|
|
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) |
Line 2: |
Line 2: |
| | number = ML081350222 | | | number = ML081350222 |
| | issue date = 05/02/2008 | | | issue date = 05/02/2008 |
| | title = Request for Additional Information for Extended Power Uprate - Round 17 (TS-431 and TS-410) (TAC Nos. MD5262, MD5263, and MD5264) | | | title = Request for Additional Information for Extended Power Uprate - Round 17 (TS-431 and TS-410) |
| | author name = Brown E A | | | author name = Brown E |
| | author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLII-2 | | | author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DORL/LPLII-2 |
| | addressee name = Campbell W R | | | addressee name = Campbell W |
| | addressee affiliation = Tennessee Valley Authority | | | addressee affiliation = Tennessee Valley Authority |
| | docket = 05000259, 05000260, 05000296 | | | docket = 05000259, 05000260, 05000296 |
Line 18: |
Line 18: |
|
| |
|
| =Text= | | =Text= |
| {{#Wiki_filter:pA REGf* 4:Ia ¢ .. :N..a E V UNI'TED STATES-.--NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 | | {{#Wiki_filter:pA REGf* 4:Ia E ¢ .. :N..a V UNI'TED STATES- |
| .... .May 2,2008 Mr. William R. Campbell, Jr.Chief NuclearOfficer and Executive Vice President Tennessee Valley-Authority | | .--NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 |
| .6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
| | .... .May 2,2008 Mr. William R. Campbell, Jr. |
| | Chief NuclearOfficer and Executive Vice President Tennessee Valley-Authority . |
| | 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 |
|
| |
|
| ==SUBJECT:== | | ==SUBJECT:== |
| BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1,2, AND 3 -REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EXTENDED POWER UPRATE.- ROUND 17 (TS-431 AND TS-41 8) (TAC NOS. MD5262, MD5263, AND MD5264) | | BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1,2, AND 3 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EXTENDED POWER UPRATE.- ROUND 17 (TS-431 AND TS-41 8) (TAC NOS. MD5262, MD5263, AND MD5264) |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Mr. Campbell:== | | ==Dear Mr. Campbell:== |
| By letters dated June 28 and 24, 2004, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee)submitted amendment requests for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 1 and Units 2 and 3, as supplemented by letters dated August 23, 2004, February 23, April 25, June 6, and December 19, 2005, February 1 and 28, March 7, 9, 23 and 31, April 13, May 5 and 11, June 12, 15, 23 and 27, July 6, 21, 24, 26, and 31, December 1, 5, 11 and 21, 2006, January 31, February 16, and 26, and April 6, 18 and 24, March 6, July 27, August 13, and 21, September 24, November 15 and 21, and December 14, 2007; January 25, February 11 and 21, March 6, and April 14, 2008. The proposed amendment would change the BFN operating licenses for all three units to increase the maximum authorized power level by approximately 15 percent.A response to the enclosed Request for Additional Information is needed before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff can complete the review. This request was discussed with Mr. James Emens of your staff on April 23, 2008, and it was agreed that TVA would respond by June 16, 2008. Non-proprietary versions of these requests were provided in separate correspondence. | | |
| If you have any questions, please contact me .at (301) 415-2315.Sincerely, Enclosure 2 transmitted herewith contains SUNSI. When separated from proprietary enclosure, this transmittal document is decontrolled. | | By letters dated June 28 and 24, 2004, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee) submitted amendment requests for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 1 and Units 2 and 3, as supplemented by letters dated August 23, 2004, February 23, April 25, June 6, and December 19, 2005, February 1 and 28, March 7, 9, 23 and 31, April 13, May 5 and 11, June 12, 15, 23 and 27, July 6, 21, 24, 26, and 31, December 1, 5, 11 and 21, 2006, January 31, February 16, and 26, and April 6, 18 and 24, March 6, July 27, August 13, and 21, September 24, November 15 and 21, and December 14, 2007; January 25, February 11 and 21, March 6, and April 14, 2008. The proposed amendment would change the BFN operating licenses for all three units to increase the maximum authorized power level by approximately 15 percent. |
| Eva A. Brown, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 | | A response to the enclosed Request for Additional Information is needed before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff can complete the review. This request was discussed with Mr. James Emens of your staff on April 23, 2008, and it was agreed that TVA would respond by June 16, 2008. Non-proprietary versions of these requests were provided in separate correspondence. |
| | If you have any questions, please contact me .at (301) 415-2315. |
| | Sincerely, Enclosure 2 transmitted herewith contains SUNSI. When separated from proprietary enclosure, this transmittal document is decontrolled. Eva A. Brown, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296 |
|
| |
|
| ==Enclosures:== | | ==Enclosures:== |
