ML020090297

Notice of Consideration, Relates to Application for Revision to Technical Specifications to Permit Continued Operation When the Rod Block Monitor Is Inoperable Provided Minimum Critical Power Ratio Is Maintained

ML020090297
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	05/18/1992
From:	Williams J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Medford M Tennessee Valley Authority
References
-RFPFR, TAC 83351 NUDOCS 9205220080
Download: ML020090297 (11)

Text

May 18, 1992 Docket No. 50-260 Tennessee Valley Authority ATTN: Dr. Mark 0. Medford, Vice President, Nuclear Assurance, Licensing & Fuels 3B Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801

SUBJECT:

BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 2 - NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT (TAC NO. 83351)

The Commission has requested the Office of the Federal Register to publish the enclosed "Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Operating License and Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination and Opportunity for Hearing." This notice relates to your application for amendment dated May 13, 1992 (TS317T). The proposed amendment revises the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 2 Technical Specifications to permit continued operation when the Rod Block Monitor is inoperable provided the Minimum Critical Power Ratio is maintained within specified limits. The proposed amendment will only be effective for the remainder of the current BFN Unit 2 fuel cycle.

Sincerely, Original signed by Joseph F. Williams, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Federal Register Notice cc w/enclosure:

See next page OFC PDII-4/LA PDII-4/PM PDII-4/D FFHebdon NAME MSanders f JWilliams/

DATE 5/ /92 5/ t*/'927 5/ " /92 Dýo

,Iif(

9205220080 920518 PDR ADOCK 05000260 P PDR 4Cm firCoa

'I

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority Attn: Dr. Mark 0. Medford cc:

Mr. John B. Waters, Director Claude Earl Fox, M.D.

Tennessee Valley Authority State Health Officer ET 12A State Dept. of Public Health 400 West Summit Hill Drive State Office Building Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Montgomery, Alabama 36130 Mr. J. R. Bynum, Vice President Regional Administrator Nuclear Operations U.S.N.R.C. Region II 3B Lookout Place 101 Marietta Street, N.W.

1101 Market Street Atlanta, Georgia 30323 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 Mr. Charles Patterson Mr. R. R. Baron, Site Licensing Manager Senior Resident Inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority U.S.N.R.C.

P.O. Box 2000 Route 12, Box 637 Decatur, Alabama 35602 Athens, Alabama 35611 Mr. 0. J. Zeringue, Vice President Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Tennessee Valley Authority P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, Alabama 35602 Mr. M. J. Burzynski, Manager Nuclear Licensing and Regulatory Affairs Tennessee Valley Authority 5B Lookout Place Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801 TVA Representative Tennessee Valley Authority 11921 Rockville Pike Suite 402 Rockville, Maryland 20852 General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority ET 11H 400 West Summit Hill Drive Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Chairman, Limestone County Commission P.O. Box 188 Athens, Alabama 35611

DISTRIBUTION Docket File NRC & Local PDRS BFN Rdg. File S. Varga G. Lainas F. Hebdon M. Sanders J. Williams T. Ross OGC D. Hagan ACRS (10)

OPA OC/LFMB B. Wilson L. Reyes

7590-01 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY DOCKET NO. 50-260 NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION OF ISSUANCE OF AMENDMENT TO FACILITY OPERATING LICENSE, PROPOSED NO SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS CONSIDERATION DETERMINATION, AND OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License No. DPR-52 issued to the Tennessee Valley Authority (the licensee) for operation of the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 2 located in Limestone County, Alabama.

The proposed amendment would revise Technical Specifications Table 3.2.C and Technical Specification 3.5.K/4.5.K to allow continued power operation when the Rod Block Monitor (RBM) is inoperable and the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) is within specified limits. Technical Specification Bases section 3.2 would also be revised to describe the basis for the proposed change. The proposed amendment is a temporary change which will expire at the end of the current Browns Ferry Unit 2 fuel cycle.

Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.

The Commission has made a proposed determination that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 9205220088 920518 PDR ADOCK 05000260 P PDR

evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented below:

1. The proposed amendment does not cause a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

The purpose of the Rod Block Monitor (RBM) system is to ensure that the Minimum Critical Power Ratio (MCPR) does not decrease below the fuel integrity safety limit during a rod withdrawal error event. The RBM accomplishes this by terminating an erroneous rod withdrawal event which could be in progress due to a human error. Since the RBM is designed to intervene after an error is already in progress, rather than to prevent the error, the probability of such an error being committed is not affected by this amendment. MCPR is required to be verified within the allowable range whenever reactor power is greater than or equal to 25 percent and following any change in power level or distribution which could cause operation on a thermal hydraulic limit. This amendment allows rod withdrawal operations with both RBM channels inoperable only when restrictive limits for MCPR are met. Since the proposed amendment only changes the range of allowable values for MCPR rather than changing the monitoring requirements, it does not increase the probability of an administrative error that could cause the MCPR to be violated. As shown by study GE-NE-770-06-0392, when the core is operated within the limits for MCPR specified in the proposed amendment, if an erroneous rod with drawal were to occur, the MCPR would not decrease below the allowable safety limit even without the intervention of the RBM. The higher MCPR requirements specified by the proposed amendment for operations without an operable RBM are within previously analyzed operating MCPR limits and thus are conservative for all other analyzed accidents and tran sients as well. For the above reasons, this amendment will not cause a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.

