ML20056C957
| ML20056C957 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/27/1993 |
| From: | Thoma J NRC OFFICE OF NUCLEAR MATERIAL SAFETY & SAFEGUARDS (NMSS) |
| To: | House W CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC. |
| References | |
| REF-WM-107 NUDOCS 9307300160 | |
| Download: ML20056C957 (43) | |
Text
-
["
.s EI.@
E UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i(ig,f W ASHINGTON, D.C. 205$50001 g g7 g Docket No. WM-107 Mr. William B. House Corporate Director of Licensing Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.
140 Stoneridge Drive Columbia, South Carolina 29210
Dear Mr. House:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION N0 1. (RAI-1) ON THE TOPICAL REPORT ENTITLED, " MULTI-USE CONTAINER HIGH INTEGRITY CONTAINER,"
CHEM-NUCLEAR SYSTEMS, INC., DATED JULY 23, 1992 We have completed the review of your topical report on the " Multi-Use Container High Integrity Container," dated July 23, 1992, that was submitted by a letter dated July 22, 1992.
Based on that review, we have identified j
several questions or areas where additional information or clarification is required. These areas address Sections 1, 2, and a portion of 3 and the references and are set out in the Enclosure.
Each of the numbered questions, inquiries, or needed clarifications identifies the page and section, table, or figure from which the item was generated. As discussed by telephone, we will have additional questions or comments relating to the remaining Sections and references of the report which we will document and transmit in a subsequent letter.
Finally, we have identified three program or policy issues to date relating to the topical report which are highlighted below and addressed further in the Enclosure.
1.
Scope of the Topical Report and NRC's Review The Multiple Use High Integrity Container (HIC), is proposed for a number of uses including use as a storage container at an individual licensee facility; use as a disposal container for use at a LLW disposal facility where the container would be relied upon to provide stability as required by Secti6n-61.56(b) of Part 61; and use as a disposal container for use at a LLW disposal facility where the facility, as opposed to the container, would be relied upon to meet the stability requirements of Part 61.
NRC's review of the HIC will be limited to review of the container for use as a disposal container where the container would be relied upon to meet the stability requirements of Part 61.
The topical report appears to identify three separate types of use for the container:
- 1) disposal in a vault facility; 2) disposal in an earthen covered 25 foot deep trench facility; and 3) disposal in an earthen covered 55 foot deep trench facility.
Each of these separate types of use may involve different engineering and structural analysis considerations, especially for the vault concept which could be interpreted to be intended for all vault types.
These could involve above ground vaults with or without earth covers as well as below ground vaults.
These considerations must be clearly identified in the report for each particular type of use.
Finally, NRC does lN g&
Vi 9307300160 930727 m
William B. House not plan to review the HIC for use as a storage container or container for disposal of waste in a facility where the facility would be relied on to meet the stability requirement of Part 61 and the container is not considered as a HIC.
2.
Consistency Between French Standards Identified in the Reoort and United States Standards The report cites a number of French standards and testing procedures as bases for i
acceptability of the container in meeting the stability requirements of Part 61.
The report is unclear, however, as to whether manufacture of the container in the United States will be carried out in accordance with the French standards or in accordance with U.S. standards. The topical report should identify all standards and tests that have been applied in determining the acceptability of the NRC and whether these same standards and testing procedures will be applied in the manufacture of the HIC; or whether U.S. standards will be used.
In those cases where different standards and testing procedures will be followed, the report should identity the difference, if any, between the standards and test procedures.
The topical report should include copies, in English, of all French standards used in determining the acceptability of the HIC.
3.
Desian Modifications to the French System Chem-Nuclear plans to modify the HIC design, as evaluated and approved by the French, to add, for example, a polyethylene liner and carbon steel reinforcing.
The topical report needs to clearly identify these changes and evaluate their impact relative to the design evaluated and tested as a part of the HIC approval in France.
t If, as you review this request, there are questions, please feel free to contact the Project Manager, Mr. Robert Shewmaker, for assistance.
In addition, it may be advantageous to have a meeting after you have completed your initial review of the request for information. We will be available to meet with you at a mutually agreeable date and time to discuss any questions you might have pertaining to our request.
If there are any questions, please contact me on (301) 504-3450 or Robert Shewmaker on (301) 504-2596.
g g gy/j;;# per t
Sincerely,
'Y, f ohn 0. Thoma, Section Leader
(
J Technical and Special Issues Section Low-Level Waste Management Branch Division of Low-level Waste Management and Decommissioning
////f 4
Office of Nuclear Material Safety sig and Safeguards al n
' T ' ~j u /
e
Enclosures:
As stated DISTRIBUTION: Central File WM107 LLWM r/f RBangart WBrach JAustin JSurmeier NMSS r/f JKennedy Mark Small Boxes' in Concurrence Block to Define'DistributionfCopy Preference.
In small Box on "0FC" line~ enter: C = Cover; E = Cover & Enclosure; N = No Copy LLWBf[b 0FC LLWB LLWB e
m f
JThoma d
PLohdus b NAME hewmake DATE 1/? 7/93 7 /27/93
//b/93
/ /93
/ /93 S:\\LLWMTYPE\\ KAREN \\CHEMNUC.RES OFFICIAL RECORD COPY In small Box on "DATE" line enter: M = E-Mail Distribution Copy; H = Hard Copy l
PDR: YES X
NO Category:
Proprietary or CF Only l
ACNW: YES X
NO IG: YES NO X
Delete file after distribution:
Yes No I j
E90 El6
s REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION JULY 27, 1993 1.
The ABSTRACT calls the high integrity container (HIC) a composite of fiber-reinforced concrete and an inner liner of-polyethylene, but they 5
may not behave as a true composite since the outer shell and the inner liner may or may not be bonded.
The space between the two may or may not be grouted and even if the space is grouted, there may not be sufficient bond between the fiber-reinforced concrete and the r
polyethylene to yield a structural composite. We suggest you consider adding a sentence to the first paragraph such as, "The void space between the outer shell and the inner liner.may or may not be filled" or provide other additional clarification in the ABSTRACT.
2.
On p. 1-1 in Sec 1.1.2 it is stated that the concrete vessel provides radioactive material containment with no qualification or further explanation.
Please identify how and on what basis this statement is made.
3.
On p. 1-2 in Sec 1.1.2 it is noted the intent appears to be that the HIC could be used above ground. Does this mean the HIC would always be inside another structure if above ground or would it be outside? Note also that the HIC is stated as being suitable for long-term storage as a container.
The use of this HIC as a storage container is not being addressed in this review which is being conducted on the HIC for use as a disposal container.
4.
