposal of SpecificWastes": Authorization to dispose of,without regard to radioactivity, up 100.05 microcuries of C-14 or 11-3 per gram of scintillation material or animal tissue. (Note: A petition for rulemaking was docketed by the Commission in Sept 1988 which would allow disposal of any solid waste containing up to 0.05 microcuries of C-14 or 11-3 per gram of waste up to an annual limit of 0.1 curies of C-14 and 1 curic of 11-3).

Appendix it, Table 11, " Concentrations Limits for Radionuclides in Water and Air".

10 CFR 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste:

61.55," Waste Classification": Definitions of Class A, D, and C waste categories.

61.56, " Waste Characteristics": Requirements for waste (e.g., incinerator ash) characteristics to permit shallow land burial; for 11W with hazardous / infectious materials contamination, require-ment also to reduce all types of contamination.

10 CFR 50-Appendix 1:

" Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet

'ALARA' Criterion for Radioactive Material in PWR liffluents": Requires control of radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents to *as low as reasonably achievable" limits as approved on case-by-case basis.

i' i

l l

47 NURl!G-1393

1 5 licensingissues 1

I Table 5-5 Scope of States' Responsibilities: Agreement State l'rogram (Per Atomic Energy Act,1954 & Nuclear Waste Policy Act,1982)

States Have Always Regulated:

X ray machines e

Accelerator-produced radionuclides y

e t

e Itadium sources -

i States May Also Regulate, through Agreement with the NRC:

lly product material e

e Source material Special Nuclear Material (less than critical mass) e States May Not Regulate:

Materials licensees with existing NRC licenses e

DOE operations e

Production and utilization facilities (e.g., reactors)

SNM (greater than critical mass) e impcrt or' export of radioactive materials e

5 NUltliG-1393 48

5 IJcensingissues l

Table 5-6 Licensing Chronology for Centrallred LLW Incineration facility at Itattelle Memorial Institute-Columbus Ohio [21.63) 1982

- Ilattelle joined five other commercial 11W produce rs in planning an incinera-tor demonstration project.

1982/83 - Ilattc!!c initiated & conducted public awareness activitics through news rnedia and community organizations.

Jan 1983 - Ilatteile requested incineration permit (for non-radioactive emissions authorization) from Ohio EPA. but subsequently withdrew request so that NitC could review and approve first.

Aug 1983 - Itattelle submitted request to NitC for amendment of its Materials License No. SNM-7 to authortre incineration.

Sep 1983 - Federalllegister notice published.

Nov 1983 - Initiation of regulatory question & answer exchange between NitC and llat.

telle.

Jul 1985 - NitC staff visited Ilattelle site and met Ohio EPA.

Sep 1985 - Ilattelle staff visited Octmanytoviewoperatingincineratorsof similardesign.

Oct 1985 - NitC staff also visited Germany.

Dec 1985 - Completion of regulatory question & answer exchange.

Jun 1986 - N11C issued Environmental Assessment.

Jul 1986 - N11C published Federalllegister notice of finding of"No significant impact".

Mar 1987 - NitC issued license.

Aug 1988 - Program terminated by llattelle due to lack of DOE funding.

I l

l l

49 NUltliG-1393

t

$ IJcensingissues Table 5-7 local Public Suncy About Proposed LLW Incinerator in Itural Pennsylvania p2]

Concerns About:

Degree of Concern:

Itadioactive contamination of water supplies.................... 69% very concerned Radioactive contamination of soil............................. 71% very concerned Radioactive contamination of air............................. 77% very concemed Radioactive release from a truck accident...................... 74 % very concerned Permanence of waste storage at site........................... 81% very concerned Trust in:

Degree of Trust:

Company................................................. 31 % very/somewhat trusting Nuclear Regulatory Commission.............................. 39% very/somewhat trusting State linvironmental Safety Office............................ 34 % very/somewhat trusting local Economic importance Of:

Degree ofimportance:

New jobs................................................ 87 % very/somewhat needed New jobs from hazardous industry............................ 38% very/somewhat needed Proposed incinerator facility................................. 12% very/somewhat needed Perceived Threat To:

Degree of Threat:

Property values............................................ 82% high/ moderate threat Quality of life (e.g., increamd truck traffic)..................... 78% high/ moderate 6hreat Fish & wildlife............................................. 90% high/ moderate threat

