ML20154L071

Provides Response to TMI Alert,Inc/Susquehanna Valley Alliance Interrogatory 31(ii) Re NRC Experience &/Or Tests Performed on Moisture Separators & Vapor Superheaters. Related Correspondence

ML20154L071
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	09/20/1988
From:	Woodhead C NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
To:	Skolnick F SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY ALLIANCE, LANCASTER, PA, THREE MILE ISLAND ALERT
References
CON-#388-7125 87-554-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 8809260089
Download: ML20154L071 (2)

Text

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _

a gp3*e m.,

o UNITED STATES

[ f( ge NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION j  ; Js CASHING TON. O. C. 20$$$

,,,,,/ GEP t o gggy 'UW" p p gocoantsm notuc5 'N SEP 22 P2 :24 Frances Skolnick f00f!Eb b a k'*

Il.

2079 New Danville Pike Lancaster, PA 17603 In the Matter of GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES NUCLEAR CORPORATION, ET AL.

(Three 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 and Order in this proceeding. I am providing a response to TMIA/SVA interrogatory 31 (11). The Staff did not answer this question because your

, prior question (31c.) indicated no response was necessary unless the Staff had information about effects of chlorine on the evaporator.

However, in response to the question in interrogatory 31(11) as to past NRC experience and/or tests performed by NRC on moisture separators 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 NRC has done no testing on evaporators, moisture separators or vapor superheaters. This is explained in the attached statement by Linda F. Munson. I believe you were provided information on this matter by GPU's response to your interrogatory 21 dated March 3, 1988.

Sincerely,

//na Colleen P. Woodhead Counsel for NRC Staff cc w/ attachment: Service List a

f * $ }5 A

C '

Testimony of Linda F. Hunnon -

l Response to Joint intervonors 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 oft

a. Epicor II l

b. SDS

c. evaporator. If "yes", explain the test and results. ,

If "no": l

1. Were test undertaken? If "yes", explain the tests and results. If "no":

1. explain the basis for the assumption that no tests  !

j were needed ~

l 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 ,

the vapor."

i d

In answering this thn staff assumed that the question on moisture ,

separators had something to do with chlorine addition. Otherwise i there would be no reason for it to be a part of this question.

l

Nevertheless, the staff's response to interrogatory 22b regarding [

t the basis for the staffs estimates of efficiency of evaporators is r i

applicable. .

I' l i

No tests of moisture separators were made, nor were any tests  !

needed because the results of operating evaporators (as sighted in l

22B) was available on which to base estimates of non-volatile f effluents, f

i t

i f

l I

-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _