AUG
- 31-1998 13: 05 FROM FMD EASTERN TO 91 2 025552093 P.01 

# , \, l 'ii 

## FAX COV ER

SerldTo:



### Name:tf' **-Av.-.. O~J0**  **T A--q**  **~ol** Date: 

### &- - 3 14

**~** Coml)any: 

# tf>f? Vlll ,



## ~ A

ddress: 

## 40 \ ftl S )n A o): 

# S 

# W 

# lUNb , {J.



# ~ . Phone : 

# et o 1-: -

**s--~** 

# Lf - 9 I 

## '1 

## '1 FaxN umber: 

## 2Q2.- 

# S bS- 

# l o 9 3 Ve rfflca".iOn Number: 

## r;l 

## 0 

# l .... .5'- 

# k Y- 9/ '£ 

# 1 Num ber of pages induding cover:- - - ------- Subject: 

## {/tl£) 

# 1 ·

**o~** 

# £'

**~** 

# ·

**~** B-eN



# e~ fU



# ~ {(_ (., J Q_
F rom: T ennessee VaHey Authority Name: 

# J', {'(). 

# Lo N-e. 

# y OrganiZatiOn: 

## CN Qrn. 

# ffi l"b:h\ 

# 'f- )' V 

# AAddre$$: 

## lli

**~ ~**  

# L - 

# fc Phone;



## 4~3- **~.o** 

# sa - G 

# s: 1 

# .rz Fax Number : 

# ul}. 3 .._ r;, :J

**~** 

## - 

## lo f-S 

# .sV

erificatiO n Number;



## ~ j1., .'"{- 

## fa ? '). - 

## "'_lti} _!]_

**~Instructions: --=--**  **-- --**  **----** 

# fu c 

# c 6f1 £. r

I mportant! If ycu do not rec eive all pages, cal1 us back immediatelyAUG- 3 1- 1998 1 3 : 125 FRDI1 FMD EAS TERN 

### Air Docket No. A-92.-()} VID.H 

### Page 2 Au gust 31, 1998 TO 91 202565209 3 P.0 2

3. Ref: 82. 1 S6(1)2(ii )- While TV A supports th e creation of a multi-leve l leak-me system for regulating industrial proceiS remgeration systems, we bdieve that the crit eria upon 

### which such a mu lti- levelleak rate system is based should be reformulated . This reformulation wo uld allow reftigerant systems (appliances ) char acteriz ed by less than all four criteria to be exempt fto m the new 20 percent leak-rat e level an d 

### thus remain at the 3S per cent leak ·rate level . U nder a 

### refo rmulated nrulti- rate system, r efiigerat.i on meeting certain combinations oftwo or three crit eri a should 

### be exem pt ftom the 20 percent leak rate siru:e the additiv e impact of such combinations 

### will likely 

### make the 

### equipment so leak 

### prone that 

### the 20 pcroent leak 

### rate cannot 

### be achieved . 4. Ref. 82. . 152(i)2 (ii)-
- TV A believes that r eftigeration systems 

### that use ri ver water to cool condenser tub es sh ould be placed in a speci al (n ew )

**cat ~ory**  that is aJlowed the 3

5 percent leak rate. The erosive nature ofriver water results in an inherently higher leak rate for such s ystem s than the leak rate for systems using tr eated wa ter or air. Our detailed comm ents on these :fuur issues are prov id ed bel ow. 1 . Method foe caJc:ulathag leak rate (81.152 definiti olll l The pr eamble di scusses four methods for calcula ting leak rates and proposes the 

### third method (i.e., the use ofthe m ethod that yield s the higher cal culated leak rate 

### between the annualizing method and the rollin g avemge meth od) as EPA' s lead 

### op tion. At. recognized by EPA 

### in the preamble, the use of this meth od penalizes app liance ow ners whose appliances leak below 

### the appD cable leak rate 

### but do not sho w signs of leakage 

### until they have lost a relatively large pe rcentag e ofcharge. The use of the 

### third opti on would be an unfair ext ension ofthe «< annua lizi ng method,. because by pla cing a 365-day cap in the d eno minator, it allows the "s

caling up , but not the .. scaling down,. 

