ML20148P203

NRC Staff Response to Supplemental Interrogatories from TMI Alert/Susquehanna Valley Alliance.* Related Correspondence

ML20148P203
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	04/04/1988
From:	Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY ALLIANCE, LANCASTER, PA, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT
Shared Package
ML20148P210	List: ML20148P203
References
CON-#288-6024 87-554-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8804110032
Download: ML20148P203 (5)

Text

h(pNY 3 DOCKETED itEGTED CORRESP960,EER USNRC April 4,1988-

'88 /PR -7 A9 :Sa

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FRCE 0; MN cEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD $/.)N in the Matter of )

)

GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES }

NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ET AL. I Docket No. 50-320 OLA

) ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA (Three Mlle Island Nuclear ) (Disposal of Accic snt-Station, Unit 2) ) Generated Water)

NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO EL'FFLEMENTAL INTERPOCATORIES FROM TMIA/SVA

1. INTRODUCTION The NRC staff (Steff) hereby responds to supplemental interrogate-ries filec' by TMIA/SVA on March 15, 1988.

!!. PFSPONSES TO INTERROCATORIES SuppleTental Interrcoatory 1 in Section 3.2, EIS Supplement #2, P.3.18, you state that bulk ship-ment of the AGW to NTS is "one feasible method". According to your staten ent, shipment IF permitted provided certain criterla are met. it is

! written in a foot-note that the concentration of specified radioisotories

! should- not exceed 1% of the total radicactivity. Yo'U concluded that "tfic percentece of tFc specified radiolsetopes is less than .0006%". Since nel-ther the Sample Analysis of 1/11/88 nor Table 2.2 of the EIS Supplement 42 reflect that many of the specified radicisctopes were looked for, please

.' explain how you reached your conclu Icn that the specified redloisotopes l Is less than .0006%. Belew is a list of those specified radioisotopes which l ere not listed in either Table 2.2 or Sample Analysis of 1/11/86:

Actinium-227

, Americium-242 Californium-249, -250, -252 Curium-243, -244, -245, -246 Neptunlum-237 Protactinum-231 Plutonium-242 Thorium-228, -230 Uranium-232 8804110032 800404 PDR ADOCK 05000320 4 G PDR 901 3

.8

RESPONSE

The conclusler that specified radioisotopes would be less than .0006%

of the total radicectivity (Suppl. No. 2, p. 3.18 footnote (a)) was based on the concentrations and de tec'fon limits listed in Table 2.2. The activity of actinium-227, americiurr-24 2, californium-249, -250 and -252, curium-243, -244, -245 and -246, neptunium-237, protactinum-231, plutonium-242, thorium-228 and -230 and uranium-232 was assumed to be zero in this calculation. (Linda F. Munson) .

Suppicmuital Interrogatory 2 _

I With regard to ycur statemer.t "some of the references listed . . .

hcve been revicred" in Pespcnse to interrogatory 11, please state exact-ly which articles were revlev'ed, t"eir title, Journal and date. Can ycu make these articles available to Joint intervenors? If not, please s"te their contents and findings.

RESPONSE

in addition tc reviewinc- the abstracts thet we provided with our response to tFe lest interrogatories we obtairec' and reviev.ed complete articles fer abstracts number 104016281 and 0014318114 Ccpies are at-l tached. The first article is a reviev- of available information ir 19P5.

i (Munson).

Supplementa! Int _crrocatory 3 i

When calculating dose to the individual and the population, co you  !

! include the dose fror Internal radioactht- emitters?

RESPONSE

As explained in Section 7.2.18 and elsewhere in Final Supplement 2, the calculated deses include the radiation dcsc from internally derositeo l radienuclides. They include not only all cf the dose that would be  :

o b

I i

4 -- . , , . - _ - . - . , , . . - . , , - - - _ - , , . ~ _ . . , , _ . - - - _ - . . , . - , , , , , , .

a 4

received during evaporation of the water but all of the dcse that would be received from whatever amount of radionuclide would remain in the body af ter that eveporation ceased (for a total of 50 years). (Murson) .

Supplen,er.tti Interrogatory 4 in response to interrogatory 12 you stated that "With the excep-tion of tritium, the physical and chemical form of the radionuclides has not 'bcen deterrincd." W hen do you expect to determlnc the physical and chemicci frrm of the other radionuclides? If you de not cxpect to determlnc the boisical enc' chemical fo rm , state your reasons for not doing so.

