ML20207G106

Discusses GL 99-02,lab Testing of nuclear-grade Activated Charcoal Issued on 990603.Forwards Documents to Be Placed in PDR

ML20207G106
Person / Time
Issue date:	06/07/1999
From:	Shapaker J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC OFFICE OF THE CONTROLLER
References
GL-99-02, GL-99-2, TAC-M97978, NUDOCS 9906110022
Download: ML20207G106 (21)

Text

_ _ , , . ,

@ M20 p UNITED STATES F

j j

t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001 h

.....l June 7,1999 I MEMORANDUM TO: Document Processing Services Section Records Management Branch information Management Division Office of the Chief Informatio Officer FROM: James W. Shapaker / c6jel Events AssessmeAnte'ric Communicatio6s and Non Power Reacto(spranch Division of Regulatoryimprovement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

SUBJECT:

DOCUMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH NRC GENERIC LETTER 99-02, LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED

CHARCOAL (TAC NO. M97978)

- The Plant Systems Branch (SPLB) in the Divisison of Systenis Safety and Analysis prepared

" the subject generic letter, which was issued on June 3,1999, and given accession number 9906030055. There is material related to the subject generic letter that should be placed in the NRC Public Document Room and made available to the public. Therefore, by copy of this memorandum, I am providing the following documents to the NRC Public Document Room: (1) a copy of the published version of the subject generic letter, (2) a copy of the information paper (SECY-99-132) that was sent to the Commission, (3) a copy of the staff's response to the g Committee to Review Generic Requirements Charter questions, (4) a copy of each letter received in response to the notice of opportunity for public comment on the proposed generic letter that was published in the Federa/ Ragisteron February 25,1998, (5) a copy of the staff's resolution of public comments, and (6) a copy of the staff requirements memorandum dated February 5,1998, pertaining to SECY 97-299, informing the staff that the Commission did not object to the use of enforcement discretion as proposed.

I request that you provide me with the Nuclear Documents System accession number for this memorandum. This information may be provided by telephone (415-1151) or by e-mail (JWS).

In addition, please modify the appropriate NUDOCS entries to reflect the fact that the p documents identified herein are related to Generic Letter 99-02. fM Attachments:

As stated 9906110022 990607 PDet I&E Nl MISC PDR

% .{. g f-1,

a ..

)

1

)

OMB Control No.: 3150-0011 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 June 3,1999 NRC GENERIC LETTER 99-02: LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR- GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL Addressees All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed }

from the reactor vessel.

Puroose The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing this generic letter to:

(1) Alert addressees that the NRC has determined that testing nuclear-grade activated charcoe! to standards other than American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803-1989, ' Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon,"

does not provide assurance for complying with the current licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of General Design Criterion (GCC) 19 of Appendix A to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reautations (10 CFR) and Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 100.

(2) Request that all addressees determine whether their technical specifications (VS) reference ASTM D3803-1989 for charcoal filter laboratory testing. Addressees whose TS do not reference ASTM D3803-1989 should either amend their TS to reference ASTM D3803-1989 or propose an attemative test protocol and provide the information discussed in the requested actions.

(3) Alert addressees of the staff's intent to exercise enforcement discretion under certain conditions.

(4) Request that all addressees send the NRC written responses to this generic letter, relating to implementation of the requested actions.

Backaround Safety-related air-cleaning units used in the engineered safety features (ESF) ventilation systems of nuclear power plants reduce the potential onsite and offsite consequences of a 9906030055-~~~

Off-

, s..

9 GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 2 of 11 radiological accident by adsorbing radioiodine. To ensure that the charcoal filters used in these systems will perform in a manner that is consistent with the licensing basis of a facility, most licensees have requirements in their facility TS to periodically test (in a laboratory) samples of charcoal taken from the air-cleaning units.

The NRC's and the nuclear industry's understandings of the appropriate laboratory tests for nuclear-grade charcoal have evolved over the years since the issuance of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.52, " Design, Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Postaccident Engineered-Safety-Feature Atmosphere Cleanup System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," which is referenced in many plant TS. It was initially assumed that high-temperature /high-relative-humidity (RH) conditions were the most severe. Later, with more testing experience, it became clear that the most conservative test is at low temperature /high humidity. The use of outdated test protocols or inappropriate test conditions can lead to an overestimation of the charcoal's ability to adsorb radiolodine following an accident.

Problems associated with the performance of the laboratory test of charcoal under inappropriate test conditions were discussed in Attachment 1 of Information Notice (IN) 86-76,

" Problems Noted in Control Room Emergency Ventilation Systems." Attachment 1, " Summary of Control Room Habitability Reviews," noted that charcoal was being tested at much higher temperatures than any expected during the course of an accident, and that the performance of the laboratory test at that temperature can result in erroneously high efficiency measurements.

In 1982, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Committee on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment (CONAGT) conducted an inter-laboratory comparison test using ASTM D3803-1979 and found that seven U.S. laboratories and eight foreign laboratories obtained vastly different results when testing samples of the same charcoal. After efforts to resolve the differences failed, the NRC contracted with EG&G at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) to assess the problem. As a result of this assessment, the NRC issued IN 87-32," Deficiencies in the Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." Through IN 87-32, the NRC informed licensees of deficiencies in the testing of nuclear-grade charcoal, specifically noting serious problems with the capabilities of the testing laboratories and with the testing standard (ASTM D3803-1979). The NRC contractor detailed the specific problems in its technical evaluation report, EGG-CS 7653, " Final Technical Evaluation Report for the NRC/lNEL Activated Carbon Testing Program." Specifically, EG&G reported that ASTM D3803-1979 had unacceptable test parameter tolerances and instrument calibration requirements, and that ASTM D3803-1979 was nonconservative in not requiring humidity pre-equilibration of used charcoal. The information notice indicated that the protocol developed by EG&G could be utilized for performing the laboratory test until the D-28 committee responsible for ASTM D3803 revised the standard. The committee completed the revision and issued it in December 1989. The problems associated with the testing laboratories were resolved after the number of U.S. firms performing such tests dropped from seven to the current two.

On April 29,1993, representatives from ASME and CONAGT met with the NRC staff to express their concems about laboratory testing of charcoal. CONAGT discussed the variation in o

GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 3 of 11 laboratory test results obtained (methyl iodide penetration) when temperature, RH, face velocity, bed depth, test protocol, and impregnate were varied. CONAGT stated that the 1989 version of ASTM D3803 is the only acceptable test method for TS applications and compared the results of laboratory tests performed using the 1986 version of ASTM D3803 (which is the 1979 version with editorial changes) to results using the 1989 version. The results from the 1986 protocol showed significantly higher iodine-removal capabilities than the results from the

.1989 version.

l In addition, CONAGT indicated that testing charcoal at temperatures greater than 30 *C [86 *F)

I almost always results in the charcoal meeting the TS acceptance criteria, even when the charcoal is deficient. To support this premise, CONAGT presented the results of laboratory tests conducted at temperatures of 30 *C [86 'F],80 'C [176 *F], and 130 *C [266 'F). The

. data show significant increases in iodine-removal capabilities as the test temperature increases.

CONAGT indicated that all systems located outside of containment should be tested at 30 'C [86 *F), which is more representative of the limiting Occident conditions. Tests conducted at 80 'C [176 *F] or 130 *C [266 'F) are inappropriate because tests at these temperatures result in the regeneration of the charcoal. As the temperature of the charcoalis increased, there is an increase in the reaction rate, which results in the charcoal being able to adsorb more iodine than it could at lower temperatures. Therefore, testing at the elevated temperatures results in an overestimation of the actual iodine-removal capability of the charcoal, and testing at 25 *C [77 *F] or 30 *C [86 *F) gives results that represent a more realistic assessment of the capability of the charcoal. CONAGT concluded its presentation by stating that the rnajor problems associated with the laboratory test of charcoal are the designation of the test protocol and the TS that designate the test to be performed.

On November 6,1996, the staff visited the two remaining laboratories that test nuclear-grade activated charcoal, NCS Corporation and NUCON Intemational, Inc. Both laboratories have resolved the poor reproducibility problem identified in the EG&G report by performing all tests with calibrated equipment that is capable of maintaining the tight tolerances of the test parameters as specified in ASTM D3803-1989. Tight tolerances are very important when tests are performed at high RH, because slight variations in RH result in unacceptably large differences in the tested efficiency of the charcoal.

Discussion Although some licensees have changed their TS to reference the latest testing standard (ASTM D3803-1989), many still use outdated standards and/or test conditions that may overestimate the capability of the charcoalin their ESF systems. As a result, the ability of the charcoal filters in these systems to perform in a manner consistent with the licensing basis for the facility may be in question.

, The licensees of four plants (V.C. Summer, Davis-Besse, Oconee, and Brunswick) determined  ;

that the tests they performed were not in compliance with their TS and submitted emergency l TS amendments (see Enclosure 1 for details). As a result of the emergency TS changes, the I staff has performed an intemal survey of the TS of operating plants to determine whether other j

GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 4 of 11 plants have the potential for similar compliance problems. The survey indicated that at least one-third of operating reactor licensees may be out of compliance with their TS because, although the plants' TS reference RG 1.52 or American National Standards Institute (ANSI)

N509-1976, " Nuclear Power Plant Air-Cleaning Units and Components," the licensees may have used later versions of the standards for the laboratory tests of their nuclear-grade charcoal in order to achieve more accurate testing results. On the basis of this survey, the staff established the following four groups of plants:

(1) plants in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 (2) plants in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with a test protocol other than

. ASTM D3803-1989 (3) plants not in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989

' (4) plants not in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with a test protocol other than ASTM D3803-1989 Licensees in Group i have TS that require charcoal to be tested in accordance with ASTM D3805-1989, which adequately demonstrates the capability of the charcoal. As discussed in Enclosure 1, the staff considers ASTM D3803-1989 to be the most accurate and most 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.

For example, it requires the test to be performed at a constant low temperature of 30 *C [86 'F]; it provides for smaller tolerances in temperature, humidity, and air flow; and it has a humidity pre-equilibration.

Licensees in Group 2 have TS that require charcoal to be tested in accordance with test standards other than ASTM D3803-1989. On the basis of available laboratory test results for more than 50 charcoal samples, there were significant differences in filter efficiencies for about 15 to 20 percent of the tested samples when comparing the test results from ASTM D3803-1979 and ASTM D3803-1989. When the charcoal samples were tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1979, they appeared to have high officiencies. However, when the same charcoal samples were tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, significant reduction in efficiency was noted. Depending on the system arrangement, this reduction in filter efficiency can result in calculated doses to the control room operators exceeding the GDC 19 limits by as much as a factor of 1.5 to 2. For pressurized-water reactors (PWRs) with secondary containments and for all boiling-water reactors (BWRs), this reduction in filter efficiency can result in offsite doses from a filtered pathway increasing by as much as a factor of 10 to 15. As a result, the testing of nuclear-grade activated charcoal to standards other than l ASTM D3803-1989 does not provide assurance for complying with the plant's licensing basis as 1 it relates to the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100.

l

/- j

GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 5 of 11 in addition, the staff has determined that ASTM D3803-1989 s'nould be used for both new and used charcoal because it allows for accurately monitoring the degradation of the charcoal over time. The original rationale for testing used and new charcoal differently was the belief that a long equilibration period would regenerate the used charcoal by removing contaminants adsorbed by the charcoal during normal plant use. However, an EG&G technical evaluation report, described in Enclosure 1, demonstrated that this is not true. As a result, ASTM D3803-1989 specifies testing both used and new charcoal in the same manner.

Currently, before shipping, suppliers test most new charcoal with the ASTM D3803-1989

. protocol at 30 'C [86 'F) and 95 percent RH in addition to the test protocol and test conditions the addressee records on the purchase order. The results from the new charcoal tested via ASTM D3803-1989 present a solid baseline for the initial capability of the charcoal. Using ASTM D3803-1989 to test used charcoal is a very accurate and reproducible method for determining the capability of the charcoal. By comparing the results of the tests performed on used charcoal with the baseline test performed on new charcoal, the addressee can be certain of the charcoal's level of degradation.

Analyses of design-basis accidents assume a particular ESF charcoal filter adsorption efficiency when calculating offsite and control room operator doses. Licensees then test charcoal filter samples to determine whether the filter adsorber efficiency it greater than that assumed in the design-basis accident analysis. The laboratory test acceptance criteria contain a safety factor to ensure that the efficiency assumed in the accident analysis is still valid at the end of the operating cycle. Because ASTM D3803-1989 is a more accurate and demanding test than older tests, addressees that upgrade their TS to this new protocol will be able to use a safety factor as low as 2 for determining the acceptance criteria for charcoal filter efficiency (see note in Enclosure 2 for further discussion). This safety factor can be used for systems with or without humidity contro! b=cause the lack of humidity control is already accounted for in the test conditions (systems without humidity control test at 95 percent RH and systems with humidity control can test at 70 percent RH). The staff has previously approved reductions in the safety factor for plants adopting the ASTM D3803-1989 standard on a case-by-case basis.

(The staff plans to make conforming changes to RG 1.52.)

The licensees that received emergency TS changes were in Groups 3 and 4. Licensees in Groups 3 and 4 have TS that require charcoal to be tested in accordance with RG 1.52 or ANSI N509-1976, and are not in compliance with their TS because the specified test protocol cannot be successfully completed as discussed in Enclosure 1. These licensees' are either (1) testing in accordance with the desired ASTM D3803-1989 (Group 3) or (2) using earlier revisions of ASTM D3803 or an older standard, which they believe are acceptable (Group 4).

The staff does not have confidence that the results from RG 1.52 or ANSI N509-1976 meet the intent of the TS, which is to ensure that the doses are within the required limits. Therefore, licansees in these groups have not adequately demonstrated compliance with their licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100.

The staff believes that (1) conflicting guidance, (2) complex and ambiguous standards, and (3) licensee belief that using later versions of the ASTM D3803 standard would satisfy TS

s. <

~

GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 6 of 11

. requirements, contributed to confusion regarding charcoal testing. These factors may explain why licensees did not adopt ASTM D3803-1989 (see Enclosure 1 for further discussion). In addition, on the basis of the available laboratory test results, the staff believes that most charcoal in use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety. This confidence in charcoal performance, the low probability of a design-basis accident and the conservatism inherent in the design-basis dose calculations, including the conservatism in the design-basis source term, justify the time frames for the resolution of this matter. Therefore, the staffintends to exercise enforcement discretion, consistent with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy, for all addressees in Groups 2, 3, and 4, provided that o' A TS amendment request referencing ASTM D3803-1989 or an attemate test protocol is submitted to the NRC within 180 days of the date of this letter, e At the next required laboratory surveillance test of a charcoal sample that is 60 or more days after the date of this generic letter, charcoal samples are tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 or all of the charcoal is replaced with new charcoal that has been tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989. In all cases, the results should meet the acceptance criterion that is derivec from applying a safety factor as low as 2 (see the note in Enclosure 2) to the charcoal filter efficiency assumed in the addressee's desion-basis dose analysis; and e The charcoal samples continue to be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, in lieu of the current TS-required laboratory testing, until the TS amendment is approved by the NRC.

Licensees in Group 2 have been complying with their TS by testing their charcoal in accordance

. with their TS. Therefore, enforcement discretion is not required for past surveillance testing.

However, the staff will exercise enforcement discretion for licensees in Group 2 to eliminate unnecessary testing of charcoal samples to both ASTM D3803-1989 and the current TS testing protocol during the period of time between issuance of the generic letter and approval of the TS amendment.

Reauested Actions

1. Wdhin 180 days of the date of this generic letter, submit a written response to the NRC describing your current TS requirements for the laboratory testing of charcoal samples for each ESF ventilation system including the specific test protocol, temperature, RH, charcoal bed thickness', total residence time per bed depth, and penetration at which the TS require the test to be performed. If your current TS specifically require laboratory testing of charcoal samples in accordance with the ASTM D3803-1989 protocol at 30 *C [86 *F], and you have been testing in accordance with this standard, then you only need to address this requested action (i.e. no TS amendment or additional testing is required).

c GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 7 of 11

2. If you choose to adopt the ASTM D3803-1989 protocol, submit a TS amendment request to require testing to this protocol within 180 days of the date of this generic letter. The request should contain the test temperature, RH, and penetration at which the proposed TS will require the test to be performed and the basis for these values. If the system has a 1 face velocity greater than 10 percent of 0.203 m/s [40 ft/ min), then the revised TS should {

specify the face velocity. Also, indicate when the next laboratory test is scheduled to be performed. (Enclosure 2 is a sample TS that the NRC considers acceptable.)

f

3. If you are proposing an altemate test protocol, address the attributes discussed belsf and j submit a TS amendment request to reouire testing to this attemate protocol withb q

180 days of the date of this generic letter. The request should contain the test j temperature, RH, and penetration at which the proposed TS will require the test to be 1 performed and the basis for these values. If the system has a face velocity greater than 10 percent of 0.203 m/s [40 ft/ min), then the revised TS should specify the face velocity.

Also, indicate when the next laboratory test is scheduled to be performed.

The following information should be submitted for staff review to determine the acceptability of the attemate protocol:

1. summary of the test method

2. precision of the method

3. description of the test apparatus along with tolerances 4, parameter specifications

5. material requirements

6. hazards

7. preparation of the apparatus before initiation of the test

8. calibration requirements of the test equipment

9. test procedure

10. manner of calculating penetration and error 11, repeatability and reproducibility of the results for 1 percent and 10 percent penetration and the penetration at a 95 percent confidence interval for charcoal tested at 70 percent RH and at 95 percent RH L

pc GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 8 of 11

12. bias associated with the method ,

l

13. results from at least two laboratories which demonstrate that the attemate test 1 protocol achieves results that are consistent with, or more conservative than, results associated with ASTM D3803-1989.

The demonstration identified in item 13 above should be based upon a series of tests comparing the attemate test protocol and ASTM D3803-1989, and it should apply to both new and used charcoal tested at 70 percent RH and at 95 percent RH. If an addressee chooses to test its charcoal samples at actual accident conditions which are different from the test conditions specified in ASTM D3803-1989, then that test should be treated as an attemate protocol. At least two laboratories should be used in determining the acceptability of the alternate protocol. One laboratory should be used to develop the attemate protocol and the other to demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of the attemate protocol. The two laboratories should be able to demonstrate that the attemate protocol is at least as conservative as ASTM D3803-1989, and should be able to perform the ASTM D3803-1989 test and achieve repeatable and reproducible results

4. At the next required laboratory surveillance test of a charcoal sample that is 60 or more days after the date of this generic letter, test your charcoal samples in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 or replace all of the charcoal with new charcoal that has been tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989. In all cases, the results should meet the acceptance criterion that is derived from applying a safety factor as low as 2 (see the note in Enclosure 2) to the charcoal filter efficiency assumed in your design-basis dose analysis and the charcoal samples should continue to be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, in lieu of the current TS-required laboratory testing, until the TS amendment is approved by the NRC.

5. Addressees who choose not to do the above actions are requested to notify the NRC in writing of their decision, as soon as a decision is reached but no later than 60 days from the date of this generic letter. The 60 day written response should also discuss (1) addressee plans to pursue a proposed attemative course of action (including the basis for establishing its acceptability), (2) the schedule for submitting that proposal for NRC staff review (that proposal should be submitted to the NRC no later than 180 days from the date of this generic letter), and (3) the basis for continued operability of affected systems and components until such time that the proposed altemative course of action is approved by the NRC.

Address the written response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. In addition, send a copy to the appropriate regional administrator.-

1

n

• h GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 9 of 11 Reasons for Reauested Information This generic letter requests that addressees submit information. The requested information will enable the NRC staff to make a determination that addressess are testing the nuclear-grade activated charcoal of their ESF ventilation systems in accordance with a suitable testing standard to ensure that the charcoal filters are capable of performing their required safety function and that the licensing bases of their respective facilities regarding onsite and offsite dose consequences continue to be satisfied.

The NRC erroneously assumed that existing charcoal filter test protocols other than ASTM D3803-1989 would be sufficient to assure accurate and reproducible results. In fact, the ,

availab;e laboratory test results demonstrate that existing test protocols other than i ASTM D3803-1989 do not provide accurate and reproducible test results and may overestimate the capability of the charcoal. Therefore, the requested information is necessary for the NRC staff to make an accurate assessment of the charcoal filter capability, in order to assure compliance with the plant's licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of GDC 19 and

' Part 100, including commitment to the resolution of TMl Action Plan item Ill.D.3.4.

Backfit Discussion

. Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, " General Design Criteria (GDC) for Nuclear Power Plants," and the plant safety analyses require and/or commit that licensees design and test safety-related structures, systems, and components to offer adequate assurance that they can perform their safety functions. Specifically, GDC 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 specifisc dose limits to ensure that control room operators are provided with adequate radiation protection under accident conditions. Following the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), TMI Action Plan item Ill.D.3A, " Control Room Habitability Requirements," as specified in NUREG-0737, ,

" Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," required all licensees to perform evaluations '

and identify appropriate modifications to ensure that control room operators are adequately protected from the release of radioactive gases and that the nuclear power plant can be safely operated or shut down under design-basis accident conditions (GDC 19). When modifications were proposed by licensees, the NRC issued orders confirming licensee commitments. As a result, all licensees are required to meet the dose limits of GDC 19. In addition, Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 100 specifies reference dose values that can be used in evaluating the suitability of proposed sites for nuclear power plants with respect to potential reactor accidents that could result in the release of significant quantities of radioactive fission products. The expectation is that the site location and the engineered safety features included as safeguards against the 4 hazardous consequences of an accident, should one occur, ensure a low risk of public exposure, in this regard, licensees commit to dose limits that can be used as the basis for ,

assessing the performance of safety-related structures, systems, and components.

~ Accordingly, to ensure continued compliance with facilities' licensing bases, as they relate to the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100, a valid test protocol is necessary.

GL 99-02 June 3,1999 )

Page 10 of 11 The actions requested in this generic letter are considered compliance backfits under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i). The compliance exception addresses, inter alia situations I where the licensee has failed to meet known and established Commission standards because of mistake of fact.- See 50 FR 38103 (September 20,1985). The NRC erroneously assumed that existing charcoal filter test protocols other than ASTM D3803-1989 would be sufficient to assure accurate and reproducible results. In fact, the available laboratory test results demonstrate that existing test protocols other than ASTM D3803-1989 do not provide accurate and reproducible test results and may overestimate the capability of the charcoal. Therefore, the proposed backfit, which would apply only to used charcoal filters, is necessary for accurate assessment of the charcoal filter capability, in order to assure compliance with the plant's licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100, including commitment to .

the resolution of TMI Action Plan item lil.D.3.4. The NRC staff has adopted a new staff position by endorsing the ASTM D3803-1989 testing standard for referencing in plant TS because ASTM D3803-1989 is the only available testing standard the staff is aware of that provides accurate and reproducible test results. In accordance with the provisions of

)

l 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i), regarding compliance backfits, a full backfit analysis was not 1 performed. However, an evaluation was performed in accordance with NRC procedures, including a statement of the objectives, the reasons for the requested actions, and the basis for invoking the compliance exception, and is reflected in this backfit discussion.

EederalReaister Notification A notice of opportunity for public comment was published in the FederalRegister on February 25,1998. Comments were received from 18 licensees,2 industry organizations, 2 charcoal testing laboratories, and 1 individual. The staff considered all comrr.ents that were received, including comments received as late as May 26,1998. Copies of the staff evaluation of these comments are available in the Public Document Room.

Paoerwork Reduction Act Statement This generic letter contains information collections that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (22 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), approval number 3150-0011, through August 31,2000.

The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 250 hours0.00289 days <br />0.0694 hours <br />4.133598e-4 weeks <br />9.5125e-5 months <br /> per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the potential impact of the collection of information contained in the generic letter and on the following issues:

(1) is the proposed collection of information necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including consideration of whether the information will have practical utility?

m-GL 99-02 Junt 3,1999 Page 11 of 11 (2) is the estimate of burden accurate?

. (3) is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?

(4) How can the burden of the collection of information be minimized, including consideration of the use of automated collection techniquea?

Send comments on any aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to the information and Records Management Branch, T-6 F33, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202 (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. 20503.

The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number, if you have any questions about this matter, please contact the technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager.

[ Orig. /s/'d by S.F. Newberry]

for David B. Matthews, Director Division of Regulatory improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Technical contact: Joh'n P. Segala, NRR 301-415-1858 Internet: jps1@nrc. gov Lead project manager: Brenda L. Mozafari, NRR 301-415-2020 Internet: bim@nrc. gov Attachments:

'(1) Background information on the Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (2) Sample Technical Specifications (3) List of Recently issued NRC Genric Letters DOCUMENT NAME: A:\secygl43.wpd TO receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box C= Copy w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with attachment / enclosure N = No I copy i

OFFICE- REXBiDRIP DSSA:SPLB C:REXB: DRIP D: DRIP u--

NAME JShapakedjMd; JSegala 6h LMarsh h DMatthMW )

DATE I/M9 4 / A/99 6/3/99 h/'fl99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY l l

Att:chmant 1

~' GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 1 of 6 BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL Charcoal Testing Requirements Analyses of design-basis accidents assume a particular engineered safety features (ESF) charcoal filter adsorption efficiency when calculating offsite and control room operator doses.

Licensees then test charcoal filter samples to determine whether the filter adsorber efficiency is greater than that assumed in the design-basis accident analysis. The laboratory test acceptance criteria contain a safety factor to ensure that the efficiency assumed in the accident analysis is still valid at the end of the operating cycle.

Guidance on the frequency of, and the test method for, the laboratory testing of charcoal appears in various documents, including all revisions of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.52, " Design, Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Postaccident Engineered-Safety-Feature Atmosphert.

Cleanup System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," and other NRC documents on plant technical specifications (TS). Guidance on the laboratory test protocol appears in such standards as American National Standards Institute (ANSI) N509, " Nuclear Power Plant Air-Cleaning Units and Components"; ANSI N510, " Testing of Nuclear Air-Cleaning Systems"; Military Specification RDT M 16-1T," Gas Phase Adsorbents for Trapping Radioactive lodine and lodine Components"; and American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D3803, " Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon."

All of the standards describe a pre-equilibration period, a challenge period, and an elution period. During the pre-equilibration (pre-sweep) period, the charcoal is exposed to a flow of air controlled at the test temperature and relative humidity (RH) before the challenge gas is fed through the charcoal.' The pre-equilibration period ensures that the charcoal has stabilized at the specified test temperature and RH for a period of time, which results in the charcoal becoming saturated with moisture before it is challenged with methyl iodide. During the challenge period, air at the test temperature and RH with radio-labeled methyl iodide is injected through the charcoal beds to challenge the capability of the charcoal. During the elution (post-sweep) period, air at the test temperature and RH is passed through the charcoal beds to evaluate the ability of the charcoal to hold the methyl iodide once it is captured.

The ASTM D3803-1989 standard has two additional testing periods that are not required by other standards: the stabilization period and the equilibration period. During the stabilization period, the charcoal bed is brought to thermal equilibrium with the test temperature before the start of pre-equilibration. During the equilibration period, air at the test temperature and RH is passed through the charcoal beds to ensure the charcoal adsorbs all the available moisture before the feed period. During this period, the system is more closely monitored than in the pre-equilibration period to ensure that all parameters are maintained within their limits.

Depending upon the plant's TS, typical test temperatures are usually one of the following:

25 'C [77 *F],30 *C [86 'F],80 'C [176 *F], or 130.*C [266 'F]. In addition, the TS usually require that the test be conducted at 70 percent RH if the ESF system controls the RH to 70 percent or less, or at 95 percent if the RH is not controlled to 70 percent.

Att: chm: Int 1 GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 2 of 6 The standard technical specifications (STS) and many plant-specific TS specify Regulatory Position C.6.a of RG 1.52, Revision 2, as the requirement for the laboratory testing of the charcoal. Regulatory Position C.6.a refers to Table 2 of RG 1.52. Table 2 references Test 5.b of Table 5-1 of ANSI N5091976, " Nuclear Power Plant Air-Cleaning Units and Components." -

Test 5.b references the test method from paragraph 4.5.3 of Military Specification ROT M 16-1T, " Gas Phase Adsorbents for, Trapping Radioactive lodine and lodine

' Components" (date not indicated), but specifies that the test is to be conducted at 80 *C [176 'F] and 95 percent RH with proloading and postloading sweep at 25 *C [77 'F].

This test is referred to as the "25-80-25 test." The essential elements of this test are as follows:

e 70 percent or 95 percent RH e 5-hour pre-equilibration (pre-sweep) time, with ::! at 25 *C [77 *F) and plant-specific RH e 2-hour challenge, with gas at 80 *C [176 'F) and plant-specific RH e A 2-hour elution (post-sweep) time, with air at 25 *C [77 *F) and plant-specific RH The latest acceptable methodology for the laboratory testing of the charcoal is ASTM Standard D3803-1989, " Standard Tes t Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon."

ASTM D3803-1989 is updated guidance based on an NRC verification and validation effort regarding ASTM D3803-1979, which is updated guidance based on RDT M 16-1T. The essential elements of the ASTM D3803-1989 test are as follows:

e 70 percent or 95 percent RH e 2-hour minimum thermal stabilization, at 30 *C [86 'F]

e 16-hour pre-equilibration (pre-sweep) time, with air at 30 *C [86 *F] and plant-specific RH e 2-hour equilibration time, with air at 30 *C [86 'F) and plant-specific RH e 1-hour challenge, with gas at 30 *C [86 'F] and plant-specific RH '

e 1-hour elution (post-sweep) time, with air at 30 'C [86 "F) and plant-specific RH The major differences between the ANSI N509-1976 and ASTM D3803-1989 standards for charcoal testing are as follows:

MAJOR DIFFERENCES ASTM D3803-1989 ANSI N509-1976 Pre-Equilibration (Pre-Sweep) Temperature 30 *C [86 *F) 25 *C [77 'Fl Challenge Temperature 30 *C [86 *F] 80 *C [176 *F)

Elution (Post-Sweep) Temperature 30 *C [86 'F] 25 *C [77 'F]

Total Pre-Test Equilibration 18 hours2.083333e-4 days <br />0.005 hours <br />2.97619e-5 weeks <br />6.849e-6 months <br /> 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> Tolerances of Test Parameters Smaller Larger As stated above, ASTM D3803-1989 challenges the representative charcoal samples at 30 *C [86 'F] rather than at 80 *C [176 'F). The quantity of weter retained by charcoal is dependent on temperature, and less water is retained as the temperature rises. The water retained by the charcoal decreases its efficiency in adsorbing other contaminants. At 30 *C [86 'F] and 95 percent RH, charcoal will retain about 24 to 25 weight-percent water. At 80 'C [176 'F) and 95 percent RH, charcoal retains only about 19 to 20 weight-percent water 1

)

i~

Attachmont 1 GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 3 of 6 Because most charcoal is anticipated to be challenged at a temperature closer to 30 *C [86 .*F) rather than 80 *C [176 *F), ihe lower temperature test coadition of ASTM D3803-1989 will yield more realistic results than would a test performed at 80 *C [176 *F).

ASTM D3803-1989 specifies a test temperature of 30 *C [86 'F) for both the pre- and post-test sweep rather than 25 *C [77 'F). There is little difference in the adsorption behavior of charcoal between these two temperatures. A temperature of 25 *C [77 *Flis more conservative; however, the increase from 25 *C [77 *F) to 30 *C [86 *F) does not represent a significant variation in the test results.

ASTM D3803-1989 provides results that are reproducible compared b RDT M 16-1T because it has smaller tolerances on various test parameters, and it requires that the charcoal sample be pre-equilibrated for a much longer period. The longer pre-equilibration time is more conservative because it will completely saturate the representative charcoal sample, which ensures reproducibility of the results by having every charcoal sample begin the test at the same initial conditions. Therefore, testing in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 will result in a more realistic prediction of the capability of the charcoal. '

TS Testing Reference Leboratory tests of the charcoal are typically required (1) once every refueling outage, (2) when l centain events occur that could adversely affect the ability of the charcoal to perform its intended function, and (3) following a defined period of ESF system operation. The TS require demonstration by laboratory testing that the charcoal is capable of performing at a level greater than that assumed in the NRC staffs safety evaluation report. If it fails to perform at that level, the charcoal must be replaced.