### ofleaks to calculate the quantity th a t would 

### be lost ov er a y ear- long period . 

### S

ystem s with slow leaks 

### woul d 

### be unduly penalized by the 

### use of EP A• s proposed leak option for defining leak 

### rates. In 

### view of the 

### conservatism. ofthe method proposed by EPA as its lead o ption, TV A suggestS that the fourth opti on (either method 

### for a given appliance) be selected to colcu late leak rates . Under tlris option, a ppliance owners would cho ose and 

### be required to stay with the 

### method of their choice to calculate leak rate s. Changing to the alternative leak.- rate method would only be all owed if tec hnical or operational changes to a specific appli ance are made and do cumented 

### as such, t o justifY the chang e ofleak-rate method .AUG - 31 - 1 998 1 3: 05 F R0' 1 F MD EASTERN
Air Docket No. A
-92- 01 VITI . H 

### Page 3 Augu st 31, 1 998 TO 912 02565200 3

2 . Io 

### a..uw;e a ppropriAte ap plication of the ma j or red uc ti ons for propo sed Jesk rates i n Section 82. 156, C:i). D trol

**m** t h illm sbo u Jd he sub jest t o tile 50

**~eg rul!::.**  

### The proposed rule seeks to lower the maximum allowable leak 

### rates fur rdiigeration equip me nt including b oth indu strial process refii gtntion eq uipment and co mf o

rt-coo lin g cbillers . Since the leak thresho lds (per 82 . 156) that trigger the repair requi rement acti ons dep end on the type rdii geration equipment 

### (co mmercial, 

### industrial . or eomfort·cooling} , 

### we believe it 

### wo uld be appropriate for EPA to include nuclear pl ant control room chill ers as industrial process 

### wi th other similar (electrical generation) chill ers that are required to use the "50 percent test" in characterization 

### of their 

### use "type." 

### This 

### w iD assure th at no undue burden is pla ced on an owner/operator of an 

### app liance, resulting 

### from the 

### a ppli<:ation of 

### an inappropriate (too low ) leak-rate for the operating charact eristi cs of that appliance. An inappropriate categorizatio n 

### of a reftigen.tion u ni t into 

### a specific categoty 

### e. g ., comibrt cooling would resul t in the imposition of' a leak rate standard m ore string ent (i .e .• an undue burden ) than the ., owest achi evable level" reasonably characteristic ofthat ap plian ce . In revisi ons to the leak repair rule in 1995, EP A reco gnized that refii gerati on 

### eq uipment (commercial . industrial, or c omfort-coo ling ) 

### is to be distin guished 

### for purpo ses of S ection 608 by considering 

### how the appliance is used, 60 

### Fed. Reg. 40 (August 8, 1995) . The definition of" industrial process 

### refiigera tion, was 

### then amended to cl arify that characterization of u se is a 

# metor in determining ifan appliance is industrial process refiiB eration equi pment . Des pite this recognition, EPA has con tinu ed to insist tha t chi llers used in part to cool nuclear control roo ms are NO T indus trial process refrigeratio n equipmen t. These chill ers are in &.ct "d ire«<y linked 

### to the generation 

### ofelectricity" 

### si. n

ce they 

### are vital to 

### the proper fu nctioning of the instrum ents in the contro l panel . 

### Ifthe control panel. 

### tempera tures were 

### not regul ated. it 

### wo uld be 

### imposs ible to 

### o pera te the nuclear plant. 

### No o ther aspect of the nuc-lear process is 

### as directly 

### linked to the 

### (industrial prooess) generation ofelectricity as the equipm ent in the contro l room. The mere fact t hat these particul ar chillers pro vide the incidental ben efit ofco mfortab le enviro nment fur the human operators within the contr ol room does not change their ess ential pu rpose . T he primai)' and overriding purpose ofthese chillers is to maintain the temperature ofthe electrical (indu strial p roc ess) equipm ent in the contT ol room a:t a level w ndu cive to the proper fu nction in g ofthis equip ment . Additionally. the custom built parts used in thes e typ es of chillers are uniq ue and not easy 

### to repl ace. F urth ermore, these chillers fu ncti on 

### u part of the nu clear 

### pro cess as evi denced by the NRC 

### requirements that 

### force our nuclear reactors 

### to P.133AUG -3 1 -:19'38 1 3 : 126 FROt1 F11D EAS TERN Air Docket No . A-92-01 VIIl.H 

### Page4 A

ugust 31, 1998 TO 912025652093 P.04



### be shut 

### down in the even t that 

### the control room temp eratur es exceed 1 04• F due to the risk 

### of failure ofthe equipmen t in 

### the control room at 

### these temperatures. 

### From NRC's Reg . NUREGICR.-4191, NRC

**recogni~** that"instrument 

### imp airment" may occur in 

### as little as 

### 45 minutes if

### oooling is lost 

### to the 

### control room . Du ring a July 1998 NRC meeting, it 

### was noted that when co ntrol room

**temp era~s**  reacl1 the

**90~** control room instrumentation starts behaving erratically . EPA's definition of « industri al process refrigeratio n» inc orpo rates the "SO percent test>' which is used in deciding whether a particular mftigeration unit can be consid ered industri al prOQeSs refrigeration equipment . At, per this

