ML20004E376
| ML20004E376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 06/08/1981 |
| From: | Snyder B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Hovey G METROPOLITAN EDISON CO. |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106120110 | |
| Download: ML20004E376 (2) | |
Text
f'De
- pn cing'O, UNITED STATES
! ?.., ; i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J b.
E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t
L5 g j
s s'..... "
JUN 3 1939 Cocket No. 50-320 5
b s
7.
6-2 g12 0198%.-
Mr. Gale Hovey Vice President and g
g ' Q g"' M Director of TMI-2 D
Metropolitan Edison Company j
0 P.O. Box 4S0 "N
Middletown, pA 17057 wgv
Dear Mr. Hovey:
SU3 JECT:
SDS - Processing Strategy plan ha a, oreciate receipt of your letter LL2-31-OlC3 dated May 8,1931 containing c
the processing strategy plan for operations of the combined SOS - EDICOR-II systems that you plan to use for cleanup of reactor building sump water.
As ycu know, we are currently reviewing all of the information provided in support of Met-Ed's proposal for processing the water in the containment Milding.
NRC action on your proposal will be taken in future correspondence.
However, we believe it is useful to conmunicate some of cur views now on your May 3 letter.
We believe that the text of your letter adequately describes the planned operating philosophy and we agree with the three basic objectives that you are attempting to satisfy in using inorganic ion exchange material in the four SOS ion exchange stages. However, Attachments 1 and 2 appear to be over-simplifications with regard to disposal modes and change out criteria since they indicate the same information for all four stages. As a result they do not appear to be consistent with the discussion in the text.
Accordingly, we note below our understanding of those areas.
SOS liners 1 through 4 will all be loaded with essentially the same hemogeneous mix of inorganic ion exchange materials.
Your stated objective of minimizing tne total volume of spent high specific activity ion exchange material is, in our view, clearly desirable and aporopriate.
However, this must be balanced against the two ccmpeting considerations of maximum assurance of no breakthrough beyond the series of four zeolite vessels and minimi:ation of vessel handling steos and ccnnections. We believe that such a balance can be struck by maximizing the loadings on the first two :eolite stages and minimizing the loadings in third and fourth stages so tnat the latter units operate essentially as colishing units.
On this basis we believe that the liner change out criteria P00R ORGINAL 81o e m.
P
Mr. G. Hovey JUN s 19a1 in Attachment 2 should logically be far lower for units 3 and 4 than units 1 and 2, rather than the same as proposed in your letter.
In fact we feel that with appropriate administrative controls, the few third and fourth stage units that will be removed from the processing operation should ba suitable for disposal at an arid shallow land disposal site in a stabilized form (or in a suitable high integrity container) with appropriate intruder barriers, in the event that the radionuclide loadings are limited to levels less than class C low level wastes as listed in the classification table of draft 10 CFR 61 which will be transmitted to.you separately.
If the 3rd and ath units contain less than 1000 Ci cesium, and 160 Ci strontium these liner will in all likelihood not be utilized in DCE's research development and testing program as outlined in their June 3,1981 letter to me.
The meeting on May 21, 1 931 with the Technical Advisory Group (TAG) and ORNL personnel concerning the selection of ion exchange media for SOS prccessing was informative and reassuring concerning the ability to reconcentrate the fission product activity in the reactor building sump water on inorganic media and at the same time, limit the volume of high specific activity wastes. We understand that ORNL will be ccmpleting its tests on zeolites using cold simulated sump water in the near future and that based on that work, a selection of tne mixture of zeolites most apcropriate for this cleanup will be forthccming from the TAG.
At our meeting the TAG ex::ressed its confidence that the operations of sump water cleanup should be able to croceed with complete assurance of protecting the health and safety of the public based upon the results of the cold laboratory tests at ORNL and the subsequent studies and analyses of appropriate Zeolite mixtures for effective cesium and strontium removal. We are pleased to receive this strong assurance and look forward to learning of the specific results from the TAG as soon as practicable after completion of their efforts.
There are apparently sufficient differences between the sump and RCS waters, such as radionuclide contents, system variables, etc., that a somewhat different zeolite mixture and/or operating procedures should be considered and evaluated prior to RCS water cleanup. We look forward to hearing from the TAG its recommendations for RCS water processing in the near future so that RCS cleanup operations can be approached with the same high degree of assurance that the TAG has expressed about sump water cleanup.
Sincerely, i
Bernard J. Sn; er, Program Director TMI Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation P00R ORIGEL