The determination of the appropriate test conditions, test protocol, and ceceptance criteria for laboratory testing of nuclear-grade activated charcoalis frequently not a straightforward process. It sometimes requires a complex journey through a number of documents to ascertain the appropriate test conditions, test protocol, and acceptance criteria. As described earlier, if the plant has STS, the STS reference Regulatory Position C.6.a of RG 1.52 for the requirements for the laboratory testing of charcoal. Regulatory Position C.6.a refers to Table 2 of the regulatory guide. Table 2 references Test 5.b of Table 5-1 of ANSI N509-1976. Test 5.b from Table 5-1 references the test method from paragraph 4.5.3 of RDT M 16-1T (date not indicated), but specifies that the test is to be conducted at 80 *C [176 'F) and 95 percent RH with pre-loading and postloading sweep at 25 *C [77 'F). This test is referred to as the

• 25-80-25 test."

Also contributing to the potential confusion are the various ways in which TS are written, and conflicting NRC guidance on testing, particularly NRC letters to the nuclear industry and NRC papers presented at national conferences. This problem arose from the evolving understanding of what constituted an appropriate test. At various times, the NRC has stated that the newest version of a standard can be used and the test can be conducted at a temperature of 30 *C [86 'F). At other times, the NRC indicated that the TS are requirements and that the tests must be performed at the 25-80-25 conditions, in various forums, the NRC has also stated that a technical argument may be made for using the newer standard. However, in L

('., .

Attichmrnt 1

~

GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 4 of 6

. some instances when newer standards were utilized to demonstrate conformance with the TS, the NRC required licenroes to submit TS amendment requests because the newer standards were not referenced in the TS. Therefore, it is understandable that licensees may be confused about laboratory testing protocols, testing conditions, and acceptance criteria. As a result, many licensees are not testing charcoal in accordance with their TS, although the tests they conduct may be more conservative than the tests required by the TS.

Additionally, the 25-80-25 test has difficulties in that none of the protocols in any version of ,

RDT M 16-1T or ASTM D3803 addresses performing the laboratory test at multiple temperatures as required by ANSI N509-1976. If the test protocol described in paragraph 4.5.3 of RDT M 16-1T (1973) is followed verbatim, a thermal step change must be made after the 5-hour pre-equilibration period to increase the temperature from 25 *C [77 'F] to 80 'C [176 'F) for the challenge period. The problem with such thermal step changes is that they result in condensation forming on the charcoal. The condensation of free water in the sample bed is cause for aborting the test, according to the 1977 version of RDT M 16-1T and subsequent versions of ASTM D3803. Therefore, the 25-80-25 test cannot be performed pursuant to any existing test protocol.

Because paragraph 4.5.3 cannot be followed verbatim, a few licensees have changed the 25-80-25 test to thermally equilibrate the charcoal before introducing the challenge gas.

Following the pre-sweep conditioning at 25 *C [77 'F), the bed temperature is raised to 80 *C [176 *F] before introducing the challenge gas. Although such testing does not cause condensation in the test rig, it is not acceptable because the results are not easily reproducible, and even when the test is successfully completed, the results may not be conservative.

Section 2 of ANSI N509-1976 states for the various documents that supplement ANSI N509 that the issuance of a document in effect at the time of the purchase order shall apply unless otherwise specified. In the case of charcoal, the purchase order date could be considered the  ;

date that the charcoal is procured. Therefore, TS that have the STS wording may allow the licensee the flexibility to use a more recent laboratory protocol than the 1973 version of RDT M 16-1T, depending on the procurement date for the charcoal, without a TS change.

I However, although the flexibility of protocol selection exists, the requirement to perform a 25-80-25 test for those plants that have TS that reference either Revision 1 or Revision 2 of RG 1.52, Table 5-1 of ANSI N509-1976, or ANSI N510-1975 can only be relieved by license amendment.

Categorization of Plants Since February 1996, the staff has issued three emergency TS changes to licensees that had determined that the tests they performed were not in compliance with their TS because the required testing standards and test protocols did not support a test in which the temperature is changed as required by the TS. If the temperature in the test apparatus is changed from 25 *C [77 'F) to 80 *C [176 *F) during the test without modifying the test protocol, water condenses on the charcoal, thereby causing the test to be aborted (to fail). The emergency TS changes were issued for the V.C. Summer, Davis-Besse, and Oconee facilities. The details of these TS changes are discussed below.

E

'n .

Attachmint 1 GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 5 of 6 On February 10,1996, the licenses for the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company (SCE&G), requested an emergency TS change. The systems

- involved were the control room emergency ventilation system and the fuel handling building exhaust system. On February 10,1996, the NRC granted the emergency TS change. The emergency TS change was requested because SCE&G had determined that laboratory tests of the charcoal of the control room ventilation system and the fuel-handling building system had not been performed in compliance with the V.C. Summer TS. The laboratory test performed for V.C. Summer was a 25-25-25 test in lieu of the 25-80-25 required by its TS, The licensee had been performing the 25-25-25 test because, in consultation with its testing laboratory, it concluded that performance of the 25-80-25 test would result in condensation on the charcoal and, thus, an invalid test.

On March 29,1996, the Toledo Edison Company requested an emergency TS change for the Davis-Besse plant. The systems involved were the hydrogen purge, the shield building emergency ventilation, and the control room. The TS for Davis-Besse required the laboratory

' test to be performed in accordance with RG 1.52, Revision 2. In this case, the licensee was performing a 30-30-30 test using the testing protocol of ASTM D3803-1979 in lieu of the 25-80-25 test. On March 29,1996, the NRC granted the emergency TS change to allow the 30-30-30 test.

On April 2,1996, Duke Power Company requested an emergency TS change for the Oconee ,

Nuclear Station. The systems involved were the reactor building purge, the spent fuel pool ventilation, and the penetration room ventilation. The TS for Oconee required the laboratory test of charcoal to be performed in accordance with ANSI N510-1975 and Method C of

' ASTM D3803-1979, which requires the performance of the test at 130 'C (266 'F) and

' 95 percent RH. However, the licensee was actually performing a 30-30-30 test using the test protocol of ASTM D3803-1989. The NRC granted an emergency TS change on April 2,1996, to permit the 30-30-30 test.

In each of these cases, the test performed to demonstrate compliance with TS provided results

- that the staff considered closer to reflecting the capability of the charcoal than the test required

. by the TS. In addition, the licensees believed that using the newer standard would satisfy their TS requirement. Their bases for this belief were the limitations of the test referenced in RG 1.52, their interpretation of ANSI N509 as allowing the use of later versions of the test protocol, and some of the guidance provided by the NRC. In the case of Oconee, the test actually performed is the test that the staff believes is the appropriate one, ASTM D3803-1989.

However, because these tests had not been conducted in compliance with the plant's TS, each licensee would have had to shut down its plant or remain in a cold-shutdown mode until the test required by the TS could be successfully performed, or until the TS were amended.

On March 21,1996, Carolina Power & Light Company flew a charcoal sample from the Brunswick standby gas treatment system (SGTS) to its testing laboratory in Ohio for the i performance' of the 25-80-25 test to comply with the Brunswick TS before restart of an idle unit.

The Brunswick TS required that the laboratory tests be performed in accordance with l Revision 1 of RG 1.52. Previously, the licensee directed its testing laboratory to perform an I 80-80-80 test. To perform the 25-80-25 test, the laboratory equilibrated the charcoal to  !

80 'C [176 'F] before introducing the challenge gas. The licensee has not requested a TS l

' change for Brunswick to conect the problem and is awaiting guidance from the NRC. I I

r7 '

• 1 e

y Att: chm:nt 1 i GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 6 of 6

~

As a result of the emergency TS changes, the staff has performed an intemal survey of operating plant TS to determine whether other plants have the potential for similar problems with compliance. The survey indicated that at least one-third of operating reactor licensees may not be in compliance with their TS because they reference the flawed 25-80-25 testing protocol and may have used later versions of the standards for the laboratory tests of their nuclear-grade charcoal. On the basis of this survey, the staff established the following four groups of plants:

(1) plants in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 (2) plants in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with a test protocol other than ASTM D3803-1989 (3) plants not in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 (4) plants not in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with a test protocol other than ASTM D3803-1989 The licensees in Group 1 have TS that require charcoal to be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, which adequately demonstrates the capability of the charcoal. The licensees in Group 2 have TS that require charcoal to be tested in accordance with test .  !

standards other than ASTM D3803-1989. The licensees that received emergency TS changes were in Groups 3 and 4. Licensees in Groups 3 and 4 have TS that require charcoal to be tested in accordance with the 25-80-25 test.

I l

L

~. .

Att chm:nt 2 GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 1 of 2 SAMPLE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS For Plants With Imoroved Standard Technical Specifications. .

C. Demonstrate for each of the ESF systems that a laboratory test of a sample of the charcoal adsorber, when obtained as described in [ Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2], shows the methyl iodide penetration less than the value specified below when tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 at a temperature of 30 *C [86 'F]

and the relative humidity specified below.

ESF Ventilation System Penetration RH see note see note i below below j Mate: The use of any standard other than ASTM D3803-1989 to test the charcoal sample may result in an overestimation of the capability of the charcoal to adsorb radiciodine. As a result, the ability of the charcoal filters to perform in a manner consistent with the licensing basis for the facility is indeterminate.

ASTM D3803-1989 is a more stringent testing standard because it does not differentiate between used and new charcoal, it has a longer equilibration period performed at a temperature of 30 *C [86 'F] and a relative humidity (RH) of 95%

(or 70% RH with humidity control), and it has more stringent tolerances that improve repeatability of the test.

Allowable , (100% - Methyllodde Etticiency* for Charcoal Credited In Licencee's Accident Analysis)

Penetratm Sal >ty Factor When ASTM D3803-1989 is used with 30 *C [86 "F) and 95% RH (or 70% RH with humidity control) is used, the staff will accept the following:

Safety factor  :: 2 for systems with or without humidity control.

Humidity control can be provided by heaters or an NRC-approved analysis that demonstrates that the air entering the charcoal will be maintained less than or equal to 70 percent RH under worst-case design-basis conditions.

l' This value should be the efficiency that was incorporated in the licensee's accident analysis which was reviewed and approved by the staff in a safety

_ evaluation. _

l .,

Attichm;nt 2 GL 99-02 June 3,1999 Page 2 of 2 For Plants With Older Technical Specifications Each engineered safety features (ESF) ventilation system shall be demonstrated OPERABLE:

a. At least once per 18 months or (1) after any structural maintenance on the HEPA filter or charcoal adsorber housings, or (2) following painting, fire, or chemicol release in any ventilation zone communicating with the system by:

1) Verifying, within 31 days after removal, that a laboratory test of a sample of the charcoal adsorber, when obtained in accordance with Regulatory Position C.6.b of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2, March 1978, shows the methyl iodide penetration less than [see note in preceding section titled "For Plants With improved Standard Technical Specifications"]% when tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 at a temperature of 30 *C [86 *F] and a relative humidity of [see note in preceding section titled "For Plants With improved Standard Technical Specifications"]%.

b. Within 31 days of completing 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br /> of charcoal adsorber operation, verify that a laboratory test of a sample of the charcoal adsorber, when obtained in accordance with Regulatory Position C.6.b of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2, March 1978, shows the methyl iodide penetration less than [see note in preceding section titled "For Plants With improved Standard Technical Specifications"]% when tested in 1 accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 at a temperature of 30 *C [86 'F] and a relative l humidity of [see note in preceding section titled "For Plants With improved Standard Technical Specifications"]%.  !

l l

1 l

l I

L -

n o, . .;

Attachment 3 GL 99-02

. June 3,1999

. Page 1 of 1 LIST OF RECENTLY ISSUED GENERIC LETTERS GENERIC DATE OF LETTER SUBJECT ISSUANCE ISSUED TO 99-01 Recent Nuclear Material Safety 5/3/99 All materials licensees, i and Safeguards Decision on Bundling Exempt Quantities 98-01, Supp.1 Year 2000 Readiness of Computer 1/11/99 All holders of operating li Systems at Nuclear Power Plants licenses for nuclear power Plants, except those who have permanently ceased operations and have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.

98 Boiling Water Reactor Licensees 11/10/98 All holders of operating Use of the BWRVIP-05 Report licenses (or construction To Request Relief From Augmented permits) for BWRs, except Examination Requirements on Reactor those who have permanently Pressure Vessel Circumferential Shell ceased operations and have Welds certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the reactor vessel.

98-04 Potential for Degradation of the 07/14/98 All holders of operating Emergency Core Cooling System licenses for nuclear power And the Containment Spray System reactors, except those who After a Loss-of-Coolant Accident have permanently ceased Because of Construction and operations and have certifed

' Protective Coating Deficiencies that fuel has been and Foreign Materialin Containment permanently removed from the reactor vessel.

OP_ = Operating License CP = Construction Permit NPR = Nuclear Power Reactors

= -

E y~u,,, e I ,I

• %e..,*/

POLICY ISSUE May 14.1999 (Information) SECY-99-132 EQB: The Commissioners FROM: William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

PROPOSEC NRC GENERIC LETTER 99 XX," LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL" PURPOSE:

To inform the Commission of the staff's intent to issue the subject generic letter. In the generic letter, the staff asks the licensees of operating nuclear power reactors to amend their facility technical specifications to reference either the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D3803-1389," Standard Test Method for Nuclear Grade Activated Carbon," or an attemate test protocol that has been demonstrated to give accurate and consistent results.

Additionally, licensees may propose another course of action, which would be subject to NRC review and approval. The objective is to ensure licensee compliance with the licensing bases of their respective facilities, as they relate to the onsite and offsite dose consequences of General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 of Appendix A to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reculations (10 CFR) and the guideline values of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 100, respectively.

It is the staff's intent to exercise enforcement discretion with licensees under certain conditions in the resolution of this matter.

A copy of the proposed generic letter is attached (Attachment 1). -

CONTACT:

John P. Segala, NRR/DSSA 415-1858 a f u

.- g p+'"%

W..... )

POLICY ISSUE May 14.1999 (InformatIOn) SECY-99-132 EQB: The Commissioners FROM William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

PROPOSED NRC GENERIC LETTER 99-XX, " LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL" PURPOSE:

To inform the Commission of the staff's intent to issue the subject generic letter. In the generic letter, the staff asks the licensees of operating nuclear power reactors to amend their facility technical specifications to reference either the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D3803-1989, " Standard Test Method for Nuclear Grade Activated Carbon," or an attemate test protocol that has been demonstrated to give accurate and consistent results.

Additionally, licensees may propose another course of action, which would be subject to NRC review and approval. The objective is to ensure licensee compliance with the licensing bases of their respective facilities, as they relate to the onsite and offsite dose consequences of General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 of Appendix A to Part 50 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Reculations (10 CFR) and the guideline values of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 100, respectively.

It is the staff's intent to exercise enforcement discretion with licensees under certain conditions in the resolution of this matter.

A copy of the proposed generic letter is attached (Attachment 1). -

CONTACT:

John P. Segala, NRR/DSSA 415-1858 l

@ o Mb/O 4/V

. 4 aa .. o o a .. - - . . .

The Commissioners 2 BACKGROUND:

' Safety-related air-cleaning units used in the engineered safety feature (ESF) ventilation systems of nuclear power plants reduce the potential onsite and offsite consequences of a radiological accdont by adsorbing radioiodine. The laboratory test acceptance criteria contain a safety factor to ensure that the efficiency assumed in the licensee's design-basis dose analysis is still valid at the et:J of the operating cycle. To ensure that the charcoal filters used in these systems will perform in a manner that is consistent with the licensing basis of a facility, most licensees have requirements in their facility technical specifications (TS) to periodically test (in a laboratory) samples of charcoal taken from the air-cleaning units.

DISCUSSI,9M:

The NRC has been working with the industry on the problems associated with the labor'story testing of charcoal since the early 1980s. In 1982, the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Committee on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment (CONAGT) conducted an inter-laboratory comparison test using ASTM D3803-1979 (the standard then being endorsed by the NRC) and found that seven U.S. laboratories and eight foreign laboratories obtained vastly different results when testing samples of the same charcoal. After efforts to resolve the differences failed, the NRC contracted with the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) to assess the problem. As a result of this assessment, the NRC issued Information Notice (lN) 87-32," Deficiencies in the Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." Through IN 87-32, the NRC iniormed licensees of deficiencies in charcoal testing, specifically noting serious problems with the capabilities of the testing laboratories and with the testing standard ASTM D3803-1979. The information notice indicated that the protocol developed by INEL could be utilized for performing the laboratory test until the 1979 standard could be revised. The .

ASTM completed the revision and issued it in December 1989 as ASTM D3803-1989. The staff considers ASTM D3803-1989 to be the most accurate and most realistic protocol for testing charcoalin ESF ventilation systems because it offers the greatest assurance of accurately and ,

consistently determining the capability of the charcoal. J The staff intends to' exercise enforcement discretion, consistent with Section Vll.B.6 of the enforcement policy, provided that certain actions are taken by addressees, including the 4

submittal of a TS amendment request and the testing of charcoal samples in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, until such time that the TS amendment request is approved by the NRC.

The Commission endorsed the use of enforcement discretion under the conditions outlined in the generic letter in a staff requirements memorandum (SRM) that was issued on February 5, 1998, in response to SECY 97 299," Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal,"

dated December 24,1997. This SRM also directed the staff to consult with the Commission before issuance of the final generic letter if the staff received public comments that resulted in significant changes to the actions presented in the generic letter.

Subsequent to receiving the SRM noted above, a notice of opportunity for public comment was published in the Federal Register (63 FR 9581) on February 5,1998. The staff received 23 letters in response to the FederaI Register notice, and identified 130 comments. Of these 130 comments,83 were redundant, leaving 47 distinct comments. Attachment 2 contains the staff's responses to the 47 distinct public comments and identifies whether, and how, the generic letter was revised to reflect a particular comment. As a result of the public comments,

F

,, 4 -

r- .

The Commissioners- 3 1 the majority of the changes to the generic letter concemed reducing unnecessary burden on addressees (licensees). Specifically, the conditions under which enforcement discretion will be exercised have been changed to allow up to 180 days to submit a TS amendment request, to

, allow testing of the charcoal sample at the next required laboratory surveillance test, and to I

allow a safety factor as low as 2 to be applied to the charcoal filter efficiency assumed in an addressee's design-basis dose analysis to deteimine the operability of the charcoal. The other L changes were technical and editorial in nature.  !

On the basis of available laboratory test results for more than 50 charcoal samples, there were significant differences in filter efficiencies for about 15 to 20 percent of the tested samples when comparing the test results from ASTM D3803-1979 and ASTM D38031989. This difference in filter efficiency can result in calculated design-basis doses to the control room operators exceeding the GDC 19 limits by as much as a factor of 1.5 to 2 and offsite doses from a filtered pathway increasing by as much as a factor of 10 to 15. However, the staff believes that most charcoal in use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety.- Therefore, given the low probability of a design-basis accident and the conservatism inherent in the design-basis dose calculations including the conservatism irr the design-basis source term, this issue is not an immediate safety concem, and the staff believes that the time frames noted in the generic letter for resolution of this matter are justified.

The generic letter was reviewed by the Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) l during its meeting (No. 333) on December 8,1998. The staff incorporated the CRGR comments into the generic letter, with one variation. The generic letter originally cited 10 CFR 50.54(f) as the basis for requiring responses from the addressess. However, under lasue IV.F of the Chairman's tasking memo, the staff has reexamined the basis for invoking $50.54(f).

The staff has decided that since the issue being addressed is not an immediate safety concern, .

- $50.54(f) would not be cited for this generic communication.

When 650.54(f) is cited, however, it imposes a requirement on the staff. The regulation requires the preparation of the rationale for an information collection to ensure that the burden to be imposed on the respondents is justified in view of the potential safety significance of the . )

issue being addressed; this analysis is not required if information is sought to verify licensee cornpliance with the licensing basis for a facility. Nevertheless, a section has been added to the generic letter that gives the staff's rationale for the information collection; this section is titled

" Reasons for Requested information." This is an appropriate standard that should be applied to all generic communication information requests, even if $50.54(f) is not cited in the generic communication.

- The Office of Enforcement will issue an enforcement guidance memorandum to reflect the

' enforcement discretion described in the generic letter.

SUMMARY

- The staff intends to issue this generic letter approximately 5 working days after the date of this -

information paper.

4 .

• N The Commissioners 4 COORDINATION:

The CRGR has endorsed the proposed final generic letter, including the staff's decision not to cite $50.54(f).

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this generic letter and has no legal objections to its content.

^^^ ^

$f M 1, William D. Travers Executive Director for Operations Attachments:

1. Proposed Generic Letter," Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal"

2. Public Comment Resolution and Staff Response DISTRIBUTION: I Commissioners OGC {

OCAA .

OIG OPA OCA ACRS CIO  !

CFO EDO REGIONS SEC*r ,

1

o (, .g ATTACHMENT 2 CRGR REVIEW PACKAGE PROPOSE.D GENERIC LETTER CONCERNING LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL PROPOSED ACTION: Issue a generic letter to (1) alert addressees that the NRC has determined that testing nuclear-grade activated charcoal to standards other than American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803-1989, " Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon," does not provide assurance for complying with either the dose limits of General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 and Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 100 or the current licensing basis regarding dose hmits, (2) request that all addressees determine whether their technical specifications (TS) reference ASTM D38031989 for charcoal filter laboratory testing. Addressees whose TS do not reference ASTM D3803-1989 should either amend their TS to reference ASTM D3803-1989 or propose an alternative test protocol and provide the information discussed in the requested actions, (3) alert addressees of the staff's intent to exercise enforcement discretion under certain conditions, and (4) request that all addressees send the ,

NRC written responses to this generic letter, relating to implementation of the requested actions.

The proposed generic letter was forwarded to the Commission (via an information paper) to inform the Commission that the staff proposes to exercise enforcement discretion in certain situations as discussed in the generic letter. The Commission approved the generic letter in a Staff Requirements Memorandum (SRM) dated February 5,1998, with the provision that the staff should consult the Commission before issuing the final generic letter if any significant changes were made to the actions presented in the generic letter as a result of resolving public comments. The proposed generic letter was issued for and received, public comment, after being published in the FederalRegister(Vol.63, No. 37, Doc. 98-4761) on February 25,1998. Following final CRGR endorsement and prior to being issued, the proposed generic letter will be forwarded to the Commission because of the changes to the i conditions for exercising enforcement discretion.

CATEGORY: 2 1

o  %

RESPONSE TO REQUIREMENTS FOR CONTENT OF PACKAGE SUBMITTED FOR CRGR REVIEW (i) The proposed generic requirement or staff position as it is proposed to be sent out to licensees.

(5) 1. Within 180 days of the date of this generic letter, submit a written response to the NRC describing your current TS requirements for the laboratory testing of charcoal samples for each ESF ventilation system including the specific test protocol, temperature, RH, charcoal bed thickness, total residence time per bed depth, and penetration at which the TS require the test to be performed. If your current TS specifically require laboratory testing of charcoal samples in accordance with the ASTM D3803-1989 protocol at 30 *C [86 F], and you have been testing in accordance with this standard, then you only need to address this requested action (i.e. no TS amendment or additional testing is required).

(6) 2.. If you choose to adopt the ASTM D3803-1989 protocol, submit a TS amendment request to require testing to this protocol within 180 days of the date of this generic letter. The request should contain the test temperature, RH, and penetration at which the proposed TS will require the test to be performed and the basis for these values.

If the system has a face velocity greater than 10 percent of 0.203 m/s (40 ft/ min), then the revised TS should specify the face velccity. Also, indicate when the next laboratory test is scheduled to be performed. (Enclosure 2 is a sample TS that the NRC considers acceptable.)

3. If you are proposing an alternate test protocol, address the attributes discussed below and submit a TS amendment request to require testing to this alternate protocol within 180 days of the date of this generic letter. The request should contain the test temperature, RH, and penetration at which the proposed TS will require the test to be performed and the basis for these values. If the system has a face velocity greater than 10 percent of 0.203 m/s [40 ft/ min), then the revised TS should specify the face velocity. Also, indicate when the next laboratory test is scheduled to be performed.

The following information should be submitted for staff review to determine the acceptability of the alternate protocol:

1. summary of the test method

2. precision of the method

3. description of the test apparatus along with tolerances

4. parameter specifications

5. material requirements

6. hazards

7. preparation of the apparatus before initiation of the test

8. calibration requirements of the test equipment

9. test procedure

10. manner of calculating penetration and error 2

11. repeatability and reproducibility of the results for 1 percent and 10 percent penetration and the penetration at a 95 percent confidence interval for charcoal tested at 70 percent RH and at 95 percent RH

12. bias associated with the method (8) 13. results from at least two laboratories which demonstrate that the alternate test protocol achieves results that are consistent with, or more conservative than, results associated with ASTM D3803-1989.

The demonstration identified in item 13 above should be based upon a series of tests comparing the altemate test protocol and ASTM D3803-1989, and it should apply to both new and used charcoal tested at 70 percent RH and at 95 percent (11) RH. If an addressee chooses to test its charcoal samples at actual accident conditions which are different from the test conditions specified in ASTM D3803-1989, then that test should be treated as an alternate protocol. At least two laboratories should be used in determining the acceptability of the alternate protocol. One laboratory should be used to develop the alternate protocol and the other to demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of the alternate protocol. The two laboratories should be able to demonstrate that the alternate protocol is at least as conservative as ASTM D3803-1989, and should be able to perform the ASTM D3803-1989 test (8) and achieve repeatable and reproducible results

4. At the next required laboratory surveillance test of a charcoal sample that is 60 or more days after the date of this generic letter, test your charcoal samples in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 or replace all of the charcoal with new charcoal that has been tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989. In all cases, the results should meet the acceptance criterion that is derived from applying a safety factor as low as 2 (see the note in Enclosure 2) to the charcoal filter efficier.cy assumed in your l l

design-basis dose analysis and the charcoal samples should continue to be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, in lieu of the current TS-required laboratory testing, until the TS amendment is approved by the NRC.

5. Addressees who choose not to do the above actions are requested to notify the NRC in writing of their decision, as soon as a decision is reached but no later than 60 days from the date of this generic letter. The 60 day written response should also discuss (1) addressee plans to pursue a proposed alternative course of action (including the basis for establishing its acceptability), (2) the schedule for submitting their proposal for NRC staff review (that proposal should be submittad to the NRC no later than 180 days from the date of this generic letter), and (3) the basis for continued operability of )

affected systems and components until such time that the proposed alternative course l

'of action is approved by the NRC.  !

Address the written response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: l Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. In addition, send a copy to the appropriate regional administrator.

1 3

4 (ii) Draft staff papers or other underlying staff documents supporting the requirements or staff positions. (A copy of all materials referenced in the document shall be made available upon request to the CRGR staff. Any Committee member may request CRGR staff to obtain a copy of any reference material for his or her use.)

.1. NRC Information Notice 86-76, " Problems Noted in Control Room Emergency Ventilation Systems," August 28,1986.

2. NRC Information Notice 87-32," Deficiencies in the Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal," July 10,19e7.

3. Proceedings of the 21st DOE /NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning Conference, " Changes in Adsorber Testing as a Result of NRC Generic Information," J. Hayes, August 1990.

4. Proceedings of the 25th DOE /NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning Conference," Problems With the Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal," J. Segala, August 1998.

(ill) Each proposed requirement or staff position shall contain the sponsoring office's position as to whether the proposal would increase requirements or staff positions, implement existing requirements or staff positions, or would relax or reduce existing requirements or staff positions.

This generic letter increases the staff position with regard to charcoal testing by requiring a license amendment and procedural changes to perform charcoal tes6ng in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 or an alternate test protocol. However, this generic letter also decreases the staff position with regard to the charcoal TS acceptance criteria by allowing a reduction in the safety factor. In addition, for some licensees this generic letter will  ;

reduce their charcoal testing burden because it will no longer be necessary for them to I send parallel charcoal samples to the laboratories to test their charcoal in accordance with both their TS and ASTM D3803-1989. Overall, the changes that result from this generic letter tend to offset each other.

1

_ (iv) The proposed method of implementation with the concurrence (and any comments) of OGC on the method proposed. The concurrence of affected program offices or an

)

explanation of any nonconcurrences.

The method of implementation will be the generic letter (Attachment 1). The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has no legal objections to the generic letter. The Office of Enforcement (OE) has reviewed the generic letter, including the enforcement discretion portion, and concurs. j b

4 l

F (v) Regulatory analyses conforming to the directives and guidance of NUREG/BR-0058 and NUREG/CR-3568. (This does not apply for backfits that ensure compilance or ensure, define, or redefine adequate protection. In these cases a documented evaluation is required as discussed in IV.B.(ix).)

The_ generic letter constitutes a compliance backfit under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i); therefore, no value/ impact analysis was performed.

(vi) Identification of the category of reactor plants to which the generic requirement or staff position is to apply (that is, whether it is to apply to new plants only, new OLs only, OLs after a certain date, OLs before a certain date, all OLs, all plants under construction, all plants, all water reactors, all PWRs only, some vendor types, some vintage types such as BWR 6 and 4, jet pump and nonjet pump plants, etc.).

The generic letter applies to all holders of operating licenses for nuclear power reactors, except for those licensees who have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from their reactor vessels.

(vil) For backfits other than compliance or adequate protection backfits, a backfit analysis as defined in 10 CFR 50.109. The backfit analysis shall include, for each category of reactor plants, an evaluation which demonstrates how the action should be prioritized and scheduled in light of other ongoing regulatory activities. The backfit analysis shall document for consideration information available concerning any of the following factors as may be appropriate and any other information relevant and material to the proposed action:

This item is not applicable to the generic letter.

(viii) _ For each backfit analyzed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(2) (i.e., not adequate protection backfits and not compilance backfits), the proposing Office Director's determination, together with the rational for the determination based on the .

consideration of paragraph (1) and (vii) above, that:

(a) There is a substantial increase in the overall protection of public health and safety or the common defense and security to be derived from the proposal; and (b) The direct and indirect costs of implementation, for the facilities affected, are justified in view of this increased protection.

This item is not applicable to the generic letter.

)

5  !

i

., e (ix) For adequate protection or compliance backfits evaluated pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)

(a) a documented evaluation consisting of:

(1) the objectives of the modification (2) the reasons for the modification (3) the basis for invoking the compliance or adequate protection exemption.

(b) in addition, for actions that were immediately effective (and therefore issued without prior CRGR review as discussed in 111.C) the evaluation shall document the safety significance and appropriateness of the action taken and (if applicable) consideration of how costs contributed to selecting the solution among various acceptable alternatives.

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, " General Design Criteria (GDC) for Nuclear Power Plants,"

and the plant safety analyses require and/or commit that licensees design and test safety-related structures, systems, and components to offer adequate assurance that they can perform their safety functions. Specifically, GDC 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 specifies dose limits to ensure that control room operators are provided with adequate radiation protection under accident conditions. Following the accident at Three Mile Island (TMI), TMI Action Plan item lil.D.3.4," Control Room Habitability Requirements,"as specified in NUREG-0737," Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements," required all licensees to perform evaluations and identify appropriate modifications to ensure that control room operators are adequately protected from the release of radioactive gases and that the nuclear power plant can be safely operated or shut down under design-basis-accident conditions (GDC 19). When modifications were proposed by licensees, the NRC issued orders confirming licensee commitments. As a result, all licensees are required to meet the dose limits of GDC 19. In addition, Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 100 specifies reference dose values that can be used in the evaluation of the suitability of proposed sites for nuclear power plants with respect to potential reactor accidents that could result in the release of significant quantities of radioactive fission products. The expectation is that the site location and the engineered safety features included as safeguards against the hazardous consequences of an accident, should one occur, ensure a low risk of public exposure. In this regard, licensees commit to dose limits that can be used as the basis for assessing the performance of safety-related structures, systems, and components.

Accordingly, licensees are required to test the nuclear-grade activated charcoal of their engineered safety features ventilation systems in accordance with a suitable testing standard to ensure that the charcoal filters are capable of performing their required safety function and that the licensing bases of their respective facilities regarding onsite and offsite dose consequences continue to be satisfied.  !

The actions requested in this generic letter are considered compliance backfits under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i). The compliance exception addresses, inter alia, situations where the licensee has failed to meet known and established Commission standards because of mistake of fact. See 50 FR 38103 (September 20,1985). The NRC erroneously assumed that existing charcoal filter test protocols other than ASTM D3803-1989 would be sufficient to assure accurate and reproducible results. In fact, the available laboratory test results demonstrate that existing test protocols other than 6

l I

E ASTM D3803-1989 do not provide accurate and reproducible test results and may overestimate the capability of the charcoal. Therefore, the proposed backfit, which would

. apply only to used charcoal filters, is necessary for accurate assessment of the charcoal filter capability, in order to assure compliance with the plant's licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100, including commitment to the (10) resolution of TMl Action Plan item lil.D.3.4. The NRC staff has adopted a new staff position by endorsing the ASTM D3803-1989 testing standard for referencing in plant TSbecause ASTM D3803-1989 is the only available testing standard the staff is aware of that provides accurate and reproducible test results, in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i), regarding compliance backfits, a full backfit analysis was not performed. However, an evaluation was performed in accordance with NRC procedures, including a statement of the objectives, the reasons for the requested actions, and the basis for invoking the compliance exception, and is reflected in this backfit discussion.

