ML19257D529

Forwards Addl Info Re Tech Spec Change Request Submitted on 791004.Requests Approval by 800215

ML19257D529
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry, Oyster Creek
Issue date:	01/29/1980
From:	Mills L TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To:	Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8002040543
Download: ML19257D529 (3)

Text

.A . *

~~. C ._ __

400 Chestnut Street Tower II January 29, 1980 Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Mr. Thomas A. Ippolito, Chief Branch No. 3 Division of Operating Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555

Dear Mr. I'jpoJito:

In the Matter of the ) Docket No. 50-259 Tennessee Valley Authority )

Please refer to my letter to you dated January 15, 1980, which provided a partic.1 response to an informal request for additional information from your staff regarding the requested technical specification change for Browns Ferry unit 1 reload 3 submitted by my letter to H. R. uenton dated October 4, 1979 (TVA BFNP TS 131). Enclosed is a response'to those items for which assistance from General Electric was requested.

This completes the response to your staff's request.for additional -

information. To avoid impacting the schedule for Browns Ferry unit 1 startup, we need to ' receive your approval of technic.al specification change request TVA BFNP TS 131 no later than February 15, 1980.

Very truly yours, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY N* m , ,,

)>' r~ . c, L. M. Mills, Manager Nuclear Regulation and Safety Enclosure ool 1866 294 /)s

///

8 P 4

. ENCLOSURE RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT UNIT 1 RELOAD 3 I

1. Page 160 - It has been our understanding that the power spiking .

penalty is inherent in the 8X8 fuel LHGR limit. Is this a double accounting of the penalty? .

Response: The power spiking penalty for 8X8/8X8R/P8X8R fuels is applied as required by the Reference 1 NRC Safety Eval-uation Report (SER). This SER was referenced in the ,

I requested February 1979 amendment to Reference 2 and the ~

power spiking penalty was reflected in the 1% plastic strain limit. Because the power spiking penalty was not reflected in the rod withdrawal error or fuel loading error analysis results, it has been maintained in the technical specification.

2. Enclosure 3 - NE00-24209 Page 1 - Discuss the parameter changes per Appendix A, i.e., previous values, reason for changes, analysis impact, etc.

Response: The safety valves were replaced by piped safet'y/ relief valves in the previous reloads submittal (Reference 3).

The values used in GETAB analyses.were not documented correctly in Reference 2. The February amendment cor-rected these values to those cur ently used in our GETAB analyses.

3. Page 1 - Similarly discuss Appendix B changes to reference core loading.

Response: This appendix was put into the report rather than the currently approved exposure information at the request of TVA. This request was based on the belief that the information shown is a clarification of the information required by the approved format. A revision to Reference 2 to reflect this clarification was made last February.

4. Page 2 - Discuss effect of GETAB initial MCPR (1.24) for 8X8R fuels versus required operating MCPR limit of 1.25. Why not assume 1.25 of initial MCPR? What is magnitude of the effect? l Response: The response to this question was provided for NRC question on Subsection 5.2 of Reference 2. This response is contained in Appendix B of the reference. Because the response was not reflected in the original SER the NRC requested that it be included in Section 5 of Reference 2, and it was included in Subsection 5.2 in the February 1979 submittal.

1866 295

• t

I i

5. Page 3 - The 7X7 fuel operating MCPR limit is specified at 1.23.

This seems to be conservative compared to transient analysis re-sults, i.e., 1.22 justifiable. Discuss this conservatism. Is it i to account for the fuel loading error results?

l Response: Section 6.4 of the SER for Reference 2 stated that the K f

curves were non-conservative for operating 7X7 MCPR limits below 1.23. These curves were to be corrected if the 7X7 operating limit was below this value. Because the 7X7 is not limiting in operation the operating limit was set at 1.23 rather than a lower value so that the K 7 .'

curve could remain the same.

Reference:

1. " Safety Evaluation of the GE Method for the Consid-eration of Power Spiking Due to Densification Effect in BWR 8X8 Fuel Design and Performance," May 1978.

2. " Generic Reload Fuel Application," NEDE-240111-P-A, August 1979.

3. " Supplemental Reload Licensing Submittal for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1 Reload 2," NEDO-24136, November 1978 9 .

e i

. l 1866 296 ,

t

.