~ NURl!G-1393

$0

6 CONCLUSIONS

%c incineration of IJAV is a well-developed, if not yet cinerators, as well as from the potentially highly toxic mature, technology that can play a significant role in nature of incinerator ash. nese concerns are valid and waste management. Here are many benefits to be ob-must be addressed directly if U.S. industry is to gain the tained from the use of incineration, including cost con.

confidence of the public. Not surprisingly, orgamzations trol, case of waste handling, and a reduction of the de-that make a good. faith effort to keep the local communi-pendency on limited-capacity, shallow land burial sites, ties informed about their safety programs and planned The initial capital costs are high com pared to direct burial incinerator activitics are motc likely to have local support (even though burial costs are rapidly increasing), but the for their facilities. Ironically, the lack of public informa-volume reduction levels achiev;tble with incineration tion about incineration, which results in misconceptions more than offset these costs on a long-term bas!s. In fact, and distrust,is probably the greatest cause of public con-this volume reduction capability has led the Electric cern.The technology bchind LLW incineration has bcen Power Research Institute to consider the incorporation of carefully engineered and, consequently, should be Cn ll3V incinerator into the standard design for the Ad-viewed favorably by a well. informed public-especially vanced Light Water Reactor; specifically, an incinerator when incincnttion is compared to current ILW disposal could help in meeting the EPill goal of designing a "zero practices.

LIAV production plant" that would store h!! of its own LLW on the plant site during an active 60 year opera-Outside of this country, the decision to proceed with tional life, incineration has already been made:He Europeans, the Canadians, and the Japancsc are demonstrating that

)

,l'here have been techm. cal problems associated with proper treatment of incinerator effluents and solidifica-LIA\\ incinerator, operations, but most have been re' tion and/or packaging of incinerator ash can effectively solved with expertence gained through world. wide mem-preclude any significant short-or long-term release of crator use. Many of the remammg problems are not prob-radionuclides and hazardous materials to the environ-lems as such, but rather are difficulties that may result ment. In the U.S., it is expected that the use of incinera-from inadequate operations and mamtenance practices or tion technology will grow, particularly in the commercial from low incinerator capacity factor. As more U.S. utill*

nuclear power industry, as the management of LLW dis-ties begm to operate incincrutors at their nuclear power posal sites is taken over by State compacts and unaf.

plant sites, their increasing experience level should mmi-f liated States by 1993, mize these operational difficultics.

%c incentives for incinemtion include support from Fed-I'i" ally, it is worth restating the major advantages of LLW cral and State laws that explicitly permit and, in some inemeration in terms telated to effective, long-term wast e cases, encourage the use of incineration as a volume rc, management. 'Ipc incmeration process results in chemi-duction technique. Some States do restrict incineration to cally and biologically stabilized waste and m very reduced l

the LIAVgenerated on the site; however, this type of legis-waste volumes that can be converted into highly msoluble lation is directed against the establishment of regional forms by permanent bondmg wyth mert materials. With-processing facilitics such as those in Europe) and not, for out the stabihzmg effect of mcmcration, buned waste-example, against an incinerator used to handle waste at a even compacted or super compacted waste stored in nuclear power plant. Overall, the licensing process in this drums-will eventually release contammants into the country is very comprehensive, and may be lengthy as soll, water, and air. The only questions about these re-well, but obtaining a license is still an achievable goal, leases are when they will occur and m, what quantitics-Federal and State EPA emission regulations can be met not if they will occur, by modern incinerators, although it is sometimes prudent tolimit the combustion of certain kinds of wastes,includ-Perhaps the title of the U.S. Department of Energy's ing wastes containing high concentrations of sulfur com-1991 budget proposal for waste management activities-pounds, tritium, and toxic materials.

"Respecting the Environment"-best sums up the grow-inginsistence by the American public forlong term waste

' Public concerns exist about the risk from both gaseous management solutions. One of these solutions should be j

and particulate releases of radioactive material from in-the incineration of low level radioactive waste.

51 NUREG-1393 v

I 7 - REFERENCES

[1] Dettete, C.P., "lew level Waste Volume Reduc.

[13] Beuse, R.H.J., et. al., " Automatic Control for Dis-tion Overview"; The 1985 IVashington Conference on continuous Operation of the KEMA Incinerator";

Low Lessi Nuclear IVaste Disposal & Cleanup, May same conference as [4).

1985.

[14] Stalder, F. & Schwammberger O.," Experience on Ceramic Filters without Scrubbers (at Wurentin-

[2] Garcia, R.," State of the Art in Volume Reduction gen, Switzerland) ; same conference as [4).

and Disposal: Incineration"; same conference as

[1].

[15] Hennart, D.MJ.G., "Off gas Filtration and Re-leases: Bag Filters (at Mol, Belgium)"; same confer-

[3] Coleman, J.A. & Voigt, W.R. Jr, "Imw level Ra-ence as [4].

diation Waste Management in the DOE"; same conference as [1].

[16]' Garcia, R. & Spas S.E., " Licensing Support of a Radwaste incinerator at a Commercial Nuclear Power Station (Byron)"; The incineration of IAw

[4] Van Der Plas, T., " Incineration of Radioactive Level Wastes Conference, Tucson, Az., March Waste: An Overview of the Seminar"; KEMA 1985.

Seminar on Incineration of Radioactive Wastes, Netherlands, September 1984. (Seminar tmnsac-

[17] Peterson, C.," Rocky Flats incinerator Called Ille-tions published as Incineratwn of Pdioactin IVaste gal"; The IVashington Post newspaper article,2 Feb.

edited by C. Eid & A.J. Van loon) ruary 1989.

[5] Hild, V.,"I'he Role ofIncineration in the Manage-

[18] Luoma, J.R., "Using New incinerators, Cities Con-ment of Radioactive Waste"; same conference as vert Garbage into Energy"; The New York Times (4].

newspaper article,2 August 1988.

l6] Iaset, M.,"Ihe Incineration of Biological Waste

[19} Garcia, R. & Anderson, R.E., "Acrojet Fluidized (at Juelich, W. G ermany)"; same conference as [4).

IleC Volume Reduction System Operation and Li-ces.r%"; same conference as [1],

[7) Ilernborg, G., Broden K,, & Ochrn O., "The Incin-

[20) "MJacipal Solid Waste: Can We'llurn it?";llealth cration of Solid Radioactive Waste-A Centralized

& Environment Digest, October 1987.

.alution (at Studsvik, Sweden)"; same conference as [4].

[21] DiSalvo, R. & Zicienbach, W.,"What it took to get an NRC License for Centralized incineration (at

[8]

Dirks, F. & Hemplemann, W., "Ib incineration Battelle)"; Proceedings of IVaste Management.'67 Plant of the Karlsruh,e Nuclear Research Center-A Symposium, Vol. 3.

Regional Solution"; same conference as (4).

[22] Sauer, R.E.,"A Commercial Regionalincinerator Facility for Treatment of low Level Radioactive

[9] Matteman, J. & Tigchelaar, P.," Development of a Waste (to be operated by U S. Ecology, Inc. in N.

Cyclonc Incinerator at N.V. KEM A"; same confcr*

Carolina)"; Proceedings of IVaste Management '86 ence as [4}-

Symposium, Vol. 3.

. [10] Van De Voorde N., *High Temperature Slagging

[23] U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Volume Re-Incincrator for Alpha Contaminated Wastcs (at duction Techniques in Low-Level Radioactive IVaste Mol, liclgium)"; same conference as (4].

Management (I'cknekron.Inc.): NUREG/CR-2206, September 1981.

[11] Fellingham, LR., "A Flowshect/ Systems Study

[24] Pratt, R.P. "A Preliminary Assessment of the Dust Analysis of the Conditioning Options for Solid Imading vs Pressure Drop Characteristics of High PCM Wastes (in the U.K.)*; same conference as Capacity HEPA Filters"; Proceedings of the J6th I l' DOE Nuclear Air Cleaning Conference, San Diego, Ca., October 1980.

[12) Clements, T.L. Jr., et. al.," Processing and Certifi-cation of Defense Transuranic Waste at INEL";

[25] Kohout, Radovan, " Incineration"; Chapter 7 0f Ra-same conference as [4l, dioactive IVaste Technology, edited by A.A.

53 NUREG-1393.

l

7 References Moghissi, i1. W, Godbee, & S.A.1lobart, ASME Proceedings of IVaste Atanagement '86 Symposium, publication,1986.