(x) For each evaluation conducted for proposed relaxations or decreases in current

- requirements or staff positions, the proposing Office Director's determination, together with the rationale for the determination based on the considerations of ,

paragraphs (1) through (vii) above, that:

(a) The public health and safety and the common defense and security would be adequately protected if the proposed reduction in requirements or positions were implemented, and (b) The cost savings attributed to the action would be substantial enough to justify  ;

taking the action.

The staff's proposed reduction in the safety factor for licensees who change their TS to reference the ASTM D3803-1989 standard may be considered a proposed relaxation or decrease in current requirements or staff positions. However, the staff does not consider this a relaxation or decrease in current requirements or staff positions because li ASTM D3803-1989 is the most stringent test that provides the greatest assurance for accurately and consistently determining the true capability of the charcoal. When the original test standards were created, the NRC and the nuclear industry ha'd little knowledge about what an appropriate laboratory test was for nuclear-grade charcoal. Therefore, to be conservative, the staf! applied a rather large safety factor of 5 (or 7 without heaters) for licensees using the older standards. Therefore, the staff considers that because the 1989

' version of the ASTM D3803 standard is significantly more stringent than earlier versions, a reduction in the safety factor is appropriate and still ensures adequate protection of public health and safety.

In addition, the proposed reduction in the safety factor is not a new staff position because the staff has previously approved several TS amendments in which licensees proposed a reduction in the safety factor when they adopted the more stringent ASTM D3803-1989 standard. For example, a safety factor of 2.5 was approved for Wolf Creek, a safety factor of 2 was approved for Dresden and Quad Cities, and a safety factor of approximately 1.25

. was approved for McGuire and Catawba.

7 I

(xi) For each request for information under 10 CFR 50.54(f) (which is not subject to exception as discussed in lil.A) an evaluation that includes at least the following elements:

(a) A problem statement that describes the need for the information in terms of potential safety benefit.

(b) The licensee actions required and the cost to develop a response to the information request.

(c) An anticipated schedule for NRC use of the information.

(d) A statement affirming that the request does not impose new requirements on the licensee, other than for the requested aformation.

The evaluation is contained in the Reasons for Requested Information section of the generic letter. It states that:

This generic letter requests that addressees submit information. The requested information will enable the NRC staff to make a determination that addressees are testing the nuclear-grade activated charcoal of their engineered safety features ventilation systems in accordance with a suitable testing standard to ensure that the charcoal filters are capable of performing their required safety function and that the licensing bases of their respective facilities regarding onsite and offsite dose consequences continue to be satisfied.

The NRC erroneously assumed that existing charcoal filter test protocols other than ASTM D3803-1989 would be sufficient to assure accurate and reproducible results. In fact, the available laboratory test results demonstrate that existing test protocols other than ASTM D3803-1989 do not provide accurate and reproducible test results and may overestimate the capability of the charcoal. Therefore, the requested information is necessary for the NRC staff to make an accurate assessment c? the charcoal filter capability, in order to assure compliance with the plant's licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100, including commitment to the irosolution of TMI Action Plan item Ill.D.3.4.

(xil) An assessment of how the proposed action relates to the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement.

There is no impact on the Commission's Safety Goal Policy Statement since the requested action is' considered necessary to ensure compliance with existing regulations.

8 l i

j I

ONf fff/

\ 7 7 h o b. ,

.c..4 F4 x y,g - ~1g g g:

a - -

. :nanergy A1 PO Box 97 Perry Oh,o 440g g

} h h6 '

Lew W. Myers Y yY $ - .,9 440 280-5915 Mce President 9pb b, o ' ,,, n Fax 440-280-8029 i

W,g g [g5 k;nv May 21,1998 j 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 ProposeJ Generic Communication, " Laboratory j 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 l at the Perry Nuclear Power Plant (PNPP) have reviewed the proposed Generic Letter, I and the resulting comments are included in Attachment 1. The enclosed comments l 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  ;

o  ;

o ,, ,

\(- Atttchmtnt 1 PY-CEl/NRR-2284L Page 1 of 2 Comments Regarding Proposed Generic Communication:

Laboratory Teoting of Nuclear Grade Activated Charcoal (63 Fed. Reg. 9681 - February 25,1998)

~

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 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 Specific 4;ons (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 discretion would permit use of American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803-1989, l

regardless of what testing standard the TS currently specify. The discussions of I enforcement discretion should be expanded to also state that discretion will apply to the test f 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 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. l' nts that test to ASTM D3803-1989 are required to meet their existing acceptance ofte son (in the interim period until a TS change is approved by the NRC), it is likely that u,arcoal which would pass the test J following receipt of the Ccense amendment might fail the interim criterion. This result I would lead to unnecessas/ replacement of charcoal.

2. Licensees may choose to continue to test using the testing methodology specified in i existing TS (in order to remain a " Group 2" plant as described in the GL, i.e., plants who i

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 perform two tests instead of one. For plants such as the Perry j Nuclear. Power Plant who have TS ventilation systems that are run on a continuous basis, this dual testing would need to be performed on a monthly basis. j i

L \

W A

\

Attrchm:nt 1 I. .

• PY-CEl/NRR-2284L Page 2 of 2 This imposes additional, unnecessary costs for the dual sample testing, a reduction in i available samp!d 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 administraton of regulatory activities. ...Where several effective attematives are available, the option which minimizes the use of resources shoulo 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 with extra expenses until the NRC completes processing of the TS change. Therefore, timely processing would be essential. i l

D,SO C w w. mnk.i w '* Vice Prrsident 6 3 R 95 OI o' k D . ,,

3. s eggk Consolidated Edison Company of New 'ibrk, Inc.

Indian Point Station Broadway & Bleakley Avenue h

Buchanan. NY 10511 Telephone (914) 734 5340 Fax: (914) 734-5923 March 27,1998 i

Mr. David L Meyer, Chief. o  ::s Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services hEE

• N

~U j l

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission @c.',

Z hi

)

Mail Stop T-6D-69 -

Washington, DC 20555-0001 knE !!E A< i z

9? O  !

SUBJECT:

Proposed Generic Communication: Laboratory Testing dQ g Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (63 Fed. Register 9581 - .

February 25,1998)

Dear Mr. Meyer:

)

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (" Con Edison"), as owner and )

operator of Indian Point Unit 2, is pleased to provide the following conunents on j the above referenced Generic communication. Con Edison has evaluated the j proposed NRC communication and the response to the communication submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). While Consolidated Edison ,

generally endorses the NEI response we would like to take this opportunity to add the following questions to the general discussion:

1. What would be the impact on the available supply of charcoal for the industry if the failure of multiple plant charcoal systems occurs based on the new requirements? .At the Indian Point Unit 2 station, the Fan Cooler Units (inside Containment) contain approximately 3000 pounds of charcoal. In addition, other ESF systems outside containment contain approximately an additional 2000 pounds of charcoal.

2. What would be the impact on the industry's ability to perform testing of multiple plant charcoal systems with limited vendor support, based on the new testing requirements? As pointed out, there are only two qualified vendors for this testing. Some time should be allotted for the testing of plant systems as well as for charcoal in storage.

3. Will the tertiary document be the final document to which the licensee is held accountable? At present, many Technical Specifications simply require the use of Regulatory Guide 1.52. This document specifies the

f ,?

. i %l-use of a secondary document (ie. ANSI N 509), which in turn specifies a tertiary document (ie. RDT M16). Will ASTM D 3803-89 be the final, non-technical specification cited, document to which the licensee will become committed? If not, will there be forthcoming additional commitments required to fourth-level documents specified from ASTM D 3803-89 (such as D 1193 " Specification for Reagent Water", or MIL-F-51068D " Filter, Particulate, High Efficiency, Fire Resistant", etc).

These reference documents, if updated; could cause changes to the

. testing method described in ASTM D 3803-89. Will it become incumbent on the licensee to follow changes in these documents or verify vendor compliance with the requirements of these documents?

~ Consolidated I'dison is pleased to add these items to the general discussion and evaluation of tne proposed communication. We wish to emphasize our agreement with NEI, in particular with the connection of this issue to the larger issues of habitability and application of the revised source term. A single communication which accounted for both the revised source term and the charcoal testing standards would assist in clarifying standards and lead to bcneficial ventilation program enhancements .

Very truly yours i

1 1

~

DSO9 2-a s-q8 x-M 3,s w e d er 3 SeSctgA e3 FR

• - g g 9 58l William E. Ide Mad Station 7605 Palo Verce Nuclear Vice President TEL 602/393-6116 P.O. Box S2034 Generating Station Nuclear Engineenng FAX 602/393-6077 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 102-04101-WEl/SAB/RMW/RKB March 27,1998 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch p e D;

Division of Administrative Services is ..

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c- j Mai: Stop T6-D69 $ c$ $ .)

i ,

Washington, DC 20555-0001

@2"$

L

.t -

< u~

in

Dear Sirs:

bhD

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)

Units 1,2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 Comments on Proposed Generic Letter Regarding " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal."

Arizona Public Service Company (APS) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Generic Letter regarding " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." APS acknowledges that clear regulatory guidance is needed by the nuclear industry on this issue. However, APS has several concerns with the proposed Generic Letter approach. First, APS believes that the proposed 60-day implementation schedule does not provide licensees with sufficient time to perform tests and submit results to the NRC. In addition, the proposed 60-day implementation schedule would severely challenge the resources of the limited number of vendors currently qualified to perform the proposed tests and provide replacement charcoal as necessary. An implementation schedule of at least 180 days, commensurate with the safety significance of this issue, is recommended. Second, APS believes that it is inappropriate to use the compliance exception to 10 CFR 50.109, the backfit rule, to impose new requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3), the NRC staff must demonstrate a significant safety improvement relative to the costs to be incurred by licensees before imposing new requirements, i

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on Proposed Generic Letter Regarding " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal."

Page 2 1

While APS believes there is merit in addressing this matter, APS believes a more comprehensive effort should take place between the industry and NRC staff prior to the issuance of any finalized generic communication. Enclosure 1 provides APS' detailed comments. In addition to the comments provided in the Enclosure, APS endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy institute (NEI) regarding the proposed i Generic Letter. ,

f Please contact Mr. Scott Bauer at (602) 393-5978 if you have any questions. This letter does r.ot make any commitments to the NRC.

Sincerely,

/

WEI/SAB/RMW/RKB/rlh cc: E. W. Merschoff M. B. Fields K. E. Perkins J. H. Moorman a

4*

h ENCLOSURE 1 Comments on Proposed Generic Letter:

" Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal."

1

l c

\ \

. e s' L APS endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regarding the proposed Generic Letter on " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." In addition, APS provides the following detailed comments:

1.' The third bullet of paragraph 9 of " Discussion" requires licensees to submit an amendment request to their technical specifications. Implied in this bullet is that licensees are required to amend their technical specifications to reference ASTM D3803-1989. Clarification should be provided to state that this amendment request may propose an attemative test protocol.

2. Paragraph 7 of " Discussion" states that the staff plans to make conforming changes

' to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.52. The RG should be revised in parallel with the effort to transition to the new cocfe in order to ensure consistency.

' 3. Paragraph 7 of " Discussion" allows systems with humidity control to be tested at 70% relative humidity _(RH). Systems that do not have explicit humidity control, but which have been designed to ensure that RH remains less than or equal to 70%,

should also be permitted to test at 70% RH, and the appropriate safety factor applied.

4. Paragraph 7 of " Discussion" states that the staff has previously approved reductions in the safety factor for plants adopting ASTM D3803-1989 on a case-by-case basis.

Generic guidance should be provided that outlines the NRC-accepted criteria used to allow' reductions in the safety factor such that facilities may implement the reduced safety factor, if appropriate, without having to obtain prior NRC approval.

5.' The last paragraph of " Requested Information" states that "the independent

-- i laboratory should not be' engaged in the measurement of iodine penetration' of charcoal as a business either for TS compliance purposes or for the sale' and/or 1 I

production of activated charcoal for nuclear power plant applications." While it is

' obvious that this requirement is to prevent a conflict of interest, it also increases the .

burden of finding an acceptable independent lab that is capable of performing the ) I required tests and'providing adequate quality assurance. The laboratories that currently perform testing to.the ASTM standard should not be excluded from performing the qualification testing for new, proposed, test protocols. These laboratories have extensive nuclear-grade charcoal testing experience, established quality assurance programs and the equipment and facilities to safely perform this I testing. In addition, the extensive experience that these laboratories have gained by performing testing to the ASTM standard provides added assurance that the '

proposed test protocol will be evaluated accurately and objectively.

I i

r

p.fo 9 O At PM/

< ,e 7 bda:z sg/7 y Rb 2C OHf f CO.RLES H. CausE m,., [ @ g

. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Vice President Nuclear Energy 1650 Caivert Cliffs Parkway N A PR - 2 Pd, 3: 0 0 Lusby, Maryland 20657 flOQS g g ,, 410 495-4455

[

y H '

US Nk5 March 31,1998 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ATTENTION: Rules Review and Directives Branch

SUBJECT:

Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant Unit Nos.1 & 2; Docket Nos. 50-317 & 50-318 Comments on Proposed Generic Letter: " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear Grade

. Activated Charcoal" The Baltimore Gas and Electric Company is pleased to provide comments on the proposed Generic Letter. We have reviewed the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute and the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group. We endorse the comments submitted by both groups.

This proposed generic letter would: (1) alert addressees that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that testing nuclear-grade activated charcoal to standards other than American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803-1989, " Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon," does not provide assurance for complying with their current licensing basis, and that ASTM D3803-1989 should be used for both new and used charcoal; (2) request that addressees determine whether their Technical Specifications reference ASTM D3803-1989 for charcoal filter testing and if not, either amend their Technical Specifications to reference the ASTM or propose an alternative test protocol; (3) alert addressees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission intent to exercise enforcement discretion; and (4) require written responses to the generic letter.

The letter states that: "[T]he staff does not have confidence that the results of those tests will i demonstrate compliance with plant's licensing basis as it relates to the dose requirements of GDC

[ General Design Criteria] 19 and Part 100. including resolution of TMI Action Plan Item III.D.3.4." In 1 the proposed letter, the Staff has concluded that tests which use actual post-accident conditions to demonstrate acceptability of activated charcoal may no longer be acceptable. The new standard is inconsistent with the approved licensing basis and warrants a thorough justification under requirements ,

of the Backfitting Rule.

Calvert Cliffs currently tests all of the nuclear-grade activated charcoal used outside of the containment l

/

Buildings in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, and our Technical Specifications reference l

l

r..

.a Rul:s R:: view and Directiv s Branch

• /

/

March 31,1998 Page 2.

' ASTM D3803-1989. We test the nuclear-grade activated charcoal used in the Containment iodine filter trains in accordance with the same ASTM, with exceptions for temperature, species of iodine, and pressure to more closely reflect the actual post accident conditions in our Containment Buildings.

Testing the containment iodine filter trains using the temperatures, pressures, and species of iodine as l required by the ASTM D3803-1989, without exceptions, would require Calvert Cliffs to replace the charcoal currently in the iodine filters at a cost of approximately $300,000.00 for all six filters. The replacement of the charcoal also requires that the unit be offline and shutdown, creating substantial lost revenues. We feel that none of these actions create a commensurate increase in the health and safety of the public. Calvert Cliffs and similarly designed plants should not be subject to the proposed generic l . letter. We recommend the Nuclear Regulatory Commission further research the appropriate applicability l of this concern prior to issuing a generic letter applicable to all nuclear power plants. We feel that the l . proposed generic letter should not be issued -

Should you have questions regarding this matter, we will be pleased to discuss them with you.

Very truly yours, l

./^

s S l

[

for

C. H. Cruse

l. Vice President-Nuclear Energy l

CHC/JKK/bjd l

l cc: Document Control Desk, NRC H. J. Miller, NRC l

R. S. Fleishman, Esquire Resident inspector, NR.C

- J. E. Silberg, Esquire ' R. I. McLean, DNR Director, Project Directorate I-1, NRC J. H. Walter, PSC A. W. Dromerick, NRC i

l-t _.  !

f f i

F _n9m Davus-Besse Nuclear Power Statron yy S501 North State Route 2 n q,},hy gu O oak Harbor.onio43449-9700 l 479 9 1973 ea -2 m 9: 06 gp pg

! Serial Number 2528 7 [If/4l RULES & U3d.uCH j@g JS 27 March 27,1998 ZJep/9 US N 2 i i

Mr. David L. Meyer, Chief

. Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-6D-69 Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

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

Dear Mr. Meyer:

l The Toledo Edison Company is the operator and a licensee of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power i

Station. As such, it has a vested interest in the promulgation of formal regulatory guidance such i as the subject draft generic communication.

Toledo Edison has reviewed the draft proposed generic communication and participated in industry review and comment coordinated by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). NEI has prepared an industry response.

TE endorses the NEI response sent to you by Mr. David J. Modeen, Director of Engineering, NEI on March 27,1998.

Should you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr. James L.

Freels, Manager - Regulatory Affairs, at (419) 321-8466.

Very truly yours, l (

Robert E. Donnellon I

Director- Engineering & Services Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station i

j FWK/laj Attachment  !

cc: A. B. Beach, Regional Administrator, NRC Region III S. J. Campbell,' NRC Region III, DB-1 Senior Resident Inspector A. G. Hansen, DB-1 NRC/NRR Project Manager ,

USNRC Document Control Desk I L

h8 i station support Departmext a la 63M PKr/

, =mir y.Shp/9 7 pp M -u M Al PECO NUCLEAR 9r:CEIVED ecco e"e'av coma "v 965 Chesterbrook Bouleved A Unit of PECO Energy Wayne. PA 19087 5691 RULES & DR. EFEH US NRC March 27,1998 Mr. David L. Meyer, Chief Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T-6D-69 Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Comments Concerning Proposed Generic Letter

" Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal" (63FR9581, dated February 25,1998)

Dear Mr. Meyer:

This letter is being submitted in response to the NRC's request for comments concerning the proposed Generic Letter (GL) entitfed

• Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal,'

which was published in the Federal Register (i.e.,63FR9581, dated February 25,1998). This proposed GL pertains to the laboratory testing of nuclear-grade activated charcoal that is utilized in safety-related air-cleaning units of engineered safety feature ventilation systems of nuclear power plants which are designed to reduce the potential onsite and offsite consequences of a radiological accident by adsorbing iodine. Specifically, this proposed GL indicates that NRC has determined that testing nuclear-grade activated charcoal to standards other than those delineated in American Society of Testing and Materials (ATSM) Standard D3803-1989," Standard Test Method fo7 Nticlear-Grade Activated Charcoal," does not provide assurance for complying with dose limits restrictions specified in General Design Criteria (GDC) 19, " Control Room."

PECO Energy appreciates the opportunity to comment on this proposed GL. We consider the 60-day implementation schedule requested in the proposed GL too restrictive since it will not permit sufficient time for licensees to perform the testing and submit results to the NRC. The 60-day schedule would severely challenge the resources of the vendors qualified to perform the proposed tests and to provide roplacement charcoal, if necessary. We also believe that the safety significance of the issues identified in the proposed GL do not warrant the expedited schedule.

The NRC recognized this aspect, since it indicated that "most charcoalin use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability orpublic health and safety."

Therefore, if this GL is issued, we recommend that ,the NRC consider the safety significance and 4 implementation schedule based on a risk-informed evaluation.

e Furthermore, PECO Energy fully supports the Nuclear Energy Institute's (NEl's) position and

. comments with regard to this proposed GL.

o J

4 M;rch 27,1998

, Page 2 If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact us.

Very truly yours, s

Garrett D. Edwards Director- Licensing k

i 1

1

e commonweahh Edison Company [f 7' ,

i4oo opm naw nownen crove. n 60 sis-s oi 7 [jgp ja [g gg/

7 fyy/4 E  ? /$/[

March 27,1998 I??0 APR -2 13 9: 09 8M Chief, Rules and Directives Branch RULES CH Division of Administrative Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Commonwealth Edison Company's Comment on Proposed Generic Communication: Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal

Reference:

Federal Register Volume 63 Number 37 This letter provides the Commonwealth Edison Company (Comed)'s comments on the subject Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) proposed generic communication.

Page 9583 (Background)

"CONAGT indicated that all systems located outside of containment should be tested at 30 C [86 F]."

Comments: CONAGT discussed acceptable parameters for testing carbon outside containment. Discussion should be expanded to include those units inside primary containment or secc,ndary containment.

I Page 9584 (Discussion) j i

" . Within 60 days of the date of this generic letter, either charcoal samples are tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 and the results meet the current TS acceptance criteria or all of the charcoal is replaced with new charcoal that has been tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989" ,

l

"..A TS amendment request is submitted to the NRC within 60 days of the date of this letter, and" Comment: The 60 day implementation period for Category 2,3 or 4 stations should be .

revised to at least 180 days. For sites that have submitted the Improved Technical l Specifications (ITS) for NRC review, the licensee should be allowed to incorporate the changes into their ITS, rather than revising their current Technical Specifications. Stations in categories 2,3 or 4 should be allowed to test in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 with a safety factor of 2. The expanded implementation period is necessary to allow for K generic 1g!pgiresp.I

,k' .

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch March 27,1998 testing laboratory backlog, charcoal availability for procurement and alternate train testing for the same system.

Pane 9584 (Discussion)

"In cases in which the charcoal samples have been previously tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 for the last scheduled laboratory test and the results met the current TS acceptance (Group 3), the results can be used to satisfy the first condition above."

Comment: If stations in Groups 2, 3 and 4 have been performing parallel testing to both the current TS requirements as well as ASTM D3803-1989, these stations should be able to apply the safety factor of 2 to the latest laboratory test results tested to ASTM D3803-1989. Test parameters should be commensurate with accident conditions as described in Chapter 15 of station UFSAR.

Pane 9584 (Reauested Actions)

"1. If your current TS require the laboratory testing of charcoal samples for each ESF ventilation system to beconducted in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, then no TS amendment is required."

Comment: This should be reworded to state, " Stations that currently reflect the acceptance criteria for testing ESF ventilation systems to D3803-1989 without the safety factor of 2 being applied, may want to consider submitting a TS amendment to allow laboratory results that include the safety factor of 2."

Pane 9585 (Reauested Information)

"The request should contain the test temperature, RH, and penetration at which the proposed TS will require testing to this protocol."

Comment: The bed thickness should also be included, since bed thickness affects gas residence time as well as face velocity.

K genericigipgiresp:2

r' s .-

,c',_,

l Chief, Rules and Directives Branch March 27,1998

Paec 9588 Samole Technical Specifications,(For Plants With improved Standard Technical SpecificationA "C. ..when tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 at a temperature of s 30 C

[36F]

Comment: This should state "when tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 at a temperature of 30 C [86 F]" to comply with ASTM D3803-1989. Clarification should be provided that testing carbon to a0 C covers all other conditions less than 30 C.

Pane 9589 Allowable Penetration = [100% - Mehtyl Iodide Efficiency For Charcoal Credited in SER]

Safety Factor Comment:

Equation should be revised to:

f Allowable Penetration = [100% - Mehtvl hx!ide Efficiency For Charcoal Credited in Accident Analysisj Safety Factor Use of the efficiency credit in the accident analysis is more accurate because it reflects current assumptions and analysis versus those assumed in the original SER.

Since y, Thoma[. vach Regulator Services Vice President '

cc: G. Dick, Generic Issues Project Manager-NRR A. B. Beach, Regional Administrator-RIII Office of Nuclear Safety-IDNS l

i K pencric;g!pgiresp3 l

WINSTON & STRMVbED/ED as WEST WACKER DRIVE CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60001 9703 1400 L STREET. N.W. l)p3l% }l $ :6 E DU CIRQUE WASHINGTON. D.C. 20005-3502 50 8 ARIS, FRANCE

~

200 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK. NY 10166 4193 (202) 371-5700 RULES & D:R.

. fiGbG4ANivAN CEN7ER RlYADH 11495. SAUDI ARABIA FACSIMILE (202) 371-5950 43, RUE DU RHONE 1204 GENEVA. SWlUEROND DANIEL F. STENGER (202) 371 5742 )

y 3) yds OAV N' ff Ek NY March 27,1998

~7 Chief, Rules and Directiv'es Branch Division of Administrative Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff '

Re: Comments on Proposed NRC Generic Letter regarding " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal frac No. M97978)"

Dear Sirs:

On behalf of the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group (NUBARG),# we are submitting these comments to address the proposed Generic Letter regarding " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (TAC No, M97978)," issued February 25,1998 (63 Fed. Reg.

9581).

In the comments that follow, NUBARG objects to the imposition of this new testing i

standard by invoking the " compliance exception" to the Backfitting Rule, rather than performing a complete backfitting analysis under Section 50.109(c). Funhermore, several licensees have questioned the technical appropriateness of the acceptance criteria established by American Standard i for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803-1989, "Staadard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade

1. NUBARG is a consortium of sixteen utilities which was formed in the early 1980s and actively participated in the development of the NRC's backfitting rule (10 C.F.R. Q 50.109) in 1985. NUBARG has subsequently monitored the NRC's implementation of the i backfitting rule.  !

I

1

, WINSTON & STRAWN Chief, Rules and Directives Branch March 27,1998 f Page 2 l Activated Charcoal." Under these circumstances, NUBARG believes that it would be inappropriate for Staff to issue a generic letter requiring licensees to convert to the 1989 ASTM test method or to justify their charcoal testing method included as part of their currently approved licensing basis.

Specific NUBARG comments are as follows:

1. The Proposed Generic Letter invokes the " compliance exception" to the backfitting rule without any substantive analysis of the backfitting implications in this proposed Generic Letter.

Current Language The actions requested in this generic letter are considered compliance backfits under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109. If some licensees test their charcoal in accordance with their TS [ Technical Specifications] which reference an outdated test standard, the staff does not have confidence that the results of those tests will demonstrate compliance with the plant's licensing basis as it relates to the dose requirements of GDC [ General Design Criterion) 19 and Part 100, including commitment to the resolution of TMI Action Plan Item III.D.3.4. "Backfit Discussion."

Specific Corninent The NRC Staff has already specifically approved licenses for facilities that use testing standards to demonstrate that their ventilation systems conform with the dose requirements of GDC 19 and Part 100, and also demonstrate conformance with TM1 Action Plan Item III.D.3.4, other than ASTM D3803-1989, " Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." In the proposed Generic Letter, the Staff has concluded that tests which use actual post-accident conditions to demonstrate acceptability of activated charcoal may no longer be acceptable. The imposition of a new standard that is inconsistent with the approved licensing basis for a facility warrants a thorough justification under requirements of the Backfitting Rule. The Staffs proposal does not bring licensees into compliance with an existing rule, see 10 C.F.R. Q 50.109(a)(4).

Rather, licensees have previously received approval for charcoal testing or acceptance for standards as being compatible with GDC 19 and Part 100, and the Staff has not demonstrated that those testing methods will not comport with the requirements of GDC 19 and Part 100. Under these circumstances, a thorough NRC analysis under Section 50.109(c)is required. Clearly, the circumstances proposed here warrant such an analysis.

.m V WINSTON & STRAWN Chief, Rules and Directives' Branch

- March 27,1998 Page 3 ;

f

2. The alternative in the Proposed Generic Letter to adopting the 1989 ASTM Standard L

_ compels licensees tojustify use of a standard that was previously approved as part of a e facility's licensing basis. This approach by the NRC is both an unrearanable burden and' impermissible under the Backfitting Rule.

Current Language If your current TS do not require the laboratory testing of charcoal samples to be conducted in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, then . . . Your TS should be amended to require the laboratory testing of charcoal samples to be conducted in accordance with (a) ASTM D3803-1989, or (b) an altemate test protocol should be proposed for

= the laboratory testing of charcoal and the following information should be submitted for staff review to determine acceptability of the alternate protocol: . . 13. results from an independent laboratory which demonstrate that the altemate test protocol gets resulis that are consistent with, or more conservative than, that associated with ASTM D3803-1989. " Requested Action."

Specafic Comment - The alternative to adopting ASTM D3803-1989 is not a real alternative, it is a transparent attempt to force licensees to adopt a new standard selected by the NRC Staff. Having previously licensed facilities based on' other standards and where the licensee demonstrated conformance with the dose requirements of GDC 19, Part 100, and resolved TM1 Action Plan item Ill.D.3.4, the retroactive imposition of a new testing standard for activated charcoal is impermissible. By'its very terms, the alternative testing protocol called for by. Staff does not provide a real alternative to ASTM c D3803-1989 for licensees. Under Section 50.109(a), this action is impermissible unless the appropriate backfitting analysis has been l completed. )

6.a-...

7 WINSTON & STILOVN '

Chief, Rules and Directives Branch March 27,1998 Page 4

3. The analysis that adopts ASTM D3803-1989 over other testing methods is conclusory and fails to demonstrate thatpreviously approved alternative testing methods do not meet the >

requirements of GDC 19 or 10 CFR Part 100.

l Current Language The staff does not have confidence that the results from RG 1.52 or ANSI N509-1976 meets the intent of TS which is to ensure that the doses are within required limits. Therefore, licensees in these groups have not adequately demonstrated compliance with their licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100.

Specific Comment In this proposed generic letter, the NRC Staff has adopted certain private laboratory conclusions that, because testing at low temperature and high humidity conditions, are more conservative than other testing rnethods. Therefore, the standards under which many facilities were licensed are suddenly no longer acceptable for satisfying fiDC 19 and Part 100. Certain testing conditions can result in rejecting more charcoal samples, and, therefore, be considered "more conservative." A more conservative test, however, does not make other previously approved test protocols outdated or l inappropriate. Moreover, having previously found acceptable testing  !

methods other than ASTM D3803-1989, " Standard Test Method for

{

Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal," the Staff has the burden of i I

specifically demonstrating that the testing standard incorporated in a licensee's approved licensing basis is no longer acceptable. 10 C.F.R.

Q 50.109(a)(6). The conclusory statement offered in the proposed Generic Letter does not adequately demonstrate that a test under non-accident conditions (low temperature rather than high temperature, such as during iodine absorption) conforms with GDC 19 and Part 100, or that other test methods are non-conforming. As such, the proposed Generic Letter lacks the basis for invoking the compliance exception to the backfitting rule.

The testing standard in this proposed Generic Letter is not consistent with the standard to which many facilities were licensed. Accordingly, imposition of a new standard is a

' backfit requiring Staff performance of the analysis under Section 50.109(c) to issue this Generic Letter. The altemative of requiring licensees to retroactively provide a newjustification for an ,

1

g l;l WINSTON & STRAWN Chief, Rules and Directives Branch March 27,1998 Page 5 4

existing licensing basis is equally onerous. The Staff should resolve both the technical basis for adopting this standard and properly address the backfitting implications of this Generic Letter before

.. going forward with this proposal.

NUBARG appreciates the opportunity to comment on this significant initiative.

V truly yours, c/A aniel F. Stenger Robert K. Temple -

Counsel to the Nuclear Utility Backfitting and Reform Group l

i 1

I 1

l

1 f ri:ria re.. a tio ic1mpany, p.o.soxisooo.auno B:.ch.rt:340s-o420 AM 75%) \

hf747

. n i

y.3,pg RECEIVED 64 OM '

ppL gg I??8 MAR 31 2 8: 51 8 RULES & DR. GM4CH US EC MAR 2 71998 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: LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVAT2D CHARCOAL (M97978) I NOTICE OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC COMMENT

Dear Mr. Meyer:

Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), the licensee for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2, and the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, hereby submits the following comments on the proposed generic communication referenced above. FPL also endorses the comments of the Nuclear Energy Institute on the proposed generic communication. As explained below, FPL has significant concerns with the proposed generic communication, and requests that the generic communication be withdrawn or modified as suggested below.

On Febmary 25,1998, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published for public comment, " Proposed Generic Communication; Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978)." The proposed generic letter concerns laboratory testing of nuclear grade activated charcoal that is used in the safety-related air-cleaning units of engineered safety feature (ESP) ventilation systems of nuclear power plants to reduce the potential onsite and offsite consequences of a radiological accident by adsorbing iodine.

Comments on Technical Approach

'Ihe approxh provided in the proposed generic letter is a very conservative "one size fits all" approach without I I

a thorough evaluation of the plant-specific design basis. Performance of this testing, while conservative, may exceed, or not be representative of, the design basis for various filter applications. The draft generic letter would require filter testing at 30 degrees centigrade according to the ASTM D38031989 protocol. These conditions would be viewed as generally representative of conditions for filters located outside of containment. Based on expected accident conditions, filter units located inside containment would be expected to operate at temperatures on the order of 130 degrees centigrade when required to be in-service.

