ML20248H651
| ML20248H651 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/05/1989 |
| From: | Wick E NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | Surmeier J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| References | |
| REF-WM-3 NUDOCS 8910110312 | |
| Download: ML20248H651 (9) | |
Text
_
', ;., g
'4 bf.,
e,j l
,I'
. I. ' f j,J i
3 l
l "EW/SURMIE
-1 l
OCT 0.51939-MEMORANDUM FOR: John J. Surmeier, Chief Technical Branch LDivision of Low-Level Waste Management'
.and. Decommissioning, NMSS 1
THRU:-
Michael Tokar, Section Leader Engineering Section
-Division of Low-Level Waste Management' i
and Decommissioning, NMSS
-FROM:
' Everett Wick, Senior Materials Engineer
- )
Engineer.ing Section.
l Division of Low-Level Waste Management.
and Decommissioning, NMSS i
SUBJECT:
. CEMENT STABILIZATION MEETING
SUMMARY
.I
_j l
The subject meeting sumary is presented as Attachment 1.
The.
l l
meeting was-held in Rockville on September 26, 1989.
j
.s r,
n
~,
Original signed 'by r
I Everett Wick, Senior Materials Engineer-l Technical < Branch 1
l>!
Division of Low-Level Waste. Management 7
7 and Decommissioning, NMSS
,('
q 1
1
Enclosure:
.--As stated i
.s.
..~
Distribution:
CentN1?.
M.nEbi.2 NMSS r/f LLTB r/f EWick File
,7 c.f MTokar MBell JGreeves RBangart PLohaus MBell J
-PDR.
Yes No
/ /
Proprietary or CF Only /
/
g
.c Yes No
/ /
~f ACNW 3
SUBJECT ABSTRACT:
CEMENT STABILIZATION MEETING
SUMMARY
j
..[_
.[d f
$__$I.
..I....................._____
[0/g/89:
.DATE: 10/5/89 :
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY hW 8910110312 891005 f_d 2*
PDR WASTE PDr.
g WM o
a,
.. ?
l ;. ry -
1 MEETING REPORT DATE:
September 26, 1989-PLACE:
TO DISCUSS ISSUES RELATED TO THE USAGE OF CEMENTS TO STABILIZE LOW-LEVEL WASTES CHAIRMAN:-
Mike Tokar ATTENDEES:
'NRC State and Industry
- R. L. Bangart,.NMSS/LLWM B. Farrell, EEI
- J. J. Surmeier, NMSS/LLTB B. Roy, Westinghouse RS M. Tokar, NMSS/LLTB G. Boris, Westinghouse RS R. Architzel, NRR/SPLB W. House, Chem-Nuclear Sys.
.B. Jagannath, NMSS/LLTB L. Mayeaux, Chem-Nuclear.Sys..
J. Kane, NMSS/LLTB F. Killar, Jr., USCEA K. McDaniel, NMSS/LLTB C. Hornibrook, EPRI R. Shewmaker, NMSS/LLTB J. Vance, EPRI Consultant E. Wick, NMSS/LLTB G. Motl, LN Technologies D. Widmayer, HMSS/LLTB J. Jepozal, SC DHEC NRC~ CONSULTANTS J. Clifton, NIST B. Siskind, BNL
- Denotes Part Time
1
(
CEMENT STABILIZATION MEETING
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION A meeting was held on September 26, 1989 by the Engineering Section of the Technical Branch to discuss several issues related to cement stabilization for Low-Level Waste (LLW). Attendees included LLW staff and consultants from NIST and BNL, an NRR representative, a State of South Carolina representative, and nine representatives from industry.
The discussions focused on followup items from the 3-day cement workshop held in early summer. These items included how-to address and what constitutes the " bad actor" chemicals / materials for cement stabilization, the possible use of surveillt.nce and archival specimens and the future Appendix A to the Branch Technical Po:,ition on Waste Form. The exchange of information was well received, with both regulators and industry representatives leaving with a better understanding of the reasons behind the various positions. The exchange will result in assisting the NRC to finalize new guidance in this subject area.
SUMMARY
1.
NRC announced that, resources permitting, it intends to do three things by year-end as an add-on to the Waste Cement-Solidification Workshop.
These are:
a)
Publish a Workshop Summary Status b)
Revise the 1983 Technical Position (TP) on Waste Form c)
Complete review of TR's in parallel with the revision to the Waste Form TP 2.
NRC intends to publish a list of " bad-actor" chemicals in an Information Notice.
3.
NRC announced that it will implement a procedure for an Archival Sample Program as quickly as possible and with provisions that will help to confirm that cement-solidified waste forms remain stable and intact.
4.
It was explained that NRR plans to discontinue review of Process Control Plans (PCPs). NMSS, however, will continue to review the PCPs.