Vol. 3.

[26] "New Plant Improves Radwaste Processing at the

[39] Telephone conversation: S. long with R. Garcia, Tokai 2 IlWR"; Nuclear Engineering International former Project Manager for LLW Incinerator Sys-journal. August 1987, tems, Aerojet Co., Rancho Cordova, Ca, Septem-ber 1988.

. [27) " Waste Management-Japan Still Keen on Sea Dis-posal"; Nuclear Engineering International journal,

[40] Telephone conversation: S. Long with L Oyen, December 1987.

Manager for Ilyron & Braidwood incinerator design

& construction, Sargeant & Lundy, Chicago,11.,

[28] "Radwaste Management in the U.K."; Nuclear En-September 1988.

gineer journal, March / April 1988.

[41] Tc!cphone conversation: S. long with J. Ilopkins,

' [29] " Radioisotopes in the Servicc of Mankind"; Nuclear NRC NRR Project Manager for Vogtle, Septem.

Engineer journal, September / October 1987.

ber 1988.

[30] " Duke lluilds a State of the Art Radwaste Facility

[42]' Telephone conversation: S. teng with J P.ogge &

at Oconce"; Nuclear Engirrecting International jour.

C. Burger, NRC Resident inspectors at Vogtle, nal, October 1987.

September 1988.

[31] " Waste Management"; Nuclear EngineeringInterna-

[43] Telephone conversation: S. Long with R. Iliggins &

tionaljournal, December 1987.

A. Morrongiello, NRC Resident inspectors at Quad Citics, October 1988.

[32] Ilord, R., Ponzurick, P., & Witzig, W.," Community

' Response toImw levelRadioactiveWaste: ACase

[44] Telephone conversations: S. Long with O. Morris Study of a Attempt to Establish a Waste Reduction

& J. Hucci, Radwaste Facility managers, Savannah and incineration Facility (in Apollo, Pa.)"; NucIcar River Plant, October 1988.

Afatcrials Afanagement, Vol. XIV, No. 2.

4

[45] Telephone conversation: S. leng with P. Skinner &

[33] Choi, E., Drolet, T., Stewart, W., & Campbell, L Wert, NRC Resident inspectors at Oconce,

" Operation of Low-Level Radioactive Waste incin-

. January 1989.

crator (by Ontario Hydro)"; Proceedings of the 15th DOENuclearAirCleaning Con /crcnce, August 1978.

[46] Telephone conversation: S. Long with R. Ajemian,

'1 Manager of Incinerator Facility, University of Maryland-Baltimore City, January 1989.

[34] Alexander, ILM., Grimm, R.S., & Doty, J.W. Jr.

" Incineration of LWR Type Waste at the Mound

[47) " Waste Management at Maxey Flats"; same confer.

Facility"; same confgrence as (24], October 1980, ence as [1].

[35) Thompson, J.D., low Level IVaste Institutional

[48] Waters, R.M. & Moscardini, R.L,* Design of Com-IVastelncineratorProgram; U.S. Department of En.

bustor for C E/WIS: Combustion Engineering's ergy Report # EGG WM-5116, prepared by INEL, LLRW Incineration System", Proceedings ofIVaste l

April 1980.

Afanagement '82 Con /crcnce, Tucson, Az., March 1982.

[36] U.S. Department of Energy, Radioactive IVaste In-cineration at Purdue Uniwrsity (School of Ilealth

[49] _ Schindler, R.E., " Incineration of Contaminated Services, Purdue University); Report No. DOE /

Organic Solvents in a Fluidized Bed Calciner (at L13V-12T, November 1982.

Idaho Chemical Processing Plant)"; same confer-ence as [24].

[37) -Cooley, LR., McCampbell, M.R., & Thompson, J.D., Current Practice ofIncineration of Low Lcrel

[50] Stretz, LA. & Koenig, R.A., "Off gas Treatment Institutional Radioactive IVaste; r:. a Report for Radioactive Waste incineration (at Ims

1. EGG-2076, prepared by INEL, Fen.uary 1981.

Alamos)"; same conference as [24].

[38] Ilowles, C.R., et. al., "Stadup Experience and Op-

[51] Klingler, LM. & Armstrong, K.M., " Wet Off gas erations of a Central Facility (ll&W Parks Town-Scrubbing for Radwaste Thermal Processing (at j

l ship) with an Incinerator and Super-Compactor";

DOE Mound Facility)"; same conference as [4].