**tes~** "where one app liance is used fur both industrial proces s refii,gerati on and other 

### applications, it will be considered industrial process rttfrigeration equipm ent 

### if 50 pezcent or more of 

### its opera titlg capacity 

### is u sed for industrial 

### pro cess refrigerati on" 40 CFR §82.152. TVA beli eves that the use ofthe "50 percent rule" is the mos t eguitabl§ approa ch for detenninio.g the category in which to place an appliance used for multiple purposes . In fact, EPA has encoun,ged the app licatio n 

### of the "50 

### percent rule" to 

### app liances 

### used as both industrial process re&igerati on equipment and comfort cooling. 

### See 60Fed . Reg. 40 (Augu stS , 1995) . Therefore 

### it would be consi stent for EPA to apply the "SO pen:ent rule" to determine the category "type'., of 

### a cbilla- used primarily for cooling nuclear plant electrical eq uipm ent (associated 

### wi th tbe (:Ontrol 

### room) and 

### only inci dentally (often as little as ten peroent) for providing a co mfurtab le environment for human inhabitants ofthe oontrol room. Reliable enginee ring methods ate 

### available to 

### determine the division of the ooollng 

### capacity (industrial process versus incid ental en vironmental cooling) of a chiller 

### that 

### is being 

### used for 

### a dual purpose. In 

### TV N 

### s 

### situation , we have determined that more 

### than 90 percent of the cooling capacity of the chillers used to cool the control room at nuclear plants is utilized in main taining 

### the t emper8lure ofthe electrical equipment at operable levds. With less than ten percent ofthe capacity 

### ofthese 

### cllillers used for environmental comtbrt, it 

### is dearly 

### unreas onable to categorize these units as oomfon-cooJers and not as industrial processes reftiger-ation equipment. TV A therefure

**ur~** EPA to eliminate the inequity of this situation by pr oviding 

### that the '"SO percent 

### rule" can 

### be applied 

### to appliances 

### used for 

### the dual purpose of cooling nuclear plant control room electrical equ ipment and incidentally providing a co mfortable environmen t for the human opera tors in 

### the control room.A UG
- 3 1
- 1998 13 :07 FROM FMD EASTERN Air Docket No . A
- 92-01 Vlll.H Page S August 3 1, 1998 T O 9120 256 52093

3. R efoJ'Dlu)a tioa of the criteria uooa wh ich the mu lti-level lea k-rate 

### mteej s es tab!i.sbld {8k t56 (i){ l()(i
- h

) 

### EPA has propo sed bi-level l eak rate system 

### for industrial process refrigeration equi pment (35 petcent v emJS 20 percent ) based on whet.hc;r the eq uipment is custom

### buil t. the equipment' s date of

**man ufit~**  

### compressor configuration. 

### and num ber of 

### refrig erant loops. More specifically,

**und~** 

### the current p roposal, i ndu strial proce ss refrigera tion equ ipment would be 

### su bject to a 20

**~t** leak 

### rate unless it 

## rne«s all 

### f9m of' 

### the following criteria : (Per Table 3 of tbe 

### EPA Summary Fact S heet ) (1) The reftigerati on system was built in 1992 or before; 

### (2) Th e refiig eration 

### equ ipment is cu stom -built ; (3) The 

### refiigerat.ion system 

### has an op en-drive compressor; and (4) The 

### sy stem is di rect expansion (single loop) . As 

### proposed, syst ems 

### that meet all four criteria woul d remai n at the 

### 35 

### percent peryear maximum 

### permissible leak rate . 

### T his allo wance fo r 

### equipmen t ofcertain age a.nd de$ign 

### appeats to have been made 

### on the 

### basis that 

### the 35 percent leak rate represents the

**(~ west**  a chievab le level" ofleakage that such equi pmEmt can attain, taking into 

### a

C<:OWlt the tec hnol ogy available and 

### costs/benefits 

### and lead times involved . While TVA applauds the creation of this allowance for eq uipment ofcertain age and uniq ue desigl\ we urge EPA to reevalua t e the furmulation of 

### this allowance . We 

### feel that 

### each crit eria by itself; 

### makes a 

### refri gerat ion system (appliance ) 

### sigriliica.otly m ore prone to

**~e .**  The additive imp act of just two or three ofthese crit eria would in fact define a ''class'' 

### ofrefiig eration equipm ent (applianoes) that bas inherently hi gher leak r ate charact e ristics , an d thus should be kept at the 3 5 p ercent l eak rate level. F or 

