ML20154E128
| ML20154E128 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island  |
| Issue date: | 05/09/1988 |
| From: | Baxter T GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20154E131 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6292 OLA, NUDOCS 8805200100 | |
| Download: ML20154E128 (16) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~ ,(p2,jY~2)
^
4 e
00LKETED USNRC May 9, 1988 18 MAY 10 P7:13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FFICE OF SH Rt'U F Y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETING I. SERVf CL BRANN BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
)
GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA
) (Disposal of Accident-(Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Generated Water)
Station, Unit 2) )
LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS 4b (IN PART), 4c AND 4d I. Introduction l
Licensee GPU Nuclear Corporation hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749 and the Board's Memorandum and Order of April 15, 1988, for summary dis-position in Licensee's favor of Contentions 4b (in part), 4c and 4d by Susquehanna Valley Alliance and Three Mile Island Alert
("Joint Intervenors"). As grounds for its motion, Licensee as-serts that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to these contentions, and that Licensee is entitled to a decision in its favor on these contentions as a matter of law.
This motion is supported by:
- 1. "Licensee's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for Summary Disposition,"
dated May 9, 1988; 8805200100 000509 PDR ADOCK 05000320 C PDR $f3
- 2. "Licensee's Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard (Contentions 4b in part, 4c and 4d)"; and'
- 3. "Affidavit of David R. Buchanan (Conten-tions 4b in part, 4c and 4d)."
Pursuant to the Board's Memorandum.and Order of April 15, 1988,. the Joint Intervenors and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may file any answer to this motion by no later than thirty-five (35) days after service of the motion.1/
II. Procedural Background The contentions addressed in this motion state as follows:
4b. Sufficient evidence has not been provided to ensure that the evaporator can filter out transuranics, other radionuclides as well as chemicals to protect the public health and safety.2/
4c. The evaporator's monitoring and safety systems have not been shown to provide the safeguards needed to protect the public health and safety when the evaporator oper-ates in an open cycle mode.
4d. It has not been demonstrated that the influent to the evaporator may be varied from 3 gallon / minute to 20 gallon / minute without the health and safety of the public being jeopardized.
1/ The Board has extended the response time (20 days) provided in the Commission's regulations. See 10 C.F.R. S 2.749(a).
2/ This motion addresses the portion of Contention 4b which concerns the removal of transuranics and other radionuclides.
The portion of contention 4b which raises the removal of chemi-cals is addressed along with Contention 6 in a separate motion.
I o ,-
Q Amendments to Supplement to the Petition for Leave to Intervene
'for Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) and Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA), Nov. 20, 1987, at 3. These contentions were admitted by the Board in its Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Special Prehearing Conference; Ruling on Contentions; Scheduling), Jan.
5, 1988.
As the Board noted, the subparts of Contention 4 all address the operation of the evaporator.- Memorandum and Order, supra, at
- 12. The Board agreed with Licensee and the Staff ". . . that the subparts of proposed Contention 4, as set forth in Joint Peti-tioners' filing of November 20, fail to state the basis that would make them admissible."E/ Id. at 14. The Board admitted subparts b, c and d, however, by accepting as bases the oral statements of Joint Intervenors' representative at the special prehearing conference. Id. Subsequently, the Board stated that in the adjudication of Contention 4, it must be established that the cost benefit analysis for the design system of the proposed evaporator meets the ALARA standard. Memorandum and Order (Granting Joint Intervenors' Motion to Compel) at 3 (April 6, l
1988).
i i
l 3/ The November 20 filing amending the contentions followed the submission of responses by Licensee and the Staff to the October 28, 1987 petition supplement.
i
III. Contention 4(b)
The basis accepted by the Board for Contention 4b is Joint Intervenors' statement, Tr. 33-34, that there are no filters on the evaporator. Id. During discovery, Joint Intervenors stated that the term "filter out" in the contention "is meant to be any removal mechanism, including a filter."S/ In response to Licensee's request for any factual basis which might support Joint Intervenors' contention that the evaporator disposal system may not adequately remove transuranics and other radionuclides, Joint Intervenors answered in essence that in their opinion Licenseo had not shown that the evaporator would perform as ex-pected.E In response to the NRC Staff's request for an explana-l tion of the basis "for your claim that the evaporator cannot be l
designed and constructed so as to effectively filter l transuranics, other radionuclides and chemicals," Joint Interve-nors answered: "We are presently in the process of hiring a con-sultant who will respond to this."5/ Joint Intervenors have not supplemented these responses.
