ML20126B232
| ML20126B232 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/17/1979 |
| From: | Gary Young Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| To: | Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20126B231 | List: |
| References | |
| ACRS-SM-0167, ACRS-SM-167, NUDOCS 8003100103 | |
| Download: ML20126B232 (4) | |
Text
y.
UgitVd5Lruuuu;
~
~C
~ ~ - -
C'UCLEAR REC 1ATORY COMMISSION M I- } 4 ) U N ~-
l' I'
ADVISORY C00mMTTEE ON REACTOR SAFECUARDS l
masMootow,p.c. asses
- oooe*
October 17, 1979 1
ACRS Mes6ers
-g RADWASTE SYSTEMS, PROBLEMS / SOLUTIONS, PANEL DISCUSSIO 8-11, 1979 1
1979 JOINT POWER CONFERENCE IN CHARLOTTE, N.C., OCTOBER I ncently attended the 1979 Joint Poker Conference in Charlotte, Also attending part of the conference was Mr. Myer Bender.
At the request of Mr. Bender I would like to report some informa-N.C.
tion presented at the panel discussion on rakaste systems which may be of interest to the ACRS Menters.
The panel was staffed as follows:
M. Birch Duke Power Company Chainnan R. Schmidt, Consumers Power Company Vice Chairman R. Burns Fitzpatrick Nuclear Station Panelists J. Pleva, TVA V. Stagliola, pilgrim Nuclear Power Station The discussion involved operating experience and future direction of The rakaste the rakaste systems at operating nuclear power plants waste generated during plant operation.
during the session are summarized below.
At many nuclear power plants Rakaste System Operating Personnel.
~ he most inexperienced operating personnel operal l
1.
t Once he starts out by learning to operate the rakaste sys systems.
longer has much to do with the rakaste system.
This staff organization philosophy seems prevalent in mos j
waste systems since primarily inexperienced personnel operate nuclear power plants.
Mistakes are conmon and the results are equipment damage, unnecessary personnel exposure to radiation, and systems.
uncontrolled radioactive releases to the envirohment.
Some utilities have recognized this problem and are developing l organizational structure for a separate rakaste operations department rather than having radwaste the lowest rung l
plant operations ladder.the Joint Power Conference, only a ve; to correct this organizational problem.
l 80031.00) 6 f
r l
2-The current process of waste Waste Solidification Systems __.
Some solidification is in an unstable and' unclear condition.
2.
specific problempas are:
w Elimination iff fme-standing water in solidified i
a.
waste contakers, i
/
Spent resin handling for off-tite shipment, b.
Burial site availability and on-site storage needs, and c.
Licensability of volume reduction solid waste handling d.
systems.
1he elimination of free-standing water in solidified waste con-The common use of urea tainers has been a recurring problem.
formaldehyde (UF) as a solidification agent has resulted in
)
relatively frequent incidents of free-standing water in waste This situation has containers as received at the burial sites.
prompted the Beatty, Nevada burial site to ban the use of UF.
The other two burial sites are expected to follow suit and ban The regulations requiring that no waste containers UF shortly.
be shipped with free-standing water is quite clear; however, s
the method for achieving this goal is not nearly so clear according to the utilities.
The spent msin currently being shipped is usually dew However, this method has been frowned upon by the NRC and other regulators such that the shipment of spent resin is in question.
A rule being considered will require solidification or encapsula-However, this rule tion of the spent resin prior to shipment.
has been discussed for a couple of years with no final decision.
The utilities want to have some guidance so they can proceed with back-fit equipment to assure continued shipment of spent resin to burial sites.
The question of burial site availability is becoming more a Barnwell in
!j more uncertain.
indefinitely to review its continued operation.
South Carolina has restricted the quantity of waste it will receive and Beatty has placed new state restrictions on what shipments are The three burial sites cur-acceptable (i.e., no UF shipments).rently available are capa pvernment where the site is located, and the Department ofT l
'ransportation (DOT).
1 i
i;-.
^
.l.' ' < l. "
i 3
availability of $ burial sites is constantly in question an
'I on the premise Dat a burial site would always be available, the doubt.
uncertainty of burial site availability is unnerving to theMos less until an off-site shipment of low-level waste would be utilities.
necessary; therefore, if all burial sites closed for an extended period of time, the reactor sites would become constipate low-level waste.
may not be allowed by state governments such that th indefinitely.
The idea of a volume reduction system (incinerator) has become popular at multi-unit reactor sites because of the savings inTh off-site burial costs.of solid rastaste by buming it on-site and then process The system has been purchased by a ash for off-site. burial.
The concern is few utilities and construction should begin soon.that the NR and the possible ree '. cions to be placed on such a s utilities are concemed that NRC rules in the future could pre-vent its use creating an enormous economic burden on the utilities.
The general feeling expressed at the Joint Power Conference was waste is far behind the expected performance as NRC, the states, and 007.
Only one utility present at the Joint Power Boric Acid Recycle.
Conference had attempted to use a boric acid recycle system.
3.
The attempt failed due to inability to bring halide and silica i
content below the NSSS rt: quired chemistry specifications for use Several other utilities presenc' at the in the primary system. conference were interested since they have bor This appears to be a pro-systems which have not been used yet. cessing problem wh installed equipment.
~
The utilities represented Radwaste Concentration Operating Problems _.
Tat the session expressed concern about the life expectancy for wa 4.
Pilgrim lost its concentrator operating capability after two years of operation; although it had a design life of 40 concentrators.
e Ptigrim attributed the failure to poor operation of the
~
years.
i i
l
.c sd
., a f
unit by the rakaste operators, to the stainless steel material I
used in the concentrator, and to the extremely high dose rates The use of inconel tubes i
which built up isi9the concentrator.
should alleviatafsome of the material problems, but operator l
training and servision on the intended operation of the con-The Pilgrim operators were centrator would help even more.
known to have allowed oil and organics to get into the concen-trator which is incogatible with the concentrator materials.
The high dose rates ( s 100R/hr) around the concentrator was attributed to higher than expected fuel failure due to a fuel The high dose rates prevented maintenance fabrication problem.
on the concentrator necessitated by the material problems.The primarily Therefore the concentrator was no longer usable.
problems with the concentrators seems to be the operating pro-blem caused by inexperienced operators being in charge of the rakaste systems.
The overall conclusion of the session was that the low-level radwas subject is not being given proper attention by any group (i.e., NRC, utilities, suppliers, etc.) and that more attention must be given toThe 1'
ntsolve the problems.
and utilities don't solve the problems with low-level waste, the politicians and courts will.
I l
M Cu/rf Garry h. Young
(
l ACRS Fellow t
i e
i i
~
j
~
i i
t t
a