### example, much of our Jarge refri geration equipment 

### purchased 

## m the 1970s 

### has, 

## .bx

**~-** fcom the manufkcturer eigh t to ten percen t leak rate character isti cs due to 

### &eS1 lubrica t ion design, and 

### this , keep in mind is 

### the ne w

**aufeli ~**  

### condition. Aging clearly increases these inherent leak rates 

### ( oft en as much as two 

### or three times). F

urthermore, compo nents and servi ce 

### i tem s for these o l der appli ances are rou tinely spec q) order , custom fabri cation, and thus long-lead time parts . Certai n com binations of just two or three of these criteria oould make an appli ance extremely difficult to meet a leak rat e less than 35 percent . 

### F

or 

### these reasons we urge EP A 

### to consider r efonnu latio n of the criteria 

### requirements of Secti on 86.156 (i)(20(t-li) suc h tha t 

### specific comb inati ons oftwo or three of the cri teria be used to qualify ap pliances to 

### remain at the 3 5 p er<:ent leak me lew!. We would be glad to 

### diSCUS$ further with yo u tb e 

### com bina tions that we believe should qu alify to remain at the 35 percent l eak rate. P. 05**JG -31-1** **998** 13 : 07 FROM FMO EASTERN Ak Docket 

### No . A-92-01 Vlfl . H Page6 August 31, 1 998 TO 91202565 209 3 P .06

4. C .hillerJ using river water to p rovide condeauer cooling sbould be**all.o~tdjo** remain at t!te 35 qercen t leak repair rate (86 . 156(i) ( 2) 

### EPA 

### bas proposed a bi-levelleak 

### me system (35 

### percent vers us 20 percent) for the 

### ind ustrial process secto r pres umably on the basis that the leak rate should be established at a level achievable by the equipment 

### in questi on. We sup port 

### the crea ti

on of a muJti-Jevelleak rate system si nce it reco gni zes the differenc es between 

### refrigeration equipme n

t based on age and design consi derations . TV A urges EP A 

### to add 

### this (presently un.rec ognized) design consi derati on 

### t o those propo sed for use in decid ing 

### the leak tate applicable to a 

### system . This would be 

### specifically fur those 

### systems which use river water to provi de condenser c:ool ing . 

### Due 

### to the erosi ve and corrosive na ture ofr iver water, 

### such condenser tube s are constantl y degrading (five year 

### life is not uncommon), resulting in the 

### inherent leak rates 

### for these systems to be mu ch hig her than for mos t refrigeran t systems which use 

### t reated or pota ble water , clo sed loop co oling 

### toVY -ers or air- cooled condensers . These river water cooled type sy s tems should remain at 

### the 3 5 

### p erc ent leak rate . Rebuildin g**t~** sys tems is not a viable opti on since i t would be a mass

iv

e project and very c ost prohi biti ve. The rep la cement of these 

### syst ems with systems u sing 

### t reated water or 

### air is 

### equaJly expen sive and woul d constitute a change far 

### in ex cess ofthat necessary 

### to m eet the "lowest achievable level" when considering 

### technology availab le, and costlbene.fit 

### ratios. We 

### therefo re suggest tha t S e ction 82.156(i}(2) ofthe pr op osed regulations be**~ed** 

### ru ch that industrial 

### pr ocess re.fiigera t ion equipment using river water 

### fur 

### cooling conden ser tubes 

### reg \n subj ect to the 35 percen t leak**rat ~**  

### instead of the proposed 20 p!UOOnt tate . If



### you have any quest ion s co ncerning these comments, please contact Lee F. Graser at (423 ) 632-8517, 

### or e-mail at l fgras er@tva.go v. Sinc«dy, Jon**"'~ .**  r-.rn\l!'!V 

### Manager Enviro nmental ManagementAUG - 31 - 1 9 98 13 : 00 FROt1 FM D E ASTERN 

# rm
August 31' 1998 

### Air 

### Docl<et No. A-92-01 Vlll . H U . S. Environm eot:al Protecticn Agency 

### 401 M Street, SW Was lllngton, DC 20460 To Whom It 

### May Concern: TO 912825 5 5 2093 P.0?



### R£: 

### PR O

TECTION OF STRA TOSPHERIC OZONE; REFRIGERANT RECYCLIN G; SUB STITUTE REFRI GERANTS (PROPOSED RULE, 63 fR 3 2043 -32099, JUNE 

### 11. 1998) The 

### Tennessee Valley Authority (TV 

### A) ap preciates the 

### opportunity to convnent on EPA's Proposed Rule; Protection of S tratospheri c O zone; Refri gerant Recycling; and Sub stitute 