In this situation, Licensee has no target at which to shoot in meeting its burden on the contention. Nevertheless, in the 1/ SVA/ THIA's Responses to Licensee's Interrogatories and Re-quest for Documents, Feb. 15, 1988, at 19 (Interrogatory 4-4).
5/ Id. at 18 (Interrogatory 4-1),
s/ SVA/TMIA's Responses to NRC's Interrogatories, Feb. 22, 1988 (Interrogatory 7).
attached Affidavit of David R. Buchanan, GPU Nuclear's experi-enced Manager of Recovery Engineering at TMI-2, Licensee provides comprehensive information on the design of the proposed disposal system, its capability to remove transuranics and other ra-dionuclides, and the instrumentation and safety systems which as-sure protection of the public during disposal system operation.
The accident-generated water ("AGW") is from a variety of sources, is stored in a number of different locations at TMI-2, and has different radiological characteristics.2# Buchanan Affi-davit, 1 17. While the AGW is sampled frequently, and consider-able information has been provided to Joint Intervenors on the radiological content of the AGW, it is to a great extent irrele- ,
vant. This is because the AGW has been and/or will be pre-treated to whatever extent is necessary to meet the constitu-ent criteria (discussed below) for processing in the disposal l system. Id., 11 16-18.
The process control of atmospheric releases during the -
evaporator and vaporization process will be implemented via the radiation monitoring and radiochemical sampling of the influent to the vaporizer section.E# The radionuclides and their 2/ While the radiological content of the AGW at the individual source locations changes during defueling and decontamination ac-tivities, the total radiological content is known. Buchanan Af-fidavit, 1 18.
8/ Establishing process control at the vaporizer influent con-servatively assumes a 100% carry-over fraction through the vaporizer assembly. No credit is taken for plate out or solids l separation in the heaters, flash tank or exhaust stack. Buchanan
! Affidavit, 1 20.
J
, , , , . . - , - , . - - , - , . ~ , - . - - . - - - , - - - - . . , - - - . , , ~ - - - - - - - - . - - - - - - - - ,
s permissible level of concentrations as influent to the vaporizer assembly for atmospheric release are listed in Table 3-1 of Exhibit B (System Description) of the .Buchar.an Af fidavit. This table conservatively assumes that certain radionuclides, not pos-itively identified in the AGW samples, nevertheless exist at the stated lowest limit of detection. Table 3-2 identifies the evaporator influent and effluent criteria for disposal system operation in the continuous cycle.E/ Buchanan Affidavit, 1 20.
Process operations by the evaporator coupled to the vaporiz-er assembly or by the vaporizer assembly independent of the evaporator, will not be permitted until after it has been analyt-ically determined by NRC approved process control procedures that the controlling constituents of the distillate are at or below those levels of concentrations noted in the influent column of the applicable table, (Buchanan Affidavit Exhibit B, Table 3-1, vaporizer influent criteria, and Table 3-2, continuous cycle evaporator influent criteria). Id., 1 21.
The average influent to the vaporizer assembly, noted in Table 3-1, is approximately 2.61E-7 uCi/ml. This concentration, 9/ All AGW will be processed through the evaporator prior to release to the environment via vaporization. The designed flexi-bility of the disposal system permits the evaporator assembly to be de-coupled from the vaporizer assembly. In this configura-tion, the evaporator operates independent of the vaporizer and processes the water in a batch cycle method of operation. Con-versely, if the vaporizer is coupled to the evaporator during operations, the water will be processed in a continuous type method of operation. Buchanan Affidavit, 1 19.
li.; ,
n.
discharged at a rate of-5 gpm, limits the continuous release of'
?, non-tritium radioactive material (principally cesium-137, strontium-90, and carbon-14) to approximately 8.23E-5 uci/sec.