NUREG-1393 54

-, - - -.. ~....

s.-

- ~. -. _ _ __

i 7 References

[52] Peteaon,lI.T.Jr.& Johnson,T.C. "FederalRegu.

Wilmington Fuel Management Facility (North lation of Radioactive Waste and Radiation Protec-Carolina), August 1989.

tion"; Chapter 2 of Radioactive IVaste Technolog, same publication as [25].

[66.] Telephone conversation: A. Bieniawski, NRC, with T. Aud, Safety & Safeguards Manager, Naval Nu-

[53] U.S. Nuclcar Regulatory Commission, Technolog, clear Fuci Division, Babcock & Wilcox (Lynchburg, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning Reference Non.

Va.), August 1989.

Fuel Cycle Nuclear Facilities (NUREGICR-1754, Murphy, U.S.), February 1981.

[67] Oyen, LC, & Tucker, R.F. Jr., Advanced Low-Lcrel Radwaste Treatment Systems, EPRI Re-

[$4] _ C-E Fuel Burning and Steam Generating Handbook-port KNP-1600, October 1980.

Combustion langmeermg,Inc.,1973.

[68] U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Proposed

[55] Chart ofthe Nuclides, Knolls Atomic Power Labora*

Rule on Disposal of Waste Oil by incineration",

tory,1984, 10 CRF Part 20; Federal Register No. 53 FR 32911-167,29 August 1988.

[56] Mani, R.S.,"Research Reactor Production of Ra.

dioisotopes for Mcdical Use",IAEA Cortference un

[69] "NuclearWaste toilurn",EngineeringNews Record Radiopharmaceuticals and Labelled Compounds, journal,29 June 1989.

Toyko, Japan,1984.

[70] 13rown,11.,7heLow-LewsIVasteHandbook:A User's

[57] Telephoneconversation: A.B.icmawski, NRC, with Guide to the Low-level Radioactive IVaste Policy P. Aguilar & D. l.iegler, Waste Management Of-Amendments Act of 1985, The National Governors' fice, DOE Rocky Flats Plant, July 1989.

Association Center for Policy Research, November

[58] Telephoneconversation: A.Bieniawski, NRC,with

1. Skinner Waste Management Office, INEL,

[71] AnnualSurveyReportonLLIV-1986,StateofIllinois 8

Department of Nuclear Safety, November 1988.

[59] Telephoneconversation: A.Bieniawski,NRC,with

[72] ' Koerner, E.," Incinerator Ash Quandary Hinges on R.Blauvelt,EG&G Mound AppliedTechnologies, Toxicity Question,,, - Resources journal, No. 95.

DOE Mound Facility, August 1989.

Spring 1989.

r l

[60] Telephone conversation: A. Bieniawski, NRC, with l

T. Gunderson, Waste Management Office, les (73] llolusha,J.,"PuttingaTorch toToxic Wastes", The New York 77mes,21 June 1989.

l Alamos National laboratory, August 1989.

[61] Telephone conversation: A.Bieniawski, NRC,with

[74] Stevens, W.K.," Medical Waste Is Piling Up, Gen-M. Dmby, Media R01ations Office, Hanford Engi.

crating New Concerns: Some Experts Say Aging Incinerators Pose a Serious Health llazard", The neering Development laboratory, August 1989.

New York Times,27 June 1989.

i'

[62] Telephoneconversation: A.Bieniawski,NRC,with W. Goodwin, Waste Management Office, Westing.

[75] U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Incineration of -

house Columbia Plant (South Carolina), August Radioactive Solid IVastes: A Report to the General I

1989.

Afanagers' Task Force on AEC OperationalRadioac-tive IVaste Afanagement, WASII-1168, April 1970.

[63) Telephone conversation: A. Bieniawski, NRC, with W, Chard, Waste Management Office, Battelle -

[76] Saha, O.B., Fundamentals of Nuclear Pharmacy,2nd MemorialInstitute, August 1989.

edition, Springer Verlag, New York,1984.

l-

[64]- Telephone conversation: A. Bieniawski, NRC, with -

[77] Wolf, A.P.,and Fowler,J.S.,"SmallCyclotronsand l-D. Scarlata, Manager of Parks Township Waste the Production of Positron Emitters"; same confer-Reduction Center, Babcock & Wilcox (Pa.), August ence as (56j.

