ML17354A874
| ML17354A874 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie, Turkey Point  |
| Issue date: | 03/27/1998 |
| From: | Rajiv Kundalkar FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Meyer D NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM) |
| References | |
| FRN-63FR9581 63FR9581-00016, 63FR9581-16, L-98-87, TAC-M97978, NUDOCS 9804030229 | |
| Download: ML17354A874 (6) | |
Text
CATEGORY 2 REGULA'Y INFORMATION DISTRIBUTI SYSTEM (RIDS)
ACCESSION NBR'.9804030229 DOC.DATE: 98/03/27 NOTARIZED: NO DOCKET FACIL:50-250 Turkey Point Plant, Unit 3, Florida Power and Light C 05000250 50-251 Turkey Point Plant, Unit 4, Florida Power and Light C 05000251 50-335 St. Lucie Plant,, Unit 1, Florida Power &. Light Co. 05000335 50-389 St. Lucie Plant, Unit 2, Florida Power & Light Co. 05000389 AUTH.NAME 'UTHOR AFFILIATION KUNDALKAR,R.S. Florida Power & Light Co.
RECIP.NAME RECIPIENT AFFILIATION MEYER,DE L. Rules & Directives Review Branch (Post 920323)
SUBJECT:
Comment .opposing proposed generic communication,lab testing A of nuclear-grade activated charcoal (M97978) .
T DISTRIBUTION CODE: DS09D COPIES RECEIVED:LTR ENCL SIZE:
TITLE: SECY/DSB Dist: Public Comment on Proposed Rule (PR)-Misc Notice;Reg G E NOTES:
RECIPIENT COPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL ID CODE/NAME LTTR ENCL INTE NMSS/IMOB T8F5 OGC/DR 15-B-18 RES DIR RES/DRA/DEPY RES/DST EXTERNAL: NRC PDR D
E NOTE TO ALL "RZDS" RECIPIENTS:
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE. TO HAVE YOUR NAME OR ORGANIZATION REMOVED FROM DISTRIBUTION LISTS OR REDUCE THE NUMBER OF COPIES RECEIVED BY YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, CONTACT THE DOCUMENT CONTROL DESK (DCD) ON EXTENSION 415-2083 TOTAL NUMBER OF COPIES REQUIRED: LTTR 7 ENCL
Florida Power 84 Light Company, P. 0. Box 14000. Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420
&Ax p~
Z. fjjyy/pro ..EC,Fl VED i=A'IL 3l 5l g ~ I)98 HAH AH 8:
Qr RULES 8 DIR. BRAihICH US NRC MAR 2,7 Sg8 L-98-87 Mr. David L. Meyer, Chief Rules Review and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington, DC 20555-0001
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED GENERIC COMMUNICATION;LABORATORYTESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACI'IVATEDCHARCOAL (M97978)
NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
Dear Mr. Mcyer:
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), thc licensee for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, and the Turkey Point Nuclenr Plant, Units 3 and 4, hereby submits the following comments on thc proposed generic I communication referenced above. FPL also cndorscs the comments of thc Nuclear Energy Institute on the ir < )
proposed generic communication. As explained below, FPL has significant concerns with the proposed generic communication, and requests that thc generic communication be withdrawn or modified as suggested below. t On February 25, 1998, thc Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment, "Proposed Generic Communication; Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978)." Thc proposed generic letter concerns laboratory testing of nuclear grade activated charcoal that is used in the safety-related air-cleaning units of cnginccrcd safety feature(ESF) ventilation systems of nuclear power plants to reduce thc potential onsite and offsite consequences of a radiological accident by adsorbing iodine.
The approach provided in the proposed gcncric lcttcr is a very conservative "one size fits all" approach without a thorough evaluation of the plant-specific design basis. Performance of this testing, while conservative, may exceed, or not be rcprescntativc of, thc design basis for various filter applications. The draft gcncric lcttcr would require filter testing at 30 degrees centigrade according to thc ASTM D3803-1989 protocol. These conditions would be viewed as gcncrally rcprcsentative of conditions for filters located outside of containmcnt. Based on expected accident conditions, filter units located inside containment would bc expected to opcratc at tcmperaturcs on the order of 130 degrees centigrade when required to bc in-service.
Accordingly, ASTM D3803-1989, when performed at 30 degrees centigrade, is not representative of design operating conditions inside containment. Thc proposed test would be over-conservative compared to a test at higher temperatures rcprcscntative of inside containment conditions. Based on thc foregoing, the scope of a final generic letter should therefore bc restricted to outside containment applications only.
gp-5 Q!
