ML20203C860
| ML20203C860 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/19/1998 |
| From: | Roe J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20203C842 | List: |
| References | |
| TAC-M97978, NUDOCS 9802250262 | |
| Download: ML20203C860 (33) | |
Text
_.
=
7590-01 (P)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Proposed Generic Communication Laboratory Testing of Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (M97978)
AGENCY: Nuct ar Regulatory Commission ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment j
SUMMARY
- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to issue a generic letter concerning the laboratory testing of nuclear-grade activated charcoal that is used in the safety-related air-cleeHng units of engineered safety feature ventilation systems of nuclear power plants to reduce the potential onsite and offsite consequences of a radiological accident by adsorbing iodine, The purpose of the proposed generic letter is to: (1) alert addressees that the 4
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 iot provide assurance for 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, and that ASTM D3803-1989 should be used for both new and used charcoal because it allows for accurately monitoring the degradation of the charcoal over time; (2) request that addressees determine whether their technical specifications (TS) reference ASTM D3803-1989 for charcoal filter laboratory testing and if not, either amend their TS to reference ASTM D3803-1989 or propose an alternative test protocol and provide the requested information; (3) alert addressees of NRC intent to exercise enforcement discretion under certain conditions; and (4) require that addressees submit written responses to this generic letter. The NRC is seeking comment from interested parties 980L250262 980219
~
a regarding both the technical and regulatory aspects of the proposed generic letter presented under the Supplementary information heading.
The proposed gerieric letter has been endorsed by the Committee to Review Generic Requirements (CRGR). Relevant information that was sent to the CRGR will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. The NRC will consider commei ~ received from interested parties in the final evaluation of the proposed generic letter. The 4RC's final evaluation will l
include a review of the technical position and, as appropriate, an analysis of the value/ impact on licensees. Should this generic letter be issued by the NRC, it will become available for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room.
DATES: Comment period expires [30 days after FRN is published). Comments submitted after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given exc' ?t for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSEES: Submit written comments to Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T6-D69, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Writ'en comments may also be delivered to 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:45 am to 4:15 pm, Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room,2120 L Street, N.W. (Lower Level), Washington, D.C.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: John P. Segala, (301) 415-1858 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
NRC GENERIC LETTER 97-XX: LABORATORY TESTING OF NUC! EAR-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 permanent'y 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 charcoal to standards other than Ar.ierican 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 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. In addition, the staff has determined that ASTM D3803-1989 should be used for both new and used charcoal because it allows for accurately monitoring the degradation of the charcoal N time.
(2)
Request that all addressees determine whether their technical specifications (TS) reference ASTM D3803-1989 for charc/M ' filter laboratory testing. Addressees whose TS do not reference ASTM D3803-1989 s
- ,d 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, j
(4)
Require that all addressees send the NRC written responses to this generic letter,_
relating to implementation of the requested actions.
J Backoround 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 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 ther facility TS to periodically test (in a laboratory) samples of l
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 experienct it became clear that the most conservative test is at iow 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 radiciodine following an accident.
o i
Problems associated with the performance of the laboratory test of charcoal under inappropriatr test conditions were discussed in Attachment 1 of Information Notice (lN) 86-76.
), " Summary of Control Room Habitability Reviews," noted that charcoal was being i
i 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 Nency measursments.
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 laboratones obtained vaMiy 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. Through IN 87-32, the NRC informed licensee
- af deficiencies in the testing of nuclear-grade charcoal, specifically noting serious problems with the capabilities of the testing laborttories 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 Carbon Testing Program." Specifically, EG&G reported that ASTM D3803-1979 had unacceptable test parameter tolerances and instrument calibration requirements, and tnat ASTM D3803-1979 was nonconservative in not requiring humidity pre-equUibration of used charcoal. The informas. i 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
4 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 concerns about laboratory testing of charcoal. CONAGT discussed the variation in laboratory test results obtained (methyl iodide penetration) when temperature, RH, face velocity, Ded depth, test protocol, and impregnate were varied. CONAG1 rind 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 1969 version. The results from the 1986 protocol showed significantly higher iodine-removal capabilities than the results from the 1989 version.
