.

*v ,

.

Metropolitan Edison CompanyPost Office Box 480-gj 'g g Middletown, Pennsytvania 17057-

writer's Direct Dial Numbere

October 3 ,1980 -

TLL 502,

:

'

TMI Program OfficeAttn: Mr. John T. Collins, Deputy DirectorU. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissionc/o Three Mile Island Nuclear StationMiddletown, Pennsylvania 17057

''"

.

Dear Sir:

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (TMI-2)

Operating License No. DPR-73Docket No. 50-320

IEPICOR II Resin Solidification Program

In your letter of August 22, 1980, NRC/TMI-80-126, you had commented on theEPICOR II Resin Solidification Program, as discussed in my letter to you, |

dated June 5, 1980. Attached please find our responses to your comments /questions. The item numbers correspond to your comments.

1

We appreciate receiving your early review so that the NRC concerns can be ,

properly addressed before we proceed with the final plans for resin |solidification. |

If you have any further concerns, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Sin ely,,

O. 2 '^Mr_

iD"~ (JG. K. HoveyVice-President and,

Director TMI-2

GRH:EDF: dad

cc: Bernard J. Snyder

Attachment,

f00I -.s

8010:t00 N g f/

Metropohtan Edison Comoany :s a Memcer o: tre General Pubttc U**t es Sys:em

.

*.. .

.

.

EPICOR II

RESIN SOLIDIFICATION

PROGRAM

(II CO3NENTS/ RESPONSES,

p .

a

's

i

i

. - - -, . . . .- -. , .

TLL 502*-

Paga 1*

QUESTION 1

How will you ascertain whether tha resins used in the test program arerepresentative of the resins?'-

,,

.

i

-, ,

RESPONSE

The resins being used in the test program were provided by J. Levendusky ,

i

of Epicor, Inc., as being representative of those used at TMI-2. These |

resins span the range of possible resin mixes. The fact that thesevarious mixes solidify roughly the same provides assurance that in-betweenmixes should solidify equally well.'

4

?

|

1I

i

e

/

|

k l' f

,

,

.q

*- < 1

. - .--

. ,,

TLL 502( ~j-

;. - P 33 2'

. ,

,

f- ,,

QUESTION _2,

Now will compression and tensile test data be used to characterise thesolidified waste product?

'

.

.

RESPONSE

Tensile tests have been deleted from.the test program. The next revisionof the document will reflect this. Compression tests give an indication

t -

of the strength of the final product. A product with higher strength ismore desirable than one with lower strength from integrity and rehandling

stand points.. _ _ .

/

/

4 / f

.

,.d

4 W

f

S

( '

: /'

, ,

)

.

-<p' /

i

| |3

- ' ei

) ,

/

"

. . , .

4 p;

2

1.

4

y + ir - , m - ,.

. 9- , . . . - -. .

i

TLL $02-.

Pzg2 3'

'

,

QUESTION 3

Attachment .1 of. the referenced letter, TLL 241, states that a few full-sized liners will be solidified as part of the demonstration. However,

the Hittman test program addresses the full-scale testing in terna of",

30 gallon drums. Tests should be performed using container sizes and, designs which will be actually used in the EPICOR II resin solidification

=yetem.

RESPONSE

T e full-scale testing of 30 gallon drums has been deleted from the testprogram, and will be reflected in the next revision. One (1) full-scale j

solidification test will be performed on a modified 4 X 4 liner. - I.

.

, ,I 'j

f

-| |,/ 1

f

I'

I

|

|

!

|

2 O |

5

i e

8

hi

-

", - *-v- ,, , , _,-- - - , - - - w---- ,- v -

-

- _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _._ _ _ _ _ _

TLL 502-,

P gs 4'

6

OUESTIO4 4.

Attachment 1, page 3, paragraph 2:

i NRC Standard keview Plan 11-4 ETSB Branch Technical Position No. 11-3,

states that uniform distribution is required. This is interpreted to .

.

mean evenly distributed resin. Without criteria for resin homogeneity,'

test samples may not be representative of the full-scale product.Leachability, compression and tensile strength, and hardness may varyas the location of;. r ; sin concentrations change.

l'

| RESPONSE

Homogeneity is addressed in the program and defined on page 6, item 3, as j

a solidified product that contaias no voids or pockets of unsolidified ;q

materials. ~ We are confident chat with the mixing blade design, reasonably ]

uniform distribution of resin will occur within the cement matrix. Tovalidate this claim, a 4 X 4 liner will undergo solidification, and then i

be sectioned to demonstrate homogeneity and the other criteria of section C ,

i

of the test document.;

i

)Leachability has not been addressed in this test program for lack of any i

specific NRC or regulatory requirements or guidelines, whereas the tensiletests have been deleted from the program.

1

i

,

,

||*i ; -

,

,

4

b ,.

*~ '/ ' |,

,e-,,

.$* *y %

'

i- ' e' .

i

//

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

, .TLL 502. ,

*

Pzgs 5:

.

OUESTION 5

Attachment 3, Section IV.c pages 6-7:;

Identify the method used to verify that the desired resin depletion-

levels are achieved.-

RESPONSE

The method of' resin depletion was provided to us by J. Levendusky of

Epic [r, Inc., who also supplied the resins. Recent analysis of the resinsby BNL (Letter, R. E. Browning to Arshard Navae, September 24, 1980) hasshown that the desired depletion levels were not achieved. We are cur-'

rently working to determine the ranges of chemical loading actually

) experienced in terms of pounds of boron and sodium per cubic foot-of.resin. Additional resins have been procured and will be chemicallydepleted to ensure that the entire range of boron and sodium loadings

are tested.,

.

i

- %

\

!

i

i

j

-

i4

i

I+

* ~

1

:

i

1 g.- 1 ._

a

, s . _ .. . . ._. . _ _ . . ._ ____ --

.. .' * TLL 502*

Ptg2 6'

_

p:.

'

OUESTION 6

' Attachment 3, Section IV.D. last paragraph, page 7:

The sample cure time of 24 hours has been changed to 48 hours.' The-cure time should be respecified.

.

RESPONSE

The next revision of the test document will reflect these changes.

I

1

I

|

|i

)

Lo

.

O

s

' Y ~ "" -- -- , - _ . m. _ ,.,_ , ,, _ _ _ ___

;.g y -- :.+; - -

-.

TLL 502*.

Pego 7I

l

QUESTION 7,

Attachment 3, Section IV.E. item.7, page 9:4

An electric mixer.is used rather than a spatula..

'

.,

1

)RESPONSE

The next revision of the test document will reflect these changes.

!

|

|

r

.

4

:.

5

y . , - ._ , . , , , _ - -

_. .. .

* ,

TLL 502.

Pagt 8

QUESTION 8

Attachment 3, Sect. inn IV.E, item 12, page 10:

See specific coment 6. ,

|*

.

- \

RESPONSE

The next revision of the test document will reflect these changes,

l1

!

l

I

|

|

|

.

- . . --- - . - - - - -_

. - - . . .

'~ TLL 502

Pegs 9 |' '*

QUESTION 9

Attachment 3, Section V.B. item 4, page 16:..

See specific comment 6..

.

- l'

RESPONSE;

The next revision of the test document will reflect these changes.

.

a

|

.

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

- _ __. . -_

~.

QUESTION 10

Attachment 3, Section V.G, page 18:

There will be no samples which have been immersed 48 hours after molding.This section should respecify when inanersed samples will be compression .

4

tested. ,

f

RESPONSEI

Section V-G, page 18, r.pecifies that one sample is air cured, the other j

air cured for 48 hours and then inanersed in water. Compression test

follows the water immersion.~

|I

- ,

t

'

1

1

I6

;)

a

..

1

. . . ._. _ _ __-___ _ _ _ - - - - _ _ _

i

.-

QUESTION 11*

Attachment 3. Section V.H, page 18:

See specific comment 12..

.

RESPONSE

This will be identified in the next revision of the document.

I

a

e

I

,

**

&

- - - e , ~ -r m - , - - - - p ' , _ w ---- - , r-e-,

_ .. .; _ . _ - , . . _._.

,

.-

Pega 12

QUESTION 12

Attachment 3. Section V.I, 1st paragraph, page 23:

The quantities of the contaminants to be added to the resins in thei,

special tests should be identified and the basis for assuming that this_

will represent conditions in the EPICOR II liners generated to dateshould be explained. In addition, the tests under which the special

samples will be subjected should be identified.

RESPONSE

This will be identified in the next revision of the document.

.

l

$

|

.

9

e

.

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

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

c.'..

P go 13

QUESTION 13

Attachment 3, page 15, observation Criteria, item 2:

Probing with stirring rods is not an appropriate means to determine.

cement hardness.-

,

RESPONSE

Cement hardness is not being measured in quantitative terms. Probing witha rod is merely to identify if the sample has hardened.

.

R

O

&

*h[4j i s

., . . - - , - - - - - - - . - . -, - , , - . - - , - , - - - - . - - - - . - - - . -