ML20043E350
| ML20043E350 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/01/1990 |
| From: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| FRN-55FR13797, RULE-PRM-61-1 NUDOCS 9006120338 | |
| Download: ML20043E350 (6) | |
Text
- -
r.& C I
DOCKET "(MOFX
\\%'
PETITION nui.E PRM 4/~ /
(55FL 3W1)
/
~
.DOLMETED USNRC
'90 #1 -4 P4 :30 i
crncE y 3EcaEhv
[7590-01) i.
DocKE!iNG a S!. m L l
hH r.tlCh 3
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR-Part 61 o
[DocketNo..PRM-61-1]
Sierra Club.. North Carolina Chapter; Filing of an Amendment to a Petition for Rulemaking AGENCY:
Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
ACTION:
Petition for Rulemaking; Receipt of Amendment.
i
SUMMARY
The Nuclear. Regulatory Commission is publishing for' comment this notice' of receipt of an amendment to a petition for rulemaking filed with-
[
the Commission on Janu'ary 25,1990 (PRM-61-1).
This amendment-to a petition,
. dated April 17, 1990, was fi. led by the Sierra Club,. North Carolina Chapter, t
-The amendment to the petition.was docketed by the Commission.on April 30,.1990, and assigned to the same' docket as the original petition.
The petitioner, in both the original petition and the: amendment to that per.ition, requests that the Commission amend 10 CFR Part 61 to adopt regulations that,would. perait the: design and construction of a zero-release low-level rauioactive waste-disposal facility in a saturated zone.
The petitioner asserts = that amended regulations are necessary in order for the General Assembly of North 1 Carolina to consider a waiver of a North Carolina statute which requires that the4 0ttom'of_.a. low-level waste, facility be at least seven feet above
~
~
1 the seasonal-high water table?,
900612033e 900601 oDR PRM 61-01 PDRt n
' i,' 3 1
DSLD m
" * ^
g r
i r
DATES:
Submit coments (60 days after publication in the Federal Register).
Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to l
do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to coments l
received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES:
Submit co; aments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear hegulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555.
Attention: Docketing and Service Branch.
For a copy of the petition and the amendment to the petition, write: Rules Review h
Section, Regulatory fw11 cations Branch, Division of Freedom of Informatior and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission, Washington, DC 20555.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules Review Section, Regulatory Publications Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
Comission, Washington, DC 20555, Telephone: 301-492-7753 or Toll Free:
800-368-5642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Nuclear Regulatory Comission has received an amendment to. a. petition l-for rulemaking from the Sierra Club.
This amendment to the petition for l
rulemaking is assigned to the same docket as the original petition for rulemaking (Docket No. PRM-61-1).
PRM-61-1 L
L On April 12,1990 (55 FR 13797)',- the NRC published a notice of receipt of L
a: petition from the Sierra Club. T9 petitioner requested the Comission to l
L
. promulgate regulations that would pemit the construction and design of a zero-release low-level radioactive waste site to be placed entirely below the
~
'100 year seasonal water table.
The petitioner presented an elternative I
2 u
?
~.
. -, ~
c;.
l l
preferred environment for a multilevel containment system for NRC's consideration in promulgating the requested amendments.
The specific proposal is as follows.
The Sierra Club proposes that contained low-level radioactive waste be placed in constructed stagnant saturated zones, at a site meetin
]
other requirements. ~The zones would be within concrete modules,g all preferably. cylindrical, the walls and base of which were made in a single pour so as to avoid cold joints.
The base of the module would rest on a bitumen layer of appropriate thickness. After the wall forms were removed, the module walls would be coated with a similar bitumen layer.
The inside of the module would also be given a water
- impregnable coat of bitumen.
Bitumen-coated and sealed water-impermeable concrete overpacxs would be placed in this water-impermeable vault.
When the vault has been filled with overpacks the void spaces would be filled with sand and fine gravel.
A water solution of calcium hydroxide, a cement preservative, would fill the remaining voids.
(This would extend the life of the concrete if unforseen exposure to water occurred.) An appropriate layer.of
-bitumen would be placed over the vault content.
A cement roof would be poured.
When the cement has cured, a further layer of bitumen, bor.ced into the external bitumen layer, would be placed.
The overpacks would be similarly void filled with sand and calcium hydroxide solution, receive a concrete cover and be bitumen sealed.
"The topping-off of the overpacks and the vaults with a water solution offers the insurance that if a. flaw :n sealing-develops there will be' nil hydrostatic head between the vault content and the surrounding saturated zone.
It also results in containment structures with a high compression modulus which will increase resistance to forces generated by overlay and by seismic events.
'The Amendment On April 25, 1990, the Sierra Club filed an amendment to its earlier petition.
In the amendment to the original petition,'the petitioner states o
, that since filing the original petition, the petitioner has learned of new-
.and relevant information regarding polymer and concrete technology. 'The-petitioner requests that the Consnission consider the new information on polymer concrete technology as an alternative means for realizing the objectiv'e of the original petition. The petitioner states that disposal structures which are essentially water impermeable will satisfy not only North Carolina G.S. 104E-25 (f), out should-qualify for siting below the water table.
l 3
Supporting Statement The petitioner states that there are a variety of products made of polymers and aggregates and believes that polymer impregnated Portland cement concrete is a promising product for use in the concrete structure of low-level radioactive waste disposal units.
The petitioner believes polymer impregnated concrete should be considered because of its water impermeability, durability, and strength.
The petitioner offers that several industries produce a variety of products that include polymer concrete, such as: airplane runways; salt impermeable road surfaces; stills for saline water; stronger, more fatigue resistant beams; and fast acting materials for damaged or failing concrete structures.
The petitioner believes that the combination of polymer impregnet~1 concrete (PIC) or polymer concrete (PC) with fiber reinforcement offers materials of great promise for economically meeting the requirement, at concrete structures for the engineered confinement of -low-level radicartive waste which are both durable and water impermeable. The petitioner states that the durability of the-Portland cement component in PIC will increase because water flux is eliminated. The petitioner further states-that PC will benefit by fiber reinforcement; that the improvement in the physical properties of plastics by glass fiber reinforcement is well established.
The petitioner believes the perneability of appropriately designed PIC's and PC's to dissolved radioactive materials would'be expected to be nil.
Bitumen, the sealant recommended in the original petition, the petitioner states is a polymer and has many of the desirable void-filling, water excluding properties of impregnating or cementing polymers.
The petitioner states that bitumens are formed by natural processes, rather than synthetically, however;'the petitioner does not know whether bitumen impregnation would favorably affect the physical properties of Portland cement concrete. The petitioner recommends that bitumens and polymers be compared from a cost-performance basis.
l l
4
>.: v.
+
? U.'
Given the properties of both FPIC (fiber reinforced polymer impregnated Portland cement concrete) and FPC. (fiber reinforced polymer concrete), the
-petitioner asserts it will be possible to lessen the uncertainties about
=
failure over the long tem by using the two technologies in tandem.
The petitioner states that if one has unanticipated faults, the other may not.
~
Petitioner's Amended Proposal The use of FPIC overpacks seems quita feasible. Overpacks are cast in forms. They are of a size where oven drying, air evacuation, pressure impregnation, and radiation induced polymerization are practicable. A four-fold or greater reduction in mass per overpack-could be obtained without sacrificing strength requirements.
The reduction in overpack external dimensions would result in an increase in the waste capacity of a given size vault.. An FPIC overpack would be to all practical intents w;ter impermeable and waste impermeable.
It would be a first line of defense for
':1ure of the waste container.
A vault would preferably be constructed of FPC.
The FPC technology closely parallels Pertland cement conciete technology. A probable advantage would be the avoidance of joint problems.
FPC materials bond well.to materials already in place.
In all likelihood a single pour
=
would not,be required.- The vault roof would bond to'the walls and not require a-seal.
Because the structure is intrinsically water and waste impermeable, it would not be necessary to treat internal _and external Lvault surfaces.with sealing agents.
The problem of calcium hydroxide leaching by ground water, a major weakness of Portland cement, would not exist. The broad selection of structurally suitable polymers
- makes' libly the utilization of a polymer chemically stable in a groundwater environment.
Conclusion
[
- The-petitioner states that these two technologies make possible as much 3
as a= fourfold reduction in the volume of enclosure materials used to
- contain a-given waste volume. The petitioner further states that these material savings would compensate, or more than compensate, for the
- higher costs of materials and manufacturing process.
se I
l 5
l L.:... -. ;.........
- ' - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - -
.i Errata The petitioner has also taken this opportunity to correct an error in the original petition. The fraction of projected activity provided by longer half-life' radionuclides on closing the Southeast Compact facility after 20 years of operation is-changed from 15.6 percent to 6.4 percent.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this
'i st day of June, 1990.
=
For the Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
(
.3 l
SamuelJ.' Chi $lM Secretary of' the Comission. -
h 9
6
__