| : 1. Request for Additional Information | | : 1. Request for Additional Information - Non-proprietary |
| -Non-proprietary | | : 2. Request for Additional Information - Proprietary cc w/enclosure 1: See next page AFF6 A P F |
| : 2. Request for Additional Information | | |
| -Proprietary cc w/enclosure 1: See next page AFF6 A P F Mr. William R. Campbell, Jr.Chief-Nuclear Officer and May 2, 2008 Executive Vice-President' | | ML081350222 I NRR-088 OFFICE LPL2-2/PM LPL2-2/LA DEEMCB 0 LPL2-2/13-_ |
| ...Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 | | NAME EBrown M;SV *, BClayton/YV' KManoly TBoyce ' |
| | DATE "/-10 5 / . t REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EXTENDED POWER UPRATE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-259, 50-260, AND 50-296 EMCB (Units 2 and 3 only) 135. TVA has indicated the intent to install main steam line (MSL) strain gages and Acoustic Vibration Suppressors in the blind flanges responsible for the 218 Hz tones currently present on Unit 3. Therefore, a revised stress analysis of the Unit 3 dryer, using Unit 3 loads, will need to be used to develop limit curves. |
| | Provide information about the strain gage instrumentation, including number of strain gages at each of the eight MSL locations, as well as their connections (i.e., |
| | whether all the strain gages will be used simultaneously) and associated uncertainties. Address how a strain gage failure at a MSL location would affect the uncertainty. |
| | (All units) 168./136. For the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) units: |
| | (a) Describe the evolution of BFN tie bar design including the latest tie bar modification; (b) Explain how the difference between the BFN and Susquehanna steam dryer designs (slanted hood versus curved hood) affect the amplitude of the 15 Hz frequency, which is the resonance frequency associated with the MSL dead legs, present in the MSL strain gage signal. Discuss the insights into the cause(s) of the 15 Hz tones which can be inferred from Unit 3 low power MSL measurements. |
| | 169./137. (a) The BFN operating experience reveals that the steam dryers have experienced high-cycle fatigue cracking at three locations: vertical weld of drain channel of all three units in 1988-to-1992 period, Unit 3 tie bar failure in 2003, and Unit 1 support beam welded connection to support ring in 2006. Generally, high-cycle fatigue failures take place in the first few months of operation. However, the fatigue cracking in BFN steam dryers has occurred after 12 to 30 years of operation. |
| | Address why it took so long for the cracking to be observed. |
| | Provide time histories of the stress intensities at these three failure locations and identify the frequencies of the highest alternating stress Enclosure I Official Uce Only Prop:!ctai~f' t~ |
| | Infomatio M V |
| | |
| | Only |
| | -sibalUo rcOpriotaý'; nomto intensities that may be responsible for the observed cracking. |
| | Additionally, provide the root cause analyses reports for these three failures. |
| | (b) The justification for the high-cycle fatigue failure of the BFN drain channels, indicates that the original fillet welds on the channels may have had root defects. Therefore it appears that the high fatigue strength reduction factor (3.6) should be used. This factor is twice the one used in the stress analysis presented in Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (CDI) Report 07-06P. |
| | Address why the higher fatigue strength reduction factor for the fillet welds, which might have root defects, is not used in the stress analyses of the dryers presented in CDI Reports 07-06P and 08-06P. |
| | (c) Regarding the fatigue failure of Unit 3 tie bar in 2003, confirm whether fatigue failure has occurred through the base metal, away from the weld. |
| | Provide a description of the loading acting on the tie bar and of its design. |
| | (d) As the purpose of the response to EMCB 134/101 was to assess the consistency of the stress analysis in lieu of support'of the failure of the support beam; it appears that the observed failure of the support beam is not a fatigue failure. Explain the root cause of this failure, whether the fractured surface of the beam was flat, and if it revealed the presence of any plastic deformation. |
| | 170./138. (a) For the nodes listed in Table EMCB 138/105-1 of the TVA response to EMCB 138/105 and located on shell elements, identify the section location and orientation of these components. For Top Cover/Tie Bar Base locations, discuss whether the plotted stress components act along the length of the tie bar. For locations including tie bars, indicate whether the dominating alternating loads acting on the tie bars are tensile loads or bending moments. |
| | (b) Provide accumulative power spectral density (PSD) curves of overall stress intensity, rather than individual stress components. Also, provide mode shapes (or unit MSL source driven dryer displacement response shapes) of the dryer at and near the peak stress frequencies of 34, 47, and 62 Hz. The mode shapes should show overall dryer vibration, as well as close-ups of smaller regions with strong vibration. For each mode shape, also show the motion of the perforated plates. |
