ML19269D438
| ML19269D438 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 04/23/1979 |
| From: | Ippolito T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Parris H TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7906040053 | |
| Download: ML19269D438 (3) | |
Text
+ I
}<~pg M
e UNITED STATES I
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION yq
- ' I,
'4 j I J
WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
's% (([,/ '
april 23 379 Docket No. 50-260 Mr. Hugh G. Parris Manager of Pcwer Tennessee Valley Authority 500 A Chestnut Street, Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401
Dear Mr. Parris:
Reference is made to your letter of February 9,1979 (TVA BFNP TS 121) requesting changes to the Technical Specifications associated with operation of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit No. 2 in the third fuel cycle. To complete our review, we need the additional information described in the enclosure.
Sincerely, h
C&-
Thoma 4. Ippolito, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #3 Division of Operating Reactors
Enclosure:
Request for Additional Infomation cc:
see next page 2258 183 4
7906040 0 5 3 f
f
r Mr. Hugh G. Parris cc:
H. S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue E llB 33 C Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 fir. Dennis McCloud Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Chestnut Street, Tower II Chattanooga, Tennessee 37401 Mr. E. G. Beasley Tennessee Valley Authority 400 Commerce Avenue W 10C 131C Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Robert F. Sullivan U. S. fluclear Regulatory Commission P. O. Box 1863 Decatur, Alabama 35602 Athens Public Library South and Forrest Athens, Alabama 35611 2258 184
ENCLOSURE 1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 DOCKET NO. 50-260 1.
Please describe the startup test proaram to be conducted prior to Cycle 3 operation. Reference to a previously accepted reload startup test program will be acceptable.
2.
GE has recently addressed the implications of the failure of a DC power source on ECCS effectiveness (letter from R. Engel of GE to P. Check of NRC, November 1,1978).
a.
Assuming a DC power source failure for Browns Ferry Unit No. 2, how would the ECCS remaining available compare to the limiting plant cases analyzed by GE?
b.
Considering the addition of 8x8R fuel to the Browns Ferry Unit No. 2 core, how are the conclusions of the November 1,19781etter justified?
3.
In your submittal of February 9,1979, you proposed the same Technical Specifications for testing of the end-of-cycle, recirculation pump trip feature (E0C RPT) as was recently approved for Browns Ferry Unit No. 1.
(Our letter of Febuary 8, 1979 transmitting Amendment No. 48 to Facility License No. DPR-33.) However, your submittal dio not describe the design criteria and the design of the electrical controls and instrumentation of the E0C RPT for Unit No. 2.
Please describe any differences in design and testability for the E0C RPT system installed in Unit No. 2 compared to the E0C RPT system which we approved for installation in Unit No. 1.
2258 185