### R

efiiserants. Our comments address four specific areas ofthe 

### proposal I . Ref. 82.15 2
--TV A suggests that, 

### fr om among the different 

### options 

### discussed for tb . e 

### calcu lation of' ••teak rate, " EPA select. the fourth o ption

**(a~** of annualizing or rolling average) instead of the third option (the 

### more conservative ofthe two methods) 

### as propo sed. The 

### EPA proposed option wo ul d not be equitable in that it 

### would unduly penalize owners ofr efrig eration systems with slow leaks. 

### 2. Ref. 82.15()......S om e 

### of the newly proposed teak 

### rates are 66-71 

### percent l ess than current leak rates e .g ., comfort cooling curr ent leak 

### rate 15 percent, proposed leak 

### rateS pemmt, 

### per Table 3 of

### EPA's F act 

### Sheet 

### Summary. It 

### thus, is ofparamount i mportance that e very eff ort be made to assure t hat each specific app liance is classified 

### into the "Type" (commercial , ind ustrial process, comfort cooling) that most closely 

### fits. This 

### will assure 

### that no undue b urd en 

### is placed on an owner/operator of an appli ance, resulting in the application of an inapp ropriate (too low) ltAk-rate for 

### the operating cha.racteristics of the appliance. We seek to eliminate s emantic distinctio ns that 

### c urrently prevent ehillers designed pri marily 

### to cool electrical 

### equ ipment (essential to 

### the electrical generation industrial process) in the nuclear plant co ntrol rooms .from being considered industrial process reftigerati on equipment. For this reas on we strongly urge EPA to extend the "SO 

### percent 

### test" (ind ustrial 

### pro cess load vs. comfort 

### cooling 

### loa d) that 

### applies on other 

### electrical generation 

### refri geratro n systems to nuclear plant control room chillers. This will assure an equitable 

### application ofthe 

### new leak rates as 

### proposed 

## m Section 82. 156 .RUG - 31 - 1998 13 : 03 FROM FI1D EAS T ERN
Air Docket No . A-92..01 VIltH 

### P age2 August 31, 1998 TO 9 12025652093 P. 08

3 . R ef. 82.1 56(i)2(ii)-Wbi.le TVA supports the creation of a multi-level leak-rate &ystem 

### for regula ting industrial process refrige ration syst ems, 

### we believe that the criteria upon wblch 

### such a mul ti-level leak rate system is based shou ld be reformu lat ed. T his reformulation would allow refiigu an t systems (appliances) charact erized by less than 

## an four aiteria to be exempt from th e new 20 percent leak-ra te level and thus remain at the 3S percent leak -rat e le\. -el. Under 

### a reform ulated rtrulti-rate syst em, refrigerati on meeting 

### <::ertain combinations oftwo or th.""e.e criteri a should be exempt from 

### the 20 percen t leak rate since the additive im p act of such comb inations wil l likely mak e the 

### equip ment so leak 

### prone that the 20 

### percent leak 

### rate cannot be achieved. 4 . Ref. &2.152{i)2(ii)- TV A belle'leS 

### that refrigeration systems 

### that 

### Use river water to cool cond enser tubes should be placed in a speci al (new ) category that is 

### allowed the 35

**~** Jeak cat e. The ero sive natul"e of river wate.r resuJts in an inherently higher l¢.ak rate for such

**yst ~s.**  than the leak rate fur systems using

**~ed** water or air. 

### Our 

### d etailed comm ents 

### on these four wues are pro vided bel ow. 1. 

### :Method for ukulatiog leak rate (82.152 defiuitlons)

**T~** preamble discusses four met hods for calculating leak rates 'and proposes the 

### third method (i.e. , the 

### use of

### the method that 

### yields 

### the higher calculated leak 

### me b etween the ann uali:r.ing method and the rolling a verage metho d) as EPA's 

### lead opti on. As recopized by EPA in the preamble, the use ofthis method penalizes 

### appliance 

### owners whose app li ances leak below the app licabl e leak rat e but do not show signs ofteaka ge until they have lost a relative ly large: p ercentage o f charge. Th e 

### use of t he third option would be an unfair extensi on ofthe "annualizing 

### method" 

### because by 

### placing a 365- day 

### cap in the den ominator , it 

### allows. the

..

scaling up" but not the c<scaling

**do wn**  **~** ofleaks to cal cul ate the quantity that woul d 

### be lost o ver a year-long perio d. 

### Syst ems with slow leaks would be unduly 

### penalized by the use o fEPA's proposed leak option for defining leak rates. · 

### In view of 

### the co nservati sm of the meth od proposed by 

### F.P A as its.le.ad option, TV A suggests that tbe fuurtb option (eith er metho d 

### for a given apptiance) be selected 

### tO calculate 

### leak rates . Under this option, a pp liance owners would cho ose and be required to sta y with the method o f 

### their cboioe to calculate leak rates . C

hanging to the alterna tive leak-rate method woul d 

### only be allow ed 

### if techni cal or operational changes to a specific appliance are mack and document ed as

**su~** to justifY the change

**ofleak ~rate**  m ethod.AUG
- 31
- 1998 13:09 FROM FM D EASTERN


### Air Docket No. A-92-0 1 Vfii.H 

### Page3 

### Augu$t Jl, 1998 TO 91 2025 5 52093 P.09



### Z

. I o anure appropriate application 9fthe major redu ctions fw propostd 

### !eak mtq in Section 8Z.156.. control room 

### millers should be subject to the SO 

### .;ett_ent rule. Tbe proposed rule seeks to lo wer the maximum allowable leak ra tes for 

### refrig eration equipment in cluding 

### both 

### industrial pr ocess relii geration equipment and

**comfon ~oling**  chillers . Since the leak thresho l ds (per 82.155) that trigger the repair req uirement actions depend on the type refrigerati on equipment 

### ( comm ercial. industrial, 

### o r com.fort- coofing), we be lieve it 

### WQ uld be appropriate for EPA to 

### includ e nuclear plant e<> ntrol room . chillers as indu strial pro cess with other similar (electrical genera tion) 

### chillers that are required to use the ..

### 50 

### percem test" 

### in cbaracterization of 

### their use "type." Thi s will assure 

### that no undue burden 

### is placed 

### on an owner/operator of 

### an applian ce , resulting from the applicati on of an inappropriate 

### (too low) leak-rate for 

### the operating characteristics ofthat appliance. An inappropriate categorizat i<>n of a refrigeratio n unit into a specific category

**g.~** comfort cooling woul d result in the imposi tion 

### of a le ak rate 

### standard more stringent {i.e., an undue burden ) than the "lowest achievable level" 

### reasonably chara cteristic 

### of that app liance . 

### In revi sions to 

### the leak repair rufe in 1995 , 

### EPA recognized that refrigeration equipment (commercial, 

### indu strial , <>r comfon-coo tiog) is to be distinguished for 

### purposes of Section 608 by 

### considering h o

w the appliance is used , 60 Fed. Reg . 40 

### ( August 8, 1995) . Th e definition of"industrial process refii geration" was then amended to clarify 

### that cbaracteriza tion ofuse is a factor 

### in determining 

### if an 

### app6ance is industrial proeess refrigeratio n equipment. Despite 

### this recognition, EPA has 

### continued to insist that chillers used in part to cool nuclear con trol rooms are NOT industrial proces s refri gera tion equip ment These c hillers are 

### in fact 

### " directl y linked to the g eneration ofelectricit}' ' sin ce they are 

### v.ital to the proper functioning of the instruments 

### in the co ntro l panel . ffthe control panel temperatures 

### were not"

**regul at~**  

### i t woul d be impossi ble to ope rate the nuclear plant . No oth er aspect 

### ofthe nuclear pro cess is as directly 

### linked to the 

### (industrial

**pr ~)**  

### gen eration ofelectricity as the 

### equipment 

### in the 

### control room. 

### the mere fact t hat 

### these particular chillers provide the incidental benefit 

### ofcomfortable en vironment for the human operators within the control room does 

### not change 

### their essential p urpo se . The primary and o verriding purpose of these chiilers 

### is to maint ain the t emperatur e of the electrical (industrial process) equ ipment in the 

### comro l room at a level co nduci ve to 

### the pro per functioning o f 

### this equipment. 

### Additionally, the 

### cust om built parts u sed in these 

### types ofc.billers are unique .and not 

### eas.y to repla ee. 

### Furtherm or e , these chillers function as part 

### of the nut-lear pr ocess as 

### eviden<:ed by the 

### NRC requirements 

### that fbrce our nuclear reactors toA UG- 31-1998 13:09 FROM FM D EASTERN 

### Nr Docket No . A-92-01 VIII.H 

### P age4

**August31~** 1998 TO 9120 25552093 P .1 0

be shut dovm in 

### the event that 

### the control room tem peratures exceed 1

**~** 

### P due to 

### the risk of failure ofthe equipment in the control room at these temperatures . 

### From NR Cs Reg . 

### Nt.JREG/CR-4191, NRC 

### recogniz;ed 

### that ..instrument impairment" may occur in as l ittle as 45 

### mi nute s if oo oling is lost to the control room. D uring a July 

### 1998 NRC meeting, it 

### was noted that when conttol room temperatures reach the 90s, 

### contr ol roo m instrumentation starts 

### beha ving erratically. · EP A's definition of" ind ustrial proc-ess retiigeration'' incorporates the "50 percent t est"' 

### whi ch 

### is used in decidi ng wheth er a particular refiigerat ion unit 

### can be

**cons ~**  

### industrial proc ess reftigerati on equipment. As 

### per tbis test,

**~here** 

### one 

### appli ance is used for both indu stri al 

### proces s r efrigeratio n and 

### ot bet applications, it 

### wiU be considered industrial process r efiigeration equipment 

### if 50 percent or more of its 

### opera ting ca pacity is used for 

### industrial process refii,geration" 40 CFR 

### §32.152. TV A believes tha t the use of the 

## «so percent

**rut~ ·**  is 

### the most egjlitabl e approadt for detenniniag the category in wbidi to p l ace an appli ance 

### used 

### fO! rnul tiple purposes. In 

### fa ct. 

### EPA has enc:ouraged the application o f 

### the 

## ·•so percent rule" to appli ances used 

### as both indu strial pro cess refrigeration equipment and comfort cooling . 

### See 60Fed . R eg . 40 (AugustS, 1995 ). Therefore 

### it would 

### be consistent for EPA 

### to apply the "SO percent 

### rule" to determine the categ ory

**yp e''**  of 

### a chiller 

### u sed primarily for cooling nuclear plant electrical equipment (associated 

### with the control room) and 

### only incidentally (often as little as ten per cent) for providing a comfortable environment for human inha bitants 

### ofthe 

### control room. Reliable engineuing 

### meth ods are availab le to de termin e the 

### division ofthe 

### cooling 

### c:apa ciry ( mdustrial 

### prooess versus 

### ineid e.ntal enviro nmental coo ling) of a du11 ec that is being used 

### for a du al 

### purpose . 

### tn TVA's situation, we have

**det~** that more 

### than 90 perce nt ofthe cooling capac ity of the 

### chitters used to cool t he 

### control room at nuclear plan ts is utilized in maintaining the temperature of the el ectri cal 

### equipment at 

### openb le levels. With less than ten percent ofthe capacity of these 

### chillers used 

### for environm ental comfort, it 

### is clearly unreasonable to categorize th ese units as comfort-coolers and 

### not as 

### in dustrial processes 

### refrigeration equipment. TV A 

### therefore urges EPA to 

### eliminate the inequity ofthis situation by 

### providin g that the 

### "SO per cent ruJ e,' ean be applied to appliances used for the 

### dual purpo se of cooling nuclear plant con trol roo m el ectrical equipment 

### and 

### incidentally providing 

### a comfortable environmeat for the 

### human operators in 

### the oontrol room.**AUG 31~1**  **998** 13:10 FROM F MD EASTERN 

### Air Docket No. A-92
- 0 1 Vlll . H P age S A u gu st 3 1 , 1 99 8 TO 91 2 0 2555 2093 P. 11

3 . 

### l.efo m.ula.ti gn of j l,?e_g:ite ria U,POO whkh the muld-levelleak-rat e 

### SyStem is m2blished (82. 156 (i }( 2 0Ci·iil EPA 

### has proposed b i
- level leak rate 

### system for in dustrial 

### pr ocess refrig eration 

### equipment (35 percen t v ersus 20 percent) 

### based on whether the eq uip m ent is custom**bwl t~**  

### the equipment ' s date ofmaoufacture, **oompressor co**  **nfigu.rati~** 

### and number of miig eran t loops . M ore specifically, un du the curr ent propo sal . industrial pro cess r efrigeration equipment would be 

### subject to a 

### 20 percent leak 

### rate unCis it 

### meets all 

### &Y! of the fol lowi n g criteria: (Per Tab le 3 ofthe 

### EPA S ummary Fa ct Sheet ) (1) The refiigeration system w as built 

### in 1992 or before; (2) The 

### remge.ration equipment is custom-built; (3) The r efrigeration system 

### has an open-drive compressor; 

### and (4) The sy stem is direct expansjon (single loop). A3 

### proposed, 

### systems that meet all 

### four 

### criteria woul d 

### remain at the 3 5 percent per

## year rnaxmmm penniSSl "ble leak rate. This 

### allowance for eq uipment of c ertain age and design app e ars to have been made 

### on the basis that the 3 5 per cent leak rate represents the 

### «Jowest achievable level" ofleak age 

### that such equipment can 

### attain, t aking into 

### account 

### the techn o logy 

### availabl e and costs/benefits and lead times involved . While 

### TV A app lauds the 

### creation ofthis 

### allo wance for equip me nt 

### ofcertai n a ge and uni que desian, we ur ge EPA to 

### reevaluate the form ulatio n ofthis 

### allowance. We 

### fee1 that each 

### aiteria by 

### itself. makes a refri geration system (appliance) 

### significant ly more prone to leakage. The add"rtive impact 

### of just two 

### or three 

### of these crit eria would 

### in 

### &ct define a " class'' ofrefrigeratio n equipmen t 

### (appliances) tha t has inherent ly higher leak rate 

### c haracteri sti cs , and thus should be kept at the 3 5 percent leak rate l evel. For 

### example, much of our large refri gerat ion equipm en t purch ased in the 

### 1970s has, 2y

**d~sim** 

### from the manufact urer eight to

**t~** 

### percent leak rate characteri stics due to seal lubri cation d esign, and this , keep in mi nd is the new as delivered 

### condition . Aging clearly incr ease3 th ese inherent leak rates (oft en as much as two or three ti me s). F

urthermore. components and 

### servi ce it ems for these o lder app l iances are routi nely special order , custo m fabrication, and 

### t1tu s long-lead ti me parts . 

### Certain comb ina ti ons of just two 

### or three ofthese crit eria 

### could make an 

### appliance extremely difficult 

### to meet a kale 

### rate Jess than 35 percen t 

### For these 

# reasons we urge EPA to 

### consider refommlation ofthe 

### criteria requ irements of Secti on 86.156 

### (iX20(,..ii) such that 

### specific com b inations 

### of two or 

### three ofthe cri teria 

### be used to qualifY app lia.n<:es to 

### remain at the 3 5 

### percen t leak rate level. W e w

ould be glad t o discuss 

### further with you the combinations 

### that we believe should qualifY to re main at the 35 p ercent leak rate.AUG -3 1 - 19'38 13: 11 FROM FI1D EAS TERN TO 9120 2565 2093 P.t 2 AirDock et No. A-92-01 Vlll. H Page6 Au gust 31, 1998 4. Ch iU.tt:t.,Usine river wat« t o p.mide condenser coolin: should be aUowed to remain 1_t

**t!!e.A5z~t£ntJ~air** .. nate (86 . 156(i) (2) 

### EPA 

### bas propo sed 

### a bi-levelleak rate sys tem (35 percent 

### versu s 20 percent) 

### for the 

### industrial 

### process sector p resumably on the b asis that 

### the leak rate should be established at a l evel a chievab le by the equip ment in que stion . We support the 

### cre ati on of a multi-level leak: rate system since it 

### r ecognizes t he differences between refrigerati on equipment 

### oased on age and 

## design considerati ons . TVA urges EPA 

### to add 

### this (presently unrecognized ) design consideratio n to those proposed for use in deQdiug the 

### leak rat e applicab le to a 

### syst em . This wou ld be sp ecifically fur those syst ems which use 

### riYer wat,g to provide condenser cooling. Due to the erosive and corrosive nature ofriver water, such

**cond~ nsu**  tu bes are 

### constantly degrading (five 

### year lifu is oot uncommon), resulting in the inherent leak 

### rates for these systems to be much higher than fur 

### most reftigeram systems which 

### use treat ed or potable water, closed loop coo ling towers or air-co oled oondensen . These river wat er cooJed type 

### syst ems sho uld 

### remain at the 3 5 p ercent Jea.k rate. Rebuilding 

### these systems is not a viable option since it wo uld be a 

### massive pro j ect and very oost prohibitive. The rep lacement 

### ofthese systems with sy stems u sing 

### treated water or air 

### is equall y 

### expensive and 

### would constitute a chan ge 

### tar in

**~xcess** 

### of that necessary 

### to meet the

..

low est achievable level"' when 

### co nsidering technology available, and 

### cost/b enefit ratios. We 

### ther efore suggest that Section 82.156(i)(2) o f the proposed regul ations be 

### redrafted such that 

### industrial proeess refrig eration 

### equipm ent using river water 

### for cooling condenser 

### tubes

**~** subject 

### to the 3 5 percent leak rate, 

### inttead ofthe 

### pr

opo sed 20 

### percent rate_ If



### yo u have 

### any qu estions co ncerning these 

### co mmentst please contact Lee F. Graser at (423) 632·8517, or e- mail at tfgraser@tva.gov . S

incerely,

**Jon ~**  

### M ana ger Enviro nmen tal 'M2nagement

TOT AL P.12