This rate is less than 0.4% of the continuous particulat'e release rate permitted by the TMI-2 Recovery Technical ~ Specifications
'(0.024 uCi/sec) when averaged over any calendar quarter. It is also less than the rate of release stated in PEIS Supp. No. 2, section 3.1.1.2 (0.00028 uCi/sec (2.8E-4)), which was calculated at a flow rate of 20 gpm. The average release rate of tritium, at a water processing rate of 5 gpm, will be 38~uci/sec, or 7% of the continuous release rate limit permitted by the Technical Spedifications. Id., 1 22.
Licensee has considered whether there are any "items of rea-sonably demonstrated technology that, when added to the system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can for a favorable cost-benefit ratio effect reductions ir dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor." 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix I, 1 II.D. The values
$1,000 per total body person-rem and $1,000 per person-thyroid-rem are to be used in this cost-benefir, analysis. Id. Using very conservative assumptions (e.g., a 1% carryover fraction in-stead of the expected 0.1%), the Staff computed a collective 50-year dose commitment to the 50-mile radius population (2.2 million people) to be less than 6 person-rem to the thyroid, 0.2 person-rem to the bone, and 3 person-rem to the total body.
NUREG-0683, Supp. No. 2, at 3.7. Licensee has not been able to identify any modifications to the disposal system which would further reduce these already insignificant doses for a cost of
$1,000 per person-rem.1E# Buchanan Affidavit, 1 23.
The average carry-over fraction for this disposal system is i
expected to be 0.1% or less (i.e., a decontamination factor of at l-
^
least 1,000). An evaporator design which is a closed cycle, climbing / spray film type, routinely achieves a decontamination factor-of 1,000. Joint Intervenors' questions during discovery reflect a perception that the use of an atmospheric release has some effect on disposal system performance. To the contrary, i whether the condensate from evaporators is released into the at-mosphere or recycled for plant use is irrelevant. (In fact, th evaporator portion of the AGW Disposal System for THI-2 operates in the closed cycle mode.) The fact that the distillate is thereafter vaporized does not affect the performance (i.e., the f carryover fraction) of the evaporator itself. Id., 1 24.
In short, transuranics and other radionuclides will be re-i moved from the AGW such that releases are small fractions of the <
l
! limits in the TMI-2 Technical Specifications, comply with 10/ In discovery, Licensee asked Joint Intervenors to identify and to describe the bases for any modifications necessary to meet ALARA and for each, to estimate the cost and dose reduction.
Joint Intervenors could not answer the question, and have not -
subsequently supplemented their response. .See SVA/ THIA's Re-sponses to Licensee's Interrogatories and Request for Documents, l
Feb. 15, 1988, at 12 (Interrogatories 1-16 and 1-17).
l -- - -
Appendix I to 10 C.F.R. Part 50, and cannot be further reduced for a favorable cost / benefit ratio under ALARA regulations. If for some reason the evaporator does not meet performance expecta-tions, the instrumentation and safety systems described below in response to contention 4c, along with the process control plan, will assure that releases do not exceed those estimated by the NRC Staff in PEIS Supp. No. 2. In conclusion, there is reason-able assurance that the AGW disposal system will remove transuranics and other radionuclides to a level considerably below what is necessary to protect the public health and safety, ld., 1 25.
IV. Contention 4(c) !
The basis accepted by the Board for Contention 4c is Joint Intervenors' statement, Tr. 34, that there will be an in-line gamma detector on the evaporator which will be unable to detect tritium and strontium-90, both of which are beta emitters. Memo- ,
randum and Order, supra, at 14 (Jan. 5, 1988). During discovery, in response to the NRC Staff's request for an explanation of "what safeguards you believe should be installed in the evaporator," Joint Intervenors answered: "We are presently in l the process of hiring a consultant who will respond to this."11!
I I
Joint Intervenors have not supplemented this response, 11/ SVA/TMIA's Responses to NRC's Interrogatories, Feb. 22, 1988 (Interrogatory 7).
_g.