| | 171./139. Expand the table in the response to EMCB 139/106-2 to include frequencies near 47 and 62 Hz. Also, explain why the stress ratio decreases from 2.00 to only 1.77 at node 76,452 (inner hood top cover plate/tie bar) in Tables EMCB 139/106-3 and 106-4, when Table EMCB 139/106-2 and Figure EMCB 139/106-2a show that the dominant 34 Hz peak stress decreases by 42 percent. Discuss what contributes to the major portion of stress near 34, 47 and 62 Hz frequencies to the peak alternating stresses at Node 76,452. |
| | Official On.? ...... . eUtta 1nfr m PAi. |
|
| |
|
| ==SUBJECT:==
| | Official Use OnI', Propriotary !tnr-frmatin / |
| BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1,, 2, AND 3- REQUEST FOR...rADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EXTENDED POWER UPRATE -ROUND 17 (TS-431 AND TS-418) (TAC NOS. MD5262, MD5263, AND MD5264),
| | (Unit 1 only) 172. (a) Provide the following for Unit 1: |
| | (i) Plots comparing MSL strain gage PSDs for current licensed thermal power (CLTP) (without low-flow background noise removal), low-f!ow conditions, and CLTP (with low-flow background noise removal). |
| | (ii) Plots similar to those in (a), (( |
| | In the above plots, annotate and discuss any significant reductions in amplitude over broad and narrow frequency ranges, particularly near frequencies associated with high stresses, like 34, 47, and 62 Hz. |
| | (b) Comparing Tables 9b and 10b in CDI Report No. 08-06P, Rev. 0, dated March 2008, reveals that the alternating stress ratios at several locations in the Unit 1 dryer finite element (FE) model are improved significantly when plant and sensor background noise is removed from the MSL strain gage measurements. |
| | Background noise removal reduces stresses by factors ranging from 1.03 to 1.40, and by an average of 22 percent. Explain how the background noise removal leads to the stress reductions, including which frequencies experience the strongest loading/stress reductions. The explanation should be consistent with the accumulative stress plots provided in the response to EMCB 138/105, which show that stresses are dominated by low frequency peaks at 34, 47, and 62 Hz. |
| | (c) Describe the modeling simplifications made for the tie bar attachment to. |
| | the steam dryer and explain why they are conservative. |
| | (d) Since the strains due to non-acoustic piping structural bending modes will be filtered out by the MSL strain gages, explain how the piping structural modes can cause any other contamination of the strain gage signals. |
| | (All units) 173./140. It was indicated that TVA plans to deviate from the FE modeling uncertainty used by PSEG for the Hope Creek dryer (25.26 percent), claiming that uncertainty in the loss factors inferred from the hammer tests reduces the FE modeling uncertainty to 21.5 percent. However, the uncertainty used in the Unit 1 limit |
| | -curves (shown in Table 3 of CDI Technical Note 07-30P, Rev. 1) is 25.26 percent. Clarify the FE model uncertainty used in all BFN analyses, and provide more detail on how a 37 percent uncertainty in hammer test damping reduces FE modeling uncertainty from 25.26 percent to 21.5 percent. |
| | 174.1141. in the response to EMCB 153/120, TVA uses another set of Quad Cities Unit 2 (QC2) data to validate the Acoustic Circuit Model (ACM) Rev. 4. According to |
|
| |
|
| ==Dear Mr. Campbell:==
| | the response to EMCB 154/121 (a), the dipole source terms calculated from ACM Rev. 4 are stronger in BFN than in QC2. Provide a validation of the ACM Rev. 4 against additional dryer data where the low frequency loading on the dryer is more pronounced (i.e., higher than that of BFN). |
| By letters dated June 28 and 24, 2004, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee)submitted amendment requests for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 1 and Units 2 and 3, as supplemented by letters dated August 23, 2004, February 23, April 25, June 6, and December 19, 2005, February 1 and 28, March 7, 9, 23 and 31, April 13, May 5 and 11, June 12, 15, 23 and 27,'July6, 21, 24, 26, and 31, December 1, 5, 11 and 21, 2006, January 31, February 16, and 26, and April 6, 18 and 24, March 6, July 27, August 13, and 21, September 24, November 15 and 21, and December 14, 2007; January 25, February 11 and 21, March 6, and April 14, 2008. The proposed amendment would change the BFN operating licenses for all three units to increase the maximum authorized power level by approximately 15 percent.A response to the enclosed Request for Additional Information is needed before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff can complete the review. This request was discussed with Mr. James Emens of your staff on April 23, 2008, and it was agreed that TVA would respond by June 16, 2008. Non-proprietary versions of-these requests were provided in separate correspondence.
| | 175./142. |
| If you have any questions, please contact me at (301) 415-2315.Enclosure 2 transmitted herewith Sincerely, contains SUNSI. When separated
| | I)) |
| /RA by MVaaler/from proprietary enclosure, this Eva A. Brown, Senior Project Manager transmittal document is decontrolled.
