ML20154E268

Licensee Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4b in Part & 6 (Chemicals).* Licensee Entitled to Decision in Favor on Contentions & Motion Should Be Granted

ML20154E268
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	05/16/1988
From:	Doris Lewis GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20154E212	List: ML20154E208 ML20154E230 ML20154E247 ML20154E268 ML20154E285 ML20154E293 ML20154E313 ML20154E325 ML20154E349 ML20154E368 ML20154E383 ML20154E406
References
OLA, NUDOCS 8805200150
Download: ML20154E268 (9)

Text

~

p;; w a l

1 i ,.

00CMETED U$NPC 18 MF 18 P2:01 May 16, 1988 0FFfCE U 3[GhiAav I 00CXEinw 4 SE.n'lq l ORatisi UNITED STATES OF AMERICA -

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )  !

I b GPU NUCLEAR CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-320-OLA '

) (Disposal of Accident (Three Mile Island Nuclear ) Generated Water)

Station, Unit 2) ) l 1

I i

LICENSEE'S MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF CONTENTIONS 4b IN PART and 6 (CHEMICALS) l 1

I. Introduction Licensee GPU Nuclear Corporation hereby moves the Atomic Safety and Licensing Noard, 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 4(b) (in part) and 6.

i These contentions were introduced into this proceedir.g by i Susquehanna Valley Alliance and Three Mile Island Alert ("Joint Intervenors") and pertain to the chemicals in accident generated water. As grounds for its motion, Licensee asserts that there is l

no genuine issue of material fact to be heard with respect to j i

these contentions, and that Licensee is entitled to a decision in j its favor on these contentions as a matter of law.

8805200150 880516 PDR ADOCK05000gO.

O

t.

l

)

s l

)

l This motion is supported by: l

)

1. "Licensee's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motions for U Summary Disposition," dated May 9, 1988;

2. "Licensee's Statement of Material Facts as to Which There is No Genuine Issue to be Heard (Contentions 4b in part and 6 on Chemicals)";

3. "Affidavit of Kerry L. Harner (Contentions 4b in part

, and 6 on Chemicals)";

4. "Affidavit of David R. Buchanan (Contentions 4b in part and 6 on Chemicals)";

5. "Affidavit of Dr. Gary G. Baker (Contentions ~4b in part and 6 on Chemicals)."

Pursuant to the Board's Memorandum and Order of April 15, 1988, the Joint Intervenors and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania may file an answer to this motion by no later than thirty-five (35) days after service of the motion.

II. Procedural Backcround The contentions addressed in this motion state as follows:

4b. Sufficient evidence has not been p!avided to ensure that the evaporator can filter out transuranics, other radionuclides as well as chemicals to protect the pub-lic health and safety.1/

6. An amendment to the license is premature because this

water is presently covering the melted fuel, which melted at 5,100 degrees Farenheit, and will be used in i decontamination activities with the potential for the 1/ This notion addresses the portion of contention 4b which concerns the removal of chemicals. The portion of contention 4b which raises the removal of transuranics and other radionuclides is addressed in a separate motion along with contentions 4c and 4d.

m i

addition of more chemicals. The Licensee has added i more chemicals since the submittal of its proposal in

. July, 1986. The effects of these chemicals on the r EPICOR II, SDS, and evaporator systems must be evalu-ated.

Amendments to Supplement to the Petition for Leave to Intervene t for Susquehanna Valley Alliance (SVA) and Three Mile Island Alert (TMIA), Nov. 20, 1987, at 3, 6. These contentions were admitted by the Board in its Memorandum and Order (Memorializing Special Prehearing Conference; Ruling on Contentions; Scheduling),

Jan. 5, 1988. -

The basis accepted by the Licensing Board for contention 4b as it pertains to chemicals is Joint Intervenors' statement at  !

the Prehearing Conference (Tr. 33-34) that sufficient evidence has not been provided to assure that chemicals will be filtered ,

out -- that there are no filters on the evaporator. During dis- l covery, Joint Intervenors s.ated that the term "filter out" in the contention "is meant to be any removal mechanism, including a filter." The allegation in contention 6, as summarized by the

Licensing Board, is that many impurities have been added to the accident generated water over the years since the accident, and that the effects of all of these on the EPICOR II and SDS cleanup ,

1 systems and the evaporator itself must be evaluated. Memorandum and Order (Jan. 5, 1988) at 17.

Discovery commenced on these and the other admitted conten-tions on January 5, 1988, and was completed on March 15, 1988. I

(

i

! During this period, Joint Intervenors tendered two sets of t

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

, , - _ , - - . . _ , , , , , - _ _ , _ , - , _ _ - _ , , _ . . , - . , - - , ,r-_ _ _ _ __-.,-r__. -.

i

[ 4 c

e i

discovery requests to Licensee and two sets of discovery requests; .

to the NRC Staff. The discovery requests sought and Joint Inter-venors' vere provided considerable information on the chemical L

constituents of the accident generated water and their effects on SDS, EPICOR II, and the evaporator.2!  !

During discovery, Licensee also asked Joint Intervenors what 7 adverse consequences would be caused by chen is in accident generated water. Joint Intervenors responded that additional in-formation was needed before answering the question. SVA/TMIA's Responses to Licensee's Interrogatories and Request for Docu-ments, Feb. 15, 1988, at 26 (answer to interrogatory 6-5). Joint Intervenors have not supplemented this response. Similarly, the NRC asked Joint Intervenors to specify the effects of chemicals  ;

that Joint Intervenors claim will occur on the EPICOR II, SDS, l and evaporator, but Joint Intervenors answered that they were un-  !

able to answer the question before receiving ansvers to their in-terrogatories and hiring a consultant. SVA/TMIA Responses to l 1-2/ SVA/TMIA's Interrogatories and Request for Production of  !

Documents to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Feb. 8, 1988);  ;

SVA/TMIA'S Interrogatories and Request for Production of Docu- l ments to GPU Nuclear Corporation (Feb. 8, 1988); Licensee's An-  !

svers to SVA/TMIA's Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear Corporation (Feb. 19, 1988); Licensee Response to SVA/TMIA's Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear Corporation (Feb. 19, 1988); Licensee Response to f SVA/TMIA's Request for Production of Documents (Feb. 22, 1988)*

NRC Staff Response to Interrogatories from TMIA/SVA (Feb. 22, .

1988); SVA/TMIA's Second Set of Interrogatories and Request for l Production of Documents to the NRC Staff (March 15, 1988);  !

i Licensee's Answers to SVA/TMIA's Second Set of Interrogatories to GPU Nuclear (March 30, 1988); NRC Staff Response to Supplemental l Interrogatories from TMIA/SVA (April 4, 1988). [

l I

4

, _ - , _ . . _ _ , , , . _ , - - _ , - - - ,.e,--,___y..,-~,__.,.,,,.-.,e.... ,,-,y _,_,_.-,.,__.m. _ _ . _ . , , _ _ _ , , , _ . ._~,__..-m_..-. . . . .__m_.

NRC's Interrogatories, Feb. 22, 1988, at 8 (answer to interroga-tory 9). Joint Intervenors have not supplemented this response.

III otatement of Case As described in the Affidavit of Kerry L. Harner, the use of chemicals at TMI-2 is strictly controlled by the TMI-2 "Chemical Controls Procedure" and the implementing procedures which all or-ganizations issuing or using chemicals are required to develop.

Id., 17 Th?se procedures require that before a chemical sub-stance may be used at TMI-2 for a particular use, an engineering evaluation must be performed, and one of the particular factors that must be considered is the protection of the ion exchange media used in the SDS, EPICOR II and other systems. Even if a chemical substance has been previously approved, a new evaluation is required if a chemical vill contact (or if the required volume is greater than 1 gallon and there is a potential for accident spillage into) reactor coolant, sumps, or processed (i.e. acci-dent generated) water. Id., 51 8-9.

As a result of these controls, the chemical substances that have been added to the accident generated water are identifiable.

The effects of the substances have been evaluated and for the most part have no significant effect on the ion exchangers. Very limited amounts of a few substances that could adversely affect ion exchange media have been introduced into batches of accident generated vater, but these were subsequently removed by processing. Id., 15 10-19.