RESPONSE

We do not expect to determine thc physical ard chemical form of the other radient. Ildes. The environrrental Impact is related to the radiation

\

dose, which Ias calculated using conservatisc assumptions regarding the chemical ard physical form of the non-tritium radionuclides. These as- .

f sumptions deel with the solubility of the radionuclides In biological sys-terns. (Munson).

i Supplemental trierrecatory t 5

What are the similarities and differences between the evaporator te be used at TM I , l' nit 2 cnd those studied for the reports detailed Ir NUREC documents 1992 and 0017?

RESPONSE s N U R EG / C P.-1992 , in-Plant Source Term Measurements at Four PWR's

! describes measurerrents taken on AMF evaporators at Turkey Point and l

Pancho Seco reactors. Although evaporatorr ct Fort Calhoun and Zion l were apparentiv also c: ' mined for the study they were not described.

l The evaporator described in the reference and tnc cvapcrater described in GPU's February 16, 1956 letter to the Commission arc similar in that i_

f 1.

_q_

they are . vacuum evaporators ,with horizontal heating tubes of a similar tctal surface area (635 ft. for the AMF evaporator compared to 520 ft.

for They are different in that the AMF evaporator is the GPU {en.)

heated by low pressure steam while the CPU proposed evaporator uses hot hWter fortred 'by compressing 'the steam formed in the eva orator. The scure.es of energy to the CPU evaporator are steam forr lJ by electricelly heat'ir'g water .. ' the auxiliary evaporator (primarily during evaporator start up) end rrechanical energy supplied to th'evapor compresser. Also, based en tFc descriptions and drawings, the CFL' evaporator rray have a truch n. ore cutensive trolsture separation sys terr to prevent carryover.

N U R EC-0017, Rev.1, Calculation of Releases of Radicactive Materials in Caseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water , Reactors provides tFc basis for evaporator relcase fractior used In developing a corrputer code. The basis consists of r serles of six eferences, one of w hich is e pencric review in the nucicar industry. No design information is provid-ed in this document for any of the evaporator instellations. It is there-i fort not possible to comparc these evaporators to the TMI evaporator l t without additional research. (Munson).

l Supplerrental interrogatorv 6 Regarding the dr,curient relating to the RESL sample in respense to Interrogatory 7 g, it is rcted that a san.ple was sent to the Laboratory en 7/25/87 and 7/21/87 and that this latter sample replaced the forrrer sample. Explain why lodine 129 and Tritium were analysea frorr the second sarnple and not the first. F>' plain why a second sarrple was drawn. Exp!ain the rrethod of procurement of this sample, who drew the serrple, and state whtn the tank contents br.d bcen recirculated and for how lona.

s a

I

- - , ---...-.n _. . - - . . , . . , ,-. . , , . . . . . . , ..._._,,nn ,n,_. , - , ,

i 4 *

-

• l

, ,e p

%j s[c .

y ,/" ,

j RESPONSE' $

//

4 'As noted in Staff's resp [e to ;TMI/SVA Interrogatories 1 and 2, e1 (n 7 dated February 22, 1988, and, "in meinoranda dated July 21, 1987, and  ;

, (_ b ,

January 11, 1988, frdr. D. J. Collins to W.' D. Travers, only one sample -

g +

of accider.t-generated water (VW) was 1, draw n for analysis by N RC's k ,

c ,

contracter. the Radiological and- Enviranmental Sciences Laboratory ,

( R ESt. ) . The sample was drawn on February 24, 1987, and the sampling t

procedure is c/creribed in Staff's respense to TMIA/SVA Interrogatory 2.

J Althouoh the semple was separated for convenience into severn! portions,

\  ; ,1 all of thc. previously reported results, including I r]ne J29 and tritium, i were cbtcIned th'roug h arelysir. of the same sample. (William D.

Trovu s) . ,

i Supplemental Inte.rrogatory 7 l Are you aware of any technology which can remove tritiun. fron,-

water! If the answer is "yes" state briefly what that technology Is. -f ,

i RESPOtJSii ,

a Yes. Sections 3.6.12 and 3.6.13 of Final Supplement 2 to the PEIS ,

describes tv o rrethods o' removing tritium from wate r . (Micheel T.

Utsrik).

( '

t

.?

Pespectfully sebrritted, ,

J

. ), N Colleen P. Woodhead

- Counsel for NRC Staff f

Dated at R..mkvliie,' Maryland this 4th day of April,198E

/

o i

I

- _ , . _ _ ~ . _ . _ . - , . - . . . _ , _ . _ . - , , _ , _ _ . . .m .