| | ((1 176:/143. |
| Plant Licensing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296
| | ]1 177./144. (( |
| | ]1 (a) Explain where this pressure is measured; (b) (( |
| | 11 |
| | ((( |
| | (c) 11 178./145. The (( 1] bias error associated with FE model displacement |
| | .convergence should not be subsumed by the FE model uncertainty determined from the hammer test data. As the overall FE mesh convergence bias error reported in Table 3 of CDI Technical Note 07-30P, Rev. 1, appears to be [1 B1,address why 1r 1 percent is appropriate. |
| | 179-/146. Provide plots to support the information submitted in the response to EMCB 166/133. Limit curves for all plants discussed should be plotted on the same graphs so that they may be easily compared. |
| | Officiol L' Oly Rrpprogt@F' Ipcpnoforaion |
|
| |
|
| ==Enclosures:==
| | C'fficizi U:c On~v Propriot: r; ~nform~tion (Unit 1 only) 180. CDI Report 08-06P, Stress Assessment of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 Steam Dryer, Revision 0, states that the minimum alternating stress ratio for the Unit 1 dryer is 1.56. This ratio takes into account the hydrodynamic dampir~g due to perforated plates and the end-to-end uncertainties excluding the j[1] percent hiba errnr qqqnfiqtPd with the convergence of the finite element displacement results. |
| : 1. Request for Additional Information
| | The inclusion of the rT percent bias error reduces the minimum alterating stress ratio for Unit 1 steam dryer from This m stress ratio will be further reduced to (( )) at the extended power uprate (115 percent of CLTP) provided no acoustic resonance appears during power ascension; otherwise it will be reduced further. |
| -Non-proprietary
| | Given the response relies on the following: (a) (( |
| : 2. Request for Additional Information
| | s11 (b) use of an ACM that may not include the sources that might be present in the reactor pressure vessel, and (c) [ |
| -Proprietary cc w/enclosure 1: See next page ADAMS Accession No.: ML081350222 I NRR-088 OFFICE LPL2-2/PM LPL2-2/LA DEEMCB 0 LPL2-2/13-_
| | 1] |
| NAME EBrown M;SV *, BClayton/YV' KManoly TBoyce 'DATE "/-10 5 / t .OFFICIAL RECORD COPY REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EXTENDED POWER UPRATE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-259, 50-260, AND 50-296 EMCB (Units 2 and 3 only)135. TVA has indicated the intent to install main steam line (MSL) strain gages and Acoustic Vibration Suppressors in the blind flanges responsible for the 218 Hz tones currently present on Unit 3. Therefore, a revised stress analysis of the Unit 3 dryer, using Unit 3 loads, will need to be used to develop limit curves.Provide information about the strain gage instrumentation, including number of strain gages at each of the eight MSL locations, as well as their connections (i.e., whether all the strain gages will be used simultaneously) and associated uncertainties.
| | QEffirci=: L',, On!.'I. Drnnoporich Infnrrninn MC'V'}} |
| Address how a strain gage failure at a MSL location would affect the uncertainty.(All units)168./136.
| |
| For the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) units: (a) Describe the evolution of BFN tie bar design including the latest tie bar modification;(b) Explain how the difference between the BFN and Susquehanna steam dryer designs (slanted hood versus curved hood) affect the amplitude of the 15 Hz frequency, which is the resonance frequency associated with the MSL dead legs, present in the MSL strain gage signal. Discuss the insights into the cause(s) of the 15 Hz tones which can be inferred from Unit 3 low power MSL measurements.
| |
| 169./137. (a) The BFN operating experience reveals that the steam dryers have experienced high-cycle fatigue cracking at three locations:
| |
| vertical weld of drain channel of all three units in 1988-to-1992 period, Unit 3 tie bar failure in 2003, and Unit 1 support beam welded connection to support ring in 2006. Generally, high-cycle fatigue failures take place in the first few months of operation.
| |
| However, the fatigue cracking in BFN steam dryers has occurred after 12 to 30 years of operation.
| |
| Address why it took so long for the cracking to be observed.Provide time histories of the stress intensities at these three failure locations and identify the frequencies of the highest alternating stress Enclosure I Official Uce Only Prop:!ctai~f' t~ Infomatio M V
| |
| -sibalUo Only rcOpriotaý';
| |
| nomto-2-intensities that may be responsible for the observed cracking.Additionally, provide the root cause analyses reports for these three failures.(b) The justification for the high-cycle fatigue failure of the BFN drain channels, indicates that the original fillet welds on the channels may have had root defects. Therefore it appears that the high fatigue strength reduction factor (3.6) should be used. This factor is twice the one used in the stress analysis presented in Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (CDI) Report 07-06P.Address why the higher fatigue strength reduction factor for the fillet welds, which might have root defects, is not used in the stress analyses of the dryers presented in CDI Reports 07-06P and 08-06P.(c) Regarding the fatigue failure of Unit 3 tie bar in 2003, confirm whether fatigue failure has occurred through the base metal, away from the weld.Provide a description of the loading acting on the tie bar and of its design.(d) As the purpose of the response to EMCB 134/101 was to assess the consistency of the stress analysis in lieu of support'of the failure of the support beam; it appears that the observed failure of the support beam is not a fatigue failure. Explain the root cause of this failure, whether the fractured surface of the beam was flat, and if it revealed the presence of any plastic deformation.
| |
| 170./138. (a) For the nodes listed in Table EMCB 138/105-1 of the TVA response to EMCB 138/105 and located on shell elements, identify the section location and orientation of these components.
| |
| For Top Cover/Tie Bar Base locations, discuss whether the plotted stress components act along the length of the tie bar. For locations including tie bars, indicate whether the dominating alternating loads acting on the tie bars are tensile loads or bending moments.(b) Provide accumulative power spectral density (PSD) curves of overall stress intensity, rather than individual stress components.
| |
| Also, provide mode shapes (or unit MSL source driven dryer displacement response shapes) of the dryer at and near the peak stress frequencies of 34, 47, and 62 Hz. The mode shapes should show overall dryer vibration, as well as close-ups of smaller regions with strong vibration.