Future TRs that NMSS reviews will address PCPs as well as testing.
y Cement Stabilization Summary 5.
The Draft Appendix to the TP may require data that is not in TRs now under review.
In such cases, NRC may approve the TR on an interim basis.
Final review would be withheld pending review of the additioael data.
6.
Vendors / Licensees should not take action on the Draft Appendix until it
'has been approved by NRC Management.
DISCUSSION NRC stated that as an add-on to the Waste Cement-Solidification Workshop, it intends to do three things by the end of the year:
a)
Publish a Workshop Summary Status, b)
Improve guidance on qualifying cement formulations for stabilization. This will be done by revising the 1983 Technical Position on WF. The revision will be done by adding an appendix.
It is anticipated that a draft revision of the Appendix to the TP will be published for comment by the end of 1989, resources permitting.
c)
Complete review of TRs in parallel with the revision to the Waste Form TP.
I 1.
Waste Characterization / Bad Actor Chemicals A problem that was identified at the Waste Solidification Workshop is that the labs can identify primary constituents but do not test for secondary constituents that could be bad actors. NRC requested that the industry develop a list of " bad actors".
Some of these bad actor constituents will be identified in the Workshop Summary Report.
NRC handed out a list of potential problem constituents which may be part of the waste stream and a list'of potential problem constituents which may be avoided by housekeeping or retreatment.
These lists are presented in Attachment 2.
The background leading to recognition of the role of " bad actors" originates at the West Valley Demonstration Project.
It was found that successful solidification of simulated waste could not be repeated on actual waste.
This was attributed to trace quantities of an organic chemical in the actual waste. Solution of this problem led to successful solidification of samples of LLW.
The purpose of the list of bad actor chemicals is to provide guidance to the utilities on which chemicals to be aware of and take precautions for, including those which may be avoided by housekeeping or pretreatnent.
jt $..
.6 F
Cement Stabilization Summary This is not a list of hazardous or mixed waste.
The list also is not an exclusion list; it is for guidance and therefore, should be for information only. The list will be very helpful if it is handled that way.
NRC inteads to advise licensees of bad actor chemicals by publishing the list in an Information Notice. This method of notifict. tion is preferred because it is faster than issuing a regulatory guide.
The list (of bad actor chemicals) will then be published in the Draft Appendix to the TP, which also can be done faster than publishing a regulatory guide.
It was concluded that this approach is reasonable if the list contains the proper caveats (i.e., for information onl which the waste streams must be analyzed)y, not a list of chemicals for 2.
Archival Specimens The purpose of the archival specimens was discussed..NRC's purpose is not to require exhumation of waste already buried.
Instead, NRC's purpose is to use archival samples to control future actions.
NRC's concern is not whether to implement the procedure for archival samples but how to implement the procedure as quickly as possible and with provisions that will help to confirm that cement-solidified waste forms remain stable and intact. '
NRC then presented for discussion a list of 13 archival specimen issues.
For purposes of discussion, the issues are presented as questions. The questions are listed in chronological order of occurrence and are presented in Attachment 3.
A summary of the discussion is presented aelow. The numbers correspond to question numbers.
1.
The waste generator is responsible for specimens during preparation, storage, testing and reporting.
2.
Archival specimens could be limited to potential problem waste streams but these must be identified.
3.
Archival specimens should be prepared at the beginning for each batch of a problem waste stream. The specimens could be decreased over time as confidence is gained. A " batch" means all material of like composition.
Discipline is required in maintaining batch integrity. For example, no waste streams should be transferred to a vessel that contains a batch of waste that has been characterized.
4.
No agreement was reached on whether the specimens should be taken from the liner or from a hot lab sample.
One vendor has found segregation (compositional differences) between samples taken from different locations within a liner. ALARA exposures to sample-gathering personnel must be considered.
h,;
.j-.
y.
Q.
' Cement Stabilization Summary 5.
All archival specimens must be taken from real waste.
6.
The size and shape'of the specimens will depend on the information to be gained from tests on archival specimens.
7.
The number of specimens to be prepared will depend on the test protocol and the use of the data.
8.
Information to be recorded when the specimen is prepared should include the waste stream,. composition,' mixing conditions, operator, liner number and dimensions, cure time, and cure temperature.
9..
The period of time and conditions under which the specimens should be stored will depend on the tests to be performed and how the test data'will be used.
- 10. The tests to be. performed should show whether the specimen is falling apart. Testing should include immersion and/or compression-testing. A penetrometer test may be substituted for the compression test if a correlation is established between the two. Curing intervals of 6-12 months were mentioned by NRC but no conclusions were reached.
11 and 12 were not discussed.
- 13. Archival' samples should be disposed in a high integrity container or in the top of a solidified liner.
Archival test specimen records should be maintained for a period of five years.
3.
Reporting of. Mishaps Reporting of mishaps was then discussed.
