- Author
- Westinghouse Electric Corporation
- Title
- WIPP Fire Hazards and Risk Analysis.
- Coporate
- Westinghouse Electric Corp., Pittsburgh, PA
- Sponsor
- Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, NM
- Report
- DOE/WIPP-91-031, May 1991, 363 p.
- Distribution
- Available from National Technical Information Service
- Keywords
- waste disposal | fire hazards | flammability | tests | visual inspection
- Identifiers
- dry bin scale tests
- Abstract
- The purpose of this analysis was to conduct a fire hazards and risk analysis of the Transuranic (TRU) contact-handled waste receipt, emplacement, and disposal activities at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The technical bases and safety envelope for these operations are defined in the approved WIPP Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR). Although the safety documentation for the initial phase of the Test Program, the dry bin scale tests, has not yet been approved by the Department of Energy (DOE), reviews of the draft to date, including those by the Advisory Committeeon Nuclear Facility Safety (ACNFS), have concluded that the dry bin scale tests present no significant risks in excess of those estimated in the approved WIPP FSAR. It is the opinion of the authors and reviewers of this analysis, based on sound engineering judgement and knowledge of the WIPP operations, that a Fire Hazards and Risk Analysis specific to the dry bin scale test program is not warranted prior to first waste receipt. This conclusion is further supported by the risk analysis presented in this document which demonstrates the level of risk to WIPP operations posed by fire to be extremely low. In addition, the potential for a fire during the dry Test Phase bin scale tests, and fire propagation between bins is further restricted by the following Test Phase conditions: [*] A Limiting Condition of Operation (LCO) has been established which restricts the accumulation of flammable gases in the bins to less than the lower flammability limit (LFL) with an action statement at 50% of the LFL; [*] Full characterization of the test wastes, e.g., head space gas analyses for all layers of containment, real-time radiography, and visual inspection of drum wastes [*] A lower than average radionuclide inventory, per drum equivalent, than assumed in the FSAR; [*] A significantly lower throughput of waste than estimated in the FSAR.