ML20029C861
| ML20029C861 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 04/15/1994 |
| From: | Thoma J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | House W CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC. |
| References | |
| REF-WM-107 NUDOCS 9405020154 | |
| Download: ML20029C861 (3) | |
Text
.
/
Docket No. WM-107 Mr. William B. House Corporate Director of Licensing Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
140 Stoneridg7 Drive Columbia, SC 29210
Dear Mr. House:
SUBJECT:
RESULTS OF EVALUATION OF CHEM-NUCLEAR RESPONSES DATED NOVEMBER 30, 1993, TO NRC'S JULY 27, 1993, REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (DOCKET NO. WM-107)
We have completed the review and evaluation of the responses provided by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc., dated November 30, 1993.
These were responses to the U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Request for Additional Information No.1(RAI-1), dated July 27, 1993.
The questions that remain open are listed by number in the enclosure and a brief summary of the reason for the issue remaining open is also provided.
Those numbered questions not identified in the enclosure are considered at this time to be acceptable responses.
If there are any questions, please contact me on (301) 504-3450 or Robert Shewmaker on (301) 504-2596.
Sincerely, OEL9Pi CEO 5 John 0. Thoma, Section Leader Engineering and Material Section Division of Waste Management Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards
Enclosure:
As stated DISTRIBUTION: CContral File DWM r/f MBell,ENGB JAustin,ENGB JSurmeier,DWM JHolonich,HLUR MFederline,PAHB NMSS r/f Mark Smhll Boxes'=in Concurrence l Block to' Define 501st'ribution CopyLPFefersnce?
In small Box 'on~"0FCi"'line ~enteri' C = Cover E = Co'ver &~Enclo' ure~ N' =' No~ Copy s
0FC ENGB _; 8 ENGB 6
ENGB RShewmak[ k' bTh$a bbl
^
NAME DATE 04//f/94 k 04// y/94 04/J /94
/ /94 I
S:\\LLWMTYPE\\SHEWMAKE\\ HOUSE.RES OFFICIAL RECORD COPY In small Box on "DATE:" line enter: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy H = Hard Copy PDR : YES Y
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only
'g' jggg)[
ACNW: YES NO Y
M IG : YES N0 Y
Delete file after distribution:
Yes o /
9405020154 940415 i l PDR WASTE
' Agy '
T y
OPEN ITEMS FROM RESPONSES TO RAI-1 0F JULY 27. 1993 Note:
The item numbers correspond to the original question number in the Request for Additional Information No.1 (RAI-1), dated July 27, 1993.
If an item is not listed, it is considered closed.
1.
The revised text of the Abstract is acceptable with the addition of a sentence at the end of the first paragraph that presents the thought that all disposal units, when placed in the disposal cell, will have the space between the outer fiber-reinforced concrete shell and the inner polyethylene container filled with cementitious material.
2.
ANDRA Specification STE 119.581.S is to be translated to English from French and submitted to NRC.
It is acceptable that the relevant provisions of ANDRA Test Specification 330 ET 09-09 IND A are included in S0GEFIBRE Test Report 1000.RE.0ll, Revision 0 and therefore, an English translation is not necessary.
13a.
The response to the issue of correlation of French standards to U.S.
standards is to be provided in the future.
14a.
The translated standards that were provided in Attachments II-IV contain additional references to French standards that must be addressed for translation and technical content.
Examples from NF P18-405 are as follows:
NF P18-304 NF P18-421 NF P18-422 14.b.
The response to the issue of correlation of French standards to-U.S.
standards is to be provided in the future.
27.
The response indicated that the failure rate of the French " durable overpack" system consisting of cement conditioned waste, a containment layer and a conventionally reinforced concrete shell was approximately 12% at 300 years and 50% at 500 years.
In that assessment, what constituted failure, the passage of water due to increased permeability or the inability to resist imposed loads due to corrosion of carbon steel reinforcing?
The French "high performance overpack" was assessed to have zero 1
failures over 300 years. This system consists of cement conditioned i
waste in a corrosion resistant alloy fibre-steel reinforced concrete shell.
)
i The issue to be addressed with respect to the MUC-HIC is what can be stated with respect to the 10 CFR Part 60 performance requirements at 300 years and 500 years? This should consider that there is i
i
/
2 conventional carbon steel reinforcing in the MUC-HIC units that has the potential for causing disruptive stresses within the alloy-steel fibre-reinforced concrete shell if cracking were to extend to the depth of the carbon steel conventional reinforcing and corrosion occurs. What can be stated with respect to durability, may be different for the MUC-HIC and the French fibre-reinforced durable overpack.
29.
The response to the issue of correlation of French standards to U.S.
standards is to be provided in the future.