It was suggested (by a vendor representative) that in addition to problem liners, other liners be-sampled periodically and good as well as bad results be reported to NRC.
Thus, there would be a record of successes as well as failures.
4.
Draft Appendix to TP A page-by-page review of the Draft Appendix (Attachment 4) was conducted.
This is summarized below.
Resources permitting, NRC hopes to issue the Draft Appendix (to the TP) for comment by the end of the year. NRC also hopes to implement the Draft Appendix'in reviews of Topical Reports as the Appendix is completed.
i
__r___
'T,
- y ; +
, Cement Stabilization Summary
~ 5.
Waste Form Qualification Testing The criteria for compression strength was discussed. NRC cited the' L
general agreement at the Waste Cement Solidification Workshop that higher l
l:
compressive strengths:are needed and asked for suggestions.
The standard deviation was discussed.
NRC pointed out the need to limit i
the standard deviation. The limitation is necessary to prevent the I
acceptance of waste forms with low compressive strength from a process with acceptable mean compressive strength but with wide variability.
6.
. Thermal Cycling Test 1
i NRC plans to retain the test because it is useful for screening-out waste i
forms that are not structurally stable.
Some loss of compression strength as a result of the test will be permitted, however.
Immersion testing, preparation of PCP specimens and the reporting of mishaps also were discussed.
{
7.
General NRC noted that the Draft Appendix may require data that is not in the TRs under review._ In such cases, NRC would approve the TR on an interim basis.
Final approval would be based on review of the additional data.
Vendors and licensees were advised not to act on the Draft Appendix until it is approved by NRC management.
J i
)
l I
l
E WC L o s W22 - 2 2'
POTERIIAL PROBLIN CONSTITUENTS WHICH MAY RE AN IFfEGRAL FART OF THE WASTE STREAM Inorranic Constituanta Orranic Constituents - acusous solution
' berates organic acids" - e.g., the following:
phosphates formic acid (and formates)
Icad zinc
- cholates"* - e.g., the following:
)
cmmonia and ammonium salts oxalic acid (and oxalates) forric salta-citric acid (and citrates)
"exidizing agents"* [often proprietary) picolinic acid (and picolinates) p rmanganates [which are oxidizing agents)
EDTA (and its salts) chromates [which are oxidizing agents)
NTA (and its salts) nitrates,"
(All of these chelating agents are also sulfates organic acids.]
I Ornante Constituents - oily wastes benzene
- toluene *
, hexane
- miscellaneous hydrocarbons vegetable oil additives i
POTENTIAL PROBLEN CONSTITUENTS UNICE NAY BE AVOIDED BY HOUSEKEEPING OK PRETREATMEtrrl Generie Problem Constituents Snecific Problem Constituents - Organic ci1* and grease,
[ Note that these probably fall into one
- cromatic oils" or more of the
" Generic Problem
" organic solvents **
Constituent" categories, e.g.
dry cleaning solvents
" industrial cleaners"]
aincustrial cleaners",
p: int thinners acetone "decon solutions",
methyl ethyl ketone c2 cps trichloromethane d2tergents trichlorotrifluoroethans dichlorobenzene Snecific Problem Constituents Inarrante xylene scdium hypochlorite
- 1. NOTE - Potential problem constituents which are an integral part of some waste streams may be avoided in certain other waste streams by good housekeeping practices or procreatment. Thus, many of the constituents from the previous list could be repeated here.
- Constituents marked with an asterisk (*) have been identified by vendors of cement solidification processes as having the potential to cause problems with cement solidification of low *-level radioactive waste.
l4; 1 :
ENCZ O SURE 3
~
.S.
AHIVAL/SOWETilMX SPECIMEm ISSUES
- 0) What is the purpose of.the archival / surveillance program?
- 1) Who'should be responsible for specimens during preparation, storage, testing, and reporting?. (generator / licensee, vendor, regulator, independent lab, etc.)
- 2) Should archival specimens be limited to certain specific waste streams rather than all?
- 3) Should archival specimens be prepared for each " batch" of waste?
- 4) How should the specimens be prepared? 1) dipped frun mixed liner? 2) made from waste sample in plant's hot lab? 3) other methods?
- 5) Should simulated waste be allowed when mal waste is extremely " hot"?
- 6) What should the size and shape of specimens be?
?) How many specimens should be prepared?
- 8) What.infomation should be recorded at time of specimen preparation?
- 9) How long and under what conditions should the specimens be stored?
- 10) What tests should be perfomed and at what curing intervals?
- 11) What actions should be taken in the event of a failed sample by 1) utility.
- 2) vendor, 3) disposal operator, 4) state and federal rw ulators?
- 12) Should any specimens be retained for "very" long-tem surveillance (>1 yr. )?
- 13) How should archival saneles be disposed?
G
_