PY-CEI-NRR-2284, Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal

Comment Opposing Proposed Generic Communication, Lab Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal

ML20248A930
Person / Time
Site:	Perry
Issue date:	05/21/1998
From:	Myers L CLEVELAND ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING CO.
To:	NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
References
FRN-63FR9581 63FR9581-00024, 63FR9581-24, PY-CEI-NRR-2284, NUDOCS 9806010098
Download: ML20248A930 (3)

Text

DSof OPA' 752/

Perry Nuclear er Plant

'EEM k i PO Box 97 m

ff Perry Ohio 44081 Qh g W W v

, Lew W Myern 440 2g0 5915 Vice President l

Q Fax:440-286 8029 l WGS ,L3 C S, Yhgf May 21,1998 PY-CEl/NRR-2284L United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington. D.C. 20555-0001 Comments on Proposed Generic Communication, " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal" Ladies and Gentlemen:

On February 25,1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a proposed Generic Communication for public comment on laboratory testing of nuclear-grade activated charcoal testing (Federal Register Notice, Volume 63, Number 37). Personnel at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) have reviewed the proposed Generic Letter, and the resulting comments are included in Attachment 1. The enclosed comments supplement those provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which are endorsed by PNPP personnel.

If you have questions or require additionalinformation, please contact Mr. Henry L. Hegrat, Manager - Regulatory Affairs, at (440) 280-5606.

Very truly yours, N

Attachment

,1 9806010098 980521 PDR I&E k[ b < $'h MISC ppR _

Th v

\L

Att: chm:nt 1 PY-CEl/NRR-2284L

. Page 1 of 2 Comments Regarding Proposed Generic Communication:

Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (63 Fed. Reg. 9581 - February 25,1998)

I

1) Within the proposed Generic Letter (GL), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has stated the Staff plans to make conforming changes to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.52.

Revision 3 of the RG has been in draft since August 1990. It is recommended that Revision i 3 be issued prior to or in parallel with the effort to encourage licensees to update their testing methods. The Regulatory Guide process is how the NRC documents a method of compliance with regulations that is considered to be acceptable by the NRC. Postponing issuance of RG 1.52, Revision 3, will unnecessarily burden utilities. Once the RG revision is available, additional licensee and NRC man-hours will be necessary to incorporate reference to the revised RG within the Updated Safety Analysis Report and the Technical Specifications (TS).

2) The use of enforcement discretion is addressed in the proposed GL, but it only addresses discretion with respect to the test methodology used. The proposed enforcement disaetion would permit use of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803-1989, regardless of what testing standard the TS currently specify. The discussions of enforcement discretion should be expanded to also state tha.t discretion will apply to the test acceptance criteria (to permit acceptance criterions consistent with those that will be approved in subsequent TS changes, and that are appropriate criterions for use when testing to ASTM D3803-1989).

If the enforcement discretion is not expanded to include use of the more appropriate l acceptance criteria, two possible types of unnecessary burden may be placed on licensees.

1. Licensees may choose to accept the NRC recommendation to test using the more conservative testing methodologies of ASTM D3803-1989. Without the expanded enforcement discretion, these plants would need to meet the acceptance criterion in the existing TS. As stated by the NRC in the proposed GL, the existing acceptance criterion typically have a safety margin of between 5 to 7 to address testing uncertainties and to allow for some degradation of the charcoal between tests. As also noted, when testing to the more conservative ASTM D3803-1989 standard, the NRC will be approving TS acceptance criterion with a safety margin of 2. If plants that test to ASTM D3803-1989 are required to meet their existing acceptance criterion (in the interim period until a TS change is approved by the NRC), it is likely that charcoal which would pass the test following receipt of the license amendment might fail the interim criterion. This result would lead to unnecessary replacement of charcoal.

2. Licensees may choose to continue to test using the testing methodology specified in existing TS (in order to remain a " Group 2" plant as described in the GL, i.e., plants who do not need enforcement discretion because they are continuing to test per TS, but their TS do not specify ASTM D3803-1989). If these " Group 2" plants also perform parallel testing per ASTM D3803-1989 in order to meet the intent of the NRC recommendation, they will be forced to perfotm two tests instead of one. For plants such as the Perry Nuclear Power Plant who have TS ventilation systems that are run on a continuous basis, inis dual testing would need to be performed on a monthly basis.

}

Att: chm:nt 1 PY-CEl/NRR-2284L

• Page 2 of 2 This imposes additional, unnecessary costs for the dual sample testing, a reduction in available sample containers, extra carbon replacement, and additional burden on the testing facilities.

The expansion of the enforcement discretion and the resulting avoidance of unnecessary burden on licensees as described above are consistent with the NRC Principles of Good Regulation. Under the heading: " Efficient", as noted within the NRC Principles of Good Regulation, it states: "The American taxpayer, the rate-paying consumer, and licensees are all entitled to the best possible management and administration of regulatory activities. ...Where several effective attematives are available, the option which minimizes the use of resources should be adapted."

3) The proposed GL doesn't address an estimated timeframe for approval of the TS revisions based upon the GL or specifically whether submitted TS revisions are going to be expedited for approval. If the enforcement discretion is not expanded to include the acceptance criteria, as previously recommended in comment 2 above, then plants will be burdened witt extra expenses until the NRC completes processing of the TS change. Therefore, timely processing would be essential.

I i

l i

,