| |
| For each mode shape, also show the motion of the perforated plates.171./139.
| |
| Expand the table in the response to EMCB 139/106-2 to include frequencies near 47 and 62 Hz. Also, explain why the stress ratio decreases from 2.00 to only 1.77 at node 76,452 (inner hood top cover plate/tie bar) in Tables EMCB 139/106-3 and 106-4, when Table EMCB 139/106-2 and Figure EMCB 139/106-2a show that the dominant 34 Hz peak stress decreases by 42 percent. Discuss what contributes to the major portion of stress near 34, 47 and 62 Hz frequencies to the peak alternating stresses at Node 76,452.Official eUt On.? ...... ta 1 .nfr m PAi.
| |
| Official Use OnI', Propriotary
| |
| !tnr-frmatin
| |
| /-3-(Unit 1 only)172. (a) Provide the following for Unit 1: (i) Plots comparing MSL strain gage PSDs for current licensed thermal power (CLTP) (without low-flow background noise removal), low-f!ow conditions, and CLTP (with low-flow background noise removal).(ii) Plots similar to those in (a), [[In the above plots, annotate and discuss any significant reductions in amplitude over broad and narrow frequency ranges, particularly near frequencies associated with high stresses, like 34, 47, and 62 Hz.(b) Comparing Tables 9b and 10b in CDI Report No. 08-06P, Rev. 0, dated March 2008, reveals that the alternating stress ratios at several locations in the Unit 1 dryer finite element (FE) model are improved significantly when plant and sensor background noise is removed from the MSL strain gage measurements.
| |
| Background noise removal reduces stresses by factors ranging from 1.03 to 1.40, and by an average of 22 percent. Explain how the background noise removal leads to the stress reductions, including which frequencies experience the strongest loading/stress reductions.
| |
| The explanation should be consistent with the accumulative stress plots provided in the response to EMCB 138/105, which show that stresses are dominated by low frequency peaks at 34, 47, and 62 Hz.(c) Describe the modeling simplifications made for the tie bar attachment to.the steam dryer and explain why they are conservative.(d) Since the strains due to non-acoustic piping structural bending modes will be filtered out by the MSL strain gages, explain how the piping structural modes can cause any other contamination of the strain gage signals.(All units)173./140.
| |
| It was indicated that TVA plans to deviate from the FE modeling uncertainty used by PSEG for the Hope Creek dryer (25.26 percent), claiming that uncertainty in the loss factors inferred from the hammer tests reduces the FE modeling uncertainty to 21.5 percent. However, the uncertainty used in the Unit 1 limit-curves (shown in Table 3 of CDI Technical Note 07-30P, Rev. 1) is 25.26 percent. Clarify the FE model uncertainty used in all BFN analyses, and provide more detail on how a 37 percent uncertainty in hammer test damping reduces FE modeling uncertainty from 25.26 percent to 21.5 percent.174.1141.
| |
| in the response to EMCB 153/120, TVA uses another set of Quad Cities Unit 2 (QC2) data to validate the Acoustic Circuit Model (ACM) Rev. 4. According to 175./142.176:/143.177./144.-4-the response to EMCB 154/121 (a), the dipole source terms calculated from ACM Rev. 4 are stronger in BFN than in QC2. Provide a validation of the ACM Rev. 4 against additional dryer data where the low frequency loading on the dryer is more pronounced (i.e., higher than that of BFN).I]][[1]1[[]1 (a) Explain where this pressure is measured;(b)[[11[[(11 (c)178./145.
| |
| The [[ 1] bias error associated with FE model displacement.convergence should not be subsumed by the FE model uncertainty determined from the hammer test data. As the overall FE mesh convergence bias error reported in Table 3 of CDI Technical Note 07-30P, Rev. 1, appears to be [1 B1, address why 1r 1 percent is appropriate.
| |
| 179-/146.Provide plots to support the information submitted in the response to EMCB 166/133. Limit curves for all plants discussed should be plotted on the same graphs so that they may be easily compared.Officiol L' Oly Rrpprogt@F' Ipcpnoforaion C'fficizi U:c On~v Propriot:
| |
| r; ~nform~tion (Unit 1 only)180.CDI Report 08-06P, Stress Assessment of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 Steam Dryer, Revision 0, states that the minimum alternating stress ratio for the Unit 1 dryer is 1.56. This ratio takes into account the hydrodynamic dampir~g due to perforated plates and the end-to-end uncertainties excluding the j[1] percent hiba errnr qqqnfiqtPd with the convergence of the finite element displacement results.The inclusion of the rT percent bias error reduces the minimum alterating stress ratio for Unit 1 steam dryer from m This stress ratio will be further reduced to [[ ]] at the extended power uprate (115 percent of CLTP)provided no acoustic resonance appears during power ascension; otherwise it will be reduced further.Given the response relies on the following: (a) [[s11 (b)use of an ACM that may not include the sources that might be present in the reactor pressure vessel, and (c) [1]QEffirci=: | |
| L',, On!.'I. Drnnoporich Infnrrninn M C'V'}} | |
Letter Sequence RAI |
---|
|
Initiation
- Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request, Request
- Acceptance...
- Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement, Supplement
Administration
- Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance, Withholding Request Acceptance
- Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting, Meeting
Results
Other: ML070370281, ML073100027, ML073510180, ML080360067, ML080430700, ML080500171, ML080530256, ML081010450, ML081010451, ML081120502, ML081700294, ML081720078, ML081760295, ML082040065, ML082050462, ML082100425, ML082810470, ML083120308, ML083240224, ML083250083, ML090130718, ML090340528, ML090720951, ML090760630, ML091320366, ML092020345, ML092430520, ML092440518, ML092460495, ML092460496, ML092460497, ML092460498, ML092460500, ML092540483, ML092680057, ML12319A076, ML13044A498
|
MONTHYEARML0711503712007-04-24024 April 2007 Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Steam Dryer Evaluations Project stage: Request ML0712905652007-05-16016 May 2007 Withholding Information from Public Disclosure, Response to Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Request for Additional Information - Round 12 for Browns Ferry EPU: Supplemental to SBWB-64 Project stage: RAI ML0716303492007-06-15015 June 2007 Meeting with the Tennessee Valley Authority Concerning the Status of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3, Steam Dryer Review Project stage: Meeting ML0718700242007-07-0303 July 2007 Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-461 - Modification of Restart Large Transient Testing License Condition 2. (G) 2 - Supplement 1 Project stage: Request ML0717801902007-07-0505 July 2007 Request for Additional Information for Extended Power Uprate - Round 13 (TS-431 and TS-418 (TAC Nos. MD5262, MD5263, and MD5264) Project stage: RAI ML0719004762007-07-10010 July 2007 Meeting with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Concerning the Pending ACRS Meeting on the Browns Ferry Extended Power Uprate Project stage: Meeting ML0721501562007-07-18018 July 2007 Slides from Meeting with Tennessee Valley Authority on the Browns Ferry Power Uprate ACRS Presentation Project stage: Meeting ML0721303712007-07-27027 July 2007 Technical Specifications Changes TS-431 and TS-418, Extended Power Uprate - Steam Dryer Evaluations Project stage: Request ML0721400442007-08-0808 August 2007 Summary of Meeting with Tennessee Valley Authority on the Browns Ferry Power Uprate ACRS Presentation Project stage: Meeting ML0724805472007-08-31031 August 2007 Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Response to Round 13 Request for Additional Information (RAI) - Containment Overpressure Project stage: Request ML0727606602007-10-0909 October 2007 Request for Additional Information for Extended Power Uprate - Round 14 (TS-418) Project stage: RAI ML0728902372007-10-18018 October 2007 Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure Concerning Round 13 Request for Additional Information for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Tac Nos. MD5262, MD5263 and MD5264) Project stage: RAI ML0729603112007-10-22022 October 2007 Technical Specification (TS) Changes TS-431 & TS-418, Extended Power Uprate - EPU Large Transient Testing Project stage: Request ML0731000272007-11-0909 November 2007 Request for Schedule Regarding Analysis for Steam Dryers on Extended Power Uprate Amendment Requests (TAC Nos. MD5262, MD5263, and MD5264) (TS-431 and TS-418-S) Project stage: Other ML0732303482007-11-15015 November 2007 Units 1, 2, and 3 - Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Response to Round 13 Request for Additional Information (RAI) - Containment Overpressure APLA-35/37 Project stage: Request ML0733304832007-11-21021 November 2007 Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Response to Preliminary Findings on Steam Dryer Stress Analysis Project stage: Request ML0735101802007-12-14014 December 2007 Technical Specifications Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate - Schedule Regarding Analysis for Steam Dryers Project stage: Other ML0734607572007-12-19019 December 2007 Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Tac No. MD5262, MD5263 and MD5264) Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance ML0735400102008-01-25025 January 2008 Summary of Meeting with Tennessee Valley Authority on Steam Dryer Portion of the Extended Power Uprate Review (TAC Nos. MD5262, MD5263, and MD5264), Browns Ferry Units 1, 2, and 3 Project stage: Meeting ML0801504182008-01-25025 January 2008 Plants, Units 1, 2, and 3 - (Public Version) - Summary of December 10, 2007 Meeting with TVA on Steam Dryer Portion of the Extended Power Uprate Review Project stage: Meeting ML0803205212008-01-25025 January 2008 Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) Response to Round 15 Request for Additional Information (RAI) - APLA-38/40, SRXB-71, and SRXB-72 Project stage: Request ML0803600672008-01-25025 January 2008 Steam Dryer RAI 15 Status, Slides Project stage: Other ML0802501652008-01-30030 January 2008 Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (Tac Nos. MD5262, MD5263, and MD5264) Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance ML0803805602008-01-31031 January 2008 Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Response to Round 15 Request for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Steam Dryer Analyses Project stage: Request ML0804307002008-02-11011 February 2008 Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Schedule Regarding EPU Project stage: Other ML0803503812008-02-14014 February 2008 Summary of Meeting with Tennessee Valley Authority - on Extended Power Uprate Review Project stage: Meeting ML0805302562008-02-21021 February 2008 Unit 1 - Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-431 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Fuels Methods Commitments Project stage: Other ML0806501012008-02-21021 February 2008 Response to Round 16 Request for Additional Information SRXB-73 Project stage: Request ML0804506472008-02-27027 February 2008 Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance ML0803506982008-02-29029 February 2008 Request for Additional Information for Extended Power Uprate - Round 16 (TS-431 and TS-418) (TACs MD5262, MD5263, MD5264) Project stage: RAI ML0807104982008-03-0606 March 2008 (BFN) - Units 1, 2, and 3 - Technical Specifications (TS) Change TS-418 and TS-431 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Response to Round 16 Request for Additional Information (RAI) - SRXB-74/86 and SRXB-87 Through SRXB-90 Project stage: Request ML0811205102008-03-20020 March 2008 Summary of March 20, 2008, Meeting with Tennessee Valley Authority Regarding Steam Dryer Portion of the Extended Power Uprate Review (TAC Nos. MD5262, MD5263, and MD5264) - Slides Project stage: Meeting ML0810104512008-04-0404 April 2008 Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 and TS-418 Extended Power Uprate (EPU) BFN Steam Monitoring Plan Project stage: Other ML0810104502008-04-0404 April 2008 (BFN) - Units 1, 2, and 3 - Technical Specifications (TS) Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate (EPU) - Response to Round 15 and Round 16 Requests for Additional Information (RAI) Regarding Steam Dryer Analyses Project stage: Other ML0817602952008-04-0909 April 2008 Units 1, 2, & 3 - Technical Specifications Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate - Confirmation of Commitment Completions Project stage: Other ML0811205022008-04-16016 April 2008 CDI Incoming Letter Dated April 16, 2008 Regarding NRC Presentation Entitled, Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - Extended Power Uprate Steam Dryers. Project stage: Other ML0811302312008-04-17017 April 2008 Public Slides - Summary of April 17, 2008, Meeting Regarding Steam Dryer Portion of the Extended Power Uprate Review, Project stage: Meeting ML0811200332008-04-30030 April 2008 Accumulation in Emergency Core Cooling, Decay Heat Removal, and Containment Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure for Round 15 Fuels Responses Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance ML0812806272008-05-0101 May 2008 Technical Specifications Change TS-418, Extended Power Uprate Supplemental Response to Round 16 Request for Additional Information - SRXB-87 & SRXB-89 Project stage: Supplement ML0813502222008-05-0202 May 2008 Request for Additional Information for Extended Power Uprate - Round 17 (TS-431 and TS-410) Project stage: RAI ML0805001712008-05-0202 May 2008 - Schedule Regarding Analysis for Steam Dryers on Extended Power Uprate Amendment Requests (TAC Nos. MD5262, MD5263, and MD5264) (TS-431 and TS-418) Project stage: Other ML0812804712008-05-0202 May 2008 Request for Additional Information for Extended Power Uprate - Round 17 Project stage: RAI ML0813602912008-05-22022 May 2008 Summary of April 17, 2008, Meeting Regarding Steam Dryer Portion of the Extended Power Uprate Review Project stage: Meeting ML0815805532008-05-22022 May 2008 Summary of 5/22/08 Meeting Regarding Containment Overpressure Portion of the Extended Power Uprate Review - Browns Ferry - Handouts Project stage: Meeting ML0810604452008-06-0202 June 2008 Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure for Partial Round 13 Responses (Tacs. MD5262, MD5263 and MD5264) Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance ML0810606162008-06-0202 June 2008 Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance ML0810607222008-06-0202 June 2008 Request for Withholding Information from Public Disclosure for Partial Response to Round 13 Project stage: Withholding Request Acceptance ML0816403252008-06-0303 June 2008 Units 2 & 3 - Technical Specifications Change TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate - Supplemental Response to Round 16 Request for Additional Information - SRXB-88 Project stage: Supplement ML0812607122008-06-0505 June 2008 Summary of Meeting with TVA Steam Dryer Portion of the Extended Power Uprate Review Project stage: Meeting ML0817002942008-06-12012 June 2008 Technical Specifications Changes TS-431 and TS-418 - Extended Power Uprate - Response to ACRS Conclusions and Recommendations Regarding Containment Overpressure Credit Project stage: Other 2008-01-30
[Table View] |
|
---|
Category:Letter