1989.

l

[78] lloyd, A.P., et al, "Radionuclide Generator Tech-i'

- [65] Telephoneconversation: A.Bieniawski,NRC,with nology-Status and Prospects"; same conference as S. Murray, Senior Nuclear Safety Engineer, G.E.

[56].

55 NUREG-1393

- - ~ _. ~.... _.. _.

-l v

7 References.

+

[79] Silvester, DJ., _" Accelerator Production of Medi.

[82]' GNP Deflator values for 1975-1988 from Suriey of -

cally Useful Radionuclides", IAEA Con /crcnce on

- Current Business, Vol. 68, No. 9, September 1989;

- Radiopharmaceuticals and - Labelled Compounds, for 1989-90 irom OMll Economic Indicators, Junc

. Copenhagen, Denmark,1973.

1989.

[80] Taylor, G.M., "LLW Management Trends at U.S.

'[83] Congress of the United States, Partnerships Under l

' ' Nuclcar Power Plants",' Nuclear News journal,'.

Pressure: Managing Commercial Low-Leirl Radioac.

February 1990.

rise. Wastc, Office of Technology Assessment

- [81] ; U.S. - Nuclear Regulatory Commission, '" Policy Statement on low Level Waste Volume Reduc-

[84] International Atomic 13nergy Agency, Treatment of tion", Federal Register,46 FR 51100,16 October Off gasfrom Radioactis e Waste Incinerators, Techni-1981.

cal Reports Series No. 302,1989.

e I

.i a

4 l

'NORiiG-1393 56

t l

f f

APPENDIX A CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR TYPICAL LLW INCINERATORS I

m

+,

. -.,,. - - +, -,

-e--

,e..

,v,,e

--.,w.-

,m

r

' Appendix A 2

Conceptual Designs for Typical. LIAV Incinerators This appendix contains flow chart style diagrams of six of the major types of LLW incinerators.The diagrams are only i

i intended to be examples of conceptual designs showing how these major incincrator types would be configure 6 in terms of the LLW input and output streams, and how the waste is handled during the incineration process. Site specific applications would, of course, need to be defined in conalderably more detail.

'the following conceptual designs are presented:

Controlled air incinerator (agitated hearth, dual 11xcess air incinerator (horizontal furnace, dual e

e stage) stage)

IIigh temperature slagging incinerator 11xcess air incinerator (vertical furnace, single stage e

cyclone) e.

Molten salt incinerator e

Fluidized bed incinerator 5

i l

i l-l l

l l

1 Null 110-1393

t

=1

-2 I

~2

-C 3

y o..

s

. c.

W W

E M

t.s s

I 1

EXCESS AIR INCINERATOR:

EXCESS AIR INCINERATOR:

]

HOF!IZONTAL FURNACE (DUAL STAGE) '

VERTICAL FURNACE (SINGLE STAGE CYCLONE)

.OFF-GAS l

'> TREATMENT

& RELEASE y

FEED EXCESS AIR '

-2 WRONR 1000-1500'C AUXIUARY f

g BURNER FUEL COhlBUSTION OFF-GAS CHAhl8ER 2NMN

& REMASE

}

1100*C I

w EXCESS-PRIMARYCOMBUSTION -

BURNER AIR gy CHAMBER FUEL 9-800-1100*C

[fg ^-

WASTE

-2 BURMER

^

FEED '

,g%

r t XCESS A,R

?

.g.ay

,p i

- TURBULENT AIR FLOW v

ASH i

a k

7

' ^

g r

~

4 5

t --

I i

.J.

i

=1 FLUIDf2ED BED INCINERATOR CONTROLLED AbRINCINERATOR:

i AGITATED HEARTH (DUAL STAGE)

'j 4

OFF-GAS -

g o

.J1REATMENT

.I a RnEAsE l

orr-oas AFTERBURNER g EXCESS r

]

. JTREATMENT 1000-1500*C

& RELEASE r

1 F

Oghe

[

AUXR.1ARY

\\"

BURNER AUXIUARY Alb>G %

RFUEL

-WASTE FEED

^

700-900*C]-

MitMARY.

j-COMBUSTION SED MATERfAL

'e

_ __ _ _ _ _ _~

^ [7 i(SALT OR SAND)

CHAMBER

{

('

COh N O 800-800*C f

MAKE-UP -

BURNER PREPARED

^>

wG

[

GRANUf.AR WASTE. #

FUEL j

INJECTION

.g i.....<,.i N

AIR 9,

9

rwiDeno, 0

h motor-oRivEN

' ASH MECHANICAL l

Ao TATOR i

ASH t

--h

'5 m

a a

c.