Accordingly. ASTM D3803-1989, when performed at 30 degrees centigrade,is not representative of design I operating conditions inside containment. The proposed test would be over-conservative compared to a test {

at higher temperatures representative of inside containme.1 conditions. Based on the foregoing, the scope of I a final generic letter should therefore be restricted to cuaide containment applications only. l l

l an FPt Group company

/

a ~

Mr. David L. Meyen Par- 2 of 3 1

FPL observes that some utilities currently have Technical Specification acceptance criteria of 99 to 99.9 percent filter chiciency when they have taken credit for 95 to 99 percent filter efficiency in the accident  !

analysis. De reason for these margins (safety factors of 5 to 7 are required by industry guidance) is to allow I for the potential non-conservative 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. l A more sound method for determining compliance with plant accident analyses is to apply the new test method to the filter banks as described in the draft generic letter and demonstrate compliance with the assumptions of the plant accident anaylses, 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.

Schedular Concerns The actions proposed by NRC could not be met within the proposed schedule. If adopted as proposed, the .

l generic letter would require filter testing by essentially all licensees within 60 days of issuance of the generic letter. As stated in the generic letter, only two commercial laboratories, NUCON, and NCS Corporation, are available to perform such testing. Further, if problems were encountered, the need to replace charcoal could overburden charcoal suppliers with multiple requests for charcoal. FPL also points out that for filter  ;

applications that are normally inaccessible during plant operation may require a unit shutdown in order to perfonn the testing. If the generic letter is issued as proposed, NRC should consider increasing the time frame for the actions required by the proposed generic letter or permit testing at the next scheduled performance of the required surveillance.

Funher, the development of an attemative 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 the acceptability of an alternate protocol would be much greater than the 60 days proposed in the generic letter.

Pronosed Use of"Comoliance Excention" to Backfit Rule In the 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 be necessary, the generic communications process may not be the most appropriate means for compelling licensee actions.

He proposed generic letter would require licensees to justify current charcoal testing practices or commit to new testing requirements in a very short time frame. If current testing practices are not dccmed adequate, NRC would impose, by generic letter, a new regulatory position that would result in a significant economic burden on licensees. As proposed, such requirements would be imposed without a backfit analysis pursuant to 10 CFR 50.109.

FPL questions the use of the " compliance" exception to the backfit rule in this case. In promulgating the backfitting rule, NRC stated that "[t]he compliance exception is intended to address situations in which the 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 the standard." 50 Fed.

Reg.38,079,38,103 (1985). In this case, NRC has proposed new testing to determine wr..pliance with NRC requirements he proposed approach appears to represent new NRC interpretations of"what constitutes compliance." Further, preparation of a backfit analysis to assess the benefits of this new position against tl.e 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 charcoalin use is not degraded to an extent that would

E

/,. I Mr. David L. Meyer Page 3 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 licensees is  !

inappropriate. 'Ihe proposed generic letter would impose new charcoal testing requirements on licensees, and j could mandate changes to current plant Technical Specifications which have been approved by NRC. Such j proposed changes appear to meet the definition of a " rule" as set forth in the Administrative Procedure Act j

(APA):". . .an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, '

interpret,or prescribe law or policy . . . . 5 USC 551(4). For rulemakings, the APA requires hTC to follow the notice and comment procedures described in 10 CFR Part 2, Subpart H. See also Public Cittren v. NRC, 901 F.2d 147 (D.C. Cir.), cert denied. 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.  !

i Very truly yours, .

\vb.

Rajiv . Kundalkar Vice President .

Nuclear Engineering l

I i

i

)

l l

l l

Op 3J NJ.d7-

),

p,p pg g/f ] { Wisconsin Public Service Corporation (a subsidiary of WPs Resources Corporation)

M 9/9 / ***'""**"""**'""'

1998 KAR 3I PM I: 26 North 490. Highway 42

*""** *' M2 495 M RULES & Da EiwCH March 27,1998 US NRC 822388 25 "

NRC-98-026 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Ladies / Gentlemen:

Proposed Generic Communication: Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal 63FR9581

References:

1) Proposed Generic Communication; Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978)

WPSC tha .ks the Commission for the opportunity to comment on the draft generic letter. Our <

comments 4 provided in Attachment 1. In addition, WPSC endorses the comments supplied by the Nuclear Energy Institute. Ifyou have questions about our comrhents, please contact me or a member of my staff.

Sincerely, YS f ML Marchi Manager - Nuclear Business Group BRH Attach.

.1 l,'-

ATTACHMENT 1 TO LETTER FROM ML MARCHI(WPSC)

TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, DATED MARCH 27,1998 RE:

PROPOSED GENERIC COMMUNICATION:

? LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL

r

, 'c\

The proposed change reflects a new staff regulatory position, and therefore, this generic communication must be processed in accordance with the provisions of 10CFR50.109(a)(3). WPSC disagrees that this action satisfies the compliance backfit provision of 10CFR50.109, since guidance has been provided in NRC Regulatory Guides that clearly states that performance of testing in accordance with these guides fulfills regulatory requirements. NRC approval oflicensee technical specifications for filter testing also has established an acceptable method for compliance with NRC rules and regulations. Furthermore, since the staff has concluded " ..that most charcoal in use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety.", there is no reason to forgo this regulatory process.

If the Commission determines the generic letter is required, WPSC has the following comments:

1 As stated in the proposed generic letter many of the current problems occurred as the result of " conflicting guidance" and " complex and ambiguous" standards. Therefore WPSC strongly encourages the staff to revise Regulatory Guide 1.52, the Standard Review Plan, HPPOS-069, and NUREG-1431 prior to the issuance of the proposed generic letter.

Revising the guidelines first will provide licensees clear and consistent guidance.

2 The draft generic letter indicates there are only two laboratories remaining in the United States that perform acceptance testing on nuclear-grade activated carbon. The staffindicates one third oflicensees may be required to perform the new testing within 60 days ofissuance of the letter. This will be in addition to the normal testing burden on the bxisting laboratories.

Replacement of any activated charcoal adsorbers requires bypass testing in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.52, rev. 2, Regulatory Position C.S.d. For many licensees, this requires field support from the same companies that perform the laboratory testing. This will be an additional strain on existing resources. Logistically, it will be impractical if not impossible for the licensees and the laboratories to meet the 60 day time frame imposed by the generic letter.

WPSC suggests that a more appropriate time limit ofone refueling cycle be permitted. Given the staffs own agreement that this is not a safety issue, there is no reason to impose a more restrictive time limit.

3 The generic letter would require licensees to submit the test results of the carbon to the NRC j within 60 days ofissue of the letter. Current test results are not required to be submitted to the NRC. These test results are available at the site and are available for inspection. There is no reason to impose this additional burden on finite NRC and licensee resources.

4 The requirement to have new Technical Specifications submitted within 60 days places an additional undue strain on NRC and licensee resources. Again, we respectfully suggest a more reasonable time period would be to have the Technical Specification submitted within one refueling cycle. Given the staffs own agreement that this is not a safety issue, there is no reason to impose a more restrictive time limit.

i l

L 4

Conclusion WPSC does not support the issuance of the proposed generic letter. As noted in our responsej is no regulatory basis for the change. Furthermore if the NRC decides the generic letter should issued, there are significant logistical and resource issues that need to be addressed prior the of the finalletter.

- Panerwork Reduction Act WPSC estimates that responding to the generic letter will take approximately 300 person-hours.

4 O

1 1

I

DSM (p g ?sti 4 7 8bda S >u#rr RECEIVED l?M MAR 31 FM I: 27 RULES Tennessee Valley Authority,1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee & DA CW.NCH 37402-2801 US NRC bkrch 27, 1998 i Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S.

! Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 Gentlemen:

NUCLEAR COMMENTS ON REGULATORY PROPOSED GENERIC COMMISSION LETTER(GL), (NRC) - OPPORTUNITY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL"" LABORATORY On February 25, 1998, NRC published a proposed generic communication public comment (63 related to testing of activated charcoal for FR 9581).

and has TVA has reviewed the draft GL scope ofseveral comments requested actions.concerning the merit, timing, and This GL would require more expensive, time-consuming tests of charcoal trays in the interest of higher confidence that the charcoal will perform as assumed in licensing basis analyses.

the NRC research insights documented in NUREG NRC 1465.This pr acknowledged in NUREG 1465 that extensive experimental work on post-accident source terms demonstrated that the iodine contribution than previously to postulated considered. radiation dose was much smaller l i

indicates that the quantities of the specific chemical formsNUREG 1465 of iodine for which charcoal filters are designed are over one order of magnitude smaller than currently assumed.

Proposing additional testing requirements to assure charcoal performance is inappropriate when the source-term experimental data shows using charcoal for dos i has a high probability of not being necessary.e The mitigation has not properly considered the technical findings ofstaff NUREG 1465 prior to issuing the draft GL.

9

~~.....

'. T

(

Chief,2 Rules Review and Directives Branch Page FMrch 27, 1998 Should the staff move forward with the GL, to be inappropriate, which we believe testing to ASTM D3803-1989 utilities should be allowed to perform for each charcoal filter The during the next scheduled test third of licensees may ne. staff noted that up to one-two qualified testing labs.ed to get charcoal tested by the to withdraw sample trays, Sixty days is insufficient time testing, fabricate or refill trays where needed, conductship them to test receipt inspections, testing, and return filter systems to service. install new charcoal, conduct significant concern that the amount of testing required There is exceeds the industry capacity to perform the tests.

Presumably, methods to replace their existing charcoal.several plants may be driven by re required, the production capacity of the two qualifiedShould this be vendors ImplementingmayASTM not beD3803-1989 able to accommodate this excess demand .

manufacturing capacity.would spread out the industry-wide deman which need further definition and clarification forThere are se addressees to respond effectively.

are provided in the enclosure. Our detailed comments In summary, documented in NUREG 1465, based on the research insights that NRC staff has technically justified the need for this GL.we do We not believe that the N appreciate proposed the opportunity generic communication. to respond to the subject Sincerely,

$ 4tfnski Mark (' . Burzy/

Manager Nuclear Licensing Enclosure cc (Enclosure) :

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN:

Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

3 .k,.

.Y ENCLOSURE NUREG 1465 COMMESTS The purpose of crediting charcoal in the licensing basis is_to and filter volatile organic). forms of iodine (i.e., elemental Current Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4 assume 95 percent of iodine to be this. type. NUREG 1465 stated'that where pH is controlled at values of 7 or greater within the containment, elemental iodine can be taken~as comprising no more than 5 percent of the total iodine released, and iodine in organic form may.be taken as' comprising iodine released.no greater than 0.15 percent of the total Thus the elemental and organic iodine releases are over an order of magnitude less than those obtained with the existing licensing source term. This greatly reduces the safety significance of charcoal filtration.

Operating plants (i.e. , pilot plants) have submitted revised source term analyses to NRC which meet dose limits with no credit for charcoal filtration.

addition to the operating plant analyses, NRC hasIn certified (ALWR) the System 80+ Advanced Light Water Reactor annuluswith no credit filtration for the charcoal filters in the system.

On the basis 1465 information and these operating plantofand theALWR NUREG applications, TVA notes that requirements for additional charcoal testing significance. are unlikely to have any safety Consequentl Letter (GL) is not clear. y, the need for this Generic OTHER' COMMENTS In 63 FR 9584, NRC discusses the factor of safety that 1 can be applied when:using the new test methodology. An

' allowance should be made for plants that replace installed charccal at specified intervals (approximately j five-year intervals)  !

life of charcoal trays.which coincide These with the programmed qualified replacement intervals provide assurance that the charcoal will not degrade below values assumed in accident analysis when tested within the Specifications frequencies provided in the Technical (TS).

• The staff cites test results showing that testing _ to ASTM D3803-1989 performance.produces more accurate measures of charcoal Requiring utilities to submit test results has no value since NRC has already reached a determination about the unsuitability of testing to earlier test standards. The requirement to supply tests results showing the charcoal is tested to the ASTM D3803-1989 standard should be deleted. This would reduce the t

b

,1 burden of the generic information request without reducing Additionally,the level of protection afforded the public.

with new charcoal that was tested to the 1989 stan the manufacturer, results should not additional be testing and submission of required.

Action 2 (i). See Requested l

i Where licensees results are either have tested or satisfactory to the ASTM D3803-1989 charcoal , the is l replaced 1989 tests. with new charcoal which has passed ASTM D3803-unnecessary expense which should be deleted. Requiring subm of test results should only be required where the Submittal licensee proposes an alternative to NRC-approved test methods (ASTM D3803-1989).

The estimate plants. of burden (40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />) determining the current status of evaluating the potential impacts of compliance,TVA developing this response. ASTM D3803-1989 testing,'and plants which already test to ASTM D3803-1989 for Reques already reference the standard, . . . " and whose TS and no additional testing is required." no TS amendment clarification, Without this testing within 60 days for all plants.the GL could be interpreted to req This proposed revision would be consistent with the " Response Requested" test section which does not require submittal of information D3803-1989. for plants currently testing to ASTM NRC should make allowance explicitly in the GL for higher temperature testing of charcoal where the charcoal performs its safety function at elevated temperatures.

Containment perform theirEngineered function atSafety Feature system filters The ASTM D3803-1979 temperatures well above 30*C.

temperature profile may be a more conditions. accurate predictor of charcoal performance in these The ASTM D3803-1989 excessively conservative standard would be in these circumstances.

Requiring licensees to test charcoal in accordance with test methodologies not contemplated in the TS raises a conflict.

The results of ASTM D3803-1989 tests may not be consistent with the acceptance criteria in TS which are based on ANSI N509 or ASTM D3803-1979 testing. NRC should address this on " Enforcement Discretion."

potential for conflict in the section The section should state 3 that use of the acceptance criteria in the TS changes j requested under Requested Action 1 will be sufficient to  ;

warrant Enforcement Discretion. '

I 2

Q DD'7 t y ; x 7 2 t/

RECEIVED ff ,_

M4#

1998 APR -l Pfl 1: 10 r C

'9 # TXX'98089 File # 10035.1 /3 '

Ref. # 10CFR50, App A.

RULES & DH. ERANCH 7UELECTRIC US NRC March 26, 1998 c.t c. wery Senior Mee PresMent

& PrincipalNuclear Oficer Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6 D69 Washington, DC 20555 0001

SUBJECT:

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (CPSES)

DOCKET NOS. 50-445 AND 50 446 COMMENTS ON DRAFT GENERIC LETTER 97 XX," LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR GRADE ACTIVATED CHARC0AL (TAC NO. M97978)."

REF: NRC Federal Register Notice, Volume 63. Number 37,

'Pages 9581 through 9589, February 25, 1998.

Gentlemen:

' he T NRC issued draft generic letter 97 XX, " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear Grade Charcoal (TAC No. M97978)" for public comment (See reference above),

and requested that comments be provided by March 27, 1998.

TU Electric supports industry comments provided by NEI (letter dated March 27, 1998) and NUBARG (letter dated March 27, 1998). The following are specific TV Electric comments on the subject draft generic letter:

1) General:

There will be additional implementation costs for plants (other than those plants in group 1). Technical Specifications, the FSAR, and test procedures will have to be changed. Additional samples will have to be taken from plant ESF filtration units resulting in greater testing costs.

2) Discussion (Paae 9584):

The generic letter Requested Actions indicate testing in accordance with ASTM D3803 1989 should be conducted within 60 days of the date of the generic letter. For non group 1 plants this would require dual testing until such time as a Technical Specification change is approved by the NRC.

In order to avoid the dual testing requirement, the generic letter should be modified to require adoption of ASTM D3803 1989 Af.tn approval of a License Amendment.

COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION P.O. Box 1002 Glen Rose. Texas 76043-1002

4

.* ~

V m .98089 RECEIVED Page 2 of 3- lppgApg jgg

3) Reauested Actions-(Pace 9584): RULES & DfR. ERANCH US NRC

- The 60 Jay time limit to retest. charcoal samples is overly restrictive. As.

pointed out in the protocol ~, there are only two testing laboratories left.

Requiring several nuclear plants t'o send numerous samples within a 60 day period would likely exceed the capabilities of these laboratories and may compromise the ability of the laboratories to maintain high quality. The charcoal sample testing should be performed at the next scheduled surveillance test or no later then 180 days after. issuance of.the generic letter, whichever is greater.

The proposed generic letter requests all licensees to submit to the NRC staff the results of tests performed to ASTM D3803-1989. This is a new requirement.

The generic letter does not explain the purpose'of the submittal. The generic letter should be revised to only request that licensees notify the staff of i . revised commitments.

4) Reauested Information (Paaes 9584 and 9585):

For the plants adopting ASTM D38031989 requirements, a minimum of 90 days should be allowed'from the issuance of the generic letter for submittal of the Technical Specifications Amendment Request. .

5) Reauested Resnonse (Paae 9585): .

Sixty. (60) days should be allowed from the issuance of the generic letter for submittal of the written response.

L 6) Backfit Discussion (Paae 9585)f l k For plants other than group 1 more rigorous testing would be required based on ASTM D3803 1989. . Changes to Licensing bases, design bases and testing and operating procedures would also be required. As such, this constitutes a backfit.

L 3

p-

..I  %

o TXX 98089-Page 3 of 3 This communication contains no new licensing basis commitments regarding CPSES ,

. Units 1 and 2. '

Sincerely, 1 1

C. L. Terry By: M '

RogeMT, Walker Regulatory Affairs Manager c- E. W. Herschoff, Region IV J. I. Tapia, Region IV T. J. Polich NRR Resident Inspectors, CPSES ,

Mr. Kurt Cozens .

Nuclear Energy Institute, 1776 I. Street, NW, Suite 400 o -

Washington, DC 20006 3708 g >$ g cn -

Mr. Daniel F. Stengar .% M.

Nuclear Utility Backfitting & Reform Group bp  : O Winston'& Strawn g,pc -

A 1400 L. Street, NE Suite 1200 og -

g <

d2 m Washington, DC 20006 3502 gr o

~c

~

p' I

.J

)~ 05/9 1 Sh/ din RECElygg S M AN

? S y?N{ 1998Apg.;

N Eugene F. Kurtz, Jr' NS0CR Lfgg '~

P.O. Box 1'64 US NRC Shippingport, PA 15077 March 24,1998 USNRC Chief, Rules And Directives Branch Division Of Administrative Services, Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington, D.C.

20555-0001 Subiect: 63FR9581A COMMENTS ON PROPOSED GENERIC COMMUNICATION:

LABORATORY TESTING OF HUCLEAR GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL Gentlemen:

Attached are comments on the proposed generic communication that appeared in the ,

Federal Register on February 25,1998, specifically,63FR9581 A Proposed Generic Communication; Laboratory Testing of Nuclear Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978). ,

This communication should not be issued as a generic letter since it violates the requirements of 10 CFR 50.54(f) and 10 CFR 50.109. Details supporting this are included in the comments. If the Commission wishes this to be a requirement for power reactor licensees, then consideration should be given to incorporate this as a regulatory requirement through rulemaking (i.e.10 CFR 50.55a Codes and Standards) or through plant specific orders.

It appears that the issus represents a technical improvement that should lend itself well to the regulatory analysis required by 10 CFR 50.109. For the commission to suggest that this is a requirement and at the same time not a change of NRC position sends the wrong message to licensees when the current message is " Compliance is simply meeting the regulatory requirements"'.

A commission that expects the industry to meet the requirements of the regulations through strict compliance should be held accountable to the same standards to ensure the safety of nuclear power in the United States. Licensees are required to analyze, review and report changes to their facilities and to ensure that FSARs accurately reflect those changes. This process ensures that proposed changes will not change the safety bases of the facility in a negative manner. Likewise, changes to the licensing bases that are proposed by NRC staff needs the same if not higher level of review to ensure that the proposed change does not:

. Degrade the original safety bases or

Reference:

Dr. Shirley Jackson, Chairman USNRC, "We Cannot Hold Back the Future By Clinging to the Past", Omni Shoreham, Washington, D.C., Nov 3,1997, 0830 hours0.00961 days <br />0.231 hours <br />0.00137 weeks <br />3.15815e-4 months <br />, No. S-97 23

.: j,.

63FR9581A COMMENTS ON PROPOSED GENERIC COMMUNICATION:

, LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL

. Have no effect on the original safety bases (i.e. no benefit to safety).

Also, the proposed changes must be cost beneficial with the incremental increase in safety benefit. It is important that licensees be aware of these positive attributes to ensure that they can maintain this licensed safety bases.

To state that this proposal is not a change to current NRC position inadvertently mis-commun' cates with licensees concoming the importance of the issue (i.e. maintain the status quo) and the commission's expectation of strict compliance with the regulations and regulatory requirements. if the issue is truly a technical improvement, then it should be no problem following the processes required by the regulations.

Sincerely, E.F. Kurtz, Jr.

9 4

Attachment Page 2

sd s ee se ag Ch i

ss wn nu e Rtfy  ?

tye elibt c et h h t a s?

i cahiw Ni es t to ese f n h hch e hu s s d aet es t

w niev s t i tj n nn eg Shum t ) ahce t o a ae ec n

t t n muc (glPl t

l i r nr 'n t d9 smi l h

a ewt r

iw had o 4 3.

isi w W )g te h l

u0 o1 a

Cat o c u 0e h0 Red 5 v g. (4 o

- t i g c=t et nh t a e n 3.tn S5 Nau ve n

R F Ri 0i i

e ha et t .R ehs s b

t t t hms eR Cdrke5d e nF oC hCi t

ha euS9 b yR e l

i dire .

0adot cot e s0 bNa v s tn t

uq 1 ndsrna o o1 N.AL t

n s e se sr evC 1 t e afoop pf deh e

i e eS t

ir C o ehy O

I O

C m h y siwhaD n

en ee G m0tepcn t o Rtsn ut e sih s

to08 rx ami Ne TR iec nly int AA m w y de n eea st o n l bsnf t

s f

ome r CH C e y ieheirt i

d0iee e e er a oh t sD s F f NC h to vt ayus a r rGhr e giu UD T nhicft i

uEt qRt o fob t nq n .tn oe t

hE  ? o e yo ae hs e t

nT e u

ot n yt t a ees rUrp eNops n

l hr c e anm cee OA s dhnt dhd i

etop aa i

V r r aht cir e so Tr a i f CIT s h e i

cliu sto e i

y t t t ? d bt h eeq n r w et wheg CIC RA t

f e

a ioW9n Ced p 1 t a

s s

einen e ev osa ow t

sg i

l phe st r oe EE s RRnCr s n rmnh ec r n at ct t h ND a NnomGh eDe ai ely inn e EA s eiat o t ea6cd c l i e pp? he n GR i ht idt e ces pmt s cmi DG h t t a slubeo e ef l

eifer r o a oe ehm t cr e E s muf up i

scu S R eal me oqeqo q eat I

A ovl ihe e ht t e DEwtiou s O Q Sriener r p Tbr Tad PLE OC d - A Md r RU e 3ee Te e t t n

PN s t

a 0dc 8 an x

i 0Au

. Ss v o

e n

rod enne e er NF i v 3 ra d 0 i t hed OO i DGrg n 1td anya l m r

om n tt e tt

)

st n unf e da i SG C aca) rsiop thal o e rde # des R ec s*

TN NI N

(

hacMass iTeansA et p rt a wt r t

e 1Te Sronh at '

nl e scq u e

Pdeaa d h9 f "

E tST CerSl RdeAcecif enrh oet8ln f a" srr ie 3 n Nam ( udimo Rn uc s csi9oi e hE t

hT n i o

s eg rAs Nili v l9 1 Fihc Cmt ce e

e roe 1 c ah - od t

s" ee ene g

a OY o n

s h - nl rot t raaorne 0 eb roah t

s s

wd3t e c l0 os e I seh sgt P CR t a

c i

n ahifpes) 1t r e su8 rs h e AO u s n

t etr roc erof d

r reo3 pu ehD c t# rsf dio 1T r u al edtrdD fdof o f dh o hcrt oou G o f d fss ts 8A m C t ueahnce( s sn a s Msi o at n 5R 9 m y: s nhMt t esrt n h Aadwo heoi l 9e9Ted 8 r8St s loi o

RO o ro egodMei o t sl t l 9d9A n e ltt F

3A B C c

n tot en sisatdht r n oeoi rful a af pae ad a

a d1 A-3 evi eo s"

e s

a st a

lar e std 6L s t e t cit ten e st btbtr ig a 0 nt a e ase n e s r g e ', ean tt r i h e e utreanT*

gt us e h g8 n3 rnnsd . r

[hnm t oe dtdi S d t G eed ntdniaC el ed iDerond esp pl d Rl atasrowl dhus t t f ef oa e rcthsTdrgrgat eaba en ntoue s e

sMet eT rlitt ni rem iri s , sct hah o airt nan i u tS a cr du qno p er e oraCit syi 0 n e q y Aot nh eae o l eldt ot e 5o9bg e l oeet P

r cnAe nl fSdl eps D i8 n R re atdA Rt ue N g)i a y" tt9li cocS e t g .

t mal ri1 ar ) ntnTeet) n)i ns ao a ad - oo ae sd s3 4 rin

.s( 1rce mot 2

,vcsr0Pd3ct .( rrroie( a( wt o a0 rie e o ei p v u ai S. ih eri9i t ac8trsn ie1 R 8 anm fbf eooq r Clt Ut eho9coaeoFn3 hoi aehrre e Rec eg dcS1AfbGtCIDcmt rl rt ppr c Nra e

s hn o Ti p u r s u s P i

~

, s R o Fc i h

Cr en w C 0ne s.

1 ee nt e gR

_ hGben t

i ebm ee enN si ntae w s.av vi i

eer erh icet esh au l pro ca n b yh q f o ed e o ers dar nt gh nR ehe rt ois s ac af d c n ssr i woo r c

a cn elene on ash nl ut ie is t ng i

aG eu L

A t

idn tsl n r engwe u Cmr Reh o

N:O OC or eei Nirt I pumr v e ud qe TR sc errhR eee h retc t

AA ri eu i t t aer e CH I o th qht o r NC t

eie t

hho? s UD d hr w e tet i wes t t nh ait sg c e ME cwec n ewh in MT epenn u met t a OA V x cy a e at nf n

t c n c h

i r d w nn CIT CC ednoC r r ec ea asc i

mlpw e ps I

RA aodceciah e my s t t EE e e a ctoiny a ohhc sCWe t

ND sn nd b

_ EA nioed isn t GR ef)dsesv ht i?g o en DG ic( 4 s e u t

si E

l r sn na t S R e 5. teco i

p e .

A h0t rp o reei ci t

O T5lepa Daini PLE l

OC RU ee r f

- of n d

PN y bh t

e w r

- t s

t s t t 3 f aF NF - d1 er y o a e eM a an 0 ya S ve e h ha 8 tt eE OO s n t ah P t tT iyae rh amg l e S t th 3i st SG ve r ut ul r ch t a

tA a S S t Dl i eri an se ut

- TN NI ahSu DtTsS h tsoaae aehnehen, het olth h

t hn t a T Tr e

eMbhu rTat cl E S T ,srl oTlwa rtsli c t ry h r rh iS p ca 4 ME rticynea esencrnlde nat u aN' f i e ev S

T St T

i e

it eo uAa ,ao q c1 c e g

MT mehEneiiec et mmti o

,N' s

ohr t u r re r h .h t9tl eh rt eesa tr a

OY mtt u egnria] sn',t s s i i h 8 o ihroh u P CR S eheriesc ua i rac6 eoosr nnf e h

et ho h9hc t1to twtut sc a

AO 1T

.ht se ti( mnerdoci7 t

ni iu t . t i - it hesoeg tcelhn vssho 9 l w30 wo r C. t w s eadontficbe1 er9

_ 8A yrttf h8ho ntcti 5R 9 hcnhetl yeSA9m wvef Vaet edo

(

a es g t9t c i1i o e8 ep Saan c3 c TdrEes t

RO tnetm am aerT 0C r

t on w wt o

nDnt a as rt eosn be t

F B s rsiv tdidf ott rgroNdeysw r5 i 3 e0 er iMie vcnio 3A nelnof nnuni ntrio c8 cp lTlt aco t r 6L anpe raesie2) aaosl n3 n pS p hamdee9 o mama aDat f li mmtelt pmoal ppoeat rc S ssgu phr t h 5. S s lt abo I

1Ntdr al i

f lMl is e

o chch o 1 nds8 i s9 l ee Tehp t G (A i e o e pT yt t t p yu1 o et nTeane nsbhe mS nini udl c- c rei hd y rhihtt s

. oiR w e Uuath l t oA c c wa iwiw oees3 rtti0 o

t t tcaf a mf etge n h h tete Gsad8 o

) on f reeoecunveOd: nt ntesiiii ococ nnnn.nt qsD eu 3 p r f onesaevl cnti ah oe gat pabdneinht .ht w w a a9i eA c

- ner .sohorartrii e s ae y rl ai sns a t ets e sdsd8 ed

.M

. sore trtr9 sba e

T i

_ ecem) ef s ph l f nl aooll ncnc c b p a n a n . n o n o1acac eohaAs lS t eOweshot tpeICmf s

ndddi lt ne- mr srssatfPdPd8 Saceo

- ra Papal al a9l cl c3 st co i 0 n i csl eneea ,Tl nncSdiedhso r r9 8 elhrra camt t s pao TrAerce ) o) o1) n) n3 cawaee i rt eee i f a sa s1 c2 c 3i4( idioLc ,hdr l e o i d gh rl t otdt ndef p( c( c3( ci sf m nt eps nnnendf u a a0 t tM r9 st esrb ra hmataaacaaao 8 s sT a8 ens heeuohft oeultlitrt r n n3 e eS h9heo TBpsf coocl opSPl sgsg i iD t tA c1t cm

r L

N: A O

I O

C TR AA CH F

NC UD t

nE t

nT OA CIV T CC I

RA EE ND EA GR DG ES R A

O PLE OC RU 0 s e

f y

s es PN g n wri r 5 sf eo M T l oh

- t cya o f s NF ti ooa snc seShp ri ow rihA na ews9as d 'tn o ee rc OO sn ei lf d

i antthAgm shenlt i a t net un SG t mttsn. atreu hhs , c) ect sasti a . d 9 pi 8lt ghata ithcr TN N1 arinea ee ad

,o n et b ecsnt ef r e e i yl 8 d 9 .

no rfRaf p5 e1 Wwf ed 1t a3hl - ei m s ed t uu rs _

rt ,ti rserf erhwra9 e E1S g e e s v yi iehoip W eo1t it aP ( Dntts 5 t

nE e dl nott poria utt q md t 0 s .c evc o r3 nstrs a g nrrti8 eov0t e l aisa e g

t nT h y m c pd r ehnrt2 e9nea0 il easiee t3hs a ,== de OY tl a ib rtOon t8 avh8 shup rltt0cDt o rsr et a txat mi i 9dac3 at sohoill1 a id etct a P CR sne i ul re tw.fao a

ct e1 rh Dwo e e ct oii

,raucbfff eT o d S gh e Mw nn earl q au AO 1T et ra;hi t

,uq 9 si h-he8tf5t3 c o m M yt c maelna Gl oee f so ] tc9li1 0 ctaTcnno aAnt ,P/rd a 8A fosi n.emgue F d F. ee r - Td3 n1un g8 a sSnearsrli rr i d 5R 9

sa- s gt n3 eiuiDnee d Aemc ie l a

r a mognyo not - alt 0 rny 5 eatr RO tol retr r0 rsor irhhcgyoyerorcrhp w ee FB 3A icaodap of r eo8 vc3teapTde baM attincrbt oifaatms if ant aft fe oe toeff rPraf 6L edcr6 ey acDsr mS epnwf rensw cs l rct a iso snre8 pt ha eeroAt pe eriot dueace a Pru uaap[ mi Mt wocf sahe accidnds uhrl aqto a h ed 2nT de wcn i meaeosnt oe Reest c iS ye nnt s y,a nimf eiz rda of r Fl re el y c e b C. t m i p Arrsea efhlis f Cc ts bee gnu ud oeeh eardnt et rtsehoset us t thoeih oenthiw9rweros 9 unit c dci . 0Nedn sattd rt aat c 7el voiyro1 sehiugrn 0 1 sne mr sa Gshr ns9waectset wcc smt smnaas0 idra1 n

o ool ryan o

euft0 e t cos3 cs et o,ee1 nt r absil - syoauel t Cen,f stnu sDri f

i tfanp sc e na i e c p3 eeH dhieGpa) oasasst s ngn yaytf ah eelli pf m0lh netfs ts et sir s A) aiosc _

s t or sbh a8 pt .ir oernRnyt sasa u C fi e nolheli et e t emf s3 eool ae Da m,edtoinndhooWib s

tFcB ( eoeb aP c s

xDye iGtdd _

o itro st bs d s9ien d t gh t d d i d( e n i eb utd n sa rem 7 ct agneg .y l nt ign D n f sa t cast n eldll etTl9nscnot n2rsui,l vna .

eaae anpeara cariatsS a1 eeiiiai arss aoi t pises l aarre ioaaol eAo itfdtldodoeat ors 9 i pr sm irciel ; Lcdvcit c3 c incuet nt rel cpn1 f Aet ne tu upl w rnarf mr0ieneuce oc rur e k c

t net nseqnao aa a e o a 8 f r g pd l c 5. eeanehoiDc a n c s a t c C iacs esheeml htfhnhrh3feieeax a rli y csocitf cDewsDrce1 srcircnlG B C pl s vatrt sf_ -

. ~ .

sr R

e l

f f s

h e b oe,w e t g s.

e t n s s#a.

n e t ea h -

to e .

c M C 4_i h

f r

o t h e.

s t t t

n mS el ek f

e N: A L

i m

e r

u q

eS{RM r

uu a e

e r

yMf n c b

r e s qdoM oen r

0 1CO r

y athot t

7R r o l i

a AA CH F

t l

a ghl u

u NC u g edBgM r

UD e r n n WE s o HT a i e i d.

o@f S OA V i s s t e e' in S

CI hn ma 9

T 1 cC t

C o RA D Tem e

C EE G et e ND t a

r gat ch EA h h

GR t t e DG , e e o nho ew ES R OE PL A A r

g amd@

ot N DinO OC RU rr ed e PN 0 5 ea n mae oed ae be s

e h

d ef s r

u s

r e

rs NF hl ' rl n sRno t edowsi t e e an tm CsoFap tu oes aet t o OO ro tP ', nad t f u c u R A d C c,o heil slea ,eell i ri SG ao gn sahdnnnN r i vsce s b d yd f b i y s es TN .Prnno t t e we . e0hpo i ncan eet gryt el a aftrf ti NIT oii ns teohesh1 c tttein eif tv E

0S sRliwt nFotocy ,enechdWhtt moE et t .t n fhotuatsuritli if l ch cso e e c h a n gtil f equl euaaheo. leo edrf sostdd r

p 6

l E oCralAt7eiut i3 rtsotu) ,me etow yeeitres srraa c nec e g

HT i c1 til t0 ndoIl7ianrah9 st eAstprdausn,a aht ned ycl oesardf aiie aeo f rh a OY r e a F Mi 0 u - uqle ph s1 teim eis r

cr .TbaGeaoy enu tuledrtao rdt ccdhhr eset P CR uo fttes ,tERvtldoDnotaab rCsmorli rl ufsf ecdaeeAuetcistin lgsf .nri eweqssage ueit er AO 1T at n)iR e en Gec pvahooi yuorsueua ssee heans d yAhaoIbUn stad( c db tt c 8A t tuiMaNamna e i eeueii snt oh e thnetrbo sn 5

9 R ex qtTH l roustsl erS suwt eoedssbf ntic eiu

,ihn oentnaainn fi eei( n P oi q e a n si os aiif r gntrggbh RO adrdd mi nradaeibeqn ft esroynu,d shttaa ts F

3A B snuando onodoecagpt es ceoehn ettiaszrt tt aeosedheiio au ccpe rthsdt ni t

6L r p n h c a R e i pi oidirict asncdhcn nnt ro t nr if ipet l it f ee del tn lt aee cit ao i ce eae k h

eA itslf coirvyns ownI oiAtdail oogrdro eiefpnupreo.hramcoecrgcgudc eqxeh thaunienea tft e rc o t ecpnade rd eeteet od t silritb o seil ddet n pM e eI smscf raatrms oi af neit n eowcneitousraefieresnee nr fnd nnm t s m

r9tdciosTeeoosnprenriocahgs ste ro oheouc o1ii CMC stti e ieI t p a c T n n d oi p si softicqn f

rCio mva e' sfnaadedef s aoeirabirnn.eurrf sa i .eil pm auxieeqae mul mt r etisri t ea -

e D l r r e ','

pG per crer ceoe9il aoisegoelht e o t d p al e nipp ncwcc1f aet nthah t srcsr hicsp l

n,esenT d h 4. ', i r oc sslCcecaiu oloofaa i ivl cgct sce s isgseasdo y ryaft cnnm aeoo

_ ayoru clda t 3. tstl pm al poeti oelGpenr snr De uesddd onrtbdi

,l on,acnaen ss rh n dfuic qt otl aeecd f raanu l

yasso eceritI mfdy n a D. e incaaosnsidl raaat raf sh trl op ueposesdisb oa n gd tereet anin vsae r hiiot nI eiefll elbao,o00nfi p- c enoeif suet agpotoee tfft ceI rrrioe nidt s1i t soif cotst sal n ai c c h d iiaed iait rrrgf elt snait ac iacnviict e cpe Ti t ccrti mul unt eiiuuitdeeesasak ueitt s a e e e o c e qC q e n e w s d s s m r e t tl sc s rrct nsenss n hppprct e' e d o h o e o s ei a si o ei o s ni o ti c e e r u e o o tSsopaIR' rict pd m i r l P u s p r f l aarcfsl avt afrd c

a \

t t

n e in o o e r e s t

n r f e n r h o0e u nur eo u r od t ny s gs 1 e c l c t i r a o t i

r e lieo a e n e het nn n eie n fdwwd r h at t da al msc e ir u s yh 6mg u 6

e ul i

debe ee h yi h g t 0st er r sn a

nh at e s t ew 4n i

u eo qse n s f cect nehg 9 s e.

ih goa n epcndn l Y mi (

e r n e ed t

e ins i l in s ao r C ne e c r iuld a t E us hliu k r cohoisau an s w t b a t S nn n ne ts n o e et w is a t

m t ic e u L o ho t ot a daaenbw ial etsdn hiznga e dmh t

mn s e u n t

A )

s nr oet nf nh i

f e r N:O O dr ihngasw t

i if zit imeo I C a st e yi to 0, d n y nnf go o he t r os si t TR d ufi s imn.in ef ocs ripe eu AA n qtn o ci t cet one t h qm ueiq CH I a oepeht l

e r t NC S t

lsd vtand n c em er on ei hwt weo os t

UD & s. a if o o a

horC oa er i ME s r r s ee dt e islpiu MT e l u R glde uR c s dnni essm OA V ds o n h oGnudrN sRhhuem aoni inq mie msr neim osh CIT Cce nCcsrtho oms ioc t o CC i

ayeewgf r

csi sa s phic I

RA al 5r o 5f Df J o shs F

r n o s. ht,h en a e )s r . emwa u

qt )t o i

EE s saTn if Mi cet n e t t t (

ND 0t n in s a an t be4g EA 5 e moi i h s. o T n e neLe t c 5.in GR n im mtat e eyem 0cyel t i iomcm t dn l i 0d DG e er dmer i dor r i e us5n o .

E ci Cifisbaui f

ea n na ecq lit u dn einu oB Rp S R i1 a eeq h oq hu sMFs T qde i e r

A he celb a do re nrGea tOCe O

PLE cr il i r i r OC RU . e s g PN e c C S

T n

a s ee1 n n NF ne D c,

e s ) hc1 y i r0w o

OO ev ra gG n

t n

v i i e d

. Ti0 f0 o4 e i g tn c a ,reCthd o SG ehlif .f - t aev,dek i ci i r

TN NI rf ietin l so

.gp n

l svRct n teNe jd iw a

i r

e nrqe1

)

k .o0 5 dgesnl eee nareal ehn o n

ES T herowese4.i nRf ohbnn n cth p ooeh3 iwst merrc,c ar ost e i g t 7

e cstl s i n e t 3. ts i F k H t o a o th c ME Cca .iwest i t tr r voud sf g MT ties m o D. teg n e

aetye mpebb i saf oenioe sdo h e

a OY shoeset r

n0bd hnp n ra m hoe eintt l

l P CR e w d t 't i t I t'

I ec i 1 emc eet oe ic .

u n

o oP1du f 0 en tt maetoc it naian o

c AO 1T Sf enunIhnfcrnftxn sTf saqe t eonoaoceo c ne5 v rdt a m s pi :

sn e aol emm r afd a i ih3 ol oe darsm 6A erthprt edesirrt es c t t ra .ft e t oiideo 5

9 R sist ne itef eemI seoppceenu nl eondcs i l

n e

s . pv0 po0 ahgaf n eui l nst RO ehefhsm rrim cmt ac b m n it o C. ap2dt r 0 gt e inmt i ndnn i aaisa FB cthotoono dcadrico sot aesis n o

u p

e t

a tt S. e p e rsnshe Ciaim tt r 3A i lh t

sh l nov t eli n n a u pd i a ncUra ,ueiithynngo 6L ,tt egPef og it qm t e t oe e 0b dx t reonf t sueg eidlihn mwruwti n s 9 pi a d rns seot rci a

c h

t S cj4 w b4 t

,3 gil n gt o ot cin wi o as doa8 dwea f i r

t c

ru(

es sern ngeinnnnil c gi n a p s o nld sed eeouih9 er m eek f cnrctlt 1hasrghhc i e A t 5 odbt oiiiwueol e fna n ccf - t gi o n t t a t t t e9i umri ,hcti a ettf e gho i o s I at easnAf3 esfi b o f n er9tBeot a0hryrdrg N a o La1 c edpeesaie t pcernvR c p

.dshiei 9 ot r tlt pa ,Ms3i It8t ,la pleuons f ii r d i

t ctfl nerl nearrolhr neeo 0 cst ml0T Dw) n c kh e e c iaol aS l osm a ltp 1 ceaoe0 e I asnsot t t u rh o cop deto athcr1fhMe( ainv s e d ettct sics ,dnl ncne 0 t otTc) t w onn i g l e n c nel esnaca un n oht 5 nd ett S n4i ,sii e

p R esAnerbnrna Gn omiuo o gN od ieetirn,Aa(fnsa m R t ca aoe d) koeerd R o k o gxn i e p pit retni i g n . cr ins t aI Fl anrsPirdracirroe c r siot a r o a mna hm e e a p ure c i t S. c m Cadet a toro ( at u ft l iti otds duf ac9badd c a e w hct .

0 cuinsnl edc0 uense r e

b r e

TecrahTrsrelUire1 l uoMc orthp l ot 1 arof nms fhnoea9eht o i a o sea n0uvrfae rn a 1. l ao ll cail sf d e T o p a

ldf oenfh i fust mebft nonaohune ocacdb1 rTsI5fepobr F ( P cRiow i h i g c T pil

~

A L

N: A O

I O

C TR AA CH I

NC UD WE 0

h T OA V CIT CC I

RA EE ND EA GR DG -

E S R A OE PL .

OC RU s  ?

PN n o

s e

NF i u q

OO t c i SG n n TN u h NI f , c y n e E ST e h ?i t o i

t 8 e

ME t el t n g MT  ? t a yau a

m i o a OY f o trq r t P CR iu o c e

AO 1T e l ce c i ch f

n l n tat i l 8A a eu ne o 5

9 R mh rtl ec

? e dh c

RO o adn et d e

F 3A B f rcra reiuh t

cf t 6L ehtbn eo a ptc e l m eaf l n,to rhroo oe ewp tfcddu p e o rea oget y r n v a a yb b i f euz piamwt ioei mo dhi eu tarthne a ti s hll s rcon mu t cl eel n ni riwee o

i aee f ,ntt na hhdtcbh t Co yRi s s amwnroog rNtII ,oHin a a yf sem..tn.ti shr23ii4 eu cd eto l ll c f ie lc efn th on noi ut ci

... 4 ATTACHMENT 2 STAFF RESOLUTION OF PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED ON DRAFT GENERIC LETTER ENTITLED

" LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL" (FEDERAL REGISTER VOL. 63, No. 37, Doc. 98-4761)

The staff received 23 letters in response to the draft generic letter entitled " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." From the 23 letters, the staff identified 130 comments.

Of these,83 were repetitive, leaving 47 distinct comments. The folidwing discussion provides the distinct comments received and the NRC staff's response to these comments. The staff's responses state clearly whether, and how, the generic letter was revised to reflect a particular comment. Appendix A provides a list of the 23 respondents and Appendix B provides a matrix showing which comments each respondent provided.

Comment 1: (NUCON Intemational, Inc.)

This letter does not adequately address one of the ongoing problems that we face: the specifications for testing new charcoal are different from those for testing used carbon.

Furthermore, we feel that the AG 1 code might be a more appropriate vehide to address the charcoal testing problems (where ASTM D3803-1989 is invoked as a requirement) than the procedure of ASTM D3803-1989 slone, e.g., if the particular batch is for a system to be tested at 30 'C, 70 percent reintive humidity (RH), would the new carbon be tested at 70 percent RH or 95 percent RH or both? Who would specify the choices? Current specifications for new carbon require ' qualification' and ' surveillance

• tests. The NRC letter descusses only.

surveillance testing. What is the impact on currently required ' qualification

• tests?

Response

The proposed generic letter addresses surveillance testing requirements for used charcoal. It was not intended to cover new charcoal qualification testing issues. The staff has determined that it would be more appropriate to incorporate the qualification testing comments in the next revision of Regulatory Guide 1.52.

Comment 2: (NUCON Intemational, Inc.)

The explanation for the increase in iodine removal efficiencies at higlier temperatures (discussed on page 9583 of the Federal Reaister notice) does not take into consideration the increased reaction rate that occurs as the temperature is increased, which is the cause of the increasedlodine removaletficiencies.

Response

The staff has revised the generic letter to more clearly explain that the iodine removal efficiency of the charcoal increases at higher temperatures because of the increased reaction rate at higher temperatures.

i l

4

= +

- j Comment 3: (Similar comments appeared in 14 indmdual letters)

The actions proposed by NRC could not be met within the proposed schedule. If adoptedas proposed, the generic letter wiH require Aicensees to perform charcoal testing within 60 days of i the date of the letter and to submit a rensed technical specncation to the NRC which irwokes i ASTM D3803-198g as the test petocol, as required. As stated k the generic letter, only two l

commerciallaboratories, NUCON and NCS Corporation, are available to perform such testing.

If pmblems are encountered, the need to replace charcoalcouW overburden charcoalsuppliers i with multple requests $6r cherocal. This wCIbe k addeon to the normaltesting burden on the l

• existing inboratories. Replacement of any activated charcoaladnorbers requires in-place  !

bypass testing in accordance with Regulatory Poettion C.S.d of Reguintory Guide 1.52, Rev. 2. l For many nicensees, this requires lleid s@ port from the same two companies that perform the Jaboratory testing. This willbe an adaktoonalstrain on axistmg resources. Sbety days is insuMicient time to withdraw sample trays, sh> them to test labs, perform testing, fabncate or reRII trays where needed, conduct receipt kapections, install new charcoal, conduct in-place  ;

testing, and retum filter systems to service. Logistically, it will be imprackcalIf not impossible 16r the licensees and the laboratories to meet the 60 day time frame imposect by the generic i setter. It would be a more reasonable emectation to have each plant perform testing (i.e.,

ASTM D3603-1989 or other utilityproposed testing) at the ned scheduled charcoal sampling {

test date or withb 180 days (orpreferably one fuelcycle) of the date of the genericletter. A  ;

180-day testing schedule is consistent with the anfety significance of this issue. In additoon, the i proposedgeneric letter states that 4he staff beloeves that moet charcoalin une is not degraded i to an extent that would adversely affect control roorn habitabritty orpublic health and safety.'

Providng a 180-day time frame for testing wouM allow suMcient time to implement the appropriate testing protocol. It shouM be noted that Meter applications that are normally i haccessible during plant operation may require a unit shutdown in order 16r the testing to be performed. Further, the develcpment of an altomate test Hvivcci within 60 days as proposed by the generic letter wouM be virtuallyimpossble. The tims required to collect and evaluate the '

information necessary to address the 13 points required by the NRC to determine the

{

acceptability of an attemate protocol wouM be much greater than the 60 days proposed in the l generic letter. For sites that have submitted the Improved Technical Specifiantions (ITS) for i NRC review, licensees should be allowed to incorporate the changes into theirITS, rather than revising their current Technical Specifications. The expandedimplementation periodis necessary to allow for testing laboratory backlog, charconi availability for procurement and

. attemate train testing for the same system.

Response:

• The staff has revised the generic letter to request licensees in Groups 2,3, and 4 to test their  !

charcoal at the next required laboratory surveillance test of a charcoal sample that is 60 or  ;

more days after the date of this generic letter. It is not the intent of this generic letter to cause plants to shut down. Therefore, if a plant must shut down to perform this testing, the licensee i may seek relief from the time limits for testing specified in the generic letter (see response to I Comment 24). If a plant has submitted the ITS and the ITS is scheduled to be completed within a year from the issue date of the generic letter, then the licensee may seek relief from the time  ;

limits for submittal of a technical specification amendment as specified in the generic letter. If a l licensee has a specific problem that is not addressed by the generic letter, then the licensee  ;

may seek relief from the time limits specified in the generic letter, j 2

1 A

, , ,1 ~* L . . - - - . -

y ..

~

Comment 4: (Similar comments appeared in 4 individual letters) l The last paragraph of " Requested Information' states that 'the independent laboratory should not be engaged in the measurement ofiodine penetration of charoon! as a business either for TS compliance purpoees or for the sale and/or production of activated charconi for nuclear powerplant applications.' While it is obvious that this requirement is to prevent a conRict of hterest, it also increases the burden of finding an acceptable independent lab that is capable of I performing the required tests andproviding adequate quality assurance. The laboratones that currentlyperform testing to the ASTM standard should not be excluded from performing the qualification testing for new, proposed test protocols. These laboratories have extensive esperience in testing nuclear grade charcoal, have established quality assurance programs, and have the equipment and facilities to safelyperform this testing. In ad$ tion, the extensive enperience that these laboratories have gained by performing testing to the ASTM standard .

provides added assurance that the proposed test protocol will be evaluated accurately and objectively. By restricting the use of existing laboratories for test development, the attemate test protocol onnnot be completed wtthout setting up a new laboratory, which is cost prohibitive.

If an altomate test protocolis proposed, the utility should be allowed access to the existing testinglaboratories.

Response

The staff has revised the generic letter to require the use of at least two laboratories in determining the acceptability of the attemate protocol. One laboratory should be used to develop the altamate protocol and the other to demonstrate the repeatability and reproducibility of the altemate protocol. The two laboratories should be able to demonstrate that the altemate protocol is at least as conservative as ASTM D3803-1989, and should be able to perform the ASTM D3803-1989 test and achieve repeatable and reproducible results.

Comment 5: (NUCON Intemational,Inc.)

As discussed on page 9585 of the Federal Rearster notice, the face velocity requirement in Requested Information items 2 and 3 WoJld also apply to systems that are more than 10 percent below 0.203 m/s (40 ft/ min] as well.

Response

The staff is mainly concemed with systems that have an as-built face yelocity greater than the face velocity used to perform the laboratory charcoal sample test. The laboratory test will overestimate the capabilty of the charcoal when the charcoal is tested with a face velocity that ,

is less than the face velocity to which the charcoal is actually exposed when installed in the system.' This happens because as the velocity of the contaminated air passing through the charcoal filter is reduced, the amount of time (called residence time) the air is in contact with the charcoal increases, thus increasing the adsorption. Therefore, the staff did not revise the generic letter to specify 40 fpm

• 10 percent.

3

Comment 6: (Similar comments appeared in 2 individual letters)

On page 9586 of the FederalRegister notice,~ the statement is made that the ASTM D3803-1989 standard has two additoonni testing penods that are not required by other standards. The statementis also made that dudng the stabilitation period, air at the test temperature is passed through the charcoalbeds. This is not correct. During the stabilization period, the carbon is brought to thermalequilibrium with the test temperature. The erroneous Federal Register statement could be misinterpreted and abouM be revised to agree with Sectron 12.1 of ASTM D3803-1989. The duration of this stabiliantion periodis recommended to be a minimum of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, during which the canisters and the carbon must come to thermal equilbrium at the spectised test temperature.

Response

The staff has revloed the generic letter to correctly specify that during the stabilization period the carbon is brought to thermal equilibrium with the test temperature to agree with Section 12.1 of ASTM D3803-1989. In addition, the generic letter has been revised to specify that the duration of this stabilization period is recommended to be a minimum of 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br />, during which the canisters and the carbon must come to thermal equilibrium at the specified test temperature. i Comment 7: (Similar comments appeared in 2 individual letters)

On page 9587 of the Federal reaister notice, the statement is made that charcoal retains about 40 weight percent water at 30 *C and 95 percent RH and 2-3 weight percent at 80 *C and 95 percent RH. These values are incorrect. Typically 24-25 weightpercent wateris adsorbed at 30 *C and 95 percent RH (see ASTM D3803-1989 A5 and Figure 1, EGG-CS-7653); i experience in ourlab has shown that 19-20 weight percent wateris adsorbed at 80 *C and ,

95 percent RH. This amount of water is nearly equivaient to the amount adsorbed at 30 *C and 70 percent RH andprobably explains in large part why the methyliodide efficiency is typically 99.9 percent for both the 30770 and 80/95 (again see ASTM D3803-1989 A5 and Figure 1, EGG CS 7653).

Response

The staff has revised the generic letter to correctly specify that charcoal retains about 24-25 weight percent water at 30 *C and 95 percent RH and 19-20 weight percent water at 80 *C and 95 percent RH.

Comment 8- (NUCON Intemational, Inc.)

On page 9587 of the Federal Register notice, the statement is made that the longer equilibration time is representative of the conditions ' expected during design base conditions;"

this is not correct in terms of the purpose of ASTM D3803-1989. This methodis sensitive to the condition of the charcoal for radioactive methyliodide removalbut is not necessarily related to expected conditions.

4 i

= __r=r

Response

1 The staff has revised the generic letter to correctly specify that the longer pre-equilibration time is more conservative because it will completely saturate the representative charcoal sample which ensures reproducibility of the results by having every charcoal sample begin the test at q the same initial conditions.

j Comment 9: (Similar comments appeared in 5 individualletters)

The approach taken in the prrposedgeneric letteris a very conservative 'one size Rts all' approach without a thorough evaluation of the plant-specific design-basis. Performance of this testing, while conservative, may exceed, or not be representative of, the design basis for vanous filter afplications. The draft generic letter would require Riter testing at 30 *C according to the ASTM D3803-1989 protocol. These cornhtions wouldbe viewed as generally representative of COOditichi for Riters located outside of containment. On the basis of emected accident tenditions, Riter Units locatedinside containment would be emocted to operate at temperatures on the order of 130 *C when required to be in service. AccOM;0 gly, ASTM D3803-1989, when performed at 30 *C, is not representative of design operating conditions insde containment. The proposed test would be overconservative compared to a test at higher temperatures representative of conditions inside containment. On the basis of the foregoing, the scope of a finalgeneric letter should, therefore, be restricted to outside containment applications only.

Response

' TMI Action item lli.D.3.4, " Control Room Habitability," required that licensees analyze all design-basis accidents with regard to control room operator doses (GDC 19). A temperature of 30 *C is more appropriate than 130 *C for design-basis accidents such as a fuel handling ,

accident inside containment. Therefore, testing the charcoal samples at 30 *C is bounding for {

all design-basis accident conditions. The staff has determined that if credit is taken for the j containment recirculation charcoal filters in the plant's design-basis dose analysis, the charcoal should be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989. ASTM D3803-1989 is the only I available test that (1) provides a reproducible standard test method for determining the quality of the charcoal and (2) provides the ability to adequately discriminate between good and bad charcoal. If the containment recirculation charcoal filters are not needed to meet 10 CFR Part 100 and GDC 19 dose limits, the licensee can, if it desires, provide the staff with a revised dose analysis without taking credit for the containment recirculation charcoal filters.

The staff has previously approved this for several plants. The staff has revised the generic letter to state that if a licensee chooses to test its charcoal samples at actual accident conditions which are different from the test conditions specified in ASTM D3803-1989, then that test should be treated as an altemate protocol.

Comment 10: (Similar comments appeared in 2 individual letters)

On page 9585 of the Federal Reaister notice, Requested Information item 2, the statement is made that plants adopting the ASTM D3803-1989 protocol are required to submit certain information regarding test parameters to support a TS amendment. In adopting the ASTM D3803-1989 protocol, certain conditions of the protocolare accepted as variables by the 5

)

Commission. While the Commission is correct in requiring information on test parameters that may vary from plant to plant, e.g., relative humidity and face velocity, requesting the test temperature implies that this parameteris also a variable, which it is not. The test temperature 1 of 30 *Cis the only acceptable temperature. In order for the Commission to fully evaluate TS amendment requests, we believe the vanable of test bed thickness shouldbe indudedin the list j

~

of requested information since bed thekness affects gas residence time in the bed as does face

{

veloctly. The penetration at which the proposed TS willrequire the test to be performed should

}

specify the actual bed thickness for which credit is taken.

Response: .

The proposed generic letter requests the test temperature because Annex A5 of ASTM D3803-1989 states that nuclear facilities that hava different operating conditions may use a test temperature other than 30 *C. Therefore, the staff has determined that it is

{

necessary to specify a temperature of 30 *C because test temperatures other than 30 *C are

{

not acceptable. Regarding the test bed thickness, the staff has revised the generic letter to j request the charcoal bed thickness.

Comment 11: (Similar comments appeared in 2 individual letters) I l

On pages 9588 and 9589 of the Federal Reaister notice (" Sample Technical Specifications"), {

the statement is made that when referring to ASTM D3803-1969 and the required test relative humidity and temperature, the term greater than or equal to and the symbol forless than or l i

equal to are used. A temperature of 30 *C and relative humidity of 95 percent or 70 percent i shouldbe specified without the use of this symbolor term. Allowing changes in test temperature and humidity, abeit in a conservative direction, effectively changes the method andis contrary to NRC/INEL developmental work.

Response: '

The staff has revised the sample technical specifications in the generic letter to remove the

" greater than or equal to" and "less than or equal to" terms and to just state "at a temperature of j 30 *C and a relative humidity of 95 percent (or 70 percent with humidity control)." j i

Comment 12: (Similar comments appeared in 4 Individual Ir,tters)

An oral request for an extension of the public comment period to better understandand respond to the complexities of this issue was denied by the NRC staff. This short comment i period has hindered the ability of the industry to fully explore the merits of the technical proposals in the proposed generic letter. We recommend that future public comment periods be a minimum of 45 days, consistent with the safety significance and resource impact of the i

i issue.  !

. +

's l l

ll

. ~ . . . .

Response

The 30-day public comment period for this generic letter is commensurate with the staff's policy (Section 6.25 of Generic Communications Branch Procedure No.1, Revision 1," Processing of Proposed Generic Communications") regarding the length of the public comment period for generic letters and is therefore adequate for this proposed generic letter. However, comments received by the staff as late as 90 days after the proposed generic letter was published in the Federal Reaister for public comment were considered.

Comment 13: (Similar comments appeared in 11 individual ietters)

We believe the regulatoryprocess was not followedproperfy. The proposed new generic requirement and staff position has not been justified by an appropriate regulatory analysis.

The Federal Reaister backfit discussion charaderizes the requested actions as necessary to demonstrate compliance. In examining the issues involved, we conclude this is an incorrect application of the compliance exception provision of the Backfitting Rule,10 CFR S0-109.

Paragraph (a)(1) of 950.109 states that '[b)ackfitting is defined as the modification of or addition

- to systems, structures: components... or the procedures... required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imoosition of a reaulator statf nnaition interoretina the Commission rule that is either new or ditferent from a orevious noclicable statf Dosition ...'

[ underline added for emphasis].

The NRC previously established 'a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rule' when it approved licensee test methods documented in plant technical spectfwations or accepted otherlicensee commitments. These approved test methods were deemedby the NRC at the time to be in compliance with the regulatory requirements citedin the proposed ,

generic letter. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.109(n)(3), the NRC staff must demonstrate a significant safety improvement relative to the costs to be incurred by licensees before imposing the improved ASTM test method.

Response

i The NRC has decided that the generic letter is a backfit, but the Section 50.109(a)(3) finding need not be demonstrated in a backfit analysis because the NRC considers the generic letter to be a compliance backfit pursuant to Section 50.109(a)(4)(i). The staff's position is that the licensees are required to demonstrate compliance with the dose limits of GDC 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 as incorporated in their licensing basis either during initial plant licensing or as a result of TMI Action item lli.D.3.4. The staff identified as early as 1987 (Information Notice 87-32) that problems existed with charcoal laboratory testing methods used to demonstrate compliance with the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100. The proposed generic letter provides cdditional evidence that existing test protocols other than ASTM D38031989 do not provide accurate and reproducible test results and therefore do not ensure compliance with the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100.

7

1

. .. 1

)

Comment 14: (Similar comments appeared in 5 individual letters)  !

l The proposed generic letteridentifies that ' based on the available laboratory test results, the staff believes that most charcoalin use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect centrol room habitability or public health and safety.' Since the result of the proposed change in testing methodology is not expected to uncover that the currently installed systems would not be able to perform their design function, the revised testing methodology is not required for compliance with 10 CFR 100 or GDC 19, noris it expected to result in a significant safety benefit.

Response

The quoted paragraph states that "most" charcoal is not degraded. However, on the basis of available laboratory test results, the staff also believes that there are a group of plants with degraded charcoal and the required test in their technical specifications is ineffective in identifying the degradation. As a result, these plants are not in compliance with 10 CFR Part 100 or GDC 19 dose limits. Although the staff believes today that most charcoal is not significantly degraded, it is essential to use reliable and reproducible test standards to identify future degradation of the charcoal. Therefore, this generic letter is necessary.

Comment 15: (Similar comments appeared in 5 individual letters)

The purpose of crediting charcoalin the licensing basis is to Riter volatile fonns oflodine (i.e.,

elementaland organic). Current Regulatory Guides 1.3 and 1.4 assume 95 percent ofiodine to be this type. NUREG-1465 stated that where pHis controlledat values of 7 or greater within the containment, elementallodine can be taken as comprising no 'we than 5 percent of the totallodine released, andlodine in organic form may be take as corayising no greater than r).15 percent of the totaliodine released. Thus, the elementaland orynnic lodine releases are  ;

over an order of magnitude less than those obtained with the existing licensing source term. l This greatly reduces the safety significance of charcoal Ritration.  !

Operating plants (i.e., pilot plants) have submitted revised source term analyses to NRC that meet dose limits with no credit for charcoal filtration. In addition to the operating plant analyses, l NRC has certified the System 80+ Advanced Light Water Reactor (ALWR) with no credit for the  !

charcoalfilters in the annulus filtration systwn. On the basis of the NUREG-1465Information i

and these operating plant and ALWR applications, TVA notes that requirements for additional i charcoal testing are unlikely to have any safety significance. Consequently, the need for this genericletteris not clear.

Response

Revised (NUREG-1465) source term rebaselining efforts are almost complete. The combination of the revised chemical form of the source term in NUREG-1465 and the proposed change in the dose limits (TEDE) deemphasizes the importance of charcoal filtration. The results from the revised source term rebaselining seem to indicate that for some plants that adopt the NUREG 1465 source term and the TEDE dose limits, charcoal filtration may not be necessary, but this would need to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Although the chemical form of iodine distribution has changed, the major component of the release from containment remains organic after sprays, suppression pools, and ice condensers have performed their 8

r function. Therefore, if charcoal adsorption is required to meet the dose limits, then it is important to adequately test the charcoal because organic will be the form to remove. In addition, for certain accidents which are not impacted by the revised source term (e.g. fuel handling accident, main steam line break, and steam generator tube rupture) the chemical forms to be released are principally organic which may need to be adsorbed by the charcoal in the control room emergency ventilation system and the fuel handling building ventilation system to meet the dose limits. Also, for plants that continue to use the TID-14844 source term, charcoal in ESF filtration systems will still be needed to meet the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100.

Comment 16: (Similar comments appeared in 4 individual letters)

As' stated in the proposed generic letter, many of the current problems occurred as the result of i

• oonRicting guidance

• and ' complex and ambiguous

• standards. Therefore WPSC strongly l encourages the statt to revise Regulatory Guide 1.52, the Standard Review Plan, HPPOS-069, l and NUREG-1431 before it issues the picposed generic letter. Rensing the guidelines first will

. provide licensees with clear and consistent guidance.

I Resoonse:

As required by the Staff Requirements Memoranduni dated February 5,1998, the staff has developed plans to expedite its revision of the regulatory guidance applicable to the testing of safety-related charcoal. This work will not be completed before the generic letter is issued  !

because laboratory testing of charcoal filters is only a small portion of the changes that need to i be made to the regulatory guidance. However, NUREGs 1430-1434 will be revised following  ;

the issuance of the generic letter to reflect the sample technica! specification that appears in  !

Enclosure 2 of the generic letter.

Comment 17: (Entergy Operations, Inc.) .

The lessons leamed from the regulatory box that the NRC descnbes (e.g., the utilities being prevented from using improved testing methods) should be addressed in a more comprehensive manner than just addressing this isolatedissue. As discussed in the proposed generic letter, the NRC requires licensees to spell out the specific methods of filter testing in  ;

their Technical Specifications. The specific methods for performing surveillances are not  !

generally containedin the TechnicalSpecific&tions. The inclusion of the detailed requirements  ;

for filter testing places excessive burdens on licensees and the NRC staff and should be removed to allow licensees to apply improved methods. l

Response

As a result of the past and present confusion regarding appropriate laboratory testing requirements, the staff has determined that the detailed requirements for charcoal filter testir'g need to be included in the technical specifications to clarify what the NRC staff has found acceptable. For plants converting to the improved standard technical specifications (ITS), the charcoal laboratory testing requirements are in the Administrative Section of the iTS as part of the ventilation filter testing program rather than being provided as a spicific surveillance requirement as in older technical specifications. By moving these and other testing I

9 l

. . _ _ . ___._._u _;-- . . . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ - _ _

i - .

requirements to the Administrative Section of the ITS, the staff has significantly reduced the amount of specific methods provided in the Surveillance Section.

- In light of the lessons loamed from the charcoal filter testing issue, the NRC staff has been sensitized to and will focus on other generic testing issues.

Comment 18: (Similar comments appeared in 5 individual letters)

To improve the etSciency of the regulatoryprocess, Scensees and NRC should assess the issues highlightedin the proposed generic letterin concert with the relatedissues of control room habitability, other emergency ventilation systems, and revised source term insights.

Because this issue has low safety significance, and because of the lack of evodence that those Scensees using charcoal test standards other than the ASTM D3803-1989 standard are not in comploance, further dialogue is appropnate before finalizing any generic request for information.

We recommend that n Joint NRC-industry workshop be conducted. This wouldpermit a more comprehenstve discussion of NRC ar;dindustry concems as they relate to charcoal test methodologies, control room habitability, other emergency ventilation systems, and application of the revised source term. Any new NRC staff guidance orpositions should only be established after an integration of the relevant technical test performance and risk insights.

Response

The staff met with representatives from NEl and NHUG on May 7,1998, to discuss this public comment and it was decided that a specific workshop concoming charcoal filter testing would not be the most efficient use of industry and NRC resources. However, it was decided that the i generic letter would be discussed _at the NRC/NEl/NHUG Workshop on Control Room Habitability on July 16,1998, at the 25th DOE /NRC Nuclear Air Cleaning and Treatment Conference on August 3-6,1998, and at the Summer '98 NHUG Conference on .

August 6-7,1998.

. Comment 19: (Arizona Public Sentice Company)

The third bullet of paragraph 9 of ' Discussion" requires licensees to submit an amendment request to their technical specifications. Implied in this bullet is that licensees are required to amend their technical specifications to reference ASTM D3803-1989. Clarification shouldbe provoded to state that this amendment request may propose an altemative test protocol.

)

Response

The staff has revised the third bullet of paragraph 9 of the " Discussion" section of the generic I

letter to clarity that the amendment request may propose an attemate test protocol.

Comment 20: (Similar comments appeared in 2 individual letters)

We believe the generic letter should include a statement in all sections indicating that the ASTM D3803 1989 testing can be performed at 70 percent RH in lieu of 95 percent RH if the design bases of the ESF system includes humidity controlin the form of duct heaters or design i i

10 i

_ - _ , - - - ~ - - = - , .-. - - - - - - - - - - 1

l l

analysis justification that the air is maintained less than or equal to 70 percent RH without the use of duct heaters, j

Response

The staff has revised Enclosure 2 of the generic letter to clarify its position on humidity control.

The staff's position is that plants whose design basis includes an NRC-approved analysis that demonstrates that the air entering the charcoal is maintained at less than or equal to 70 percent RH without the use e' heaters and under worst-caso design-basis conditions can test their charcoal at 70 percent RH.

Comment 21: (Arizona Public Service Company) 1 Paragraph 7 of ' Discussion

• states that the staff has prewously approved reductions in the i safety factor for plants adopting ASTM D3803-1989 on a case-by case basis. Generic guidance should be provided that outlines the NRC-accepted criteria used to allow reductrons in the safety factor so that facilities may implement the reduced safety factor, if appropriate, without having to obtain prior NRC approval.

Response

The use of the safety factor is discussed in paragraph 7 of the " Discussion" section as well as in the sample technical specification note provided in Enclosure 2. However, prior NRC approval ,

is still required. The staff has revised the generic letter to clarity the appropriate use of the I safety factor by providing a reference in paragraph 7 of the " Discussion" section to the sample technical specification note provided in Enclosure 2.

Comment 22: (Southem Califomia Edison) .

The generic letter should include more detailin all sections on how to apply the safety factor of 2 for determining the acceptance cnteria for charcoalremovalefficiency. For example, if the licensee's design removal efficiency is 95 percent as specified in Table 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2,1978, and ASTM D3803 1989 is used for laboratory testing of charcoal, the acceptance criteria can be 97.5 percent. This acceptance criterion can be calculated as follows:

Acceptance Criterion = Design Bases Removal Efficiency (DBRE) + (100 - DBRE)/ SF

= 95 + (100 - 95)/2.0

= 95 + 2.5

= 97. 5 percent (SF= Safety Factor = 2.0)

Response

The use of the safety factor is discussed in paragraph 7 of the " Discussion" section as well as in the sample technical specification note provided in Enclosure 2. In addition, the formula for calculating the acceptance criterion appears in the sample technical specification note in 11

- Enclosure 2. The staff has revised the generic letter to clarify the appropriate use of the safety

' factor by referring in paragraph 7 of the " Discussion" section to the sample technical  !

specification note in Enclosure 2.

- Comment 23: (Virginia Power)

The proposed generic letter indcates that ASTM D3803-1989 is the test method of choice.

This test uses methyllodde to test the charcoaladsorbers for etSciencyin removing organic iodine. Basing acceptance criteria on methyliodide retention may not ensure mmpliance with existing accident analyses where inorganic (elemental) lodine retention in adsorbers is the limiting factor. Depending on plant design, some accident analyses assume higher elemental iodine removal tillter eHiciency than that of organic iodine. In other accodent analysis cases, only elementaliodine filtration is credited. Using the ASTM D3803-1989 testing methodology has an .

implicit assumption that organic iodine is the controlling element and that elementaliodine is l

. removed at a higher rate than organic bodine. This may not be applicable to allplants. On the t basis of discussions with vencbrs, test laboratories, and our review of the existing test data, we i do not believe that it is possible to draw a correlation between organic andinorganic retention l

for all retention percentages which are mntainedin current accident analyses. ASTM l D3803-1989 does not evaluate the removal efficiency for elementaliodine. Therefore, we believe that an attemate test may be required to determine the removal efficiency for elemental iodine.

Response: i i

Particulate and elemental forms of iodine are anticipated to be aggressively removed through the use of sprays, suppression pools, ice condensers, and spent fuel pool water. Therefore, the form of iodine that is anticipated to require treatment by ESF filtration systems is organic.

The staff has determined that all charcoal should be tested in accordance with .

ASTM D38031989 because it is the only available test that (1) provides a reproducsle standard test method for determining the quality of the charcoal and (2) provides the ability to l adequately discriminate between good and bad charcoal. ASTM D3803-1989 is a very .  !

stringent and reliable measure of the ability of charcoal to fulfill its intended purpose, i.e., to  ;

remove radioiodine in any chemical form from air within a nuclear power plant. The specified test conditions cannot cover the diverse conditions encountered by the variety of charcoal applications within power plants under normal and emergency operations. Attempts to predict charcoal performance based on simulations of the myriad number of hypothesized accident conditions have only 16ad to chaos for both the test specifications and the regulatory acceptance criteria employed. This confused situation has led to enormous inequities for the i nuclear power industry by allowing some plants to retain seriously degraded or " spent" charcoal l while requiring others to replace acceptably good charcoal frequently. To remedy this sit uation, l licensees should adopt the ASTM D3803-1989 standard test method.

I Comment 24: (Similar comments appeared in 6 individual letters)

Calvert Cliffs currently tests all of the nuclear-grade activated charcoal used outside of the containment buildings in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, and our Technical Specifications reference ASTM D38031989. We test the nuclear-grade activated charcoal usedin the containment iodine filter trains in accordance with the same ASTM, with exceptions for 12

, u,, . ..%..--~. e- - .

.-.__-,....em~... _.- . ~ . ,4 -

temperature, specoes ofiodine, andpressure to more closely reflect the actualpost accident conditions in our containment buildings. Testing the containment iodine filter trains using the temperatures, pressures, and species ofiodine as required by the ASTM D3803-1989, without exceptions, would require Calvert Cliffs to replace the charcoalcurrently in the iodine Riters at a cost of approximately $300,000 forallsix hiters. The replacement of the charcoalalso requires that the unit be offline and shut down, creating substantiallost revenues. We feel that none of these actions create a commensurate increase in the health and safety of the public. Calvert Cliffs and similarly designed plants should not be subject to the proposed generic letter.

Response

The staff has determined that if credit is taken for the conttJnment recirculation charcoal filters in the plant's design-basis dose analysis, the charcoal should then be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989. ASTM D3803-1989 is the only available test that (1) provides a reproducible standard test method for determining the quality of the charcoal and (2) provides the ability to adequately discriminate between good and bad charcoal. If the containment recirculation charcoal filters are not needed to meet 10 CFR Part 100 and GDC 19 dose limits, then the licensee should give the staff a revised dose analysis without taking credit for the containment recirculation charcoal filters. The staff has previously approved this for several plants and will entertain such a request in response to this generic letter.

It is not the intent of this generic letter to cause plants to shut down. Therefore, if a plant must shut down to perform this testing, then the licensee may seek relief from the time limits for testing specified in the generic letter (see response to Comment 3).

Comment 25: (Similar comments appeared in 5 individual letters)

The proposed generic letter identifies several actions the NRC expects licensees to undertake .

to increase confidence that they comply with their plant's licensing bases relating to the dose limits of General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A and 10 CFR Part 100, Subpart A. These actions include changes to plant Technical Specifications and testing of charcoal samples in accordance with American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM)

D3803-1989, ' Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon.' The role of a generic letter is to gather or disseminate information, not to impose new requirements.

Therefore,~ the proposalis an inappropriate use of the generic letterprocess. It should not be  ;

issued until comments are carefully considered and resolved.

Response

\

NRC Inspection Manual Chapter 0720, "NRC Generic Communications Regarding Nuclear  !

Issues," specifies that a generic letter is a type of generic communication that

1. Requests that analyses be performed or descriptions of proposed corrective actions be submitted regarding matters of safety, safeguards, or environmental significance. The licensees may be asked to accomplish the actions and report their completion by letter with or without prior NRC approval of the action. Information relating to these analyses may be requested on a voluntary basis or in accordance with Section 182a, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f). Usually, this type of generic letter l 13

requests new or rowsed licensee commitments or other continuing actions, but may not

_ explicitly or coercively solicit licensee commitments.

- The proposed generic letter requests that licensees test their charcoal in accordance with a different test standard (ASTM D3803-1989) than the one currently specified in their technical specifications.

2. Requests licensees to submit technical information which NRC needs to perform its function. The information may be requested on a voluntary basis or in accordance with Section 182a, Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f).

- The proposed generic letter requests that licensees submit specific laboratory test parameter information.

3. Requests or prowdes the opportunity to licensees to submit proposed changes to technical specifications.

- The proposed generic letter requests that licensees submit a technical specification amendment requiring testing of charcoalin accordance with the ASTM D3803-1989 standard or propose an attemate test protocol.

4. Provides staff technical or policy positions not previously communicated or broadly understood.

- The proposed generic letter reiterates the staff position that testing charcoal to the previous, NRC-endorsed ASTM D3803-1979 standard does not provide the needed j assurance that licensees are complying with their respective, plant licensing bases as  !

they relate to the dose limits of General Design Criterion 19 of Appendix A to .

10 CFR Part 50, and Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 100. This information was previously conveyed to licensees in Information Notice 87 32. The proposed generic letter  !

endorses ASTM D3803-1989 as an acceptable charcoal testing protocol for verifying compliance with plant licensing bases, i

Therefore, the staff has determined that the proposed generic letter is an appropriate use of the generic letter process.

Comment 26: (Nuclear Energy Institute) q The draft generic letter permits licensees to prppose altomate test protocols for laboratory testing of charcoalin lieu of using the ASTM D38031969 standard. But, the NRC staff guidance is that any attemate protocolis to be compared to ASTM D3803-1989. The evaluation of an attemate test method should be based on its ability to assure that the licensing basis is satisfied, which is not necessarily the same performance criterion as that containedin the 1969 standard.

Response

14

If a licensee proposes cn cit:mata tist protocol, then the NRC staff cxpects that the titsmite test protocol be subjected to the same rigorous program that was essential in the development of ASTM D3803-1989 (see response to Comment 4).

Comment 27: (Similar comments appeared in 4 individual letters)

The statf cites test results showing that testing to ASTM D3003-1989 produces more accurate measures of charcoalperformance. Requiring utilities to submit test results has no value since NRC has already reached a determination about the unsuitability of testing to earlier test standards. The requirement to supply test results showing the charcoalis tested to the ASTM D38031989 standard should be deleted. This would reduce the burden of the generic information request without reducing the level of protection afforded the public. Additionally, if Riter systems have been recently filled with new charcon1 that was tested to the 1989 standard by the manufacturer, additional testing and submission of results should not be required. See Requested Action 2 (i).

Where licensees have tested to ASTM D3803-1989, the results are ekher satisfactory or the charcoalis replaced with new charcoal which has passed ASTM D38031989 tests. Requiring submittal of test results is an unnecessary expense that should be deleted. Submittal of test results should only be required where the licensee proposes an attemative to NRC-approved test methods (ASTM D3803-1989).

Response

The staff has revised the generic letter to not require licensees to provide test results.

Additional testing will not be required because testing will be performed at the next required laboratory surveillance test. (See response to Comment 3.)

Comment 28: (Similar comments appeared in 3 individual letters)

The Paper Reduction Act Statement estimates the public reporting burden for this mandatory 1' information coIIection to be 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per response. The generic letter does not provide the basis for this conclusion. A more accurate estimate of the burden to perform the actions requested is on the order of 100 to 400 man-hours per response.

Resoonse:

The staff has revised the generic letter to clarify that the public repo'rting burden for this mandatory information collection is 250 hours0.00289 days <br />0.0694 hours <br />4.133598e-4 weeks <br />9.5125e-5 months <br /> per response.

Comment 29: (Nuclear Energy institute) l Federal Reaister notice, page 9588, fourth paragraph states that ANSI N5101975, requires performance of the 25-80-25 test. This test is not a requirement of ANSI N5101975.

Section 13.3 of the ANSI standards requires test of adsorbent samples to be performedin accordance with Table 4 of RDT M 16- 1T, ' Gas Phase Adsorbents for Trapping Radioactive lodine Compounds." The October 1973 edition of the RDTstandardis listedin the references ,

section of the ANSI standard. Table 4 of the RDT does not specifyperformance of the 80 *C 15 1

gy .. + *%* 9***".%c,.+em, t . 4 49B'459 tsJ.t*%e g35 %-*

• so

_ _ wme M1 a 4 7 am-- * - . -

y l

. =.

test. Only tests for eitherIg ormethyllodide performedat 130 *C and25 *C are required. The 25-80-25 test is required by the 1976 edition of ASTM N509 76 and Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.52.

Response

' The staff has revised Enclosure 1 of the generic letter to clarify that the TS for Oconee' i required the laboratory test of charcoal to be performed in accordance with' ANSI N5101975 l and Method C of ASTM D3803-1979, which requires the performance of the test at l 130 *C (266 *F) and 95 percent RH.

Comment 30. (Similar comments appeared in 4 individual letters) j i

Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), as the licensee for Fort Calhoun Station, endorses the  ;

' comments on this issue provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in a letter dated March 27,1098. In addition, OPPD estimates the cost of Fort Calhoun Station compliance with the proposed GL st approximately $1,000,000. This and the costs incurred by other licensees do not seem justifiable under the Back6tting Rule.

Response: l Whether licensees test their charcoal in accordance with the test standard required by their current techneial specifications or with ASTM D3803-1989, there is no difference in the cost of ,

performing the test.' However, charcoal that can no longer protect the public or the control room i operators during an accident will have to be replaced with new charcoal, as it should be. The staff does not believe that charcoal will have to be changed out more frequently as a result of ,

testing in accordance with the more stringent and reproducible ASTM D3803-1989 test '

standard because of the reduction of the safety factor proposed in the generic letter. The .

actions requested in the proposed generic letter are considered compliance backfits under the  ;

provisions of.10 CFR 50.109 in order to ensure compliance with the plant's licensing basis as it relates to the dose requirements of GDC 19 and Part 100, including commitment to the resolution of TMI Action Plan item Ill.D.3.4. In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i), regarding compliance backfits, a full backfit analysis is not required.

' Most of Fort Calhoun's expense stems from the containment recirculation systems. See .

Comment 24 regarding possible removal of containment recirculation systems.

Comment 31: (Similar comments appeared in 2 individual letters)

New York Power Authority stated that 'the backfit discussion in the Federal Repister notice concludes that because the NRC issued orders confirming licensees' commitments to modify control room ventilation systems, alllicensees are required to meet the dose requirements of GDC 19. The accuracy of this statement cannot be confirmed without a complete and thorough review of allconfirmatory orders associated with NUREG-0737, TMI Action Pian item Ill.D.3.4.

Absent an explicit commitment and confirmatory orders to the contrary, plants with construction permits issued before May 21,1971 (like Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick) are pre-GDC plants (see NRC memorandum, S. J. Chilk to J. M. Taylor, September 18,1992, regarding SECY 92-233,

• Resolution of Deviations identified During the Systematic Evaluation 16

1

' Program")." However, Duquesne Ught Co. stated that 'We agree that GOG 19 is a regulatory requirement for as, xensees." ,

Response-TMI Action item Ill.D.3.4, " Control Room Habitability," required that all plants meet the dose limits of GDC 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50. Confirmatory orders were issued to ,

licensees to ensure that they addressed TMI Action item Ill.D.3.4. This resulted in the GDC 10 dose limits becoming part of their licensing bases.

Comment 32: - (Similar comments appeared in 4 individual letters) ,

i The use of en'orcement discretion is addressed in the proposed generic letter, but it only addresses discretion with respect to the test methodology used. The proposed enforcement discretion wouldpermit use of American Society for Testing and Matenals (ASTM) D3803-1989, regardless of what testing standard the TS currently specify. The discussions of enforcement ,

discretion should be expanded to also state that discretion will apply to the test acceptance criteria (to permit acceptance criteria consistent with those that will be approved in subsequent j TS changes, and that are appropriate criteria for use when testing to ASTM D3803-1989). l 4

ff the enforcement discretion is not expanded to include use of the more appropriate 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 test;ng methodologies of ASTM D3803-1989. Without the expanded \

enforcement discretion, these plants would need to meet the acceptance criteria in the existing TS.' As stated by the NRC in the proposed generic letter, the existing acceptance criteria typically have a safety margin of between 5 to 7 to address testing .

uncertainties and to allow for some degradation of the charcoalbetween tests. As also noted, when testing to the more conservative ASTM D38031989 standard, the NRC will be approving TS acceptance criteria with a safety margin of 2. If plants that test to ASTM D3803-1989 are required to meet their existing acceptance criteria (in the interim period until a TS change is approved by the NRC), it is likely that charcoal that would

- pass the test following receipt of the license amendment might fail the interim criteria.

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 that do not need enforcement discretion because they are continuing to test in accordance with their TS, but their TS do not specify ASTM D3803-1989). If these Group 2 plants also perform parallel testing in accordance with ASTM D3803 1969 in order to meet the intent of the NRC recommendation, they will be forced to perform two tests instead of one. Forplants such as the Peny Nuclesr Power Plant, that have TS ventilation systems that are run on a continuous basis, this dual testing would need to be performed on a monthly basis.

~ 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.

17 l

. I The emansion of the enforcement decretion and the resulting avoidance of i unnecessary burden on licensees as described above are consistent with the NRC l

. Princfpies of Good Regulation. Under the heading *Etficient,' as noted within the NRC l

. Principles of Good Regulation, is the statement: 'The American taxpayer, the rate-paying consumer, and licensees are all entitled to the best possible management andadministration of regulatory activitres. Where severaletfactive attematives are available, the option which minimizes the use of resources should be adapted.'

Response

For Part 1 of this comment, the staff has revloed the generic letter to specify that the results should meet the acceptance criterion that is derived from applying a safety factor as low as 2 '

(see the note in Enclosure 2) to the charcoal filter efficiency assumed in the licensee's design-basis dose analysis. For Part 2 of this comment, see the staff's response to Comment 36.

Comment 33: (Nuclear Utility Backfitting & Reform Group-NUBARG)

The attemative to adopting ASTM D38031989 is not a realattemative. It is a transparent l attempt to force licensees to adopt a new standard selected by the NRC staff. Having previously licensed facilities based on other standards and where the licensee demonstrated i conformance with the dose requirements of GDC 19, Part 100, and resolved TMI Action Plan '

Item III.D.3.4, the retroactive imposition of a new testing standard for activated charcoelis i Irnpermissible. By its very terms, the attemative testing protocolcalled for by staff does not provide a realattemative to ASTM D3803-1989 forlicensees. Under Section 50.109(a), this  ;

action is impermissible unless the appropriate backfitting analysis has been ocmpleted. l

Response

~

The NRC has decided that the GL is a backfit, but the Section 50.109(a)(3) finding need not be 4 demonstrated in a backfit analysis because the NRC considers the GL to be a compliance backfit pursuant to Section 50.109(a)(4)(i). (see response to comment 13). With respect to the issue of a real attemative, the generic letter is not intended by the NRC staff to mandate the use of ASTM D3803-1989 by licensees; a licensee may propose an attemative test protocol to l demonstrate charcoal filter functionality. However, if a licensee proposes an altomative test protocol, then the NRC staff expects that the technical adequacy of the attemate test protocol be demonstrated using the same rigorous program that was essential,in the development of ASTM D38031989.

fementM: (Tennessee Valley Authority) e On page 9584 of the Federal Reaister notice, NRC discusses the factor of safety that can be applied when using the new test methodology. Allowance should be made for plants that ,

replace installed c*arcoal at specified intervals (mproximately 5 year intervals), which coincide with the qualified life of charcoal trays. These programmed replacement intervals provide assurance that the charcoal will not degrade below values assumed in accident analysis when tested within the frequencies providedin the Technical Specifications (TS).

18

E 4 F.

, l

.. _l Bg8EMER:  ;

The replacement of the charcoal at certain intervals is an option available to all licensees but is i

' not a requirement. The generic letter already proposes to reduce the safety factor from a value of 5 or 7 in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.52 to a value of 2. Any further reductions in l the safety factor will not provide assurance that the charcoal filter efficiency assumed in the  ;

accident analysis will still be valid at the end of the operating cycle. Therefore, the generic j letter will not be revised.

Comment M: (Tennessee Valley Authonty)

Requested Action 1 abould be clanfied to state that forplants that already test to ASTM D3803-1989 and whose TS sIready reference the standard 'ho TS amendment and no  !

additional testong is required

• Without this clarification, the generic letter could be interpreted to j require testing within 60 days for allplants. This proposed revision wouldbe consistent with the  ;

l

' Response Requested'section, which does not require submittalof test information forplants currently testing to ASTM D3803-1989. \

Response: )

l The staff has revised Requested Action 1 to clarify that no TS amendment and no additional i testing is required for licensees who have TS that require the laboratory testing of charcoal samples for each ESF ventilation system to be conducted in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989.

Comment 36: (Texas Utilities Electric Company)

' In the discussion on page 9584 of the Federal Reaister notice, the generic letter " Requested .

Actions" indicate that testing in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 shouldbe conducted within 60 days of the date of the genericletter. Forplants notin Group 1, this wouldrequire dual testing until such time as a technical specification change is mproved by the NRC. In order to

. avoid the dual-testing requirement, the generic letter should be modified to require adoption of ASTM D3803-1989 after mproval of a license amendment.

Response

As proposed in the generic letter, licensees in Groups 3 and 4 have already been granted enforcement discretion to test in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 during the period of time between issuance of the generic letter and approval of the techncial specification amendment.

. Therefore, dual testing is not required for licensees in Groups 3 and 4. To solve the potential dual testing problem for licensees in Group 2, the staff has revised the genenc letter to specify 4

that licensees in Group 2 will also be granted enforcement discretion.

Comment 37: (One individual) is this a safetyissue? Then why isn't it being changed immediately?

19 t-

y ,

Response

The staff understands that this is not a significant safety issue that requires immediate action which has allowed the staff to develop and implement the proposed resolution in a reasonable time. On the basis of the available laboratory test results, the staff believes that most charcoal in use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety. However, the staff also believes, on the basis of the available test results, that there is a group of plants with significantly degraded charcoal and the required test in their technical specifications is ineffective in identifying the degradation. Because of this group of plants and the group of plants not in compliance with their technical specifications, this issue needs to be addressed. Therefore, the staff has developed this generic letter as a way to resolve this issue in an effective and efficient manner. The overall confidence in charcoal performance, and the low probability of a design-basis accident and the conservatism inherent in the design basis dose calculations including the conservatism in the design-basis source term, justify the time frame for resolving this matter.

Comment 38:'(One individual)

Does the NRC intend to notify licensees that the current Safety Evaluation Reports that have been issuedin support of the licenses willbe amended to identify this new requirement that must be to meet GDC 197 Currently, some SERs document the use of otherstandards to satisfy GDC 19.

Response

In response to the proposed generic letter, all licensees who have TS that do not reference ASTM D38031989 will be requested to submit a TS amendment referencing ASTM D3803-1989 or an attemate test protocol. A safety evaluation will then be written by the staff which will . ,

approving the TS amendment and concluding that the dose limits of GDC 19 are met. This '

safety evalutaion will supersede the previous safety evaluations regarding charcoal filter testing.

Comment 39: (One individual)

Some licensees were required to comply with 10 CFR 50.34(g), which required a review to the NUREG-0800 Standard Review Plan that was in effect 6 months before to their date of docketing. Will this change require licensees to apply for exemptions to 50.34(g) since this  :

proposed change has not been incorporated into their review?

Response

i 10 CFR 50.34(g) requires the applicant to provide the staff with an evaluation identifying any differences from the Standard Review Plan (SRP) acceptance criteria and evaluating how the proposed alternatives to the SRP criteria provide an acceptable method of complying with NRC's regulations. As during the licensing process, exemptions from 50.34(g) are not required for deviating from the SRP. The SRP is not a substitute for the regulations, and compliance is not a requirement.

20

Comment 40: (One individual)

The technicalspecifications are issued by the NRC as an attachment to the license. Doesnt ,

the NRC have a means to determine the requirements that they have issued to licensees?

Response

Yes, but due to the past and present confusion about charcoal filter testing, the staff has determined that it is neccessary to have licensees review their current technical specifications requirements and compare them to the test protocol actually being used when the charcoal sample canisters are tested by the laboratory to determine if the technical specification surveillance requirements are being met.

Comment 41: (One individual) i Does the survey results statement on page 9583 of the Federal Reoister notice mean that the NRC is aware oflicensees who are not in compliance with the requirements of the operating license? Why wasnt this corrected through orders or by the NRC initiating technical ,

. specification changes?

Response: I As discussed in the proposed generic letter, the staff issued emergency technical specification l amendments to three plants that were not in compliance with their technical specifications and found through a survey that as many as one-third of the plants may not be in compliance with their technical specifications. Plant-specific orders and NRC initiation of technical specification i changes were discussed as possible ways to resolve this issue, but it was docused that a generic letter was a better approach because of the safety significance as discussed in .

response to Comment 37.

Comment 42: (One individual)

' The Commission should also question the training and qualifications of members of the Committee To Review Generic Requirements (CRGR) who failed to identify this as a change of position that would place a burden on licensees. CRGR should have recognized that licensees would not be able to answer under oath and affirmation since they were already meeting their current licensing basis and they had no documentation from NRC to. identify what was wrong with the current requirements.

Response

The staff has revised the backfit discussion of generic letter to specify that endorsing the ASTM D3803-1989 testing standard is a new staff position. This has been reviewed and approved by the CRGR. CRGR did recognize that there was adequate documentation from the

, NRC and industry identifying the problems with the current requirements. In 1982, the L American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Committee on Nuclear Air and Gas Treatment (CONAGT) conducted an interlaboratory comparison test using ASTM D3803-1979 and found that seven U.S. laboratories and eight foreign laboratories obtained vastly different 21

results when testing samples of the same charcoal. After efforts to resolve the differences failed, the NRC contracted with EG&G at Idaho National Engineering Laboratory (INEL) to assess the problem. As a result of this assessment, the NRC issued IN 87-32. Through IN 87 32, the NRC informed licensees of deficiencies in the testing of nuclear-grade charcoal, specifically noting serious problems with the capabilities of the testing laboratories and with the testing standard (ASTM D3803-1979). The NRC contractor detailed the specific problems in its technical evaluation report, EGG-CS 7653, " Final Technical Evaluation Report for the NRC/INEL Activated Cart >on Testing Program." Specifically, EG&G reported that ASTM D3803-1979 had unacceptable test parameter tolerances and instrument calibration requirements, and that ASTM D3803-1979 was nonconservative in not requiring humidity pre-equilibration of used charcoal. The information notice indicated that the protocol developed by EG&G could be utilized for performing the laboratory test until the D-28 committee responsible for ASTM D3803 revised the standard. The committee completed the revision and issued it in December 1989.

Following the issuance of IN 87-32, responsible licensees revised their technical specifications to test their charcoal in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989.

Comment 43: (Commonwealth Edison Company)

^ On page 9584 of the Federal Reaister notice (Requested Actions), the statement is mad' e: '1. If your current TS require the laboratory testing of charcoalsamples for each ESF ventilation system to be conductedin accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, then no TS amendmentis required.' This should be reworded as follows: ' Stations that currently reflect the acceptance

- criteria for testing ESF ventilation systems to D3803-1989 without the safety factor of 2 being l

applied, may want to consider submitting a TS amendment to allow laboratory results that include the safety factor of 2.*

Resoonse:

This proposed revision is not necessary. Once the generic letter is issued, any station with i technical specifications that reference ASTM D3803-1989 without a safety factor of 2 can j submit a technical specification amendment to the staff utilizing a safety factor of 2 for review and approval.-

Comment 44: .(Commonwealth Edison Company) ,

j i

On page 9589 of the Federal Reaister notice, the following formula appears:

Allowable Penetration = [I00% - Methyllodide Efficiency for Charcon! Credited in SERYSafety Factor The equation should be revised as follows:

1 Allowable Penetration = [I00% - Methyllodide Efficiency for Charcoal Creditedin Accident

{

AnalysisySafety Factor '

Use of the efficiency credit in the accident analysis is more accurate because it reflects current assumptions andanalysis versus those assumedin the original SER. ]

22

O ,

Response

The staff has revised the equation in the sample technical specification note in Enclosure 2 of the generic letter to state:

Allowable Penetration = [100% - Methyl lodide Efficiency' for Charcoal Credited in the Licensee's Accident AnalysisySafety Factor

• This value should be the efficiency that was incorporated in the licensee's accident analysis which was reviewed and approved by the staff in a safety evaluation. j Comment 45: (Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.)

Will the tertiary document be the final document to which the licensee is held accountable? At present, many Technical Specifications simply require the use of Regulatory Guide 1.52. This document specl6es the use of a secondary document (i.e., ANSI N509), which in tum specifies \

a tertiary document (i.e., RDTM16). Will ASTM D3803-1989 be the final, non-technical-specification-cited document to which the licensee willbecome committed? If not, will there be forthcoming additional commitments required to fourth-level documents specified from ASTM D3803 1989 (such as D 1193, ' Specification for Reagent Water,' or MIL-F-51068D,

' Filter, Particulate, High Efficiency, Fire Resistant,'etc.)? These reference documents, if updated, could cause changes to the testing method described in ASTM D3803-1989. Willit become incumbent on the licensee to comply with changes in these documents or verify vandor compliance with the requirements of these documents?

Response

The proposed generic letter requests that plants revise their technical specifications to test in .

accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, which would then become the primary document. The ASTM D38031989 test standard allows the use of updated reference documents because it does not specify the specific date of the reference document. The staff only requires plants to revise standards in their technical specifications if it can be shown tnat there are significant problems with the standard that may result in the licensee not being able to meet the i requirements. Therefore, the staff expects this to be the final document to which licensees will be held accountable in their technical specifications, but the possibility for future changes exists if substantial new problems are identified.

Comment 46: (First Energy)

The proposed generic letter doesn't address an estimated timeframe for approval of the TS revisions based upon the generic letter or specifically address 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, then plants will be burdened with extra expenses until the NRC completes its processing of the TS change.

Therefore, timely processing would be essential.

23

l Resoonse:

The staff will review all of the submitted technical specification amendments in an expedited

. manner. Requested Actions items 2 and 3 ask the licensee to indicate when the next ,

laboratory test is scheduled to be performed so the staff can prioritize its review efforts. In l

addition, the staff has revised the generic letter to specify that a safety factor as low as 2 can l be used during the period of time between issuance of the generic letter and approval of the 1

technical specification amendment. (See response to Comment 36.)

Comment 47: (Similar comments appeared in 10 individual letters) l l

. We endorse the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in a letter dated i March 27,1998 on this proposed generic letter.

Response

In the above discussion of the comments, the staff has provided a response to all of NEl's l comments regarding the proposed generic letter. j I

I I

a f

4 4

24 i

L_. . . .

Appendix A,"Alphrbetical Ust of Respondents"

1. ' Arizona Public Service Company 13. Nuclear Energy institute (NEI)

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 1776 i Street, NW Mail Station 7605 Suite 400

- P.O. Box 52034 Washington, DC 20006-3708 Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034

14. Nuclear Utility Backfitting & Reform Group  !

2. Baltimore Gas and Electric Company Winston & Strawn Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant 1400 L Street, N.W. '

.1650 Calvert Cliffs Parkway. Washington, DC 20005-3502 Lusby, MD 20657

15. NUCON Intemational, Inc.

3. Carolina Power & Light Company P.O. Box 29151 P.O. Box 1551 . .

7000 Huntley Road 411 Fayetteville Street Mall- Columbus, Ohio 43229 Raleigh, NC 27602 -

16. Omaha Public Powe"r District

4. Cleveland Electric liluminating Company Fort Calhoun Station Pony Nuclear Power Plant 444 South 16th Street Mall 10 Center Road Omaha, Nebraska 68102-2247 P.O. Box 97 Perry, Ohio 44081 17. PECO Energy Company 965 Chesterbrook Boulevard

5. Comnonwealth Edison Company Wayne, PA 19067-5691 1400 Opus Place Downers Grove,IL 60515-5701 18. Southem Califomia Edison San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station

6. Consolidated Edison Company of New York P.O. Box 128 Indian. Point Station San Cler,sente, CA 92674-0128 Broadway & Bleakley Avenue .

. Buchanan, NY 10511 19. Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street

7. Entergy Operations, Inc. Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 P.O. Box 31995 i' Jackson, MS 39286-1995 20. Texas Utilities Electric Company Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station

- 8.' Eugene F. Kurtz, Jr. P.O. Box 1002 P.O. Box 164 Glen Rose, Texas 76043-1002 ,

Shippingport, PA 15077 ,  !'

21. Toledo Edison Company

9. Florida Power & Light Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 14000 5501 North State Route 2 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449-9760  ;

i

22. Virginia Power l

10. NCS Corporation 4555 Groves Road, No. 41 innsbrook Technical Center Columbus, Ohio 43232 5000 Dominion Boulevard .

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060  !

11. New York Power Authority  ;

123 Main Street 23. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation White Plains, New York 10601 Kewaunee Nuclear Power Plant North 490, Highway 42  !

12. North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation Kewaunee, WI 54216-9511 ,

. P.O. Box 300 l Seabrook, NH 03874 i

_-_ __-- , i

t T ::j , ,, 7 y ; i::

t y >1 r Ii : ' li d _

% IllllM *.

lgl4 l -

i l -

- _ ,Ig,$,+ -

1 i = = = = = - - - = - _= "1 l1 u

m

=

_=- " _

m m

m .

- =- - _ =' ' P' ll m m

a m

=;_- - = _ , -

, 7 _

o I l = = _==- = ==

- F -

t s - - --

n 1 u '

=- =

u

- - T e m -

d l1

=

n = - - -

o ,l' ll

+l p

o o

l1 ,l'

!WlllI i

ll1l 1~ -

R f

_ l' o

x l1 ~

l ' l'

- i- tllt

- l i

t r

ll 1 ill+I

!M l' ii;i M

a ll l l' Ii; tll+I B 1r l l

_, Ii;i tilt

- I i

d x

l1 I l i;Iyi  !

n u

l1 - = - ,

p l1 p

_ = _ - - _

A ll m m

m m

= == -

ll m

_= - 5

~

ll m_ - - = - --E ll - - =

- - - - U-ll  ! )i, j lI _ -

,s s s -r,r p _

l+IIilM

!' , i,j!

Iit1 _

~ - f c 'L Z a a:aa" :- u- >,q U.=,::

- _ 1- t Z~ u#

I  ;

-~

hs /

m..,

1 North RECElVED

'"'i "

}o\f Atlantic E O S $ ""*'""*"'**'"' N Seabrook NH 03m ippa apa -I pil 3: 99 wasma p,, _,g ,,pg RULES & og gg,WCH ne Nodcast WMes Sptern

]. [])7)'4fr US NRC March 27,1998

//

l i Docket No. 50-443 NYN-98046 AR#98004733 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Office of Administration Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Seabrook Station Comments on Proposed Generic Letter Laboratorv Testing of Nuclear- Grade Activated Charcoal On February 25, 1997, the NRC issued for comment, a proposed generic letter " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal," which would alert licensees that the NRC has determined that testing nuclear-grade activated charcoal to standards other than American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803-1989, " Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon," does not provide assurance for complying with their current licensing basis as it relates to dose limits.

North Atlantic Energy Service Corporation (North Atlantic), the operator of Seabrook Station, has reviewed the material within the proposed generic letter. North Atlantic would fall into category 2 of this generic letter as a plant in compliance with Technical Specifications that tests in accordance with a standard other than ASTM D3803-1989. North Atlantic has contacted our current test laboratory / supplier (NUCON) to discuss testing in service charcoal samples to ASTM D3803-1989. NUCON has indicated that they may not be able to meet the sixty day demand for testing services and supply new charcoal should existing charcoal fail to meet the i requirements of ASTM D3803-1989, if this generic letter is issued as written to all licensees.

North Atlantic has discussed this issue with representatives of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)

)

and has learned this is a common concern among the two major test laboratory / suppliers. The 60-day implementation schedule requested by the proposed generic letter does not permit sufficient time for licensees to test and submit results to the NRC.

l l

k v4cSu1L5 hp

r-

, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

. Division of Administrative Services NYN-98046 / Page 2 North Atlantic requests the NRC consider the impact and the feasibility for the industry to implement the requirements of this generic letter. An alternate approach may be to seek a phased in approach or expand the response period beyond 60 days. Either approach should be coordinated as a joint NRC-industry initiative to allow for a comprehensive discussion of NRC and industry concerns as they relate to charcoal test methodologies.

North Atlantic has reviewed the comments proposed by NEI and endorses those comments.

If you have questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. Anthony M. Callendrello, Licensing Manager at (603) 773-7751.

Very truly yours, NORTH ATLANTIC ENERGY SERVICE CORP.

/ M <W --

Ted C. Feigenbaum #

Executive Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer cc: Mr. Kurt Cozens Nuclear Energy Institute 17761 Street, NW Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708 1

t t

e f ji4kth 0 0998 ise p"""

omaha PthnePonwDistrict y Qf Q l)2 $

wswm semsnarua

• 'na.neam sare2ur RULES & D;R. Es!CH March 27,1998 US NF.C LIC-98-0052 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services Mail Stop T6-D69 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D. C. 20555-0001

References:

1. Docket No. 50-285

2. Federal Register Volume 63, No. 37 dated February 25,1998

Subject:

Comments on Proposed Generic Communication: Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978) in Reference 2, the NRC issued for public comment a proposed Generic Letter (GL) which (1) alerts licensees that the NRC has determined that testing nuclear-grade activated charcoal used in safety-related ventilation systems at nuclear plants to standards other than the American Society for' Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard D3803-1989 does not provide assurance of compliance with the current licensing basis; (2) requests that licensees determine whether their j technical specifications reference ASTM D3803-1989 or propose and acceptable alternative; (3) I alerts licensees of NRC's intent to exercise enforcement discretion under certain condition; and (4) requires licensees to submit written responses to the generic communication.

Omaha Public Power District (OPPD), as the licensee for Fort Calhoun Station, endorses the  ;

comments on this issue provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in a letter dated March 27,1998. In addition, OPPD estimates the cost of Fort Calhoun Station compliance with the q proposed GL at approximately $1,000,000. This and the costs incurred by other licensees do i not seem justifiable under the Backfitting Rufe.

Please contact me if you have any questions.

S' erely, S. . Gambhir Division Manager-Engineering & Operations Support TCM/ tem c: E. W. Merschoff, NRC Regional Administrator, Region IV L. R. Wharton, NRC Project Manager W. C. Walker, NRC Senior Resident inspector Document Control Desk Winston & Strawn U L l ts t Q 0 4 f lp

[ 123 Main Strert Whrt) Plains. New York IcS01 .-

914 681.6840 g //1 /

914 287,3309 (FAX) l0 M f e or Vce President and

& Authority ch "*"' o"**'

m 20 pS A O o o ta M.fo TT1 March 27,1998 O ~

JPN-98-010 h <

IPN-98-037 hi Chief, Rules and Directives Branch .u Division of Administrative Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Indian Point 3 Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-286 .

James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant Docket No. 50-333 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED GENERIC COMMUNICATION:

LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL (M97978)

REFERENCES:

See below

Dear Sir:

The Authority has reviewed the proposed generic letter (Reference 1) published February 25,1998. This draft generic letter (GL) alerts licensees to problems that may be associated with certain activated charcoal testing methods and asks licensees to take action to correct these problems on an accelerated timetable. The Authority has several comments and concerns regarding the regulatory aspects of this GL, which are detailed below.

In general, the Authority supports the comments submitted by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on this proposed GL, While the proposed GL appears to identify several concems regarding past charcoal test techniques, other less burdensome methods to assure the continued health and safety of the public exist. These other methods should be examined before prescriptive remediations, like those detailed in the draft GL, are imposed. Clearly, the positions detailed in the draft GL are new and a full backfit analysis should be performed. In addition, the actions requested go well beyond those appropriate for a GL.

f()ynj64&0 f

e.

Imposes New Requirements on Existing Operating Plants The NRC staff's acceptance of activated chercoal testing standards, other than ASTM D3803-1989 (Reference 2), are well documented in Regulatory Guides and other plant-specific documents. As recently as December of 1997, the NRC acknowledged the use of ASTM D3803-1979 (see Reference 3) for testing at the Authority's FitzPatrick nuclear power plant. The position that no testing standard except ASTM D3803-1989 is acceptable is clearly a new :.nd different position. As such, it does not qualify as a compliance backfit under the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109. A full backfit analysis should be performed to quantify the increase to the public health and safety, and to justify the imposition of these testing requirements in light of the direct and indirect costs.

Revised Source Term Activities The actions proposed in the draft GL do not consider the potential effects of changes to post-accident source terms currently under consideration. Many of the costs required to complete the requested actions might be saved if the dose-reducing benefits of revised source term activities, under development and review by both the industry and NRC for many years, were considered together with this issue. This work could significantly reduce the reliance on charcoal adsorbers to limit on- and off site radiological releases, and provide additional bases for revised charcoal filter efficiency safety factors. Costs associated with testing and replacing existing charcoal, updating radiological dose calculations, and engineering and installing modifications, might be avoided, insufficient Time for Licensee Response and Action The time periods allotted in the proposed GL for licensee actions are inconsistent with the safety issues detailed in the Federal Register notice and much too short to complete the licensee actions requested. This includes the 30 days allotted for comments on the draft generic communications, the 30-day time period proposed for initial licensee response, and the 60-day period for the preparation and submittal of changes to the technical specifications or charcoal sample test results.

The expedited schedule proposed in the draft GL conveys a sense of urgency that was not justified in the Federal Register notice and may not be warranted. Conversely, the Federal Register notice expressed confidence in the charcoal currently installed at commercial nuclear power plants stating that "most charcoal in use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety."

The 30 days permitted for comment on the proposed GL provides little time to research the technicalissues associated with charcoal test methods, and to develop meaningful  ;

comments on the conclusions of the staff and the actions requested. The NRC's concerns regarding the accuracy and repeatability of charcoal testing standards and methods date back almost 16 years to 1982, and the test standard acceptable to the staff at this time (ASTM D3803-1989) was issued 10 years ago. The proposed schedule also does not consider the limited resources available to conduct these tests for approximately 100 plants, that many will require that tests be conducted of multiple samples, or the availability of replacement nuclear-grade activated charcoal on such a limited schedule, should it be required.

2 i

j

Applicability of GDC to All Plants The backfit discussion in the Federal Register notice concludes that because the NRC issued orders confirming licensees' commitments to modify control room ventilation systems, that alllicensees are required to meet the dose requirements of GDC 19. The accuracy of this statement cannot be confirmed without a complete and thorough review of all confirmatory orders associated with NUREG-0737, TMl Action Plan item Ill.D.3.4.

Absent an explicit commitment and confirmatory orders to the contrary, plants with construction permits issued before May 21,1971 (like Indian Point 3 and FitzPatrick) are pre-GDC plants (see Reference 4).

This letter does not contain any new commitments. If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact the Director - Nuclear Licensing, Ms. C. D. Faison.

Very trul yours f

J.Knubel Senior Vice President and cc: Next page 3

References:

1. - February'25,1998 FEDERAL REGISTER, Vol. 63, No. 37, pages 9581-9589 " Proposed Generic Communication; Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978)"

2. ASTM standard D3803-1989 " Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal"

3. USNRC letter, K. R. Cotton to W. J. Cahill, Jr. dated December 6,1996 regarding issuance I

1. of Amendment No. 239 for the James A. FitzPatrick Nuclear Power Plant (TAC No.

M92781)'

l

4. NRC memorandum, S. J. Chilk to J. M. Taylor, September 18,1992 regarding SECY 233, Resolution of Deviations identified During the Systematic Evaluation Program cc: Regional Administrator, Region i U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 475 Allendale Road-King of Prussia, PA 19406:

Office of the Resident inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 136 -

j Lycoming, NY 13093 i Office of the Resident inspector

' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Indian Point 3 i P. O. Box 337 Buchanan, NY 10511 Mr. George F. Wunder, Project Manager Project Directorate I-1

. Division of Reactor Projects 1/11 U S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop 1482

- Washingtoni DC 20555_

- Mr. J. Williams,' Project Manager Project Directorate 11 Division of Reactor Projects I/II  ;

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop OWFN .14E21 -

Washington, DC 20555 i

U.S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 ]

Washington, 'DC 20555 l 4

l y.

l

2. ,__. .  ;

psn 6dAR PSM \

7 Shepho Pd .2C /Pft CP&L

- 7. $efeA Coreline Power & LigleConvenY PO Box 1551 411 Foyeneyb StreetMall PE& RAS-98-013 March 25,1998 Raleigh NC 27602 4 4

' Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services h@

56 :o U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 g o#

$ h@[

' Washington, DC 20555-0001 -

Subject:

b k

c, Proposed Generic Communication; Laboratory Testing of Nucle M

' Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978)

Dear Sir or Madam:

The following comments are made by Carolina Power & Light in regard to the Proposed Generic Communication: Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978)

- (63 Fed. Reg. 9581 February 25,1998).

The proposed Generic Letter identifies several actions the NRC expects licensees to undertake to increase confidence that they comply with their plant's licensing bases relating to the dose limits of General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix A and 10 CFR Part 100 Subpart A. These actions include changes to plant Technical Specifications and testing of charcoal samples in accordance with American Society for Testing and Material (ASTM)

. D3803-1989, " Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon." The role of a

' Generic Letter is to gather or disseminate information; not to impose new requirements.

Therefore, the proposal is an inappropriate use of the generic letter process. It should not be issued until comments are carefully considered and resolved.

In addition, the 60-day implementation schedule in the proposed Generic Letter does not permit sufficient time forlicensees to test and submit results to the NRC. A time period of at least 180 days, or preferably one fuel cycle, would enable licensees to complete charcoal testing or obtain replacement charcoal on a schedule that is consistent with normally planned testing.

Please contact me at (919) 546-6901, or Mr. Phil Opsal at (919) 546-6150, should you have any questions.

incerely, a~u. t%L-Donna B. Alexander Manager - Performance Evaluation & Regulatory Affairs

[O D 3- .

/

i

1 runs P. o'HANLDN innSbmok RChniCGlCCntfr Senbr We Mrsident g~ 5000 lbmmbn Boulewn! Glen AUen. Vvgtnia 23060 b l,hjf4l March /1 23,1998 804*273e3551 OM ff$f Sb. $ /jfff Serial No. $LY8 0$8 b Rules and Directives 3 ranch Division of Administrative Services U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 n a Washington, D. C. 20555-0001 5Ep en

                                                                                              .a
                                                                                             ,q Gentlemen:

65$ C

• 9 T

4,.$ b PROPOSED GENERIC COMMUNICATIONS:  !! < LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE [p h ACTIVATED CHARCOAL Lj y This letter provides comments in response to the proposed generic letter addressing the laboratory testing of nuclear-grade activated charcoal, as published in the Federal Register on February 25,1998, Vol. 63, No. 37, page 9581. Virginia Power appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed generic letter prior to NRC issuance. Virginia Power agrees that the activated charcoal test protocol should accurately monitor the degradation of charcoal over time. However, activated charcoal testing is a complex issue and one test may not be appropriate for all plants. j Testing should reflect plant specific design and provide a basis to evaluate the performance of the activated charcoal. In addition, we are concerned that the comment period for the proposed generic letter was very short and did not allow adequate time for a detailed review of this issue. We believe that additional industry and NRC dialogue is needed in order to develop an acceptable testing methodology. Our detailed comments are provided in Attachment A. Should you have any additional questions, please feel free to contact me. Very truly yours, ames P. O'Hanlon Attachment D4aM]UV

• f/

1

 .                                 ATTACHMENT A VIRGINIA POWER COMMENTS PROPOSED NRC COMMUNICATIONS FOR ACTIVATED CHARCOAL TESTING Virginia Power has reviewed the Proposed NRC Generic Communications for Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal and offers the following comments:

1.0 Backfit Analysis , The NRC Staff is proposing to backfit the use of ASTM D3803-1989 for charcoal filter testing on all plants by use of a Generic Letter. This is a very conservative "one size fits all" type of approach in which the various equipment designs and analysis bases of each affected facility have not been considered. Performance of the specified testing, while conservative, may not be representative of the design bases for various i filter applications. Without a review to confirm if the testing methodology meets the design bases for a specific application, the NRC Staff should not invoke the compliance backfit provision of 10 CFR 50.109 for this Proposed Generic Letter. 2.0 Comment Period for Proposed Generic Communication Because of the complexity of charcoal filter testing, the 30-day comment period represents an inadequate opportunity for utilities to evaluate the technical validity of the proposed test and the required actions proposed in the generic communication. We believe that additional industry and NRC dialogue is needed in order to develop an acceptable testing 1 methodology that reflect the varying plant conditions throughout the industry. 3.0 Revised Source Term Analysis Rather than expend a large amount of resources for testing & replacing charcoal, and qualifying new test-protocols, we believe that the NRC should pursue the use of the revised source term analysis. In many cases, the revised source term analysis will eliminate or significantly reduce the need to take credit for charcoal adsorbers. l Page A-1 I

.s .

     .                               ATTACHMENT A

• VIRGINIA POWER COMMENTS PROPOSED NRC COMMUNICATIONS FOR ACTIVATED CHARCOAL TESTING 4.0 Required Testing Within 60 Days The proposed generic letter requires licensees to perform charcoal testing within 60-days of the date of the letter and to submit a revised Technical Specification to the NRC which invokes ASTM D3803-1989 as the test protocol, as required it would be a more reasonable expectation to have each plant perform testing [i.e., ASTM D3803-1989 or other utility proposed testing) at the next scheduled charcoal sampling test date or within 180-days of the date of the generic letter. There are currently only two laboratories available to perform the required charcoal testing.

Imposing a 60-day test requirement would overwhelm the resources available to the industry to address this requirement. A 180-day testing schedule is consistent with the safety significance of this issue. In addition, the proposed generic letter states that "the staff believes that most charcoal in use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety." Providing a 180-day time frame for testing would allow sufficient time to implement the appropriate testing protocol. 5.0 ASTM D3803 Methyl Testing The proposed generic letter indicates that ASTM D3803-1989 is the test method of choice. This test uses methyl iodide to test the charcoal adsorbers for efficiency in removing organic iodine. Basing acceptance criteria on methyl iodide retention may not ensure compliance with existing accident analyses where inorganic (elemental) iodine retention in adsorbers is the limiting factor. Depending on plant design, some accident analyses assume higher elemental iodine removal filter efficiency than that of organic iodine. In other accident analysis cases, only l elemental iodine filtration is credited. Using the ASTM D3803-1989 testing methodology has an implicit assumption that organic iodine is the controlling element and that elemental iodine is removed at a higher rate than organic iodine. This may not be applicable to all plants. Based on discussions with vendors, test laboratories and our review of the existing test data, we do not believe that it is possible to draw a correlation between organic and inorganic retention for all retention percentages which are contained in current accident analyses. ASTM D3803-1989 does not evaluate the removal efficiency for elemental iodine. Therefore, Page A-2

L-t ATTACHMENT A VIRGINIA POWER COMMENTS PROPOSED NRC COMMUNICATIONS FOR ACTIVATED CHARCOAL TESTING we believe that an alternate test may be required to determine the removal efficiency for elemental iodine. 6.0 Acceptance Criteria for Charcoal Testing 9 Regardless of the testing protocol used to evaluate the adequacy of , charcoal adsorbers,' the acceptance criteria must be based upon the H respective plant's specific' accident analysis. In addition, the testing protocol with respect to relative humidity should reflect the relative humidity that is appropriate for the charcoal application. We concur that using a factor of safety of 2 for determining acceptance criteria of charcoal filter efficiency is -appropriate when using a test protocol that is conservative and provides consistent test results. The current draft of the generic letter requires that charcoal samples be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 and the results should meet the current technical specification acceptance criteria. This requirement is overly conservative and should be modified in - order to provide for the use of a new acceptance criteria based on plant accident analysis (i.e., compare the

            -test results of ' ASTM D3803-1989 or other utility test protocol to the corresponding accident analysis).

7.0 Alternate Test Protocol The proposed generic letter allows for the use of an alternate test protocol and requires that a series of tests be performed by an independent laboratory which compares the test results to ASTM D3803-1989. The generic letter also states that "The laboratory should not be engaged in the measurement of iodine penetration of charcoal as a business either i for TS compliance purposes or for the sale and/or production of activated  ! charcoal for nuclear power plant applications." Since there are only two j laboratories that currently can perform this comparison testing and they  ! are in the. business of testing charcoal for nuclear power plants, the alternate test protocol is not a viable approach. By restricting the use of existing laboratories for test development, the alternate test protocol cannot be completed without standing up a new laboratory which is cost

            - prohibitive. if an alternate test protocol is proposed, then the utility should be allowed access to the existing testing laboratories.

Page A-3

                                                                                               ]

Drop G3M fr81 'l . 7 S)ps4 QEI & x nn CJQ cy NU('((AR ENERGY I N 5111 U T E [ David J. Modeon

                                                                                           $tSNSE                  sQ "

In .4 March 27,1998 " 5 J/1

  - Mr. David L. Meyer, Chief Sf C                 0 si$                  3 Rules and Directives Branch                                                                         %            D       <

Division of Administrative Services Ew m U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O Mail Stop T6-D69 2m" Washington, DC 20555 0001 i

SUBJECT:

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

Dear Mr. Meyer:

  ~ The following comments are submitted on behalf of the nuclear power industry by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI).1 These comments are in response to the February 25,1998, Federal Register notice of a proposed generic letter on laboratory
  -testing of nuclear. grade activated charcoal.

The proposed generic letter states that the "NRC has determined that testing nuclear-grade activated charcoal to standards other than American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D38031989, ' Standard Test Method for Nuclear Grade Activated Carbon,' does not provide assurance for complying with the current licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of General Design Criterion 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR part f4 and Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 100." Industry agrees that the 1989 edition of ASTM D3803 provides a more conservative test methodology with more rigorous control of test parameters than earlier standards. But, merely because the 1989 ASTM standard is more conservative does not necessarily lead to a conclusion that failure to use it results in licensees being in a state of non compliance with regulatory requirements. Consequently, while we agree that action should be taken, we have technical and regulatory process concerns regarding the approach proposed by the draft generic letter. INEI is the organization responsible for establishing unified nuclear industry policy on matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEl members include all utilities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect / engineering firms, fuel fabrication facilities, materials licensees, and other organizations mud individuals involved in the nuclear energy industry. 1776 i STFlf f. NW $Uttf 400 W A 5HtNGTON DC 20000 370h *MONf d2 7W #000 '## 2 ' 2 ? f' 5 4 5

• h h 4.

       .                                                                                        i l

Mr. DIvid L. M:y:r l M:rch 27,1998 - I

   .. Page 2 Technical Concerns The charcoal test methodology issue is part of a larger set ofissues dealing with engineered safety feature ventilation systems, e.g., control room habitability and application of the revised source term to existing plants. The understanding gained f

through development of the revised source term from severe accident research j efforts is that a high percentage of the iodine released to containment following a design basis accident will be in particulate form. This form ofiodine is not removed { q by charcoal. And, research has shown that particulate iodine will plate out in j containment and thereby greatly reduce the source term available to be released

from containment. This signi6cantly reduces the need to rely on charcoal filters to meet the Part 50 and 100 dose requirements. In addition, the NRC staff concludes in the proposed generic letter that "most charcoal in use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety."

Given the risk insight above, the 60-day licensee response schedule specified in the proposed generic letter is unduly aggressive. The 60 day schedule would place an { unwarranted demand on licensee resources to conduct tests, submit results to NRC and prepare technical specification amendments. It is also impractical to expect j such performance by licensees given the resources of the two vendors qualified to { perform the proposed tests and provide necessary replacement charcoal. The implementation schedule should be revised to be more consistent with the safety i significance, vendor resource limitations and licensee burden. Such risk insights ( should also be reflected when considering corrective actions to be taken by licensees 1 in a state of non conformance with the test procedures identified in their technical j specifications. {

                                                                                                 \

Enclosure 1 includes more detailed, technical comments on the proposed generic

      -letter.                                                                                   i Rerulatory Process Concerns

{ The proposed generic letter identifies several actions the NRC expects licensees to

      . take to assure compliance with the dose limit requirements specified in the plants'     l licensing bases. The practical effect of the requested actions and alternative is to impose a change to plant technical specifications that would require testing of          j charcoal samples in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989.                                     l I

We believe the regulatory process was not followed properly for two reasons. First, the proposed new generic requirement and staff position has not been justified by an appropriate regulatory analysis. Second, the function of this generic letter 9 2 3 1

p, , Mr. D;vid L.' M:yar March 27,1998 Page 3 would go beyond gathering or disseminating information. It would promulgate the new regulatory interpretations and impose new requirements on licensees.

       - The Federal Register backfit discussion characterizes the requested actions as necessary to demonstrate compliance, in examining the issues involved, we conclude this is an incorrect application of the compliance exception provision of the Backfitting Rule,.10 CFR 50.109. Paragraph (a)(1) of $50.109 states that,
         "[b]ackfitting is defined as the modification of or addition to systems, structures, components... or the procedures... required to design, construct or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the Commission rules or the imnosition of a regulatory staff nosition interoretina the Commiasion rule that is either new or di#erent from a orevious aoolicable staff oosition ..."
       - [ underline added for emphasis].
       . The NRC previously established "a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rule" when it approved licensee test methods documented in plant technical specification or accepted other licensee commitments. These approved test methods were deemed by the NRC at the time to be in compliance with the regulatory requirements cited in the proposed generic letter. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3), the NRC staff must demonstrate a significant safety improvement relative to the costs to be incurred by licensees before imposing the improved ASTM test method.'

Finally, an oral re' quest for an extension of the public comment period to better understand and respond to the complexities of this issue was denied by the NRC staff. This short comment period has hindered the ability of the industry to fully explore the merits of the technical proposals in the proposed generic letter. We recommend that future public comment periods be a minimum of 45 days, consistent with the safety significance and resource impact of the issue. Conclusion To improve the efficiency of the regulatory process, licensees and NRC should assess the issues highlighted in the proposed generic letter in consort with the related issues of control room habitability, other emergency ventilation systems and revised source term insights. Due to the low safety significance of this issue, and

        -lack of evidence that those licensees using charcoal test standards other than the
       . ASTM D3803-1989 standard are not in compliance, further dialogue is appropriate before finalizing any generic request for information.

We recommend that a joint NRC-industry workshop be conducted. This would permit a more comprehensive discussion of NRC and industry concerns as they relate to charcoal test methodologies, control room habitability, other emergency 3 y  %

                                                                                                 )

Mr. D:vid L. Msy:r

 ,       Merch 27,1998
  .      Page 4 ventilation systems and application of the revised source term. Any new NRC staff guidance or positions should only be established after an integration of the relevant technical test performance and risk insights.

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this proposed generic letter. If you have questions, please contact Kurt Cozens at (202) 739-8085 or koc@nei.org. Sincerely, Q' ' David J. Modeen KOC/edb c: Mr. Stewart L. Magruder, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. John P. Segala, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. James E. Lyons, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. Richard L. Emch, Jr., U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. NRC Public Document Room (Project No. 689) l l l 4

ENCLOSURE 1 o Industry Technical Cornments on Proposed Generic Conununication: Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (63 Fed. Reg. 9581 - February 25,1998) A. Scope of Application The provisions of the proposed generic letter does not adequately consider the difference in service conditions of filters located inside versus outside containment. A test temperature of 130oC rather than 30oC would be more representative of filter units located inside containment. The imposition of a 3000 test temperature for charcoal inside containment is overly conservative. The proposed generic letter, if issued, should contain the flexibility for the test temperature to be established at l the service conditions the charcoal will experience. B. Acceptable Alternative Actions are Unnecessarily Restrictive The draft generic letter permits licensees to propose alternate test protocols for laboratory testing of charcoalin lieu of using the ASTM D38031989 standard. But, the NRC staff guidance is that any alternative protocolis to be compared to ASTM D3803-1989. The evaluation of an alternate test metbod should be based on its ability to assure that the licensing basis is satisfied, which is not necessarily the same performance criteria as that contained in the 1989 standard. C. Subrnittals of Licensee Charcoal Test Results The proposed generic letter requires submittal of the ASTM D38031989 test results to the NRC staff. This is a new requirement. The generic letter does not explain the purpose of the submittal. The generic letter should be revised to only request that licensees notify the NRC staff of any revised commitments. D. Laboratory Lirnitation Requested Action 2(ii)(b) states that if a licensee wants to use an alternate test protocol, that the " laboratory should not be engaged in the measurement ofiodine penetration of charcoal as a business either for TS compliance or for sale and/or production of activated charcoal for nuclear plant applications." The generic letter does not provide a technical basis for this restriction. The restriction could be considered a restraint of trade and should be removed from the generic letter. E. Paper Reduction Act The Paper Reduction Act Statement estimates the public reporting burden for this mandatory information collection to be 40 hours per response. The generic letter does not provide the basis for this conclusion. A more accurate estimate of the 1 1

burden to perform the actions requested is on the order of 100 to 400 man hours per .

         - response.

F. Enclosure 1 The following corrections should be made to Enclosure 1 of the proposed generic

          , letter:

1. Federal Resister notice once 9586-states that the ASTM D38031989 standard has two additional testing periods that are not required by other standards. It also states that during the. stabilization period, air at the test temperature is passed through the charcoal beds. .This is not correct. During the stabilization period the carbon is brought to thermal equilibrium with the test temperature.

The erroneous Federal Register statement could be misinterpreted and should be revised to agree with Section 12.1 of ASTM D38031989. The duration of this stabilization period is recommended to be a minimum of two hours, during which the canisters and the carbon must come to thermal equilibrium at the specified test temperature.

2. Federal Resister notice care 9587-states the amount of water absorbed at 30*C '

and 95% RH is typically 24 25 weight percent, not 40%. Furthermore, the amount of water adsorbed at 80'C and 95% relative humidity is typically 19- I 20%, not 2%. The amount of penetration versus percent relative humidity is defined in paragraph A5.1 of ASTM D3803 89. The enclosure should be ' corrected to be consistent with the ASTM standard.

3. Federal Resister notice once 9588. fourth oaraeraoh-states that ANSI N510-1975, requires performance of the 25-80 25 test. This test is not a requirement of ANSI N510 75. Section 13.3 of the ANSI standards requires test of adsorbent samples to be performed in accordance with Table 4 of RDT M16-1T, Gas-Phase Adsorbents for Trapping Radioactive Iodine Compounds. The October 1973 edition of the RDT standard is listed in the references section of the ANSI standard. Table 4 of the RDT does not specify performance of the 80*C test.

Only tests for either 12 or methyl iodide performed at 130'C and 25'C are required. The 25 80 25 test is required by the 1976 edition of ASTM N509-76 and Revision 1 of Regulatory Guide 1.52. 2 l

                                                                                           .      )

Mar-27-C3 10:31 PVNGS g P.O2

  .M Wmiam E.kle g

Mail Station 7605 Palo Verde Nucleat Vice President TEL 602/393-6116 P.O. Box 52034 Generating Station Nuclear Engineering FAX 602/393-6077 Phoenix, AZ 85072 2034 102-04101-WEl/SAB/RMW/RKB March 27,1998 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch @ 55 Division of Administrative Services F, 52 , U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission c-$ 5 $ l Mail Stop T6-D69 *a ym Washington, DC 20555-0001 y m l o

                                                                                          =D

Dear Sirs:

EC ) i

Subject:

Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)  ! Units 1,2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-528/529/530 Comments on Proposed Generic Letter Regarding " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." Arizona Public Service Company (APS) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the proposed Generic Letter regarding " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." APS acknowledges that clear regulatory guidance is needed by the nuclear industry on this issue. However, APS has several concerns with the proposed Generic Letter approach. First, APS believes that the proposed 60-day lmplementation schedule does not provide licensees with sufficient time to perform tests and submit results to the NRC. In addition, the proposed 60-day implementation schedule would severely challenge the resources of the limited number of vendors currently qualified to perform the proposed tests and provide replacement charcoal as necessary. An implementation schedule of at least 180 days, commensurate with the safety significance of this issue, is recommended. Second, APS believes that it is inappropriate to use the comp!!ance exception to 10 CFR 50.109, the backfit rule, to impose new requirements. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.109(a)(3), the NRC staff must demonstrate a significant safety improvement relative to the costs to be incurred by licensees before imposing new requirements. e k G3 Slo / W ' 3 6'

                                                                                                              )

Mar 427-CO-10:32 PVNGS P.03 h Chief, Rules and Directwas Branch Division of Administrative Services U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Comments on Proposed Generic Letter Regarding " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." Page 2. While APS believes there is merit in addressing this matter, APS believes a more comprehensive effort should take place between the industry and NRC staff prior to the issuance of any finalized generic communication. Enclosure 1 provides APS' detailed comments. In addition to the comments provided in the Enclosure, APS endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) regarding the proposed Generic Letter. Please contact Mr. Scott Bauer at (602) 393-5978 if you have any questions. This letter does not make any commitments to the NRC. Sincerely, ' k WEl/SAB/RMW/RKB/rth cc: E. W. Merschoff M. B. Fields K. E. Perkins J. H. Moorman 1 l

                                                                                                      }

Mar-77-C8 10:32 PVNGS P.04 h 6 ENCLOSURE 1 Comments on Proposed Generic Letter:

                Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal."

i l i l l

Mar.27-CO 10:32 PVNGS P.05 l APS endorses the comments provided by the Nuclear Energy institute (NEI) regarding the proposed Generic Letter on "Lrboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal." In addition, APS provides tne following detailed comments:

1. The third bullet of paragraph 9 of " Discussion" requires. licensees to submit an amendment request to their technical specifications. Implied in this bullet is that licensees are required to amend their technical specifications to reference ASTM D3803-1989. Clarification should be provided to state that this amendment request may propose an alternative test protocol.

2. Paragraph 7 of" Discussion" states that the staff plans to make conforming changes j to Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.52. The RG should be revised in parallel with the effort '

to transition to the new code in order to ensure consistency.

3. Paragraph 7 of " Discussion" allows systems with humidity control to be tested at }

70% relative humidity (RH). Systems that do not have explicit humidity control, but which have been designed to ensure that RH remains less than or equal to 70%, should also be permitted to test at 70% RH, and the appropriate safety factor applied.

4. Paragraph 7 of " Discussion" states that the staff has previously approved reductions in the safety factor for plants adopting ASTM D3803-1989 on a case-by-case basis.

Generic guidance should be provided that outlines the NRl-accepted criteria used to allow reductions in the safety factor such that facilitius may implement the reduced safety factor, if appropriate, without having to obtoln prior NRC approval.

5. The last paragraph of " Requested Information" states that "the independent laboratory should not be engaged in the measurement of iodine penetration of charcoal as a business either for TS compliance purposes or for the sale and/or production of activated charcoal for nuclear power plant applications." While it is obvious that this requirement is to prevent a conflict of interest, it also increases the burden of finding an acceptable independent lab that is capable of performing the required tests and providing adequate quality assurance. The laboratories that currently perform testing to the ASTM standard should not be excluded from I performing the qualification testing for new, proposed, test protocols. These  ;

laboratories have extensive nuclear-grade charcoal testing experience, established  ! quality assurance programs and the equipment and facilities to safely perform this testing. In addition, the extensive experience that these laboratories have gained by performing testing to the ASTM standard provides added assurance that the proposed test protocol will be evaluated accurately and objectively. I

Mar-27-98 10:31 PVNGS p,o1 AR130MA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAyy . s . nnsma no MAIL STATloM 7636 PALO VERDE MUCLEAR GENERA TING STA T10M rouo,,,, ,, ,,,j 3 WUCLEAR REGULATORY AFFAIRS FAX DATE: $AM.I A1 , /1Y8 MUMBER OF PAGES,luctuDluc COVER SWEET: [ To: From: DAVID Merce ,4/u W f.4x4 Areuer fa/es ava/Medier Abel, DAs x/ueda< ferud. dry Addss Afk T4- Df 9 fuf FMA '/dem$sk. 6lenah Skt. Phrne Jo/ - fM5'- 7/4 2 Fca phone: 70/ '//P 391.0 Phone: 602 393- $~746 h: S 6e Fam Phone: 602 3935442 REMARKS: O urg.nt g[For your R..r.w 0 R=Pl y ASAP O Please comment u a< ea A su na,wa a mcco/ sen~r 4L'~ AedVand &atk,M A

     'sk, hJ ,,      w a# AAa && ks+& a & AY -
                                                    ' f . K . B i w v.<.                     )

     .                                      DSor                                           6fAA' %7/

4 suvun m an,na 7 f j q g .x M 2r m EDISON = "- An i DISDN INTI RN47/ONAL** Company g h Knager. Regulatory Projects 1978 IBR 27 PM 3: 06 9 RULES & Da liRANCH US HRC Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-069 Washington, D.C. 20555

Subject:

Southern California Edison (SCE) Comments on Proposed Generic Letter Regarding Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978) - (63FR37 - February 25,1998) In the subject Federal Register Notice, NRC requested comments on a proposed Generic Letter regarding laboratory testing of nuclear-grade activated charcoal. SCE provides the following comments on the proposed Generic Letter.

1) We believe the Generic Letter should include a statement in all sections indicating that the ASTM D3803-89 testing can be performed at 70% RH in lieu of 95% RH if the design bases of the ESF system includes Humidity Control in the form of duct heaters or design analysis justification that the air is maintained less than or equal to 70% RH without the use of duct heaters.

2) The Generic Letter should include more detail in all sections on how to apply the safety factor of 2 for determining the acceptance criteria for charcoal removal efficiency. For example, if the Licensee's design removal efficiency is 95% as specified in Table 2 of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2, 1978, and ASTM D3803-89 is used for laboratory testing of charcoal, the acceptance criteria can be 97.5%. This Acceptance Criteria can be calculated as follows:

Acceptance Criteria = Design Bases Removal Eff (DBRE) + (100 - DBRE)/ SF

                                                     = 95 + (100-95)/2.0
                                                     = 95 +   2.5
                                                     = 97.5%

(SF = Safety Factor = 2.0) San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station P. O,Ikw 128 san Clemente, CA 9267441128 714 368-7492 Fax 714-%6 7575 c.p-&/0l~ ll

4 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Should you have any questions, please contact me at 714-368-7492. Sincerely, cc: E. W. Herschoff, Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV K. E. Perkins, Jr., Director, Walnut Creek Field Office, NRC Region IV L. L. Wheeler, NRC Project Manager, San Onofre Unit 1 M. B. Fields, NRC Project Manager, San Onofre Units 2 and 3 D. B. Spitzberg, Regional Project Inspector, San Onofre Unit 1 J. A. Sloan, NRC Senior Resident Inspector, San Onofre Units 2 & 3 S. S. Bajwa, Section Chief, Decommissioring Section e 9 l

F g pst GM ?M

                                                                   .               .ou,o commo,, ioc.

l 7 C ENTERGY Y. 73,g

                                                 ,r nv.m0    -                      'T 2
                                                                                    # <r La n _c      '-

O

                                                      . g,yp.tr& 59 Jerrold G. Dewease March 20,1998                          PM ES U     "N y'3 E Mr. David L. Meyer Chief, Rules Review and Directives Branch Office of Administration Mail Stop T-6 D69 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Entergy Operations, Inc. Comments concerning NRC Generic Letter 97-XX: Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal l CNRO-98/00008 l l

Dear Mr. Meyer:

The United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested comments regarding l NRC Generic Letter 97-XX: Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal. ! Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOl) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on this proposed Generic Letter. EOl's comments are included in the attachment to this letter. Please address any comments  ! or questions regarding this matter to Bryan Ford at (601) 368-5792. Sincerely, i

          \l%      '
                           ./

l O$ ~

                          *^f .ln..IV O l

JGD/SJB/BSF/baa ' cc: Mr. J. L. Blount Mr. J. G. Dewease Mr. J. N. Donohew Mr. C. M. Dugger Mr. J. J. Hagan Mr. C. R. Hutchinson Mr. J. R. McGaha Mr. C. P. Patel Mr. W. D. Reckley Mr. D. L Wigginton f0.51]UTW hf'

r 1 CNRO-98/00008 Attachment 1 I

 .[                                                                                              Page 1 of 2 Comments concerning NRC Generic Letter 97-XX: Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-                            1 Grade Activated Charcoal                                     1 in the Federal Register dated February 25,1998, the NRC published for public comment a proposed Genenc Letter concerning the laboratory testing of nuclear-grade activated charcoal.

For those licensees required to meet a standard other than ASTM D3803-1989 this proposed j generic letter would require licensees to modify their Technical Specifications to reflect a new methodology for filter testing. The short period of time allowed by the Staff to review and comment on the proposed Generic Letter does not allow Entergy Operations, Inc. (EOl) l l sufficient time to provide technical comments associated with revising the testing methodology. Regardless of the accuracy of the technical information concerning filter testing provided in the proposed Generic Letter, EOl has the following comments:

1. The discussion that the proposed Generic Letter is a compliance backfit is incorrect for the following reasons:

a) As discussed in the proposed Generic Letter, plants currently have explicit requirements in their Technical Specifications concerning the required methods for , filter testing. These methods have been approved by the NRC Staff. Whether or not  !

                 *better" testing methods are available, licensees are "in compliance" with the requirad testing method when they meet the current Technical Specification requirements.

b) Testing is performed to provide adequate assurance that the plant equipment and parameters are maintained in such a manner to ensure the health and safety of the public. The required Technical Specification surveillances and licensee conditions are the NRC approved and required manner of periodically verifying these items. There is no regulatory requirement to periodically provide absolute assurance that all aspects of the accident analysis are met, nor is it possible to provide this assurance. l There is no regulatory requirement to modify testing requirements whenever a

                  " improved" method is available unless a fully developed backfit analysis is prepared.      '

2. The proposed generic letter identifies that " based on the available laboratory test results, the staff believes that most charcoal in use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety." Since the result of the proposed change in testing methodology is not expected to uncover that the currently installed systems would not be able to perform their design function, the revised testing methodology is not required for compliance with 10 CFR 100 or GDC 19 nor is it expected to result in a significant safety benefit.

3. Unidentified degradation in filter testing efficiencies, if they existed, would not result in an unacceptable impcet on the health and safety of the public. In recent years the NRC has developed and issued revised source terms for post accident radioactive releases. These revised source terms have been accepted for use in the new plant certification process.

These revised source terms indicate that actual iodine releases post accident would be (i) well below those currently assumed in the accident analysis of plants. (ii) significantly delayed from the instantaneous release currently assumed, and (iii) primarily in a aerosol l

CNRO-98/00008 Attachm nt 1 y Page 2 of 2 I form that would be retained by the HEPA filters rather than the elemental form currently assumed that would be retained by the charcoal beds. Although the NRC has not accepted the application of the revised source terms to existing plants, the physical realities which resulted in the reductions in the projected source terms between the existing licensing basis and the more realistic source terms indicate that reducing filter testing efficiency would not result in undue risk to the health and safety of the public.

4. If improved methods of testing are available, the first step should be to modify the NRC guidance (e.g., Regulatory Guide) to reflect the acceptability of these new testing methods, j The lessons learned from the regulatory box that the NRC describes (e.g., the utilities being prevented from using improved testing methods) should be addressed in a more comprehensive manner than just addressing this isolated issue. As discussed in the proposed Generic Letter, the NRC requires licensees to spell out the specific methods of filter testing in their Technical Specifications. The specific methods for performing surveillances is not generally contained in the Technical Specifications. The inclusion of the detailed requirements for filter testing results in excessive burdens on licensees and the NRC Staff and should be removed to allow improved methods to be applied by licensees.

1 l l

,                          DSOS'                                                        6}$ 751/

N e)eg fph K. NNT J.b1G NUCON Internotional, Inc. 5 0)/4 TELEPHONE: (614) 846-5710 OUTSIDE OHIO: 1 800-992-5192 P.O. BOX 29151 7000 HUNTLEY ROAD (614) 4314858 COLUMBUS. OHIO 43229 U.S.A.

                                                                                               $             .)
                                                                                               %     -=       .,

John P. Segala " is

    $ Chief, Rules and Directives Branch                                                                       3 Division of Administrative Services U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 6[OC:

p. W O 2 5) l rn Washington, DC 20555-001 QS

Dear Sir:

Our comments conecming the proposed generic letter " Laboratory Testing of Nuclear Grade Activated Charcoal" : General comments: This letter does not adequately address one of the ongoing problems that we face: the specifications for the testing of new charcoal do not agree with those for the testing of used carbon testing. Furthermore, we feel that the AG-1 code might be a more appropriate vehicle to address the charcoal testing problems ( where ASTM D3803-89 is invoked as a requirement) than to use the procedure of D3803-89 alone, e.g. if the particular batch is for a system to be tested at 30 C,70% RH, would the new carbon be tested at 70% RH or 95% RH or both? Who would specify the choices? Page 9582: no comments Page 9583: The explanation for the increase in iodine removal efficiencies at higher temperatures does not take into consideration the increased reaction rate that occurs as the temperature is increased which is the cause. Page 9584: The sixty day requirement will not be enough time for plants to comply. We would suggest complying with all the steps of the conversion and possible charcoal replacement by the next scheduled surveillance. Item 13 under alternate testing protocol would require that the testing be performed by a laboratory with no experience testing charcoal samples for iodine removal. Such a laboratory does not exist and reliable results from such a laboratory would be hard to come by. We would suggest using one of the two current labs to perform an ASTM D3803-89 test and the altemate protocol test and compare results. If the precision and bias for intra laboratory reproducibility are met then the test is valid. -j - N

y i R NUCON International, Inc. W E N Page 9585: Requested information items 2 and 3 the face velocity requirement would also apply to systems that are more than 10% below 40 fpm as well. E Page 9586: The stabilization period cited for ASTM D3803-89 is not stated correctly. Section 12.1 of the method brings the system up to operating conditions while thermally equilibrating the sample. No flow goes through the sample during this time. Page 9587: The letter states that charcoal retains about 40 weight percent water at 30 C and 95% RH and 2-3 weight percent at 80 C and 95% RH. These values are incorrect. Typically 24-25 weight percent water is adsorbed at 30 C and 95 % RH ( see D3803-89 A5 and Figure 1, EGG-CS-7653) while experience in our lab has shown that 19-20 weight percent water is adsorbed at 80 C and 95% RH. This amount ofwater is nearly equivalent to the amount adsorbed at 30 C and 70% RH and probably explains to a large part why the methyl iodide efficiency is typically > 99.9% for both the 30/70 and 80/95 (again see D3803-89 A5 and Figure 1, EGG-CS-7653). The statement that the longer equilibration time is representative of the conditions " expected during design base conditions" is not correct in terms of the purpose of ASTM D3803 -89. This method is sensitive to the condition of the charcoal for radio active methyl iodide removal but is not necessarily related to expected conditions. Page 9588: no comments Page 9589: no comments Current specifications for new carbon require " qualification" and " surveillance" tests. The NRC letter discusses only surveillance testing. What is the impact on currently required " qualification" tests. Does the staff expect to apply the requirements of the letter to "in containment" adsorbents also? i

     . R gards,        -

I J. . Kovach L-Pi6sident j i l 4

7sk&r O , n f 75Et/ 2[ff/ n fC 5 CORPORATION 4555 Groves Rd. No. 41 Columbus, Ohio 4323R E C E IV E D 614-864-7613

• FAX 614-864-2296 199B H!R I9 Pit ) 50 RULES & D.3. DMCH US NRC Chief, Rules and Directives Branch 3/9/98 Division of Administrative Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D69 Washington D.C. 20555-0001

Subject:

Proposed Generic Communication: Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal M97978 NCS Corporation respectfully submits the following comments in response to the Commission's request fo public comment. Comments are in reference to page numbers as this item appeared in the Federal Register /Vol. 63, No. 37, Wednesday, February 25,1998/ Notices.

1. Page 9585, item 2(Requested information) 1 Plants adopting the ASTM D-3803 1989 protocol are required to submit certain information regarding parameters to support a TS amendment . In adopting the D3803-89 protocol, certain conditions of the protocol are accepted as variables by the Commission. While the Commission is correct in requirin information on test parameters that may vary from plant to plant, e.g. relative humidity and fac requesting the test temperature implies that this parameter is also a variable, which it is not. The test temperature of 30" is the only acceptable temperature, in order for the Commission to fully evaluate TS amendment request, we believe the variable of test thickness should be included in the list of requested information since bed thickness afTects gas r time in the bed as does face velocity. The penetration at which the proposed TS will require th performed should specify the actual bed thickness for which credit is taken.

2. Page 9588 and 9589, Sample Technical Specifications When referring to ASTM D3803-1989 and the required test relative humidity and temperature greater shan or equal to and the symbol for less than or equal to is used in the current verbiage temperature of 30 degrees centigrade and relative humidity of 95% or 70% should be specified wi out the use of this symbol or term. Allowing changes in test temperature and humidity, albeit in a cons direction

       / efTectively changes the method and is contrary to NRC/INEL developmental work.

P R. Pearson For: NCS Corporation i s

.i                                                                                       Action: Collins, NRR
         #            o,                                    UNITED STATES                Cys: Callan y                n                    NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION                       Thadani g                y                               WASHINGTotJ. D.C. 20555-0001             Thompson r
       %,                                               February 5, 1998

{~ 3Q

             *****                                                                               Lieberman, OE OFFICE OF THE                                                                            Miller, RI SECRETARY                                                                              Reyes, RII Beach, RIII Merschoff, RIV MEMORANDUM TO:                  L. Joseph Callan                                (JSegalia,NRR

ecutive D ctor for Operations

_. M -@ FROM: nf. Hoyle, Secretary

SUBJECT:

STAFF REQUIREMENTS - SECY-97-299 - LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GPADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL l This is to advise you that the Commission has not objected to the issuance of the proposed )' generic letter for public comment and the use of enforcement discretion in the cases outlined in the subject paper. The staff should revise the regulatory guidance applicable to the testing of safety-related charcoal on an expedited basis. Should the staff receive public comments that result in a significant change to the actions presented in the generic letter, the staff should consult the Commission prior to issuance of the final generic letter. - 9800014

                                                                                                                        )

ec: Chairman Jackson Commissioner Dieus Commissioner Diaz Commissioner McGaffigan OGC CIO - CFO l OCA OlG Office Directors, Regions, ACRS, ACNW, ASLBP (via E-Mail) PDR DCS i l SECY NOTE: THISTRM AND SECY-97-299 WILL BE MADE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE 5 WORKING DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS SRM. J ())iM lf lf

M M M M M M Jint Jaar Junar Juur muur amar ammer - - m p nue g 4s

                                                    %./ *****

POLICY ISSUE (NEGATIVE CONSENT) Danember 24.1997 SECY-97-299 EQR- The Commissioners FROM L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations SUBJECT LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL i 1 PURPOSE 1 To inform the Commission that the NRC has determined that testing nuclear-grade activated charcoal to standards other than American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D3803-1989, " Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon," does not { provide assurance of licensees complying with their current licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of General Design Criterion (GDC) 19 of Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50 and Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 100. Therefore, the staff proposes to send a generic letter to licensees requesting that those licensees whose technical specifications (TS) do not reference ASTM D3803-1989 should either amend their TS to reference ASTM D3803-1989 or propose an attemale test protocol and provide the information discussed in the Requested Actions section of the generic letter. Consultation with the Commission is warranted because the staff proposes to exercise enforcement discretion in certain situations as discussed in this paper. BACKGROUND Safety-related air cleaning units that are part of the engineered safety features (ESF) ventilation systems are used to reduce the potential onsite and offsite consequences of a radiological CONTACT: John P. Segala, NRR To be made publicly available when the final SRM is made available. SECY NOTE: In the absence of instructions to the contrary, SECY will notify the staff on January 12, 1998, that the Commission by negative consent, assents to the action propos,ed in this paper. I ( W - ---------/ u a u u u u E

p. .

e, l l . The Commissioners 2 accident at a nuclear power plant by accorbing radioiodine. Design-basis accident analyses assume a particular ESF charcoal filter adsorption efficiency when calculating offsite and I control room operator doses. To ensure that the charcoal filters in these systems will have a

                                                                                                                     }

filter adsorber efficiency greater than that assumed in the design-basis accident analysis, most { licensees of operating plants have a TS requirement to perform a periodic laboratory test on l samples of the charcoal extracted from the air cleaning units. The laboratory test acceptance criteria contain a safety factor to ensure that the efficiency assumed in the accident analysis is still valid at the end of the operating cycle. DISCUSSION: Licensees of four plants (V.C. Summer, Davis-Besse, Oconee, and Brunswick) determined that tests th6ty performed were not in compliance with their TS (see Enclosure 1 of the generic letter for details). The TS for the four plants required a test in which the temperature of the gas stream is instantaneously increased. This results in water condensing on the charcoal, thereby causing the test to be aborted (to fail). The four licensees modified the testing method to perform the TS surveillance at a constant temperature and/or utilized a newer test method. Although each of the four licensees performed modified tests that were intended to test the capability of their charcoal, in doing this, they failed to comply with their TS. Licensees of three of the four plants (V.C. Summer, Davis-Besse, and Oconee) submitted emergency TS amendment requests (which were approved by the staff) to establish f compliance. Rather than submit an emergency TS amendment, the licensee of the fourth plant

    .\          (Brunswick) immediately transported a charcoal sample to a testing laboratory to perform a test in accordance with its TS before restarting a unit. However, in order to perform the TS test, the fourth plant had to modify the TS test to thermally equilibrate the charcoal before introducing the challenge gas. Although such testing does not cause condensation in the test rig, it is not acceptable because the results are not easily reproducible, and even when the test is                   ,

successfully completed, the results may not be representative of the charcoal's capability. The l licensee has not requested a TS amendment to correct the problem and is awaiting guidance from NRC. l l l NRC's and the nuclear industry's understandings of the appropriate laboratory tests for nuclear-grade charcoal have evolved over the years since the issuance of Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.52,

              " Design, Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Postaccident Engineered-Safety-Feature Atmosphere Cleanup System Air Filtration and Adsorption Units of Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants," which is referenced in many plant TS. It was initially assumed that high-temperature /high-relative humidity (RH) conditions were the most severe. Later, with more testing experience, it became clear that the most conservative test is performed at low temperature /high humidity. The use of test protocols other than ASTM D3803-1989 or inappropriate test conditions can lead to an overestimation of the charcoal's ability to adsorb radioiodine following an accident.

As a result of the emergency TS changes, the staff performed an intemal survey of TS of operating plants to determine whether other plants have the potential for similar compliance problems. The survey indicated that at least one-third of operating reactor licensees may be ( out of compliance with their TS. Although their TS reference RG 1.52 or American National l

The Commit,sioners 3 Standards institute (ANSI) N509-1976, " Nuclear Power. Plant Air-Cleaning Units and Components," the licensees may have used later versions of the standards for the laboratory tests of their nuclear-grade charcoal. On the basis of this survey, the staff established the following four groups of plants: 1 (1) plants in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 (2) plants in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with a test protocol other than

                      - ASTM D3803-1989 l

(3) plants not in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 l (4) plants not in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with a test protocol other than ASTM D3803-1989 Group 1 plants are not of concem; Group 3 and 4 plants have TS compliance problems; ard i Group 2 and 4 plants have technically ineffective testing standard problems. I To address these four groups of licensees, the staff developed the attached generic letter. The generic letter has been endorsed by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR), and with Commission approval, will be made available for public comment. The generic letter proposes to exercise enforcement discretion for licensees in Group 3. When licensees in Group 4 test their charcoal in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 as requested in the generic ( letter, they become licensees in Group 3 and are eligible for enforcement discretion. Recent available laboratory test results for more than 50 charcoal samples demonstrated that there were significant differences in filter efficiencies for about 15 to 20 percent of the tested samples when comparing the test results from ASTM D3803-1979 and ASTM D3803-1989. When the charcoal samples were tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1979, they always appeared to have very high efficiencies. However, when the same charcoal samples were tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1089, significant reduction in efficiency was noted for about .15 to 20 percent of the tested samples. Depending on the system arrangement, this reduction ic Siter efficiency can result in calculated doses to the control room operators - exceeding the GDC 19 limits by as much as a factor of 1.5 to 2. For pressurized-water reactors

               . (PWRs) with secondary containments and for all boiling-water reactors (BWRs), this reduction in filter efficiency can result in offsite iodine doses from a filtered pathway increasing by as much as a factor of 10 to 15. On the basis of these test results, the staff believes that most licensees have relatively new charcoal that is in good condition. However, the staff believes that a few licensees have old charcoal that is degraded and their TS-required test is ineffective in identifying the degradation. As a result, the staff has determined that testing of nuclear-grade activated charcoal to standards other than ASTM D3803-1989 does not provide assurance for complying with the plant's licensing basis as it relates to the dose limits of GDC 19 and Part 100.

The staff proposes to resolve this situation by first issuing a generic letter to all licensees. The generic letter will request all licensees to review their TS to identify their current TS requirements for the laboratory testing of charcoal samples for each ESF ventilation system.

The Commissioners 4 ( Licensees whose TS do not reference ASTM D3803-1989 will be requested to either amend their TS to reference ASTM D3803-1989 or to propose an attemate test protocol and provide the information discussed in the Requested Actions section of the attached generic letter. A sample TS is enclosed with the generic letter for licensees proposing a license amendment. The staff will process license amendment requests in the normal manner, with an opportunity for hearing. This course of action may result in a situation in which a licensee is not in compliance with its TS until the staff processes the license amendment. Because of the (1) conflicting guidance, (2) complex and ambiguous standards, and (3) licensee belief that using later versions of the standard would satisfy their TS requirements, the staff does not believe that licensees in Group 3 should be cited for willful violation of their TS. Therefore, the staff intends to exercise enforcement discretion, consistent with Section Vll.B.6 of the NRC Enforcement Policy, for all licensees in Groups 3 and 4, provided that

              # within 60 days of the date of the generic letter, either charcoal samples are tested in              l accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 and the results meet the current TS acceptance                    '

criteria or all of the charcoal is replaced with new charcoal that has been tested in , accordance with ASTM D3803-1989; e acceptable charcoal sample test results discussed in the first condition are submitted to NRC within 60 days of the date of the generic letter; e a TS amendment request is submitted to NRC within 60 days of the date of the letter; and 9 the charcoal samples continue to be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 until the TS amendment is approved by NRC.

• In cases in which the charcoal samples were previously tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 during the last scheduled laboratory test and the results met the current TS acceptance erteria (Group 3), the results can be used to satisfy the first condition above.

On the basis of the available laboratory test results, the staff believes that most charcoal in use is not degraded to an extent that would adversely affect control room habitability or public health and safety. This confidence in charcoal performance, and the low probability of a design-basis accident, justify the time frames for the resolution of this matter. As a longer-term action, the staff is considering increasing its efforts to complete a revision to RG 1.52. The staff prepared Revision 3 to RG 1.52 in 1993 but has not yet issued it for public comment because of higher priority work. However, just issuing a new revision of the regulatory guide will not solve the problem, because the TS for licensees in Groups 3 and 4 refer to a specific revision of RG 1.52. Therefore, licensees would still have to change their TS to refer to the proper revision of the regulatory guide. The Office of Enforcement willissue an Enforcement Guidance Memorandum to reflect the enforcement discretion described in this paper.

The Commissioners 5

SUMMARY

Within 10 working days from the date of this paper, unless instructed otherwise by the Commission, the staff will seek public comments on the attached generic letter which will: (1) request all licensees to determine whether their TS reference ASTM D3803-1989 for laboratory testing of charcoal filters, (2) request licensees whose TS do not reference ASTM D3803-1989 to either amend their T3 to reference ASTM D3803-1989 or propose an aNernative test protocol and provide the information discussed in the requested actions section of the generic letter, and (3) permit the exercising of enforcement discretion for all licensees in Groups 3 and 4 provided they meet the above-mentioned conditions. COORDINATION: The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection to its contents. L. Jdhph Callan Exes 0tive Director for Operations f

Attachment:

Proposed Generic Letter to Licensees DISTRIBUTION: Commissioners OGC OIG OPA OCA ) CIO ) CFO EDO REGIONS SECY I J j (

q;. The Commissioners 5

SUMMARY

Within 10 working days from the date of this paper, unless instructed otherwise by the Commission, the staff will seek public comments on the attached generic letter which will: (1) request alllicensees to determine whether their TS reference ASTM D3803-1989 for laboratory testing of charcoal filters, (2) request licensees whose TS do not reference ASTM D3803-1989 to either amend their TS to reference ASTM D3803-1989 or propose an attemative test protocol and pigvide the information discussed in the requested actions section of the generic letter, and (3) permit the exercising of enforcement discretion for all licensees in Groups 3 and 4 provided they meet the above-mentioned conditions.- COORDINATION: The Office of the General Counsel (OGC) has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection to its contents. OdginalSignedby L.J.calisa L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations {

Attachment:

Proposed Generic Letter to Licensees cc: SECY OGC OPA CFO

                           ' CIO DISTRIBUTION IS ON NEXT PAGE                              DOCUMENT NAME: A:\COMMPAPR 26

• See previous concurrence Ta seasive a cop 43 4 r of this document indsets in the bor C@py w/o attachment / enclosure E= Copy with M.. ~ r ;c N = No copy OFFICE NAME SPLB:DSSA SPLB:DSSA' D:DSSA (DTtdtR hk s HWalker* LMarsh* GHolahan* BSh FN bi DATE 10/8/97 10/8/97 10/21/97 1 /97

                                                                                                                                   '12/   7 mummmmmmunumummmmmmmumumma                                          mummunummmmmmmmummenu                                           num OFFICE           Tech Editor                  OE                          OGC                         EDO NAME             RSanders*                   JLieberman*                  JGoldberg*                  LCallan DATE             12/8/97                      10/27/97                     10/27/97                   1b OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

( l

'T i The Commissioners 6 DISTRIBUTION: SPLB R/F FMiraglia RZimmerman JSegala OE GHolahan LMarsh PMagnanelli KBoher BSheron FGillespie EDO HWalker ERossi ACRS ( (}}