ML20003E382

Safety Evaluation Supporting Amend 13 to License DPR-73

ML20003E382
Person / Time
Site:	Crane
Issue date:	03/25/1981
From:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:
Shared Package
ML20003E379	List: ML20003E378 ML20003E381 ML20003E382 ML20003E383
References
NUDOCS 8104030241
Download: ML20003E382 (9)

Text

c-O SAFETY EVALUATION BY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION METROPOLITAN EDIS0N COMPANY JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY PENNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-320 THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT N0. 2 Introduction By letter _ dated February 19,1981, (Reference 1) the Metropolitan Edison Company (licensee) requested the NRC staff to waive the requirement for solidi-fication of all spent resins from EPICOR-II prior to shipment offsite for disposal. The licensee supplemented this request by letter dated March 11, 1981 (Reference 2) in which he proposed to delete license condition 2.E.(4) of the TMI-2 Operating License and to dispose of 25 dewatered but unsolidified EPICOR-II spent resin liners by shallow land burial. The proposed amendment would delete

.the requirement for solidification of the EPICOR-II spent resins prior to ship-ment offsite. The requirements contained in this license' condition were imposed by the Commission's Memorandum and Order of October 16, 1979, and the Order for Podification of License dated October 18, 1979, by the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.. License condition 2.E(4) was fonnally added to the TMI-2

- Operating License on March 12, 1980, as part of License Amendment No.10

. (Reference Evaluation License condition 2.E(4) cf the TMI-2 Operating License currently requires that the licensee shall not ship EPICOR-II spent resins offsite unless they have

~

been solidified and that the licensee shall expeditiously const act a facility for! solidification of_ the spent resins.

$10403.0 W

F The requirement for solidification of the EPIC 0;-II spent resins was based on the understanding that solidification of resin wastes:

(1) would help immobilize the radionuclides after disposal, (2) would eventually be required by all the burial sites, (3) would be a practical way to meet the then existing burial site requirement that the wastes contain no free liquids, and (4) would help ensure there were no leaks or spills during the shipment of the wastes.

The licensee's proposal recommended that the 25 low level resin liners (3 9,efilter liners,15 cation bed liners, and 7 mixed bed polishing liners) listed in Table 1 be disposed of in the dewatered but unsolidified condition. This proposal also recommended that the following additional provisions be applicable to the disposal of these liners:

1.

In addition to the dewatering operation which was perfonned when they were removed from service, these liners would be dewatered again prior to shipment unless experience gained during this second dewatering operation shows that a second teatering step is unnecessary and that the burial site requirement', can be met without the second dewatering, in which case this step may be omitted as a prerequisite to shipment.

2 The spnt resin liners would be packaged and transported to th> burial site in accordance with existing Federal regulations.

The environmental impact of this activity was evaluated in Section 9.1.2 of the Final PEIS (Reference 5) and was estimated to be a cumulative population dose of 1.3 person-rem for transportation to a western disposal site.

h. 3 All of these liners would be buried at an arid shallow land burial site to mitigate concerns about migration of radionuclides.

4 Contingent upon the agreement of the burial site operator and the state government, all of these 25 liners would be placed at the bottom of a 30 feet deep burial trench inside concrete containers or provided with equivalent protection against a potential intruder following closure of the site and termination of administrative control.

5.

The licensee would ensure that none of the 25 liners contain transuranic specific activities in_ excess of the burial site limit of 10 nCi/g.

We have evaluated the licensee's request to waive the solidification require-ment for all resin liners and the proposal to delete license condition 2.E.(4) and to permit disposal of the 25 EPICOR-II low level resin liners in a coninercial shallow land burial site.

In view of the above noted licensee-proposed additional provisions applicable to the disposal of these liners and the following considerations, we.have concluded that the solidification requirement is unwarranted for the 22

'second and third stage liners (15 cation bed liners and 7 mixed bed liners).

There-fore, we approve deletion of license condition 2.E.(4) as it applies to solidi-fication of these 22 liners and the disposal of these 22 liners in accordance with the previously noted additional provisions.

r:

. 1. The contents of the 22 liners are within the normal range of reactor resin wastes with regard to total curie content.

2.

Burial of the 22 second and third stage liners in accordance with plans l'

proposed by the licensee should provide adequate assurance that the radionuclides '.f concern (Cs-137 and Sr-90) will not migrato beyond the burial site environment.

3.