2. The proposed amendment does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated.

The proposed amendment substitutes more restrictive administrative MCPR limits during rod withdrawals when RBM is inoperable to ensure that the automatic function of the RBM will not be required. No single administrative error could lead to a failure to adequately monitor MCPR and also to a rod withdrawal error, therefore a new failure mode related to administrative requirements is not created. The proposed amendment does not cause or allow any alteration to any release barrier, protec tion system, or accident mitigation system other than the RBM as

discussed above. The plant is not subjected to any new operating modes or environmental conditions as a result of the proposed amendment.

3. The proposed amendment does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.

The RBM trip functions are designed to prevent local fuel damage as a result of a single rod withdrawal error. The proposed amendment allows the substitution of administrative limits for MCPR to ensure that rod motion will not have to be halted to prevent local fuel damage for a single rod withdrawal error. As shown by GE study GE-NE-770-06-0392, a postulated single rod withdrawal error under the provisions specified under this amendment would provide protection which is not significantly less than that which would be provided by the RBM. The MCPR requirements specified by the proposed amendment are within the allowable MCPR limits for normal plant operations therefore, analyses of events other than rod withdrawal errors are not adversely affected.

The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are satisfied.

Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.

The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed determination. Any comments received within thirty (30) days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determination. The Commission will not normally make a final determination unless it receives a request for a hearing.

Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Rules and Directives Review Branch, Division of Freedom of Information and Publications Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and should cite the publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room P-223, Phillips Building, 7920 Norfolk Avenue, Bethesda, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. Copies of written comments received may be

- 4 examined at the NRC Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555. The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to intervene is discussed below.

By June 22, 1992, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's "Rules of Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings" in 10 CFR Part 2. Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.714 which is available at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at the Athens Public Library, South Street, Athens, Alabama 35611. If a request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed by the above date, the Commission or an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, designated by the Commission or by the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the designated Atomic Safety and Licensing Board will issue a notice of hearing or an appropriate order.

As required by 10 CFR 2.714, a petition for leave to intervene shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the following factors: (1) the nature of the petitioner's right under the Act to be made party to the proceeding;

(2) the nature and extent of the petitioner's property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (3) the possible effect of any order which may be entered in the proceeding on the petitioner's interest. The petition should also identify the specific aspect(s) of the subject matter of the proceeding as to which petitioner wishes to intervene. Any person who has filed a petition for leave to intervene or who has been admitted as a party may amend the petition without requesting leave of the Board up to fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, but such an amended petition must satisfy the specificity requirements described above.

Not later than fifteen (15) days prior to the first prehearing conference scheduled in the proceeding, a petitioner shall file a supplement to the petition to intervene which must include a list of the contentions which are sought to be litigated in the matter. Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the petitioner shall provide a brief explanation of the bases of the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The petitioner must also provide references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion. Petitioner must provide sufficient information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the petitioner to relief. A petitioner who fails to

file such a supplement which satisfies these requirements with respect to at least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.

Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the hearing, including the opportunity to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when the hearing is held.

If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held would take place after issuance of the amendment.

If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the issuance of any amendment.

Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the expiration of the 30-day notice period. However, should circumstances change during the notice period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license amendment before the expiration of the 30-day notice period, provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves no significant hazards consideration. The final determination will consider all public and State comments received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish in the FEDERAL REGISTER a notice of issuance and

provide for opportunity for a hearing after issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will occur very infrequently.

A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must be filed with the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Docketing and Services Branch, or may be delivered to the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555, by the above date. Where petitions are filed during the last ten (10) days of the notice period, it is requested that the petitioner promptly so inform the Commission by a toll-free telephone call to Western Union at 1-(800) 325-6000 (in Missouri 1-(800) 342 6700). The Western Union operator should be given Datagram Identification Number 3737 and the following message addressed to Project Directorate 11-4:

petitioner's name and telephone number, date petition was mailed, plant name, and publication date and page number of this FEDERAL REGISTER notice. A copy of the petition should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and to General Counsel, Tennessee Valley Authority, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Eli B33, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902, attorney for the licensee.

Nontimely filings of petitions for leave to intervene, amended petitions, supplemental petitions and/or requests for hearing will not be entertained absent a determination by the Commission, the presiding officer or the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition and/or request should be granted based upon a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.714(a)(1)(i)-(v) and 2.714(d).

For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated May 13, 1992, which is available for public inspection at I

- 8 the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC 20555 and at the local public document room located at the Athens Public Library, South Street, Athens, Alabama 35611.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 18th day of May 1991.

FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION eph F. Williams, Project Manager Project Directorate 11-4 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation