ML18031A704
| ML18031A704 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1986 |
| From: | Grotenhuis M Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| TAC-63022, TAC-63023, TAC-63024, NUDOCS 8608200382 | |
| Download: ML18031A704 (9) | |
Text
August 12, 1986 Docket Nos.
50-259,
- 260, 296 LICENSEE:
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
FACILITY:
Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Units 1,2 and 3 (BFN)
SUBJECT:
Summary of meeting held on July 24, 1986 Regarding Radiological Enviromental Technical Specifications (RETS)
Back round:
The RETS were submitted for BFN in June 1979.
A revised submittal of RETS and Offsites Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM) based on staff review and meetings with TVA, was recieyed in October 1983 and supplemented recieved in August 1, 1984.
When'the NRC began the Technical Specifications Improvement Project TVA requested a delay in issuance of 'the RETS.
The delay was denied by the NRC.
In April 1986 TVA withdrew the RETS amendment request.
At the time of the withdrawal the staff had completed its review of 'the current RETS submittal and was preparing to issue the amendment.
f In a May 6, 1986 meeting with TVA regarding restart issues for BFN unit 2, the NRC staff indicated that the RETS amendment was considered a restart issue.
This was confirmed by letter dated May 22, 1986.
At the same meeting the NRC staff indicated that the approach used by Northeast Utilities that was approved by the NRC would also be acceptable for TVA.
Briefly that approach was to separate out some of the RETS and include them in the Offsite Dose Calculation. Manual (ODCM).
Subsequent changes to the ODCM do not normally require prior staff approval;
This requirement is contained in the Technical Specifications.
This meeting was convened for TVA to present its proposal for a new RETS submittal.
Attendees are listed in enclosure 1.
N~ti S
After an opening discussion regarding the TVA reasons for withdrawal of the RETS amendment, TVA presented its plan for resubmitting the RETS amendment.
The presentation covered the following subjects:
1.
History 2.
Objectives of the New Proposal a.
Meet Regulatory Requirements b.
Meet or Exceed the requirement proposed in the previous RETS Amendment c.
Follow Tech Spec Improvement Principles 8g08P00382 8
pDR pDOCK 05 pDR p
(
I fl N
h f
I l
E 1
1 4
I
d.
Contain sufficient NRC control/enforcement.
3.
Comparison to Haddam Neck Program 4.
Compliance with 10 CFR 50.36a 5.
Schedule for the next submittal The TVA plan, in brief, was to take some of the RETS and, in a manner similar to that approved for Northeast Utilities, include them in a new document which would be separate from the Tech Specs, The OCDM or the Process Control Program (PCP),
and which would be called the Radiological Effluent Manual (REM).
Subsequent changes to the RETS in the Tech Specs would of course require an amendment to the licensee.
Changes to the RETS contained in the REM would require prior approval by the NRC but not a license amendment.
Changes to the OCDM or PCP would continue to be reported to the NRC after the fact in the semiannual effluent reports.
Following the presentation and discussion, the subject of how to manage the submittal was discussed.
The staff explained that, since the previous RETS and
, ODCM submittal was approved to the point of issuance, to resubmit RETS and ODCM without change in the old format would require no new review and thus would be the quickest and easiest way for all concerned to meet the restart requirement.
- However, RETS proposed by TVA in the presentation contained some changes in technical 'content to the amendment request as well as additional changes in format beyond the Northeast Utilities model.
These changes would require additional review effort that could delay the issuance to the
'oint of jeopardizing the restart.
lh It was agreed that to recast.- the RETS amendment exactly into the Northeast Utilities format'with no change's in technical content would require more effort on the part of TVA but would establish the new format earlier.
- Further,
't would not,require staff review of new material and would satisfy the restart requirement.
The staff indicated that the improvements in both technical content and format proposed by TVA could then be the subject oi a
separate amendment request which may or may not be issued before restart of BFN Unit 2, but which is not a restart requirement.
==
Conclusions:==
1.
TVA concluded that the option of recasting the RETS amendment into a format similar to the Northeast Utilities format with no technical changes in the RETS or ODCM was the best option and could be accomplished before the restart of Unit 2.
2.
TVA concluded that the amendment request outlined in 1 above and containing
3.
TVA concluded that full implementation of RETS at BFN could be accomplished by February 1,
1987 if a parallel implementation/review process was followed.
4.
The staff agreed to the Northeast Utilities format for the BFN RETS.
h IH L
N
5.
The staff agreed to a parallel implementation/review process.
6.
The staff agreed to consider the proposed changes in both technical content and format to RETS for review in a subsequent amendment.
7.
The BFN PCP will be submitted by TVA in a separate submittal.
Enclosure:
As stated CC with enclosure see next page OtQ~Ml 1gnt"-d by Marshall Grotenhuis, Project Manager BWR Project Directorate ¹2 Division of BWR Licensing Distribution NRC PDR Local PDR PD¹2 4eecHeg&~~o DMul le r MGrotenhuis DClark OGC-Bethesda E. Jordan B. Grimes ACRS (10)
NRC Participants HDenton HThompson SRichardson, IE
- JTaylor, IE
- BHayes, OI NGrace, RII LSpessard, DI
- SWeise, RII SAConnelly, OIA GZech, RII BJYoungb'lood, JHolonich CStahle TKenyon WLong TAlexion FCantrell, Rll RWessman DBL:PD¹ MGrotenhuis 8/1 /86 DBL'PD¹2 RCl ark B/g /B6 DB' D
r 8/ /6
N I
M M
I If I
b ~
b IM b M
M b
fff b
h I
ATTENDANCE Marsha11 Grotenhuis John A. Wilson J.D. Wolcott Mark S.
Robinson R.E.
Burns Donald C. Smith Wayne Meinke Jerry Hulman Dick Clark D.R. Muller M.J.
May NRR TVA/BFNP TVA/LIC TVA/NUC SVS TVA/BFNP TVA/BFNP NRR/PSB NRR/PSB NRR/BWD2 NRR/BW02 TVA/BFN LIC
I 4
II J
A ll >
g
Ill'
~
Mr. S.
A. l!hite Tennessee Val 1 ey Authority Browns Ferry !'!uclear Plant Units 1, 2, and 3
CC:
tl. S. Sanger, Jr., Esouire General Counsel Tennessee Yalley Authority 400 CommerceAvenue E 11B 330 Knoxvi'lie, Tennessee 37902 Mr. Ron Rogers Tennessee Valley Authority 5N 130B Lookout Place Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
- Chairman, Limestone County Commission Post Office Box 188
- Athens, Alabama 35611 Ira L. Meyers, N.D.
State Health Officer State Department of Public llealth State Office Building llontgomery, Alabama 36130 Nr. K. l!. Mhitt E3A8 400 l!est Summit !lill Drive Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Regional Administrator, Region II U. S. !luclear Regulatory Commission 101 Marietta Street, Suite 3100 Atlanta, Georaia 30303 Mr. Steven Roessler U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Reactor Training Center Osborne Office Center, Suite 200 Chattanooga, Tennessee 37411
'H. C. Bibb Site Director, BFl'lP Tennessee Valley Authority Post Office Box 2000
- Decatur, Alabama 35602 Resident Inspector U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Route 2, Box 311
- Athens, Alabama 35611 Mr. Donald L. l!illiams, Jr.
Tennessee Valley Authority 400 l!est Summit Hill Drive, l!10B85 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Robert L. Lewis, Manager, RFNP Tennessee Valley Authority Post Office Box 2000
- Decatur, Alabama 35602