On p. 1-2 in Sec 1.2 reference is made to 10 CFR 61.7 (1).
This appears to be an error.
Isn't the reference that was intended to 10 CFR 61.7(b)(2) ?
5.
On p.1-2 in Sec 1.3 the term ".aste forms" is used in two places.
Generally the term " waste form" is used to generically define the product resulting from processing the material from a waste stream with some solidification technique.
In the context of the text in the section it appears that the term " waste streams" should be used.
Please clarify this section.
6.
On p.1-2 in Sec 1.3 the list of waste streams that are suitable for use in the MUC-HIC is provided. The last one listed is as follows;
" immobilized incineration ash; and....".
It appears that there is text missing from this section. Please clarify.
7.
On p.1-3 in Table 1.4-1 the first entry makes a reference to the' requirements of 10 CFR 61(b)(1). This should probably be 10 CFR 61.56(b)(1). Please clarify.
8.
On p. 1-5 in Table 1.4-1 the Comment entry related to Paragraph 4d of the BTP addresses the capability of the MUC-HIC design to have l
Enclosure i
I l
l
t l
~
sufficient strength for above ground low-level waste disposal facilities.
Some additional discussion or information is required to know the specifics of the parameters and the range of values over which the MUC-HIC will meet the performance criteria.
If the design bases for the MUC-HIC rely solely on the parameters defined for below-grade shallow land burial concept then it should be so stated.
If other design bases are used, they should be clearly identified.
It would then be incumbent on the user of the MUC-HIC to demonstrate that the above ground low-level waste disposal facility and its response to environmental and loading conditions over time, will not impose conditions outside the parameters' bounds. At the current time, NRC has l
not established detailed technical guidance for above-ground disposal facilities.
9.
On p.1-6 in Table 1.4-1 the Report Reference cites Sec. 2.4.3 under Paragraph 4f. This section entitled, Operational Limits, does not l
define the temperature operating limits for the MUC-HIC. This information should be provided and the limits should be established for the MUC-HIC and its components.
10.
On p.1-6 in Table 1.4-1 under Paragraph 4f the Report Reference to Sm 2.4.3 is preceded by a "(1)."
What does this denote or is "(2)"
missing?
11.
On p.1.7 in Table 1.4-1 under Paragraph 4g there is reference to Appendix 4 of the Report.
This refers to the fiber-reinforced concrete (FRC) test data and this reference material contains various test reports in a "1000" numbering system. Are these generic to the Sogefibre units made for use in France or are these unique to the Sogefibre test specimens that were part of the Chem-Nuc qualification program?
12.
In Appendix 4 the test report for the resistance to gamma irradiation on FRC is noted as - 1000 RE 011 Rev 0.
That test report also contains 4
references, some of which are not contained in the document.
For i
example: ANDRA Specification STE 119.581.S, 50GEFIBRE Technical Note 1000.NT.001 and ANDRA Test Specification 330 ET 09-09 IND A are referenced but apparently not included. These tocuments should be made available in English.
i 13.
The following items relate to Test Report 1000 RE 011, " Resistance Tests to Gamma Irradiation on Fibre-Reinforced Concrete."
i a.
French Standards are referenced, some of which are included within the document (See Index to Appendices 3 and 4).
It will be necessary to compare these standards to equivalent U.S. standards, like ASTM, and for the differences to be clearly identified in the topical report.
In considering this issue it must be recognized that some of these U.S. standards will no doubt be utilized when production of the MUC-HICs is undertaken in Enclosure
I i
the U.S. and there will have to be a logical linkage to the prototype tests and lab testing that were performed in France that is reported in the document and those performed under differing standards.
Please provide additional information in this area.
b.
In Section 3.1 of the report it is stated that the test for resistance to gamma irradiation was performed on an FRC formula that was slightly different than the industrial formula. What is the significance of this statement? Please provide a comparison of the materials and their relevant properties.
c.
In Section 3.2 of the report it is stated that the resistance to irradiation is evaluated through the variation in size of the test specimens. What does this mean and what were the results? For example, were physical measurements taken before and after irradiation of the height and diameter of cylindrical test specimens?
d.
In Section 3.3 an editorial correction is apparently needed:
" care" should be " core".
e.
In Section 3.4 of the report it is stated that the irradiation conditions were such that the absorbed dose equivalent was equal to the integrated maximum dose that would result at the end of the first 300 years. At a dose rate of 5x10(-2) Grays /sec ( 5 j
Rads /sec) the 1-1/2 months of irradiation would result in approximately 2x10(7) Rads which is 1/Sth the 10(+8) Rads defined in the NRC BTP.
It was noted that the Topical Report on p.1-7, Table 1.4-1 indicates that the total dose was at least 10(+8) Rads.
Please explain.
f.
In Section 3.4, the test report indicates that there is a one month period of time between the end of the irradiation period and the compression test for mechanical properties. What storage conditions were the irradiated specimens placed in during this one month period? Sogefibre Technical Note 1000NT 001 was referenced but not provided.
g.
The test method described in Section 3.4 indicates that the test includes measurement of condensed liquids volume and analysis of the liquids, if any are present. Section 4, that presents the test results, makes no mention of liquids.
Is it correct to assume that if no mention is made of liquids being present there were, in fact, no liquids observed?
h.
There is no mention in the test report of the number of samples, the source of the samples (cast or cored), and other information relative to the tests such as the numerical results.
This information should be made available to NRC so that the scope of the testing program and the range of the test results for the various measured parameters are identified. I
- i. The results in Section 4 of the report indicate that there were apparently gases produced and these were reported in terms of a "G" value.
Please indicate the units and manner of reporting the test results.
- j. The results in Section 4 of the report indicate changes in two of the mechanical properties. What were the curing conditions of the irradiated and the nonirradiated specimens with respect to time, from the time of casting until the time of compression testing?
14.
French Standard NF P18-406, Concrete Compression Test, is provided in Appendix 4, although it is listed as NFP 18-301 in the index -to Appendix 4.
Please clarify this item.
In addition, several issues relative to this standard, when compared to its probable closest U.S. standard, ASTM C-39, have been identified. These are listed below.
a.
Several other French Standards are referenced within this Standard, however three of them are not available in the topical report. These are as follows:
NF P18-405 NF P18-411 4
NF P18-412 Two of these are known to address the testing machine, its capabilities, configuration, control, calibration and performance.
How these requirements, as defined in the French Standard, compare to those of the most probable equivalent U.S. standard, ASTM C-39, cannot be determined without access to the standard. For example, AS'TM C-39 requires a certain tolerance on the planeness of the loaded bearing surfaces of the machine and recommends a minimum hardness for the platen (bearing plate) material. Various parameters are identified that are used to judge the accuracy of the machine. The referenced French Standards not provided in the topical report should be provided in English so that comparisons can be made i
and an evaluation completed (See RAI 13.a.).
b.
