ML25253A312
| ML25253A312 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 09/04/2025 |
| From: | Kimberly Green NRC/NRR/DORL/LPL2-2 |
| To: | Eckermann J Tennessee Valley Authority |
| Green K, NRR/DORL/LPL2-2 | |
| References | |
| EPID L-2025-LLA-0121 | |
| Download: ML25253A312 (1) | |
Text
From:
Kimberly Green To:
Eckermann, J Beau Cc:
Subject:
Acceptance Review Results for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Request to Revise TS 3.3.2.1 re Rod Worth Minimizer (EPID L-2025-LLA-0121)
Date:
Thursday, September 4, 2025 9:19:00 AM
Dear Mr. Eckermann:
By letter dated July 31, 2025 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Accession No. ML25212A156), the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted a license amendment request for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 (Browns Ferry). The proposed amendments would revise Browns Ferry Technical Specification 3.3.2.1, Control Rod Block Instrumentation, to modify Required Action C.2.1.2 regarding the rod worth minimizer.
The purpose of this e-mail is to provide the results of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs acceptance review of this amendment request. The acceptance review was performed to determine whether the application contains sufficient technical information to allow the NRC staff to complete a detailed technical review. The acceptance review is also intended to identify any readily apparent deficiencies related to the characterization of the regulatory requirements or plant licensing basis.
Consistent with Section 50.90 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10CFR), an application for an amendment to a license (including the technical specifications) [or construction permit] must fully describe the changes requested, and following as far as applicable, the form prescribed for original applications. Section 50.34 of 10CFR addresses the content of technical information required. This section stipulates that the submittal address the design and operating characteristics, unusual or novel design features, and principal safety considerations.
The NRC staff has reviewed your application and concluded that it includes technical information in sufficient detail to enable the NRC staff to complete its detailed technical review and make an independent assessment regarding the acceptability of the proposed amendment in terms of regulatory requirements and the protection of public health and safety and the environment. Given the more limited scope and depth of the acceptance review compared to the detailed technical review, issues that affect the NRC staffs ability to complete the technical review may still be identified despite the acceptance review being deemed adequate. If additional information is needed, you will be notified by separate correspondence.
The NRC staff has evaluated precedence related to this request and determined that the previous review required 261 hours0.00302 days <br />0.0725 hours <br />4.315476e-4 weeks <br />9.93105e-5 months <br /> and 12 months to complete. To support a more efficient process, the NRC is setting a goal of achieving at least a 15% improvement. Based on that, our estimate for this review is 155 hours0.00179 days <br />0.0431 hours <br />2.562831e-4 weeks <br />5.89775e-5 months <br /> and 9 months to complete it.
These estimates are based on the staffs initial review of the request and could change, due to several factors including requests for additional information and unanticipated addition of scope to the review. If there are emergent complexities or challenges in our review that would cause changes to the initial forecasted completion date or significant changes in the forecasted hours, the reasons for the changes, along with the new estimates will be
communicated, during our routine interactions.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
Kimberly Green Senior Project Manager Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1627