ML18039A276
| ML18039A276 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1998 |
| From: | Raghavan L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Zeringue O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| TAC-M99711, TAC-M99712, NUDOCS 9804020114 | |
| Download: ML18039A276 (6) | |
Text
March 30, 1998 8r, Mr. O. J. Zeringue
~
Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
BROWNS FERRY PLANT, UNITS 2 AND 3 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONREGARDING TECHNICALSPECIFICATION CHANGE TS-384, REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENTFOR POWER UPRATE OPERATION
. (TAC NOS.
M99711 AND M99712)
Dear Mr. Zeringue:
By letter dated October 1, 1997, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)proposed revisions to the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications to permit operation of the units at the uprated power level of 3458 MWt.
Our reveiw of your application is in progress.
The staff has determined that additional information is required to complete these reviews.
A description of the information required is provided in the enclosure.
Please provide the requested information by April27, 1998. Your prompt response willassist us in completing timely reviews.
Ifyou have any questions, please write or call me at (301) 415-1471.
Sincerely, ORIGINAL SIGNED BY:
L. Raghavan, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation cc: See next page Docket Nos. 50-260 and 50-296 Serial No. BFN-98-002
Enclosure:
As stated PUBLIC JZwolin ski REckenrode FHebdon ADeAgazio ACRS JBongarra
, Docket File Browns Ferry r/f
- JJaudon, Rll FCollins BClayton Q'i OGC RGallo'FC PDII-3/PM P Dll-3/LA PDII-3/D NAME LRaghavan:
DATE 3 /5o/98 BCIayton FHebdon 3/Z 6 /98 3/9o/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY DOCUMENT NAME: G:>BFN<99711RAI.HFB 9804020i i4 'gi80330 PDR ADOCK 05000260 PDR
.iIRC HOYLE CKIII7lgg~y
~S REpg t
~o 1 Cy O
I C
Vl O
gO
++*++
t UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 2055$ 4001 tfarch 30, 1998 Mr. O. J. Zeringue Chief Nuclear Officer and Executive Vice President Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
BROWNS FERRY PLANT, UNITS 2 AND 3 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONREGARDING TECHNICALSPECIFICATION CHANGE TS-384, REQUEST FOR LICENSE AMENDMENTFOR POWER UPRATE OPERATION (TAC NOS. M99711 AND M99712)
Dear Mr. Zeringue:
By letter dated October 1, 1997, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)proposed revisions to the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3 Technical Specifications to permit operation of the units at the uprated power level of 3458 MWt.
Our reveiw of your application is in progress.
The staff has determined that additional information is required to complete these reviews.
A description of the information required is provided in the enclosure.
Please provide the requested information by April27, 1998. Your prompt response willassist us in completing timely reviews.
Ifyou have any questions, please write or call me at (301) 415-1471.
Sincerely, cc: See next page Docket Nos. 50-260 and 50-296 Serial No. BFN-98-002 L. Raghavan, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated
1 c
N
DDI N
I N
E Y ULE E
LANT U
S N
1 9
Topic 1 - Discuss whether the power uprate willchange the type and scope of plant emergency and abnormal operating procedures.
Willthe power uprate change the type, scope, and nature of operator actions needed for accident mitigation and willnew operator actions be required' Topic 2-Provide examples of operator actions that are particularly sensitive to the proposed increase in power level and discuss how the power uprate willeffect operator reliability or performance.
Identify all operator actions that will have their response times changed because of the power uprate.
Specify the expected response times before the power uprate and.the new (reduced/increased) response times.
Discuss why any reduced operator response times are needed.
Discuss whether any reduction in time available for operator actions, due to the power uprate, willsignificantly affect the operator's ability to complete the required manual actions in the times allowed. Discuss results of simulator observations regarding operator response times for operator actions that are potentially sensitive to power uprate.
Topic 3-Discuss all changes the power uprate willhave on control room alarms, controls, and displays.
For example, willzone markings on meters change (e.g., normal range, marginal range, and out-or-tolerance range)?
Ifchanges willoccur, discuss how they will be addressed.
Topic 4 - Discuss all changes the power uprate will have on the Safety Parameter Display System and how they will be addressed.
Topic 5 - Describe all changes the power uprate willhave on the operator training program and the plant simulator.
Provide a copy of the post-modification test report (or test abstracts) to document and support the effectiveness of simulator changes as required by ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985, Section 5.4.1.
Specifically, please propose a license condition and/or commitment that stipulates the following:
(a)
Provide classroom and simulator training on all changes that effect operator performance caused by the power uprate modification. Alltraining and the plant simulator will be modified, as necessary, to incorporate changes identified during the startup testing program.
(b)
Complete simulator changes that are consistent with ANSI/ANS 3.5-1985.
Simulator fidelitywillbe re-validated in accordance with ANSI/ANS 3.5-1 985, Section 5.4.1, "Simulator Performance Testing." Simulator revalidation will include comparison of individual simulated systems and components and simulated integrated plant steady state and transient performance with reference plant responses using similar startup test procedures.
(c)
Complete all control room and plant process computer system changes as a result of the power uprate.
(d)
Modifyoperator training and the plant simulator, as required, to address all related issues and discrepancies that are identified during the startup testing program.
ENCLOSURE
V l
~r A