In Section S.2 of the Standard the allowable rate of loading of the compression test specimen is 0.5 MPa/sec + or -0.2 MPa/sec (maximum of 0.7 MPa/sec permitted), whereas ASTM C-39 allows a range from 0.14 to 0.34 MPa/sec. The impact of this could cause difficulty in attempting to correlate French lab and prototype test data with the data derived from U.S. testing. A comparison j
of the appropriate standards must be completed and included in the topical report.
(see RAI 13.a.).
c.
Section 5.2 also defines three types or models of the test specimens such as Cylinder 11 or Cylinder 25.
It is assumed that these refer to some " size standard." Please define how these identifications describe the specific model or specimen type.
. u.
l t
i d.
ASTM C-39 requires that the type of fracture associated with the compression failure be described if the failure is other than a cone type failure.
The French Standard does not require this information.
Please address this item.
15.
On p.1-7 in Table 1.4-1 under Paragraph 4g it is stated that "and the polyethylene material have proven capable of absorbing an accumulated radiation dose up to 10 to the 8 rads without degrading any of the key functional properties." Provide a list of those properties that are considered to be the " key functional properties." Also provide a list of the properties that are impacted by a dose of up to 10 to the 8 rads.
Please provide a list of references that summarize where these facts are substantiated.
16.
On p.1-7 in Table 1.4-1 under Paragraph 4g it is stated that the HIC will be limited to an external exposure period to UV radiation of 1 year.
Is the basis of this limit the interior polyethylene liner or is there another basis? Is this limit for a closed HIC or an open HIC awaiting filling? If only the concrete component of the MUC-HIC is exposed, does the same 1 year limit apply? What is the external storage time limit for the concrete component of the MUC-HIC 7 What is the storage time limit for the MUC-HIC in an interior environment? What are the limitations for storing an unfilled MUC-HIC?
17.
On p.1-8 in Table 1.4-1 under Paragraph 4h in the comment section the statement is made that, " Microorganisms are not associated with failure modes for concrete on [ sic] poly-ethylene." It is assumed that the statement was meant to apply to " concrete or polyethylene."
It is also noted in this comment section that microorganisms can lead to acid production.
It is implied that there would not be sufficient acid to substantially degrade the concrete.
NRC is currently sponsoring research into microbial degradation of portland cement materials.
Currently there are believed to be three groups of organisms that are conducive to destroying concrete integrity under certain conditions.
The organisms have been isolated from concretes.
These are identified as the sulfur-oxidizing bacteria, the nitrifying bacteria and some organic-acid-producing bacteria.
Each of these organisms has also been found in soils and can exist in a variety of environments. At this time, NRC has not obtained sufficient information to define any specific i
guidance on the microbial impacts that may relate to the long-term performance of a concrete HIC. The ASTM G22 test that is designed for determining the resistance of plastics to bacteria would not be relevant for the metallic fiber-reinforced concrete. No substitute test is I
recommended at this time.
No basis is provided for the statement on microorganisms not being associated with the failure modes of polyethylene.
It is not clear from the statement that the ASTM G21 and G22 tests were performed.
Please provide the basis for the statement. )
f l
s 18.
On p.1-10 of Table 1.4-1 under Paragraph 4k the second line in the Comment Column apparently has an error. The word "more" should apparently be " move." Please clarify.
19.
On p.1-11 of Table 1.4-1 under Paragraph 41 the Comment section in the first sentence states the following.
"The HIC is a composite structure and therefore the outer structural shell and the inner polyethylene container are closed in a different manager." The word " manager" should probably be " manner" and the term " composite structure" used in the context of the sentence tends to lead one to believe the outer fiber-reinforced concrete shell and the inner polyethylene container are to function as a composite structure (compatible interface stresses).
It is suggested that the word " system" be used instead of " structure."
Please clarify these items.
20.
On p. 1-11 of Table 1.4-1 under Paragraph 41 it is stated that, "a fiber i
reinforced concrete lid is poured in place to seal the concrete I
container."
It is not clear what is meant by the word " seal," in that normally it is very difficult to achieve a seal with new cement-based l
materials being placed against existing material.
Provide the criteria I
that define the minimum characteristics that must be met by the seal.
For example, the diagonal grooves shown in the cast-in-place HIC lid on Drawing C-110-B-12416-009, Rev. O, which are to allow drainage off the I
cover cross the cold-joint that results from the cast-in-place lid.
Is there a limit placed on the shrinkage of the material that is used to cast the lid?
i 21.
On p.1-11 of Table 1.4-1 under Paragraph 41 it is stated that a filter vent is not necessary in the concrete outer shell because the gases generated will diffuse through the concrete at a rate greater than the rate of gas generation.
Provide information on the rates of expected i
l gas generation and the venting capability based on the physical characteristics of the concrete with respect to gas permeability and i
diffusivity to substantiate this statement.
j 22.
On p. 1-14 of Section 1.5 the section describes the various operational l
configurations and refers to Table 1.5-1.
The table then refers to Figure 1.5-8 which illustrates the disposal configuration but the text of Section 1.5 only discusses storage and shipping.
Please clarify.
23.
It should be noted that this review does not consider the-acceptability of the MUC-HIC for storage or transport that are indicated in Table i
15-1 on page 1-15 to be applications where the MUC-HIC could be used.
24.
On p. 2-1 in the first sentence of Section 2.1, should the word
" disposed" be " enclosed?" Please clarify.
25.
On p. 2-1 it is indicated that the fabrication method, production l
testing and concrete formulation are identical to that being used in France for the ANDRA certified containers.
It was our understanding i
that none are being made in the U.S. at this time so that the statement should be in terms of "will be identical," if that in fact is the case.
Ple_se clarify.
26.
On p. 2-1 in discussing the technical description of the proposed containers, the topical report addresses the origin of the design of the containers. With regard to the French waste containers and their certification provided in Appendix 6, it should be noted that our understanding of the application of these French containers within the French low and medium-level waste disposal program is as follows. The waste container or overpack will apparently be used in the controlled environment of a concrete vault system which includes grouting of all of the void space within the vault between waste containers.
Consequently, it is extremely important that the conditions and limitations encompassed by the certifications be clearly defined so that relevant conclusions can be drawn with respect to the use of the same or similar units within the U.S. low-level waste disposal program and 10 CFR Part 61. As a minimum the following documents that are referenced in the ANDRA certifications (Agreement No. 116.0, 12/20/90 and Agreement No. 124.0, 7/30/91) should be provided in English.