4 In addition, CONAGT indicated that testing charcoal at temperatures greater than 30*C [86 F]
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 Ire:~s in iodine-iemoval 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 accident 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. At elevated temperatures, the charcoal contains less moisture than at 25*C [77'F) and 30*C [86'F) which results in the charcoal having more
,E surface area available for adsorption of iodine. Therefore, testing at the elevated temperatures results in an overestimation of the actual iodine-removal capability of the charcoal, and testing
at 25'C [7.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 major problems associated with the laboratory test of charcoal are the designation of the test protocol and the TS that designate the tast to be performed.
On November 6,1996, the staff visited the two remaining laboratories that test nuclear-grade activated charcoal, NCS Corporation and NUCON International, Inc. Both laboratories have retolved the poor reproducibility problem identified in the ECTG 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.
01scussion 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 abuity of the cnarcoa! filters in these systems to perform in a manner consistent with the licensing basis for the facility may be in question.
The licensees of three plants (V.C. Summer, Davis-Besse and Oconee) determined that the tests they performed were not in compliance with their TS and submitted emergency TS amendments (see Enclosure 1 for details). As a result of the emergency TS changes, the staff has performed an internal survey of the TS of operating plants to deterrrine whether other
I 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 plant TS refert e 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. 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) phnts not in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 i
(4) plants not in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with a test protocol other than j
1 ASTM D3803-1989 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. 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 l
15 to 20-percent of the tested samples when comparing the test results froni 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 D3803-1989, 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 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.
in addition, the staff has determined that ASTM D3803-1989 should 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 EO&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.
4 d
fr-7"-r e
e t-g-*-
yw m
vPty re-M
--g
-- - + -
+
W=
m y
-me+-wy
o Currently, before shipping, suppliers test moe 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 i
)
the addressee records on the purchase order. The results from the new charcoal tested via ASTM D3803-1090 present a solid baseline for the initial capability of the charcoal. Using t
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 used charcoal tests with the new charcoal test baseline, the addressee can be certain of the charcoat's level of degradation.
i Analyses of design basis accidents assume a particular engineered safety featwes (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 arealysis 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 iactor as low as 2 for determining the acceptance criteria for charcoal filter efficiency. This safety factor can be used for systems with cr without humidity control because the lack of humidity control is already accounted for in the test conditions n
(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 ir; 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 can not 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, 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.
The staff believes that (1) conflicting guidance, (2) complex and ambiguous standards, and (3) licensee belief that using later versions of the standard would satisfy their TS requirements, contributed to confusion regarding charcoal testing. These factors may explain why licensees did not adcet ASTM D3803-1989 (See Enclosure, for further discussion). In addition, 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.
This confidence in charcoal performance and given the low probability of a design basis i
accident, justify the time frames for the resolution of this matter. Therefore, the staff intends to exercise enforcement discretion, consistent with Section Vll.B.6 of the Enforcement Policy, for all addressees in Groups 3 and 4, provided:
e 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
I j
criteria or all of the charcoal is repbced with new charcoal that has been tested in J
accordance with ASTM D3803-1989;
)
i 0 Acceptable charcoal sample test results discussed in the first condition are submitted to 3
the NRC within 60 days of the date of this generic letter; 4
il e A TS amendment request is submitted to the NRC within 60 days of the date of this letter; j
and l
l l
i e The charcoal samples continue to be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 until l
the TS amendment is approved by the NRC, I
in cases in which the charcoal samples have been previously tested in accordance with i
ASTM D3803-1989 for the last scheduled laboratory test and the results met the current TS acceptance criteria (Group 3), the results can be used to satisfy the first condition above, 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.
Requested Actions l:
i Addressees are requested to take the following actions:
1 l
l L
7__-_..._______._.~._._._-
i
)
1.
If your current TS reoutre the laboratory testing of charcoal samples for each ESF ventilation system to be conducted in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989, then no TS
- amendment is required.
i i-
)
2.