I Nevertheless, in the enclosed affidavit of Mr. Buchanan, Licensee has gone well beyond tritium and strontium-90 in de-monstrating the adequacy of the monitoring, sampling and safety systems for the AGW disposal system. ,
The disposal system will employ well proven technology and be continually monitored and controlled with automatic shutdown capabilities designed to terminate the vaporizer and atmospheric release process. With the exception of two controlled release points, one at the vaporizer section., which will release the su-perheated steam to the atmosphere and the other at the waste pro-cessing section which will discharge the final waste to a collec-tion point, the system will operate in a closed loop configuration. Buchanan Affidavit, 1 26.
The system design will provide conductivity monitoring at three independent system locations during the evaporator process.
Conductivity monitors are designed to measure the electrical con-ductivity of process fluids as a method of product quality mea-surement. These types of instruments are routinely used on mod-ern evaporctors. Each of these monitoring points will be equipped with a sample point station for the extraction of pro-cess fluids for radiochemical analysis and a conductivity probe for the steady tate monitoring of process liquid quality. These monitoring locations are at the main evaporator feed, the evaporator effluent (distillate) and the vaporizer influent. Ad-ditionally, there will be a sample station located at the
1
! .- i auxiliary evaporator concentrate discharge for concentrate sam- l pling and a conductivity probe and sample station at the radia-tion monitor. Id., 1 27.
Operational experience and an accumulated data base accrued during actual evaporator operations will provide a sound basis for comparing these two methods of analysis -- physical sampling "with laboratory analysis and steady state conductivity moni-toring. After adequate demonstration of comparable analytical results and conductivity data, operational procedures may be modified to rely more' extensively on the steady state con-ductivity instrumentation. However, until a data base can be compiled based on actual system operations, the control method utilized in procedures and operating programs will be the physi-cal sampling and laboratory analysis of process liquids. Radia-tion monitoring of the vaporizer influent will continue to be the essential method of process control of environmental release by the vaporizer assembly. Id., 1 28.
The vaporizer section of the system, which releases the va-porized distillate into the atmosphere, will be monitored and controlled by a gamma radiation detector. This detector, located in the vaporizer Ossembly flow path, will monitor levels of gamma radiation in the cistillate prior to the distillate being routed to the vaporizer haaters. The detector vill be calibrated to sound an audible alarm and terminate atmospheric release by tripping off the vaporizer heaters and/or initiating valve i.
r
O
'O closure to isolate the distillate. supply to the vaporizer sec-tion. In the event an alarm condition occurs, the evaporator will continue to operate in a batch cycle mode, discharging the product distillate to a staging tank or recycling it through the system until the system is secured or the alarm condition is re-moved. The pre-determined set points of the radiation detector are based on insuring the present TMI-2 Technical Specification instantaneous release limit of 0.3 uCi/sec vill not be exceeded.
Monitoring equipment will be used which will allow a setpoint at 25% of this instantaneous release rate limit for particulates, which is 7.5E-2 uCi/sec. Id., 1 29.
Since Cs-137 is the principal gamma emitting isotope, it will be used for calibrations and alarm setpoint determination for the evaporator monitoring system. Id., 1 33. As Mr. Buchanan explains, the use of a calculated scaling factor permits the measurement ot Cs-137 to provide a controlling deter-
- m. nation of compliance with the TMI-2 Technical Specification maximum instantaneous release rate. Id., 11 32-36. Thus, it is not necessary to measure tritium and strontium-90 directly at the time of atmospheric release. Tritium and the beta-emitting iso-topes will be determined by radioanalytical methods.12/ Id.,
12/ A sampling regimen for each water source to be processed by the evaporator vill be established. The results of this sampling regimen vill be used to establish the tritium and strontium-90 l concentration in each water source. All tritium will be assumed to be released to the environs from each water source, while a
' (Continued next page)
(
I
%1 32, 37-39.
In conclusion, the Joint Intervenors' only asserted basis for Contention-4(c) -- that the in-line gamma detector will not measure tritium and strontium-90 directly -- is correct but imma-terial. The disposal system's monitoring and sampling capabili-ties are more than sufficient to support process control and to determine compliance with the TMI-2 Technical Specifications.
The automatic shutdown feature on the vaporizer section will ter-minate releases to the atmosphere if the in-line monitor deter-mines radiation levels to be unacceptable. These monitoring and safety systems provide the safeguards needed to protect the pub-lic health and safety during AGW disposal system operations.
V. Contention 4(d)
The basis accepted by the Board for Contention 4d is Joint Intervenors' statement, Tr. 35, that the release rate of ra-dionuclides would depend on the feed rate to the evaporator, plus thei: concentration in the water and the carry-over action of the evaporator. Memorandum and Order, supra, at 14 (Jan. 5, 1988).
Again, discovery of the Joint Intervenors was unrevealing. In (Continued)
Cs-137/Sr-90 ratio vill be established for each source. The in-troduction of an extractor / condenser to measure tritium in the stack would nullify the design's benefit of avoiding droplet for-mation in the steam released, and is otherwise not technologi-cally feasible. Buchanan Affidavit, 11 37-39.
response to the NRC Staff's request for an explanation of "what harm you claim will result from a variance of 3-20 gallons per minute of influent to the evaporator," Joint Intervenors an-svered: "We are presently in the process of hiring a consultant who will respond to this."1E/ Joint Intervenors have not supple-mented this response.
Contention 4d is disposed of readily, for it raises a con-cern which no longer applies to the actual disposal system being proposed by Licensee. At a February 26, 1987 meeting of the NRC's Advisory Panel for the Decontamination of TMI-2, GPUN stat-ed its expectation that the AGW Disposal System would operate at an evaporator influent rate of anywhere from 3 to 20 gallons per minute. At that time, GPUN was evaluating the various proposals submitted by potential vendors, and a bidder had not been se-lected. This range of a 3 to 20 gallons per minute evaporator influent rate is the concern raised in Contention 4d. Buchanan Affidavit, 1 42.
However, as explained in the System Description (Exhibit B to the Buchanan Affidavit) provided in February, 1988, the Pacific Nuclear system chosen is designed to operate at a rate of 5 gpm, and due to the physical size of the components the influent rate cannot exceed that amount.1S# Therefore, ll/ SVA/TMIA's Responses to NRC's Interrogatories, Feb. 22, 1988 (Interrogatory 7).
14/ Asked by Licensee during discovery to provide bases if they contend that a feed rate of 5 gpm is unsafe or harmful, Joint In-(Continued next page)
Contention 4d is not relevant to the disposal system Licensee is proposing for TMI-2.1E/ The influent rate vill not vary. Other similar LICON units 15/ with a capacity of 5 gpm have a combined t five years of operational experience and have achieved typical )
carryover fractions of 0.1% or less. Buchanan Affidavit, 4 43.
VI. Conclusion For all of the foregoing reasons, Licensee submits that there is no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to Contentions 4c, 4d, and the part of 4b on transuranics
-and other radionuclides. Licensee is entitled to a decision in (Continued) tervenors did no more than express their opinion that they "have been provided with no further evidence to show that it is safe to evaporate at this or any other rate." SVA/TMIA's Responses to Licensee's Interrogatories and Request for Documents, Feb. 15, 1988, at 21 (Interrogatory 4-12). Joint Intervenors have no ex-perience of their own with evaporator system design, operar. ion and performance. Id. at 19 (Interrogatory 4-2). Licensee's ven-dor has designed and installed evaporator units since 1975, and has over 100 ytars of experience. Buchanan Affidavit, 11 4, 43, 15/ The releast5 of radionuclides to the atmosphere as a result of disposal systim operation are not meaningfully affected by the evaporator influent rate in any case. Evaporation of the AGW is expected to require about two years to complete. Day-to-day variations in the releases, which are determined mostly by the concentration of the particular water source being used as the influent, vill not affect the environmental dose -- which is driven by the long-term climatic dispersion conditions. Buchanan Affidavit, 1 44.
1s/ Pacific Nuclear System's sub-contractor LICON, Inc. is the supplier of the evaporator. Buchanan Affidavit, 1 4.
.x its-favor on those contentiona as a matter of law, and this'mo-tion for summary disposition should be granted.
Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE L 4. h Thomas A. Baxter, P.C.
Counsel for Licensee 2300 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8000 Dated: Ma; 9,1988
. _