HAG.5.7340.89.00200 12/17/90 Rev 3 HAG.S.7340.89.00208 10/1/89 Rev 1 HAG.5.7340.90.00495 10/1/89 Rev 0 HAG.5.7340.90.00587 10/1/90 Rev 0 301 AQ 13.302 11/27/90 Rev 0 HAG.5.7340.89.00484 11/1/90 Rev 1 HAG.5.7340.90.00304 8/91 Rev 2 HAG.5.7340.89.00714 9/90 Rev 1 HAG.5.7380.91.00388 7/91 Rev 0
^ Note: Is the number 5.7380?
301 AQ 13-303 6/91 Rev 0 HAG.5.7340.91.00138 4/91 Rev 0 HAG.5.7340.91.00159 4/91 Rev 0 27.
On p. 2-1 the discussion contained in the technical description appears to indicate that the French concept of the fiber-reinforced concrete overpacks with the polyethylene liner was the result of modifications made by Chem-Nuclear to improve the internal corrosion resistance of the fiber-reinforced concrete. Additionally, it is indicated that Chem-Nuclear added reinforcing steel mesh to meet the transportation and handling requirements.
Enclosed is a copy of a technical paper by R.
Pech and A. Verdier of Sogefibre on the French fiber reinforced concrete
.i overpacks that indicates an inner liner and conventional steel reinforcement would be used in fiber-reinforced concrete overpacks that contain waste to be immobilized at a disposal site.
In another Sogefibre document, a diagram presenting the concept of the overpacks states that one is a double overpack and includes a containment layer as well as a concrete layer containing conventional carbon steel i
reinforcing. A copy of this second document is also enclosed.
It is j
not clear from the ANDRA certifications provided in Appendix 6 whether a fiber and conventionally reinforced overpack is also encompassed within the French system. Provide clarification on the origin and status of the use of conventional reinforcing in the French system and any limitations imposed on the overpacks with conventional carbon steel reinforcing. i
i 28.
On p. 2-1 it is indicated that the volume between the inner face of the overpack and the polyethylene liner Wil be filled with concrete prior to disposal. On p. 2-5 it is stated that this space will be filled with grout or fiber-reinforced concrete.
Is there a specification on the -
concrete or grout to be used for this purpose and what techniques and controls will be used to fill an enveloping volume as thin as 1/2 inch?
What will be the condition at the interface between the top of the bottom to the fiber-reinforced concrete shell and the bottom surface of the polyethylene inner liner with regard to the space? Will this volume always be grouted?
29.
On p. 2-3 it is stated that the material standards presented in Table 2.2-2 on p. 2-4 are presented only as guidelines and that close parallels will be used in transferring the' manufacturing technology to the U.S.
What evaluations and correlations to U.S. standards such as those promulgated by ASTM and ACI have been carried out on the French and Sogefibre documents? (See RAI 13.a.)
It is also noted that there appears to be a discrepancy in the type of welded-wire fabric that is proposed for use in the MUCs. Table 2.2-2 indicates the material will meet ASTM A-185, yet Drawing C-110-0-12416-001, Rev. O, specifies a deformed welded-wire fabric that would normally meet the requirements of ASTM A-497.
Please clarify.
30.
On p. 2-7 one of the operational limits for the HIC is noted to be 300 freeze-thaw cycles.
In order to avoid confusion, it is necessary for the term to be clearly defined.
The time factor should be reflected in the definition since, for example, a 15 minute excursion of the air temperature to below freezing may not constitute a freezing cycle.
In addition, the manner in which the temperature will be monitored, where the instrument will be mounted etc. would also be items that should be defined.
Please provide this additional information and clarification.
l 31.
On p. 2-8 two of the operational limits for the HIC are listed to control the sulfate and chloride environment into which the HIC is disposed. At what depths are the soil samples to be taken and what test method (s) are to be used to determine the concentrations in the soil? These issues must be addressed if the limits are to be useful. (We are not aware there is agreement in the area of 4
concrete durability as to what constitutes an acceptable test for chlorides in concrete and what threshold limit should be establ ished. )
Please address how these limits are to be utilized.
32.
Within the list of operational limits in Section 2.4.3 that begins on p. 2-7, there are no limits established regarding temperature 1
for the components of the HIC. This applies to the polyethylene liner and the fiber-reinforced concrete outer shell.
It would be expected that thermal limits would be appropriate.
Consider this comment and address the issue of thermal limits.
33.
On p. 3-1 the various uses of the HIC are listed.
It is noted the statement is made that the units "may be stored on-site for an extended period of time." What does this actually mean in terms l
.c of weeks, months or years and what are the conditions under which such a use could occur? Also not that this review is not considering the storage aspects for the container.
34.
On p. 3-1 the subject of loading criteria for high integrity containers (HICs) at engineered sites is noted.
For this particular container it is stated that the topical report reflects f
conservative loading criteria that should be acceptable to any i
engineered site. A list of the relevant loading criteria should be developed that could be easily checked against the requirements for loading of HICs for a particular engineered disposal system that might be utilized.
It will then be the' responsibility of the user of the HIC to verify that the loading requirements for the specific disposal facility are met by the container be. shipped to i
the disposal site. Develop a list of the relevant parameters that i
will be needed for verification of acceptability of a container.
35.
On p. 3-1 the three sizes of HICs to be produced in three. classes are explained. The designation by height as the 68, the 96, or i
the 120 is not sufficient to describe a unique model of a HIC from
)
the nine (9) different HICs.
Please indicate what other j
l designator or identifier will be used so that an individual HIC can be classified by external viewing whether or not it is capable for direct trench burial at 55 feet or 25 feet, or must be in an engineered system.
This could also be the physical marking or l
other designation that will be carried on the outside of the HIC.
36.
On p. 3-5 it is stated that the design of the MUCs is based on the applicable sections of ACI 349-85.
The stated scope of this Code is to provide the minimum requirements for the design and construction of nuclear safety-related concrete structures and structural elements for nuclear power generating stations. The safety-related structures and structural elements subject to the 1
l code are those concrete structures which support, house, or protect nuclear safety class systems or components, or are l
component parts of nuclear safety class systems. The l
reinforcement, except prestressing steel, is to be deformed reinforcement, except that plain reinforcement may be used for spirals or tendons, and reinforcement consisting of structural steel, steel pipe or steel tubing may be used as specified in the
. While the MUCs contain conventional reinforcing steel, they Code.
also contain metallic fibers that are relied on for strength. The design guidance for this reinforcing is indicated to arise from the ACI 544 series of documents. Since the design of the MUCs is considered to be somewhat unique and beyond the original intent of ACI 349, it is requested that the specific sections of the ACI 349 Code that are considered to be applicable be identified.