If your current TS do not require the laboratory testing of charcoal samples to be conducted in accordance with ASTM D38031989, then:
4 (I) Your charcoal samples should te testod in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 and the results should be submitted to the NRC within 60 days of the date of this generic letter, if your charcoal samples were already tested in accordance with i
l ASTM D3803-1989 for the last scheduled laboratory test and the results met the current TS acceptance criteria, then the results should be submitted to the NRC within 60 days of the date of this generic letter. In either case, the charcoal samples should continue to be tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 until the TS amendment is approved by the NRC, and (ii) 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 alternate test protocol should be proposed for the laboratory testing of charcoal and the following information should be submitted for staff review to determine the acceptability of the alternate protoed:
1.
summary of the test method i
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 re.producibility of the results for 1-percent and 10-percent penetration and the penetration at a 95-percent confidence interval for charcoal tested at 70-perceni RH and at 95-percent RH 12, bias associated with the method
- 13. results from an independent laboratory which demonstrate that the alternate test protocol gets results that are consistent with, or more conservative than, that associated with ASTM D3803-1989 The demonstration ident fied in item 13 above should be based upon a series of tests comparing the alternate 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. The indepenuent laboratory should be able to demonstrate that the alternate protocolis at least as conservative as ASTM D3803-1989, and should be able to perform the ASTM D3803-1989 test and achieve repeatcble and reprcducible results. The 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 activt.ted charcoal for nuclear power plant applications.
Reauested Information Within 60 days of the date of this generic letter, addressees are requested to provide to the NRC the following information:
i 1.
Identify the current TS requirements for the laboratory testing of charcoal samples for each ESF ventilation system including the specific test protocol, temperature, RH, and penetration at which the TS require the test to be performed. If your current TS specifically require testing in accordance with the ASTM D3E03-1989 p;otocol, and you have been testing in accordance with this standard, then no additional information is required.
2.
If you choose to adopt the ASTM D3803-1989 protocol, then submit a TS amendment request to requi e testing to this protocol. 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. (Enclosure 2 is a sample TS that the NRC considers acceptable.)
3.
If you are proposing ar, alternate test protocol, then address the attributes discussed in Section 2(ii) of the Requested Actions and submit a TS amendment request to require testing to this alternate protocol. 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 fst 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.
Reauired Resoonse Within 30 days of the date of this generic letter, addressees are required to submit a written response indicating: (1) whether the requested actions will be completed, (2) whether the requested information will be submitted and (3) whether the requested information will be sub-mitted within the requested time rariod. Addressees who choose not to complete the requested actions, or choose not to submit the requested information, or are unable to satisfy i
the requested completion date, must describe in their response any alternative course of action that is propcsed to be taken, including the basis for establishing the acceptability of the proposed alternative course of action and the basis for continued operability of affected systems and components as applicable.
Address the required written response to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN:
Document Control Desk, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001, under oath or affirmation, under the provisions of Section 182a, Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f). In j
l addition, send a copy to the appropriate regional administrator.
Rackfit Discussion
1 Appendix A to 10 CFR Pat 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 Miis Island (TMI), TMI Action Plan Item lll.D.3.4, " Control Room Habitability Requirements,' as specified in NUREG-0737, " Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,' required alllicensees to perform evaluations and identify appropriate modifications to chsure that control room operatvis 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 which 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, should 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. Accor^"11y, licensees are required to test the nuclear-grade activated charcoal of their engineered safety feature 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.
l
0 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 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 19 and Part 100, including commitment to the resolution of TMl Action Plan Item Ill.D.3.4. Therefore, the staff has endorsed the testing standard ASTM D3803-1989 for referencing in plant TS. In accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.109(a)(4)(i), regarding compliance backfits, a full backfit analysis was not pen, armed.
However, an evaluation was performed in accordance with NRC procedures, including a statement of the objectives of and reasons for the requested actions and the basis for invoking the complir.nce exception and is reflected in this backfit discussion.
Federal Reaister Notificatiqo (To be completed after the public comment period.)
Pacerwork Reduction Act Statement This Generic Letter contains information co..cctions that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval number 3150-0011, which expires September 30, 2000.
The public reporting burden for this mandatory information collection is estimated to everage 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> per response, including the time for review;ng instructions, searching existing data
1 sources, gathering and ma'ntaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 1
information collection. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment i
on the potentialimpact of the information collections contained in the generic letter and on the j
following issues:
i 1.-
Is the proposed information collection necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will have practical utility?
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 information collection be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques?
Send comments on any aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Information and Records Management Branch (T-6 F33), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by Internet electronic mail at BJS1@NRC. GOV; and to the Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, NEOB-10202, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification h
4
t if an information collection does not display a currently valid OMB control number, the NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, the information i
collection.
i I
Enclosures:
(1) Background Informction on the Laboratory Testing of L
Nuclear-Grade Activated Charcoal (2) Sample Technical Specifications 4
BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON THE LABORATORY TESTING OF NUCLEAR-GRADE ACTIVATED CHARCOAL j
Charcoal Testino Reauirements Analyses of design-basis accidents assume a particular engineered safety features (ESF)
I 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 greatcr than that assumed in the design-basis accident analysis. The laboratory test acceptance criteria contain a safety factor to ensure that the officiency assumed in the accident l
analysis is still valid at the end of the operating cycle.
i
\\
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, j
Testing, and Maintenance Criteria for Postaccident Engineered-Safety Feature Atmosphere 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, "Ni clear Power Plant Air-Cleaning Units and Components;" ANSI N510, " Testing of Nuclear Air Cleaning Systems;" Military Specification RDT M 18-1T," Gas Phase Adsorbents l
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."
l All of the standards describe a pre-equilibration period, a c.ballenge period, and an elution period. During the pre-equilibration (pre-sweep) period, the charcoalis exposed to a flow of air controlled at the test temperature and relative umidity (RH) before the challenge gas is fed i
through the charcoal. The pre-equi;.3 ration period ensures that the charcoal has stabilized at 4
the specified test temperature and RH for a period of time, which '.esults in the charcoal adsorbing all available moisture before the charcoalis challenged with methyliodide. During the challenge period, air at the test temperature and RH with radio-labeled methyl lodide is i
injected through the charcoal beds to challenge the capability of the charcoal. During the elution (post-sweep) period, air at the test temperatu: 3 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
i 9
period, air at the test temperature is passed through the charcoal beds to bring the system up to the operating temperatur6 before the start of pre-equilibration. During the equilibration i
period, air at the test temperature and RH is passed through the charcoal beds to ensure the i
^
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 contro!!ed to 70-percent.
I 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 f
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 N509-1976," Nuclear Power Plant Air-Cleaning Units and Components."
e Test 5.b references the test method from paragraph 4.5.3 of Military Specification RDT 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 preloading and postloading sweep at 25'C [77'F]. This test is reierred to as the "25-80-25 test." The essential elements of this test are as follows:
J
)
e 70-percent or 95-percent RH i
j 5-hour pre-equilibration (pre-sweep) time, with air at 25'C [77'F] and plant-specific RH 2-hour challenge, w;th gas at 80*C [176'F) and plant-specific RH e
i j
A 2-hour elution (post-sweep) time, with air at 25'C [77'F] and plant specific RH e
The latest acceptable methodology for the laboratory testing of the charcoal is ASTM Standard D38031989," Standard Test Method for Nuclear-Grade Activated Carbon." ASTM D3803-1989 is tmdated guidance based on an NRC verification and validation eficrt on 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:
- 70-percent or 95-percent RH 2-hour thermal stabilization, with air at 30'C [86'F]
e 16-hour pre-equilibration (pre-sweep) time, with air at 30*C [86'F] and plant specific RH 2-hour equilibration time, with air at 30*C [86*F) and plant specific RH e
1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> 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 e
The major differences between the ANSI N509-1976 and ASTM D3803-1983 standards for charcoal testing are as follows:
MAJOR DIFFERENCES ASTM D3803-1989 ANSI N509-1976 Pre-Equilibration 30'C[86*F]
25'C [77'F]
(Pre-Sweep) Temperature Challenge Temperature 30*C[86)
80*C [176'F]
Elution (Post Sweep) 30*C [86* F]
25'C [77* F]
Temperature 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 hours I
7 l
Tolerances of Test Smaller Larger Parameters 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 water 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 40 weight percent water. At 80*C [176*F] and 95-percent RH, charcoal retains only about 2 to 3 weight percent water.
Because most charcoal is anticipated to be challenged at a temperature closcr to 30'C (86'F]
rather than 80*C [176*F], the lower temperature test condition 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 benavior of charcoal between these two temperatures. A temperature of 25'C [77'F]is more conservative; j
however, the increase from 25'C [77'F] to 30*C [86*F] does not represent a significant variation in the test results.