. sr>

.: s.

a i..w_.a.. 2-._

Appendix A i

l

+

HIGH TEMPERATURE SLAGGING INCINERATOR

-j AlR FUEL

.j g

r s

r g

u MAIN BURNER-O f

3.3.33335 PRIMARY

}

WASTE, fg'ff,'e

__ COMBUSTION-

)

FEED -

CHAMBER

f.,.de e'.$'%p e-3.$ e 1500-1600*C' l

WASTES

'WASTEi f

- OFF-GAS -

p if

> TREATMENT I~

& RELEASE AUXILIARY SECONDARY BURNER--* Gw COMBUSTION FUEL CHAMBER 1100-1200*C :

EXCESSi ->

AIR 1f 1f-bhENCHThkK dg$16 fi-, -

f LGRANULAR SLAG WASTE I

. NURI!G-1393 -

4

~.

Appendix A' MOLTEN SALT INCINERATOR FUEL ll V

STARTUP I AIRQ OFF-GAS -.

HEATER l

> TREATMENT

& RELEASE ~

WASTE-FEED MOLTEN SALT SALT 0

• C MAKE-UP

,v,:

SHREDDER

'v"-

AIR 1

P ASH & MOLTEN SALT -

WASTE 1

5 NURI!G-1393 l

t..,,

l i

APPENDIX B 4

4 INCINERATOR MANUFACTURERS, DESIGNERS,'& CONTRACTORS 4

c 4

l -

r I -

f I

i i

l l-

~

i i

1 l

l l:

l i

p.

T l

,, -, +.....

.,_._.4 m

Y Appendix 11 U.S. Incinerator Manufacturers, Designers, & Contractors

• 1.

Aerojet Energy Conversion Company Co. (Sacramento, Ca.)

2.

Atomics International Division-Rockwell International (Golden, Co. & Canoga Park, Ca.)

' 3.

Combustion Engineering, Inc. (Windsor, Ct.)

1 4.

Mound lab-Monsanto Research Corp. (Miamisburg, Oh.)

5.

Savannah River lab-E.1. du Pont de Nemours (Aiken, S.C.)

6.

Pacific Northwest 12b (Richland, Wa.)

7.

Gilbert Associates (Chicago,11.) _

8.

Energy Incorporated (Idaho Falls, Id.)

9.

IIelix, Inc.

10. Environmental Control Prodticts (Charlotte, N.C.) -

11. - Vulcan (Wilkes Barre, Pa.)

12.- Morse lloulger, Inc. (Corona, N.Y.)

13. Kelly Co., Inc. (Milwaukee, Wi.) -

j

14. Air Pollution Control Systems-CONSUM AT (Mechanicsville, Va.)

l

15. New Way Industries, Inc. (Dover, NJ.)

16. Sunbeam Equipment Corp-Sunbeam COM'lllO (Meadville, Pa.)

17. Wasteco (rualatin, Or.)

18. Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology (Research Triangle Park, N.C.)

- 19. U.S. Ecology, Inc (Louisville, Ky.)

20. Sargeant & Lundy(Chicago,11.)

21. 12s Alamos National lab (las Alamos, N.M.).

22. Battelle Memorial lab (Columbus, Oh.)

i

23. Newport News Industrial Corp. (Newport News, Va.) ?

24. Andco, Inc. (Buffalo, N.Y.)

25. - llanford Engineering Development Imb (Hanford, Wa.)

26. Idaho Nat'l Engineering 12b, EG&G, Inc. (Idaho Falls, Id.)

27. Bethlehem Corp. (Easton, Pa.)

j.

28. EIMCO BSP Div.-Envirotech Corp. (Ucimont, Ca.) '

. 29. Digelow-Leptak Corp. (Southfield, Mi.)

l

30. Ilrule CE&E,Inc. (Blue Island,11)

31. Trane Co. (12 Crosse, Wi.)

32. Combustio'il Power Co. (Menlo Park, Ca.)

. 33. Copeland Systems, Inc. (Oakbrook,11.) -

34. Dorr-Oliver, Inc. (Stamford, Ct.)

t l

35. Schmidt Environmental Products, Inc. (Commerce City, Ca.)

L

36. : Monsanto Enviro-Chem (St. l.ouis, Mo.)

l

37. Kennedy Van Saun (Danville, Pa.)

38. International incineration, Inc. (Atlanta, Ga.).

39. Union Carbide, Inc. (N.Y., N.Y.)

L

40. Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Pittsburgh, Pa.)

l 141. Associated Technologies, Inc. (Charlotte, N.C.)

42. A.D. Little Co.

43. ' Simmons Co. (Winter llaven, F1)

44. llenrickson (13erkley,11)

45. Qualtech Systems (Maryland Ilcights, Mo)

Note: Some of these companics are no longer in the incinerator business.

1

.NUREG-1393

_.s Appendix 11 Examples of Major Foreign Incinerator Manufacturers, Designers, & Contractors 1.

I ncoray, S.A. (Geneva, Switzerland) 9 Belgonucleaire, S. A., CEN-SCK (Mol. Belgium) 3.

Krauss-Moffel Kilns (FRG) 4.

Sautholdt Engineering (Copenhagen, Denmark) 5.

Trecan Ltd. (Canada) 6.

Mitsui Engineering & Shipbuilding Co. (Japan) 7.

Juelich/Kraftenlagen AG (FRG) 8.

Wellman incandescent Ltd. (UK) 9.

CEA/ SON (France)

10. A-S Curanum Engineering Co./Studsvik Energiteknik AB (Denmark / Sweden)

.l

11. KfK Karlsruhe/NUKEM (FRG) i NUltEG-1393 2

U.S. NUCLE A:1 tsEGULA10RY COMM(S$10N

1. REPORT NUMBER Nec tonM 336 S*c*ln ua2, YA** C A L % W *"~

• .8m BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

<s** tarovctkas on er.* re.wul NUREG-1393

2. TIT LE AND SU6 TIT t t ThesIncineration of Low-Level Radioactive Waste 3.

DATE RtPORT eUstiSnEo l

== m uAn A Report for the Advisory Committee on June 1990 Nuclear Waste UtN OR GRANT NUMBER f

6. TYPE OF REPORT

6. AUTHOR (S)

7. PE RIOD COV E R ED (inca,en, oem)

. east sessang asisweercseenerseew. p whar gryg g,NIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (if WAc.pasrWe OMussa, ofwer er nossoa u.1 sweesser Assutevery c

s. e

' Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

. Washington D.C.-

20555 0.5PO ORGANtZATION NAME AND ADORESS (tf erne. erpe

• sense ss eesse ;#eeneverser.pve use wac onwea. offav e< Amedea. u.t asusener neyvesesty r_-

.Same as above

10. $UPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (Joo serie er arest.

This report.is a summary of the. contemporary use'of incineration technology as a method for volume reduction of LLW.

It is intended primarily to. serve as an overview of the technology for waste management ~ professionals involved in the.use or regulation of LLW incineration.

It; is also expected that ~ orga'nizations l presently considering the use of incineration'as part of their radioactive waste management programs will benefit by gaining a general knowledge of incinerator operating experience.

Specific types of incineration ~ technologies are addressed in this report, inclmding designation of the~ kinds of. wastes that can be processed, the magnitudes of volume reduction that are achievable in typical operation,.and requirements for ash handling and off-gas' filtering.and scrubbing.. A status 21 sting of both U.S. and foreign incinerators provides highlights of:

activities at government, industry,-institutional, and commer-cial nuclear power plant sites.

l'-

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (the worus erparem anet waressee ssesereners ee sseessnt ehe rsport.#

13. AVAILAetLIT Y $1 ATEMENT l

unlimited

- i Low Level Radioactive Waste i4.secomiv cLAssi+iutim Incineration t ru,,.,,,

unclassified (Thn Repore) unclassified Ib. NUMBER Of PAGES

16. PRICE hRC f OHM 3M U 89)

.. 'a