ML20204F975
| ML20204F975 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 10/17/1988 |
| From: | Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | Bloch P, Bright G, Paris O Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7296 87-554-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8810240018 | |
| Download: ML20204F975 (3) | |
Text
_-...
7 'I(~[o 8
g UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
a WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
(...../
OCT 171M6 u;:jr-NDCUWWFMA E OCT 19 P3 :51 l
Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. Paris ch;.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge r w. "
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
t Glenn O. Brigh+.
i Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 I
I In the Matter of GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, FT AL.
(Three Mile island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
Docket No. 50-3?O OLA, ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA
Dear Acministrative Judges:
It has come to the NRC staff's attention that our letter to Ms. Skolnick dated September 20, 1988, providino a response to Joint Intervenor's Interrogatory 31 (ii), as ordered by the Licensing Board on August 25, 1988, may not have been sent to the rest of the Service List. Accordingly, that letter is enclosed.
The Staff regrets any inconvenieace to the Board and other parties.
Sincerely.
i J9
,~as a
j Stephen H. Lewis Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney
{
Encl: Ltr dtd 9/30/88 from Colleen P. Woodhead I
to Frances Skolnick, with enclosure, 4
cc:
Service list 1
4 8010240010 001017
}
PDR ADOCK 05000320 d
j Q
PDR o
i d
___.m
,_m-.,_.
,3
, v. c Q NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION h.^.... ll g
WA SHING TON, D. C. 20555
[
GEP t o ;9ee Frances Skolnick 2079 New Danville Pike Lancaster, PA 17603 I
In the Matter of GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR
{
(1hree Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2)
Docket No. 50-320 OLA, ASLBP No. 87-554-OLA
Dear Mrs. Skolnick:
In response to the directive at page 76 in the August 25, 1988. Memorandum 1
and Order in this proceeding, I am providing a response to THIA /SVA interrogatory 31 (ii).
The Staff did not answer this question because your
)
prior question (31c.) indicated no response was necessaiy unless tne Staff had a
information about effects of chlorine on the svaporator.
j 1
11 However, in response to the question in interrogatory 31(11) as to past NRC experience and/or tests performed by NRC on moisture separaters and vapor superheaters, the NRC's basis for the performance of evaporators is set out in NUREG-0017, Rev. I as previously stated in response to your interrogatory 22b.
The NCC has done no testing on evaporators, moisture separators or vapor superheaters.
This is explained in the attached staterrent by Linda F. Munson.
I believe you were provided information on this matter by GPU's response to your interrogatorv 21 dated March 3, 1983.
Sincerely,
'l W
h Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff cc w/attachrent:
Service List I
I i
I i
Y go
-"/-
^
gp J
Tactimony of Linda F. Munson
[
1 Response to Joint intervenors interrogatory number 31.
The interrogatory states:
"Has the NRC considered the corrosive potential which the addition of the chlorine to the water would have on all parts of:
a.
Epicor II b.
SDS c.
evaporator.
If "yes", explain the test and results.
If "no":
- 1. Were test undertaken?
If "yes", explain the tests j
and results.
If "no":
- i. explain the basis for the assumption that no tests were needed 11.
identify past experiences and/or test performed by the NRC on the use of moisture separators and vapor superheaters which would be used on the evaporator to insure that liquid droplets and dissolved components are not discharged with j
the vapor."
i In answering this the staff assuned that the question on moisture Otherwise separators had something to do with chlorine addition.
there would be no reason for it to be a part of this question.
)
1 Nevertheless, the staff's response to interrogatory 22b regarding l
the basis for the staffs estimates of efficiency of evaporators is applicab.'.c.
No tests of moisture separators were made, nor were any testa j
necaed because the results of operating ovaporators (as sighted in 22B) was available on which to base estimates of non-volatile j
offluents, f
.