In 3
addition, provide an explanation to any unique interpretations i
that the section's applicability is based on. Additionally, the specific recommendations by section reference to either ACI 544.1 l
or ACI 544.4 that have been utilized should also be identified.
q 1 l
4 37.
Drawing C-110-D-12416-001, Rev. O, specifies bend radii of 3R as i
the typical bend in the deformed welded-wire fabric at the wall and bottom joint. This is a sharper bend radius than the ASTM A-496 deformed steel wire is tested to since that value for a D6 wire is 4R. Since this material is not extremely ductile, provide a basis for the acceptability of the 3R bends, such as the unique material specification that will be used will require a tighter control on the material and that bend tests will be conducted at 3R.
In addition, if a transverse wire of the mesh will be within the bend, then the samples for the bend test should be taken from specimens that include the welds.
i j
'l l
2 s
r
(
SocJef1 Rare Transportation and Disposal of Low-and Medium Level Waste using Fiber Reinforced Concrete Overpacks R. Pech and A Verdier l
Sogefibre - 1, rue des Hsrons - Montigny Le Bretonneux - 78181 Saint Quentin en Yvelines - France INTRODUCTION i
l Radioactive waste immobiliza'icn is an integral part of operations in nuclear facilities. The goal of immobilization is to contain raJicacuve materials in a waste form which can maintain its integnty over very long penods of time, thus effectively isolating the materials from the environment and hence from the public. This is true regardless of the activity of the waste, including low, and medium-level waste (LLW, MLW).
A multiple-year research effort by Cogema culminated in the development of a new process to immobt!ize nuclear waste in concrete overpacks reinforced with metal fibers. The fiber concrete overpacks satisfy all French safety requirements relating to waste immobilization and disposal, and have been certfied by Andra, the national radioactve waste management agency.
The f!ber concrete overpacks have been fabricated on a production scale since July 1990 by Sogefibre, a jointly-owned subsidiary of SGN and Compagnie Gen 6 tale des Eaux.
This presentation will cover the use of the fiber-reinforced concrete overpack for disposal and transportation, and will discuss their fabrication.
- f. Fue ces Herons tel (1) 30 58 60 00 5 A. ou copatol oo 5 000 03) F uontigny 6e Bre'onneus (1) 30 58 66 58 R C 5. Versomos 8 354543004 78182 Saint Quentin
'6*es 408316 F code APE 5908 en vvennes Ceoen te6ecopieur (1) 30 58 75 75 france
s 6
[g i
FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE CONCEPT FOR DISPOSAL COGEMA REQUIREMENTS i
The insttutional control penod for disposal of LLW and MLW in France is 300 years. Once the waste has been solidified, there are two optons ava!!able to the generator for its immobilizaton :
if a " low performance" overpack is used, the waste form must be improved or the disposal structures themselves must provide adequate immobilization, if a "high performance' overpack is used, the overpack itself provides adequate immobilization, thus lessening the waste form and disposal structure requirements.
Needless to say, Andra's specifications for high-performance overpacks are much more stnngent than i
for low-performance overpacks, requinng certain mechanical, physical and containtnent charactenstics for both the matenals of constructon and the fabncated overpack. In addition to these tests, the performance of the fiber concrete overpack over a penod of 300 years must be assessed 1
before it can be certified as a high performance overpack.
Cogema, world leader in nuclear spent fuel reprocessing in France, made a decision in 1985 to immobilize certain waste types in high performance overpacks. Because no high performance comainer had yet been certfied in France, Cogema undertook research and development on concrete I
formulatons that would offer the following performance benefits :
good mechanical strength.
good resistance to microcracking, good radioactive containment properties, and long life, with 300 years minimum.
R & D ON FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE Researchers in several countries have studied the mechanical charactenstics of fiber reinforced concrete for a number of years. It is not the purpose of this paper to review the large body of research available on the subject, but it shcuid be noted that there is general agreement among researchers that fiber reinforced concrete has certain advantages compared to ordinary concrete or concrete rebar:
the concrete is uniformty reinforced, and there is less micro-cracking in fiber reinforced concrete.
To develop a fiber reinforced concrete that met Cogema's requirements, two activities were conducted in parallel:
Selection of metal fibers to be incorporated into the concrete, and Development of an improved concrete formulation.
VA Selection of metal fibers Cogema enese the Fibraflex* fter (Figure 1) ceveloped and fabricated by Seva, a company of the Sa.nt-Gobain grouo. The non-crystalline state of Fibrafiex gives it flexibility, strong mechanical properties and high resistance to corrosion.
y== e~,.s : 1 e = _ " w-. v3 - -
A.h,
! ~
~
fp$\\
.. 8.fr x
c.R
.f f.g.f.
r en _
1 7,
r
- ky_
\\
j I.'Wm 3 '
6 3
i vo
_+ = E 4 1
'N 3
a Figure 1 : Fbratinx ter:forang Mrs i
Concrete formulation 1
j A modified concrete formulation was developed to allow incorporation of the fiber and to improve the
,l concrete's containment properties.
FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE CHARACTERIZATION PROGRAM AND 1
CERTIFICATION IN FRANCE Charactenzation testing was conducted on the fiber reinforced concrete to demonstrate its conformance to Andra specifications [1]. Test results are shown in Tables I through 111.
Based on the results of the charactenzation program, two types of packages received Andra certification :
a The CBF-C1 cylindrical package (January 1991), and The CBF-K cubical package (September 1991).
I J
4 4
egio Sogef:bre's f,ber reinforced concrete overpacks are prctected by Frenen patents 88.16337 (December 12.1988) and 89.08050 (June 16,1989).
In parallel with the charactenzaton program, the long-term integnty of the Sogefibre fiber reinforced concrete overpacks was assessed, both by testing and by computer modelling of overpack detenoration and subsequent radionuc!!de migration. Althougn not all test results are in, there is sufficient data to affirm that, based on Frenen disposal conditions, a thickness of 10 cm of fiber reinforced concrete entrely surrounding the waste would have a negligible probability of failure and would :
withstand mechanicalloads for 300 years, and provide radioactve containment for 300 years by protecting the waste from infiltraton water and preventing radionuclide migrat;on via water pathways, it is on this basis tnat the Sogefibre overpacks were certfied as high performance overpacks by Andra.