4 ASTM D3803-1989 provides results that are reproducible compared to 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 until it is in the condition to which the subject charcoal adsorbers are expected to be exposed during 4
---.m.-
p.,
.m
design-basis conditions. Therefore, testing in accordance with AS TM D3803-1989 will result in a more realistic prediction of the capability of the charcoal.
4
]
TC Testina Reference Laboratory tests of the charcoal are typically required (1) once every refueling outage, (2) when certain 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 staff's safety evaluation report if it fails to perform at that level, the charcoal must be replaced.
e The determination of the appropriate test conditions, test protocol, and acceptance 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 N5091976. Test 5.b i
from Table 5-1 references the test method from paragraph 4.5.3 of RDT M 16-1T (date not i
indicated), but specifies that the test is to be conducted at 80*C (176'F) and 95-percent RH l
with pre-loading and postloading sweep at 25 C ;77 F). This test is referred to es the "25-80-25 test."
i l
_.. _.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _. -. _ = _ _ _ _. _. _. _ _ _. _. _ _ _.. _ _ _
l Also contributing to the potential confusion are the various ways in which TS are written, and l
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 4
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 timet. the NRC indicated that the TS are requirements and that the tasts must be performed at the 25-80-25 conditions. In various forums, the NRC has also stated that a technical ar ument may be made for using the newer standard. However, in some instances w
j when newer standards were utilized to demonstrate conformance with the TS, the NRC I
required licensees 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 -
l RDT M 16-1T or ASTM D3803 addresses performing the laboratory test at multiple -
l temperatures as required by ANSI N509-1976. If the test protocol described in paragraph 4.5.3 of RDT M 16-1T (1973) is fol: owed verbatim, a thermal step change must be made after the i.
5-hour pre-equilibration period to increase the temperature from 25'C (77'F] to 80'C (176*F) i 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 versior,s of ASTM D3803. Therefere, the 25-80-25 test cannot be performed pursuant to any a
existing test protocol.
l
+.
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.
l d
Section 2 of ANSI N509-1976 states for the various documents that supplement ANSI N509 l
that the issuance of a document in effect at the time of the purchase order shall apply unless j-otherwise specified, in the case of charcoal, tha purchase order date could be considered the date that the charcoal is procu,ad. 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, 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.
I 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
b g
P l
condense 6 on the charcoal, thereby cauning the test to be aborted (to fail). The emergency TS i
l changcs were issued for the V.C. Summer, Davis Besse, and Oconee facilities. The details of these TS changas are discussed below.
On February 10,1996, the licensee for the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station, South Carolina i
]
Electric & Gas kmpany (SCE&G), requested an emergency TS change. The systems i
j Anvolved were the control room emergency ventilation system and the fuel handling building exhaust systern. Of February 10,1996, the NRC granted the emergency TS change. The l
emergency TS change was raquested because SCE&G had d',termined that laboratory tests of j
the charcoal of tne control room veritilation 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 oy its TS. The licensee had been performing the 25 25 25 test because, in consultatiori with its testing laboratory, it l
concluded that performance of the 25 80-25 test would result in condensation on the charcoal and, thus, an invalid test.
I 1
}
On March 29,1996, the Toledo Edison Company requested an emergenc3 TS change for the l
Davis Besse plant. The systems involved wert the hydrogen purge, the shield building
[
I emergency ventilation, and the control room. The TS for Davis-Besse required the laboratory test to be performed ir; 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 D38031979 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.
3 d
-,-.m.--
.,~=..-...-e-,
,--~,,, - - --.,...--.
r
,-wc-.----.r--
-v----,,v,-.,yc.
r--,er----=+.u-e--
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 N510197t, which requires the performance of the 25-80 25 test. However, the licensee was actually performing a 30 30 30 test using the test protocol of ASTM D38031989. The NRC granted an emergency TS change on April 2,1996, to permn 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 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 labo[atory tests be performed in accordance with Revision 1 of RG 1.52. Previously, the licensee directed its testing iaboratory to perform an 80-80-80 test. To perform the 25-80-25 test, the laboratory equilibrated the charcoal to 80'C [176'F) w
4 i '.
i before introducing the challenge gas. The licensee has not requested a TS change for Brunswick to correct the problem and is awaiting guidance from the NRC.
As a result of the emergency TS changes, the staff has performed an internal survey of j
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 categories of plants:
(1) plants in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with ASTM D38031989 (2) plants in compliance with their TS that test in accordance with a test protocol other than ASTM D38031989 (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 Category 1 have TS that require charcoal to be tested in accordance with ASTM D38031989, which adequately demonstrates the capability of the charcoal. The licensees in Category 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 7-.--
--y-,y---
,m-n g
-y,---eis-mus.I-c---
9-v----w-.e.y9-9..>
+
.q.
-m e
-we
.e,e pg.wm--e' w ww g--
-3.--.mggw. mm
--'y m
r-P.'--
rh g
g_.__._____
were in Categories 3 and 4. Licensees in Categories 3 and 4 have TS that require charcoal to I
be tested in accordance with the 25-80 25 test.
i SAMPLE TECHNICAL _ SPECIFICATION _S For Plants With improved Standard TechnigaLSoecifications C.
Demonstrate for each of the ESF systems that a laboratory test of a sample of the i
charcoal adsorber, when obtained as described in [ Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2), shows the methyl iodide penetration less than the value specified below i
when tested in accordance with ASTM D3803-1989 at a temperature of s 30'C [86'F) and greater than or equal to the relative humidity specified below, i
ESF Ventilation System Penetration RH r-
-- 1 r-m r- - i l
l l
l l
l l
1 I
I I
i L__
_J L_
)
L_.
_I
[ Note:
The use of any standard other than ASTM D3803-1989 to test the charcoal sample may result 'n an overestimation of ti.e capability of the charcoal to adsorb redioiodine. As a result, the ability of the charcoal i
a
'e i
filters to perfctm in a tr,anner consistent with the licensing basis for the facility is indeterminate, i
ASTM D38031989 is a more stringent testing standard because it does l
not differentiate between used and new charcoal, it has a longer equilibration period performed at a temperature of 30'C [86'F) and a a
relative humidity (RH) of 95% (or 70% RH with humidity control), and it has 1
more stringent tolerances that improse repeatability of the test Allowabit _ t100s - Methyl lodtde iffstrency for Chrcoa t (redited in $[R}
l Peretraf tv1 Seftty factor
}
4 i
When ASTM D38031989 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 a 2 for systems with or without humidity control.]
1 l
For Planta With Older Technical Sotcificatl0D1 l
1 i
i Each engineered safety feature (ESF) ventilation system ehall 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 chemical release in any ventilation zone communicating with the system by:
i
_ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _,.,, -...... _ _., ~,, _,,, -, _. -. _ _ _., -,
. ~
J 4
1)
Verifying, within 31 days after removal, that a laboratory test of a sample of the j
charcoal adsorber, when obtained in accordance with Regulatory Position
]
l C.6.b of Regulatory Guide 1,52, Revision 2, March 1978, shows the methyl lodide penetration less than (see note in preceding section tltled *For Plants With improved Standard Technical Specifications"]% when tested in j
accordance with ASTM D38031989 at a temperature of s 30'C [86'F) and i
j greater than or equal to a relative humidity of [see note in preceding section i
titled *For Plants With improved Standard Technical Specifications *)%.
j s
l b.
After every 720 hours0.00833 days <br />0.2 hours <br />0.00119 weeks <br />2.7396e-4 months <br /> of charcoal adsorber operation, by verifying, within 31 days after removal, that a laboratory test of a sample of the charcoal adsorber, when j
obtained in accordance with Regulatory Position C.6.b of Regulatory Guide 1.52, Revision 2 March 1978, shows the methyl lodide penetration less than [see note in preceding section titled 'For Plants With improved Standard Technical Specifications")% when tested in accordance with ASTM D38031989 at a temperature of 5 30'C [86*F) and greater than or equal to a relative humidity of
[see note in preceding section titled 'For Plants With improved Standard Technical Specifications *)%.
l Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of February 1998.
j FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION de%ckW. Roe, Adting Director b
i Division of Reactor Program Management j
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation k
I 1
1-.._._.,......._,..._.,_.
. _ _ _,