The burial site license conditions do not currently require solidifi-cation of wastes, such as in the second and third stage liners.

4.

Some of the burial sites now permit a limited amount of liquid in dewatered resins.

5.

Dewatering experience for TMI-2 resins and procedures planned as noted above and recent experience in shipping reactor dewatered resin liners indicates transportation of dewatered resins should l

not be a concern.

l The remaining EPICOR-II sper.: resin liners consist of 50 prefilters (first l

stageliners). Three of the first stage liners are similar to the second and third stage liners in that their total curie content is within the normal range of reactor resin wastes. The remaining 47 EPICOR-II first stage liners contain 3

specific activities in excess of 10 Ci/ft.

In the staff's view, l

the wastes in the latter 47 liners. are unique and unlike those routinely generated and disposed of by other nuclear power plants.

DOE has a program underway to ex-t

. : amine and characterize the condition of the resins and liners for one of these units at a DOE contractor's facility.

Due to the high specific activities involved, the staff believes that this DOE effort should receive the highest priority of all EPICOR-II waste handling activities.

The staff believes that the knowledge gained from the characterization work by DOE may provide an improved basis for the handling and disposal of all i. cst stage wastes and it uould be

. prudent to defer any decisions on disposal of first stage wastes until such in-formation is obtained. As stated in Section 9.1.3.3 of the Final PEIS, the staff believes that the caly capability for dealing with such wastes is vested in the Federal Government at DOE facilities which can handle future processing and disposal as appropriate.

In addition, we have been informed by DOE that they have a priority program underway to develop a high integrity container for high-specific activity waste (e.g., the first stage EPICOR-II liners) which may also contribute to the solution for management of these wastes.

Based upon the foregoing, we have concluded that deletion of M ense condition 2.E.(4) as proposed by the licensee is also appropriate for these higher specific activity wastes in order not to foreclose future options (e.g., special processing or immobilization at 00E facilities) for waste handling and eventual disposal. Therefore, we approve deletion of license condition 2.E.(4) as it applies to solidification of all EPICOR-II. liners including the 50 first stage liners as well as the 22 second and third stage liners discussed above.

7_

. The environmental assessment for the operation of EPICOR-II at TMI-2 (NUREG-0591, Detober 3,1979, included as Appendix D of the Final PEIS, NUREG-0683) provided an analysis of the operation of EPICOR-II as well as for the packaging, transportation and burial of the solid wastes (including unsolidified spent resins) resulting from the operation of EPICOR-II.

Inose analyses (particularly in Section 3.4 of the EPICOR-II environmental assessment) included the potential consequences of accidents resulting from operation of EPICOR-II.

Sections 3.4, 5.2.1 and 5.2.2 of the EPICOR-II environmental assessment included analyses for dropping and rupturing a spent resin liner during handling while Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 discussed the packaging, trans-portation and burial of solid wastes resulting from operation of EPICOR-II.

Those evaluations remain. valid for the proposed action. On-site storage of the spent resin liners was also evaluated in Section 5.2 of the EPICOR-II environ-mental assessment. Therefore, the proposed action does not significantly change the previously evaluated operations at the plant. The environmental impacts evaluated in the EPICOR-II environmental assessment are not altered by this pro-I posed action and consequently its con:;usion that the use of EPICOR-II will not j

significantly affect the quality of human environment remains valid.

Environmental Consideration l

As outlined above, the proposed actions have been. considered in the l

Final PEIS.

have determined that this amendment does not authorize a change in effluent types or total amounts nor an increase in powar level and will not result-in any significant environmental impact.

Having made this determination, f

we have further concluded that this amendment involves an. action which is insig-I L

nificant from the standpoint of environmental impact and, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.5(d) (4), that an environmental impact statement or negative declaration and environmental impact appraisal need not be prepared in connection with the issuance of this amendment.

Conclusion l

Based upon our review of the proposed deletion of license condition 2.E.(4),

we find the licensee's request to be acceptable and grant the request. The proposed deletion will delete the requirement to solidify the EpICOR-II spent resins prior to shipment offsite.