The compatability of the accident generated water with the SES and EPICOR II systems is not based on tests of chemical addi-tions alone. The conclusion is also demonstrated conclusively by the observed performance of these systems. Water is processed through these systems as batches, which are analyzed for ra-diological and chemical content before and after processing, and the SDS and EPICOR II systems have consistently achieved a sub-stantial decontamination factor notwithstanding the chemical con-stituents of the water. Id., S 20.

Batches of accident generated water are used for cleaning activities and will be used again in the future. To keep track of the changing vater chemistry, Licensee regularly performs chemical analyses of accident generated water sources. Water used for cleanup activities is subsequently processed to the ex-tent necessary by SDS and EPICOR II. This processing removes not only radionuclides but chemical constituents as well, with the result that levels of chemicals other than boron and sodium in processed water are low. Future cleanup activities using acci-dent generated water are expected to be no different from past activities and there is therefore no basis to assume thL. the same degree of decontamination vill not te achieved by water pro-cessing. In sum, contaminants in the water, including chemical species, vill again be removed. Id. 15 21-26.

If some unanticipated chemical constituent did reduce the efficiency of the EPICOR II and SDS systems, that reduction would

have no effect on evaporator releases. At worst, it would only require repeated applications of SDS or EPICOR II processing before the water would be-introduced into the evaporator. Affi-davit of David R. Buchanan, 11 7-9.

Licensee has established evaporator and vaporizer influent criteria for radionuclides, boron, and sodium. Before a batch of accident generated water may be vaporized, it must be analyti-cally demonstrated that the pertinent influent criteria are satisfied. If a batch of accident generated water needs further processing to satisfy the influent criteria, it will b, processed until the influent criteria are achieved. Id., 11 3-7, 9.

The evaporator itself is being designed to be compatible with accident generated water. The evaporator and its method of operation include features that negate potential adverse effects from chemicals in the influent. The compatibility of the evaporator with the non-radiological chemistry of the accident generated water vil be confirmed by preoperational testing using a surrogate solution that is chemically typical of the accident generated water. Id., 11 10-12.

It is conceivable that some unanticipated constituent in the l evaporator influent might have some effect on evaporator effi-ciency. However, the environmental release from the evaporator will not be effected for two reasons. First, reduction in evaporator efficiency would be detected by the evaporator instru-l mentation. Second, radiological releases to the environment are 1

l I

r

.t _

i

. ;m

. cont' rolled.by.a radiation monitor calibrated to the acceptable effluent criteria, and upon detection'of. levels in excess of the release set point, the monitor will automatically terminate're-

' leases. Id.,.1 13.

The' effects on the environment of chemicals in the 1 evaporator effluent have also been evaluated, as discussed in'the Affidavit of Dr. Gary G. Baker. The chemical constituents that will .eb discharged to the atmosphere will for all practical pur-  ;

poses consist only of sodium borate and boric acid, reduced by a 7 factoraof over 1,000 by the evaporator. The worst case release.

concentration will be approximately 5,000 times below the threshhold limit value recommended for boron oxide in the human environment.- Further, deposition of solids (including sodium bo-rate andl boric acid)-is conservatively calculated.at 6 x 10-2 kg/ha-yr, which is 200 to 400 times smaller than.the amount of >

salt deposition which the NRC indicates in its Environmental Pro-tection Plan is not damaging to plants. Thus, there will be no significant environmental impact. Affidavit of Dr. Gary G. '

' Baker, 11 5-10. [

?

IV. Conclusion

From the discussion above, it is clear that the effects of chemicals in accident generated water have been fully considered, 1

~

not only with respect to the efficient operation of SDS, EPICOR i.

II, and the evaporator, but also with respect to the environment, t

l l'

p -

--tj For all of the foregoing reasons, Licensee submits that there is no genuine issuo of material fact to be hea 1 with respect to contention 4b (as it pertains to chemicals) and contention 6.

Licensee is entitled to a decision in its favor on these conten-tions as a matter of law, and this motion for summary disposition should be granted.

Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE s k La c ' 4.~)

Thomas A. B3xter, P.C.

David R. Lewis Counsel for Licensee 2300 N Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 663-8000 Dated: May 16, 1988.

i-

_g_

I

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