PRODUCTION RESULTS ANDRA (after 1 year of operaDont REQUIREMENTS Specife grovty 2.4 Compressrve strengin 60-70 MPs a 50 MPs i
Shear strength by sonung 4 5 - 5 $ MPs a 4.5 MPs shnnaags
= 290 unvm s 300 prrvm Wenht loss 2%
rawe I: Macnarucal and pt'yscalproperbes of fiber rentorced concrete snaienallatter 28 anys)
TEST TEST ANDRA CONOmONS RESULTS REQUIREMENTS
)
Efectrve cMusen factor 1 year Tr:tiated water 2 cm pew
< 7.1 10-5 cm iday
< 1.S 10-3cm*/dey a
Cessum 1 cm peilet
< 2.410-5 cm*/ cay
< 10-3 crW/ cay
< 1.510-20 ma Water permeatmary Nitrogen perrnenbety 3.10-20 m8 s 510-18 ma TANe II; Can:Amenert proportoes of RDer rectorced concrore rna:enal tatter 28 days) 10 Grey j
6 Integrated dose Dose late 1.2 - 1,410 Gy br-1 3
Sampe weigte S kg TEST RESULTS Volume of H2 generarod 0.220 L Radetytte retum rato G fH2) 0.017 1,14 L Volume of o2 consurned
- 0.00 Radiotyte retum rate G (0 )
2 No cracks TaDie III:BasaDan resus:ance of hter reenforcea snatenal
i l
l l
TRANSPORT OF FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE OVERPACKS The waste generator's plant and the d:sposal facility are generally located.st different srtes, and waste must therefore be snipped by road or rail between them. The waste may be conditioned either at the generators site or at the disposal facility. When the waste is conditioned at the generator's site, such as at a reprocessing plant, Sogef:bre's fiber reinicxad concrete overpack meets IP2 and Type A transportation overpack requirements [2]
Drop and compression tests were performed on every model in Table IV.
CONTAINER OVERALL USEFUL MINIMUM c:MENslONS VOLUME THICKNESS I
SHAPE MODEL (mm)
(utet)
(mm)
LD' CBF-C1 1200 H 330 74 CYUNORICAL 840 D CBF C2 t500 H 700 74 7 "S 1000 D 6
CUBICAL CDF-K 1.700 as sides 3000 100 Tabu IV:Sogenbre t\\ber retnicrced concrete overpacts Test conditions and results are given in Table V.
OVERALL DROP TEST COMPRESSION C'dRPACK WEIGHT (CORNER)
TEST FOR O!SPOSAL HEIGHT RESULTS COMPRESSIVE RESULTS reg)
(m)
LOAD (kN)
CBF-C1 1700 1.2 Spanngmo crack e
985 1st craca CBF-C2 3000 1.2 Spallc9'no cract 1000 no crack CBF-K 11500 1.2 Spaning and cover 1000 no craca displacement Tabu v: Transport tests resvns on Sogebre nor rernbeced concrete overpacts All overpack models retained their containment properties during the tests.
Waste that will be conditioned at the disposal facility is not immobilized inside the overpack for transportation, nor is the concrete cover sealed. This a!!ows the waste to be grouted incide the overpack at the disposal facility, in the case, a new overpack design was developed to withstand the drop test. In this type of overpack :
waste is conditioned in a liner of polyethylene, steel, etc.., for containment, and steel wire reinforcement is added to the overpack walls.
1 h
f isy f, t
\\s 0.9 m crop test was performed on an 11.5 t cucical overpack with a 3.8 cm2/ meter linear conerste reinforcement and a cubical polyethylene liner. The concrete wall exhibited spalitng and cracking, but the steel wire reinforcement and the good mecna7: Cal charactenstics of the fiber reinforced concrete prevented the concrete wall from being breached wnich would have exposed the liner. The liner was complete!y intact.
This version of fiber reinforced concrete with steel wire reinforcement, combined with a liner meets IP2 and Type A requirements for transportaton. The overall wall thickness of the overpack should increased to inctude the wire reinforcement while maintaming the required 10 cm tayer free of any corrodable matenal, consistent with 300 year durability assessment.
FABRICATION OF FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE OVERPACKS DESCRIPTION OF OVERPACKS Three fiber reinforced concrete overpacks, desenbed in Table IV, were designed to meet Cogema's requirements. Figures 2 and 3 show the CBF-C1 and CEF-K overpack models respectively.
Of course, the overpacks can be customized by Sogefibre to meet the specific requirements of the client with respect to :
Geometry (cylindrical, cubical, etc...)
Dimensions.
Wall thickness.
Closure system, Handling system, and Surface finish of outer walls.
An example of a fabrication option is the elaborate shape of the anti-fical cover for cylindrical fiber reinforced concrete overpacks, shown in Figure 2, which prevents the drum of waste from floating when the fiber reinforced concrete container is filled with grout.
2 l
IEEjo M J
Dd6.1 y..;; ud Mruv1 I
H.:n:WNJ
- a:"
i 545..j m
2._
?
.k
~ ~
.),
t.
vt 3
.,g Frgure 2 : cBF-C1 overnack wrth ants.noat cover
- l f
< N i
1 i
Fogure 3 : CBF-K Overpack 4
FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE CONTAINER FABRICATION FACILITY The large nur..bers of fiber reinforced overpacks required by Cogema led to the construction of a facility dedicated to their fabrication in Valognes, in the province of Normandy, France. The 12,000 overpacks per year facility commenced operations in July 1990.
Cogema has imp:, sed very stnngent fabrication specifications on Sogofibre to guarantee that all fiber reinforced concrete overpacks. including their covers, meet Andra specifications for both the materials of fabrication and the fabricated overpack, which are also very stnngent. The overpacks are fabricated in accordance with quality assurance procedures (Level 2 of French Quality Assurance Standards),
with special emphasis given to the following production aspects :
stringent control of allincoming materials, including cement, sand, aggregates and fibers, l
control of process parameters, such as measurement of concrete ingredients and mixing
- times, measurement of concrete shrinkage and mechanical strength on test samples taken from each production batch, l
1 dimensional and visual inspection of products, and product traceability.
l' Most operations at the Valognes facility are performed remotely by computer, which results in a high production-to-staff ratio and eliminates hard physicallabor.
4 The facility design was significantly influenced by the high quality and technology standards of the nuclear industry, making it one of the most advanced facilities in the concrate industry.
j i
i l
CONCLUSION Five years of research & development. including substantal characterization testng, resulted in the development of a fiber reinforced concrete that meets the requirements of Sogefibre's client Cogema and was certfied by the national radicactve waste management agency in France, Andra.
Sogefibre has successfully developed a full-scale fabrication process for the fiber reinforced concrete overpacks and has fabncated overpacks commercially since July 1990.