9804030229 980327 PDR,X4E t '>
NZSC
~ j ~
-0
Mr. David L. Mcyer Page 2 of 3 FPL observes that some utilities currently have Technical Specification acceptance criteria of 99 to 99.9 percent filter efficiency when they have taken credit for 95 to 99 percent filter efficiency in the accident analysis. The reason for these margins (safety factors of 5 to 7 are required by industry guidance) is to allow for the potential non~nservative nature of the state of the art testing technique at that time. In other words, the acceptance criteria was established to provide sufficient margin to account for error in the test technique.
A more sound method for determining compliance with plant accident analyses is to apply the ncw test method to the filter banks as described in the draft generic letter and demonstrate compliance with the assumptions of the plant accident anaylscs, assuming a safety factor of 2. Without using such a method, licensees may be required to replace significant amounts of charcoal without a commensurate improvement in safety.
The actions proposed by NRC could not be met within the proposed schedule. If adopted as proposed, the generic letter would require filter testing by essentially all licensees within 60 days of issuance of the gcncric letter. As stated in the generic letter, only two commercial laboratories, NUCON, and NCS Corporation, arc availablc to perform such testing. Further, ifproblems werc encountered, the need to replace charcoal could overburden charcoal suppliers with multiple requests for charcoal. FPL also points out that for filter applications that arc normally inaccessible during plant operation may require a unit shutdown in order to perform the testing. Ifthe generic lcttcr is issued as proposed, NRC should consider increasing the time frame for the actions required by thc proposed generic letter or permit testing at the next scheduled performance of the required surveillance.
Further, the development of an alternative test protocol within 60 days as proposed by the generic letter would be virtually impossible. The time required to collect and evaluate the information necessary to address the 13 points required by the NRC to determine thc acceptability of an alternate protocol would be much greater than the 60 days proposed in the generic letter.
In thc proposed generic communication, the NRC staff has concluded that ASTM D3803-1989 is the most accurate and realistic protocol for testing charcoal in ESF ventilation systems because it offers the greatest assurance of accurately and consistently determining the capability of the charcoal. While this initiative addresses an area where improvement may bc necessary, the generic communications process may not be the most appropriate means for compelling licensee actions.
'Ihe proposed generic letter would require licensees to justify current charcoal testing practices or commit to new testing rcquiremcnts in a very short time frame. Ifcurrent testing practices arc not deemed adequate, NRC would impose, by generic letter, a ncw regulatory position that would result in a significant economic burden on licensees. As proposed, such requirements would bc imposed without a backfit analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109.
FPL questions thc use of thc "compliance" cxccption to thc backfit rule in this case. In promulgating the backfitting rule, NRC stated that "[t]he compliance exception is intended to address situations in which thc licensee has failed to meet known and established standards of the Commission because of omission or mistake of fact. It should be noted that new or modified interpretations of what constitutes compliance would not fall within the exception and would require a backfit analysis and application of thc standard." 50 Fed.
Reg. 38,079, 38,103 (1985). In this case, NRC has proposed ncw testing to determine compliance with NRC requirements. The proposed approach appears to represent ncw NRC interpretations of "what constitutes compliance." Further, preparation of a backfit analysis to assess the benefits of this new position against the costs of implementation is particularly appropriate in this case based on the Staff's belief that there is no immediate threat to public health and safety ("most charcoal in usc is not dcgradcd to an cxtcnt that would
Mr. David L. Meycr Page3 of 3 adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety").
Moreover, the use of a generic communication to effectively impose new requirements on NRC licensccs is inappropriate. The proposed generic letter would impose new charcoal testing requirements on licensees, and could mandate changes to current plant Technical Specifications which have been approved by NRC. Such proposed changes appear to meet thc definition of a "rule" as set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act (APA): "...an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implcmcnt, interpret, or prcscribc law or policy...." 5 USC 551(4). For rulcmakings, the APA requires NRC to follow the notice and comment procedures described in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart H. R~dsg 901 F.2d 147 (D.C. Cir.), gz~lt;ntt:d, 498 U.S. 992 (1990). FPL suggests that the subject matter of the proposed generic letter may be better suited for rulemaking.
FPL appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed generic communication.
Very truly yours, Rajiv . Kundalkar Vice President Nuclear Engineering
n N
b