Based on these considerations, we have concluded that:

(1) the modification does not authorize any significant change in the plant's operation, (2) the modification does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of accidents previously considered or a significant reduction in a margin of safety and, therefore, does not involve a significant hazards consideration, (3) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the modified manner, and (4) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations and the issuance of this modification will not be inimical ~ to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the L

'public.

l l

l

TABLE 1 EPICOR-II LOW LEVEL LIliER CURIE DEPOSITI0ft LItiER TOTAL SPECIFIC ACTIVITY - Ci/ft fiUMBER CURIES Co-69 Sr-90 Cs-134 Cs-137 Prefil ter-5 150.551 1.88 x 10-4 4.92 x 10-2 3.04 x 10-1 2.21 Prefilter-6 149.548 1.88 x 10-4 5.11 x 10-2 3.02 x 10-1 2.19 Prefil ter-10 252.286 7.50 x 10-4 2.75 x 10-1 4.59 x 10-1 3.32 Cation-1 0.995 3.13 x 10-6 1.00 x 10-2 6.25 x 10-4 4.31 3 Cation-2 8.381 3.13 x 10-5 6.11 x 10-2 8.75 x 10-3 6.23 x 10-2 Cation-3 31.605 6.25 x 10-5 1.25 x 10-1 6.33 x 10-2 3.46 x 10-1 Cation-4 13.644 3.13 x 10-5 1.08 x 10-1 1.45 x 10-2 1.00 x 10-1 Cation-5 18.969 1.25 x 10-5 2.20 x 10-1 9.94 x 10-3 7.15 x 10-2 Catton-6 10.827 1.56 x 10-5 8.08 x 10-2 1.12 x 10-2 8.12 x 10-2 Cation-7' O.577 1.88 x 10' 6.66 x 10-3 2.50 x 10-4 1.88 x 10-3 Cation-8 2.116 3.13 x 10-5 2.37 x 10-2 5.00 x 10-4 8.50 x 10-3 Cation-9 3.149 6.25 x 10-5 2.65 x 10-2 2.16 x 10-3 1.80 x 10-2 Cation-10 4.183 3.13 x 10-5 5.22 x 10-2 3.34 x 10-3 5.41 x 10-3 Cation-11 1.641 1.56 x 10-4 1.20 x 10-2 9.69 x 10-4 7.34 x 10-3 Cation-12 2.956 1.25 x 10-4 2.94 x 10-2 1.28 x 10-3 9.19 x 10-3 Cation-13 1.342 3.13 x 10-5 1.60 x 10-2 4.06 x 10-4 3.38 x 10-3

-Cation-14 2.137 6.25 x 10-5 1.43 x 10-2 1.03 x 10-3 8.19 x 10-3 Cation-15 4.955 9.38 x 10-5 2.69 x 10-2 5.78 x 10-3 4.26 x 10-2 Mixed Bed-1 5.237 5.0 x if '#

2.11 x 10-2 4.92 x 10-5 3.65 x 10-4 Mixed Bed-2 40.099 3.75 x 10-5 1.34 x 10-1 4.38 x 10-3 3.11 x 10-2 Mixed Bed-3 5.833

-3.33 x 10 2.39 x 10-2 3.50 x 10-5

? A3 x 10-4

-3

,x 10-4 Mixed Bed-4 0.589 2.17 x 10-6 1.97 x 10-3 5.50 x 10-5 Mixed Bed-5 7.374 3.33 x 10-6 3.03 x 10-2 2.08 x 10-5 1.70 x 10-4 Mixed Bed-6 5.25 3.53'x 10-3 1.49 x 10-2 2.25 x 10-4 2.78 x 10-3 Mixed Bed-7 4.01 2.25 x 10-5 1.44 x 10-2 1.20 x 10-4 7.82 x 10-4

REFERENCES 1.

Letter to B. Snyder, USNRC, from G. K. Hovey, Met. Ed./GPU, " Revision of Orders re Solidification of EPICOR-II Resins", dated February 19, 1981, (LL2-81-0040).

2.

Letter to B. Snyder, USNRC, from G. K. Hovey, Met. Ed./GPU, License Amendment Request No. 2, dated March 11,1981,(LL2-81-0072).

3.

Amendment No.10 to DPR-73, Enclosure No.1 of letter to R. C. Arnold, Met. Ed./GPU, from R. H. Vollmer, USNRC, dated March 12, 1980.

4 Order for Modification of License, Enclosure No.1 of letter to R. C. Arnold, Met. Ed./GPU, from R. H. Vollmer, USNRC, dated October 22, 1979.

5.

Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement related to decontamination and disposal of radioactive wastes resulting from March 28, 1979, accident Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2, NUREG-0683, March 1981.

l f

l l

l l-l l

l l

l b