With safety requirements for the transportation and disposal of low-and medium-level waste becoming more stringent every day, Sogefibre's unique overpack design, high quality materials and demonstrated safety offer generators attractive and comprehensive solutions for their waste management needs.
REFERENCES
[1]
Andra specification STE 119.581S, " Technical Specification for Packages Holding immobilized Heterogeneous Waste Delivered in Durable Overpacks and Inter ded for Disposalin a Near-Surface Facility".
[2]
(AEA Regulations 1985, modified 1990.
sogersmare COMPAGNIE COGEMA GENERALE sQES EAUX
, 66%
,100 %
S.G.N SABLA S M
?V SOGEFIBRE o Marketing 100 %
- R and D (Improvements /new proclucts)
,e 60 %
SABLA SNC f
VALFIBRE Production unit of FRC oveVp'acks
?_-.:.
sosefibre l
LLW-MLW TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL LICENSING REQUIREMENTS
^
GE ERATOR TRANSPORT FACILITY FACILITY 9 LICENSING FOR TRANSPORT 9 LICENSING FOR DISPOSAL I
I
sosendre ORGANIZATION OF NUCLEAR SAFETY FOR WASTE PACKAGES IN FRANCE MINISTRY OF INDUSTRY DEPARTMENT FOR THE SAFuTY _ _ draws up, FUNDAMENTAL SAFETY OF NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS RULES (R.F.S.)
(D.S.I.N.)
l relies technically on V
FRENCH RADIOACTIVE WASTE draws up WASTE CONDITIONING MANAGEMENT AGENCY SPECIFICATIONS (ANDRA)
A submits for acceptanc
> WASTE PACKAGE CHARACTERIZATION PROCUREMENT WASTE PRODUCER AND FABRICATION SPECIFICATION
> QA SYSTEM m.
+
sosem>re COGEMA R and D PROGRAM (1985 - 1989)
CONCRETE CHOICE Of WASTE
~
FORMULATION A FIBRE ENCAPSULATION PROCESS l
5 FIBflE REINFORCED CONCRETE (COGEMA PATENT) g DESIGN OF CONTAINERS (cylindrical, cubical)
..m.
m m
--w-
sogefiE2re l
FRC FORMULATION
> CEMENT: Blended cement (clinker, fly ash, blast furnace slag)
> AGGREGATES
> SILICA FUME
> FLUIDIZER
> WATER
> FIBER
l Soerefihre THE FIBER l
l FORMULATION P Fe, Cr, P, C and Si AMORPHOUS STRUCTURE F metallic glass
)
Length
- 15 to 60 mm SIZE > Width
- 1 to 2 mm Thickness : 30 g 10 m2/kg SPECIFIC SURFACE > (1 m2/kg for iron fiber l
O.5 mm diam.) '
TENSILE STRENGTH > 2000 MPa (2.9105 psi) l
r l
sogenmare FRC MATERIAL :
, MECHANICAL AND PHYSICAL PROPERTIES (after 28 days)
\\
ANDRA FULL SCALE RESULTS ACCEPTANCE i
THRESHOLD COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 60 to 70 MPa
> 50 MPa
.i
(= 9i10' psi)
TENSlLE STRENGTH' 4.5 to 6.0 MPa
> 4.5 MPa (650 to 870 psi)
SHRINKAGE......... '....
below 300 p m/m
< 300 m
WEIGH. T LOSS..........
2%
m
sosemm=e
[
FRC MATERIAL :
CONTAINMENT P.ROPERTIES l
9 EFFECTIVE DIFFUSION FACTOR (test duration > 1 year) i TRITIATED WATER (H2) < 7.110-5 (2 cm pellet)
(acceptance threshold : 1.510-')
l CESlUM (Cs)........
< 2.4 10-5(1 cm pellet)
(acceptance threshold : 10- )
9 WATEF) POROSITY.....
5 to 9%
l l
l 9NITpOGEN PE8MEABILITY 3q0-"m2 l
1 I
A
- sogenmare FRC MATERIAL :
RADIATION RESISTANCE
( CEA TEST >
INTEGRATED DOSE......
108 Gray 3
DOSE RATE.............
1.2 to 1.4 10 Gy H-'
SAMPLE WElGHT........
5 kg RESULTS :
-+ Volume of H, generated.
0,2201
-+ Radiolytic yield G (H )...
0,0i7 2
-+ Volume of 0, consumed.
1,141
-+ Radiolytic yield G (O ).... - 0,09 2
-+ No cracks
segrefibre I
ANDRA HIGH PERFORMANCE QUALIFICATION DEFINITION Layer of material entirely surrounding the waste, able under disposal conditions and with a negligible failure probability to :
withstand mechanical stresses for 300 years, keep radioactivity containment for 300 years, protecting the waste from water introduction and obstructing radionuclides migration in a humid medium.
sogeriR>re HIGH PERFORMANCE DURABLE OVERPACK OVERPACK (ex : reinforced concrete (ex : fiber reinforced container) concrete container) i CARBON STEEL WASTE WASTE R,EDAR
\\
\\
o \\\\
lei 69 3 0\\oseopdid/D}o bfng)0 c, n ^R D - oooo*orv i"/ 0 0fdid I
6 0\\ 4 hD U Oo'o U D 9,0
(
giji,;$',r),- Opl i,.:.:,N !::.':.'.'. :: '.. ::.. :l o >
e y
o b 90, ' ?n >
'y'
- .: opp 5i:.:')I N'k '.4 o,,
'>)'i&((%'
o 0Q 1
.'::.,P' y :..
p 0 '
d(# ' h '-
i::' l l
[O N;
p$
o 4 gy f, i s
Us$
1
?::
4 9 o'
Y '
1.ne} k %j
,N o
f,Q 't o p
,.,w g. s,,
o >o.::..:
+
$$s
$.NYf.$ % i b h,?d c
c ggs,ng> hy; shy sj;og, p9
~u, c
9 y
- .....:. :. %.. -t z o o,o :.::
, pwS a
- p. #n an %n en %ns oo po uo o su\\aco)
-.,ii
/
\\
/
DURABLE CONTAINMENT CONTAINER CONTAINER LAYER
(DURABILITY CONTAINMENT)
-m
l SGge f113>re i
HIGH PERFORMANCE OVERPACKS i
(FIBER RElNFORCED CONCRETE)
AFTER 300 YEARS g
INNER FACE l: OUTER g
(WASTE)
FACE Physical and 1
chemical degradation (computer y
l modelled)
Migration of l
radionuclides l
]
(computer modelled)
- -X->
4-Y-+
Z>X+Y
SogefiRare HIGH PERFORMANCE QUALIFICATION OF FIBRE CONCRETE-OVERPACKS 1 THE MECHANICAL, PHYSICAL AND CbNTAINMENT CHARACTERISTICS OF FABRICATED OVERPACKS ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ANDRA REQUIREMENTS 2 FIBRE-REINFORCED CONCRETE OVERPACKS ARE LESS AFFECTED BY DEGRADATION PHENOMENA
'FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS :
a Less migration pathes, M High corrosion resistance of FIBRAFLEX, a Low free time contents of cement, a High concrete homogeneity (highly vibrated),
a Severe selection of constituents, a Strict observance of precise and complete procurement and manufacturing specifications.
3 IN CONSIDERATION OF THE CHARACTERIZATION (1)
AND DEGRADATION RESISTANCE (2) OF FIBRE-REINFORCED CONCRETE UNDER SPECIFIED DISPOSAL CONDITIONS, THE MINIMUM WALL THICKNESS REQUIRED "Z" IS 10 CM.
sogefibre LLW-MLW TRANSPORT IN FRC OVERPACKS TWO TYPES OF PACKAGE :
$ WASTE IMMODILIZED INSIDE THE FRC OVERPACK FRC
./
GROUT WASTE
$ WASTE NOT IMMOBILIZED INSIDE THE FRC OVERPACK FRC
./
g AIR WASTL i
FOR BOTH TYPES OF PACKAGE, SOGEFIBRE HAS SUCCESSFULLY PERFORMED IP2 OR TYPE A TESTS.
l sosem>re i
FRC OVERPACKS : DROP TEST
- 2) BY SLING BREAKING
- 1) BY TIPPING OVER l
.A
,c-l:~,
/;d ~ \\\\
,1l e '
r
' -:g'%, -7 1 {
1 *
,\\
//
ll lIl
,h f
I!
F[1,CO j/
FRCO g
'l
,1 l s
l/
g,'
~
ti.
l',/
.-:-'N
~
n.
1.20 m i
RESULTS :
TIPPING :
SLING RUPTURE :
i SPALL OF 22 cm x 2 to 3 cm SPALL OF 40 cm ;
i NO MICROCRACKS CONCRETE CHIPS OF 10 cm NO MICROGRACKS e
mm m
u a
sosemmre FRC CUBICAL OVERPACKS :
DROP TEST
- 1. WASTE IMMOBILIZED
- 2. WASTE NOT IMMOBILIZED FRC OVERPACK WASTE INSIDE A
/
CONTAINMENT BOX
/0.
y WASTE /'
FRC OVERPACK f f
f.
/
AIR
..f,.
GROUT WIRE MESH FRC COVER FRC SEAL FRC COVER IMPACT LIMITER a
n 1.20 m 0.90 m j
11.5 t 11.5 t
,r RESULTS RESULTS e COVER DISPLACEMENTS e EXTENSIVE CRACKS AND SPALL ON ONE SIDE AND ONE EDGE' BELOW 3 mm O SPALL ON IMPACTED EDGE e CONTAINMENT BOX INTACT CONTAINMENT NOT ALTERED j
1 l
sosremmre FRC OVERPACKS :
CRUSHING STRENGTH l
Spacer between supporting units u
I 1
m
(
~
("~ D 1
LJO
- 1. EMPTY OVERPACKS
- 2. FULL OVERPACKS 200 KN : 2 CRACKS CLEAN CHACKING AT 005 KN 220 KN : CLEAN BREAK MICROCRACKING DETECTABLE AT 800 KN BY SONIC MEASUREMENTS
SogetkE>we THE VALOGNES PLANT
> BUILDING.........
10 000 sq.m.
> NOMINAL CAPACITY 12 000 OVERPACKS per YEAR
> PERSONNEL,.......
32
> REMOTE CONTROL 4.ED OPEpATION
>lNTEGRATED LABORATORY
> START UP OF OPERATIOli..... JULY 1990
> FIRST YEAR PRODUCTION FIGURES (08/90 - 08/91')
-+ CYLINDRICAL OVERPACKS.
6 600
-+ CO. BTCAl"OVER.. PACK. S 350 i
l
SegeiREspre i
RANGE OF SOGEFIBRE OVERPACKS DVERPACK OVERALL USEFUL MINIMUM IMMOBillZATION LICENSING DIMENSIONS VOLUME THICKNESS MATERIAL BY ANDRA SHAPE MODEL (mm)
(litres)
(mm)
FOR C0GEMA Cylindrical CBF-C1 1200 H 340 74 Fibre 18.01.01 reinforced 840 D concrete CBF-C2 1500 H 680 74 1000 D Cubical CBF-K 1700 3000 100 Grout 06.09.91 e
sogefibre SUPPLY OF SOGEFIBRE OVERPACKS k FROM THE VALOGNES PJ ANT, PROVlDED :
9 ORDERED QUANTITIES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANT THROUGHPUT S THE DISTANCE COVERED IS ACCEPTABLE k FROlVI A PLANT TO BE ERECTED IN THE VICINITY OF THE CONDITIONING SITE :
9 l_ARGE QUANTITIES 9 TRANSPORT DISTANCE NOT ACCEPTABLE NOTE : The concreto formulation must be redefined as a function of available localingredients.
.- -.=.
THE MOULDING TECHNOLOGY ADVANTAGES Y
CUSTOMlZATION IS POSSIBLE, AS REGARDS :
I l
9 SHAPE l
9 DIMENSIONS l
9 HANDLING POINTS l
l l
,h sosenm>=e LLW-MLW TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL OVERPACKS t
SOGEFIBRE CAN PROPOSE HIGH SAFETY SOLUTIONS BASED ON :
9THE USE OF A HIGH QUALITY MATERIAL ESPECIALLY DEVELOPED 9 A LARGE EXPERIENCE OF OVERPACKS MANUFACTURING (= 15000 TODAY )
S EXISTING LICENSE IN FRANCE i
9 LICENSING IN PROGRESS IN THE USA
s
- h Segefibre OTHER SERVICES PROPOSED BY SOGEFIBRE J
l k SEARCH FOR LOCAL INGREDIENTS AND DEFINITION OF FORMULATIONS FOR SOGEFIBRE HIGH-PERFORMANCE OVERPACKS k-DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF READY-MIX PLANT FOR CONCRETE FILLING FACILITIES
$ SUPPLY OF READY-MIXED FlBRE-CONCRETE
$ SUPPLY OF PRE-DOSED FIBRE CONC;ttETE INGREDIENTS, EXCEPT WATER (ONLY FOR SMALL QUANTITIES)
,