MONTHYEARML24032A4762024-02-0101 February 2024 Final Report of a Part 21 Evaluation Associated with Starter Contactors for the BFN Unit 1 High Pressure Coolant Injection Suppression Pool Inboard Suction Valve ML24023A2802024-01-23023 January 2024 Final Report of a Deviation or Failure to Comply Associated with a Relay in the Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Condensate Pump CNL-24-017, Tennessee Valley Authority - Central Emergency Control Center Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure and Emergency Preparedness Department Procedure Revisions2024-01-17017 January 2024 Tennessee Valley Authority - Central Emergency Control Center Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure and Emergency Preparedness Department Procedure Revisions ML24016A3042024-01-16016 January 2024 Final Report of a Part 21 Evaluation Associated with Check Valve 0-CKV-023-0565 for D1 Residual Heat Removal Service Water Pump CNL-23-071, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Inservice Inspection and Augmented Program Interval Revised Request for Alternative 0-ISI-472024-01-11011 January 2024 Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Inservice Inspection and Augmented Program Interval Revised Request for Alternative 0-ISI-47 ML24022A1732024-01-0303 January 2024 Receipt and Availability of the Subsequent License Renewal Application ML23319A1992024-01-0303 January 2024 Issuance of Amendment Nos. 333, 356, and 316 Regarding the Technical Specification Surveillance Requirements 3.4.3.2 and 3.5.1.11 Regarding Safety Relief Valves ML23355A2062023-12-21021 December 2023 Request for Exemption from Enhanced Weapons, Firearms Background Checks, and Security Event Notifications Implementation ML23348A3942023-12-14014 December 2023 Interim Part 21 Report of a Potential Deviation or Failure to Comply Associated with Starter Contactors for the High Pressure Coolant Injection Suppression Pool Inboard Suction Valve IR 05000259/20230102023-12-11011 December 2023 Commercial Grade Dedication Inspection Report 05000259/2023010 and 05000260/2023010 and 05000296/2023010 ML23335A0722023-12-0101 December 2023 Interim Report of a Deviation or Failure to Comply Associated with a Relay in the Unit 2 Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Condensate Pump ML23334A2492023-11-30030 November 2023 Site Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revision CNL-23-070, Submittal of Fifth 10-Year Interval Inservice Testing Program Plan2023-11-29029 November 2023 Submittal of Fifth 10-Year Interval Inservice Testing Program Plan ML23331A2532023-11-27027 November 2023 Summary Report for 10 CFR 50.9 Evaluations, Technical Specifications Bases Changes, Technical Requirement Manual Changes, and NRC Commitment Revisions CNL-23-067, Central Emergency Control Center Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revisions2023-11-27027 November 2023 Central Emergency Control Center Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revisions ML23325A1102023-11-21021 November 2023 Anchor Darling Double Disc Gate Valve Commitment Revision ML23320A2542023-11-16016 November 2023 Interim Part 21 Report of a Deviation or Failure to Comply Associated with Check Valve 0-CKV-023-0565 for D1 Residual Heat Removal Service Water Pump IR 05000259/20230032023-11-13013 November 2023 Integrated Inspection Report 05000259/2023003, 05000260/2023003 and 05000296/2023003 IR 05000259/20230402023-11-0202 November 2023 Supplemental Inspection Supplemental Report 05000259 2023040 and Follow-Up Assessment Letter ML23292A2532023-10-18018 October 2023 BFN 2024-301, Corporate Notification Letter (210-day Ltr) ML23282A0022023-10-0606 October 2023 Interim Part 21 Report of a Deviation or Failure to Comply Associated with Check Valve 0-CKV-023-0565 for D1 Residual Heat Removal Service Water Pump ML23278A0122023-10-0505 October 2023 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Amendment 30 ML23271A1702023-09-28028 September 2023 Site Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revision ML23270A0702023-09-26026 September 2023 SLRA Pre-Application Meeting Summary 09-13-2023 ML23257A1232023-09-22022 September 2023 Administrative Changes to Technical Specification Pages Issued for License Amendment Nos. 332, 355, and 315 CNL-23-061, Tennessee Valley Authority - Central Emergency Control Center Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revision2023-09-20020 September 2023 Tennessee Valley Authority - Central Emergency Control Center Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revision ML23263B1042023-09-20020 September 2023 Special Report 260/2023-001 for Inoperable Post Accident Monitoring (PAM) Instrumentation ML23205A2132023-09-0808 September 2023 Issuance of Amendment Nos. 332, 355, and 315 Regarding the Revision of Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-566-A and TSTF-580-A, Rev. 1 CNL-23-057, Central Emergency Control Center Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revisions. Includes CECC-EPIP-1, Revision 76 and CECC-EPIP-9, Revision 642023-09-0505 September 2023 Central Emergency Control Center Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revisions. Includes CECC-EPIP-1, Revision 76 and CECC-EPIP-9, Revision 64 IR 05000259/20230052023-08-29029 August 2023 Updated Inspection Plan for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3 - Report 05000259/2023005, 05000260/2023005 and 05000296/2023005 ML23233A0432023-08-18018 August 2023 Enforcement Action EA-22-122 Inspection Readiness Notification ML23219A1542023-08-17017 August 2023 Request to Use Later Edition of ASME Code for Operation and Maintenance and Alternative Requests BFN-IST-01 Through 05 for the Fifth 10-Year Interval Inservice Testing Program ML23228A1642023-08-16016 August 2023 Site Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revision ML23228A0202023-08-15015 August 2023 (BFN) Unit 1 - Special Report 259/2023-001 for Inoperable Post Accident Monitoring (PAM) Instrumentation IR 05000259/20230022023-08-10010 August 2023 Integrated Inspection Report 05000259/2023002, 05000260/2023002, 05000296/2023002 and 07200052/2023001 ML23192A4472023-07-31031 July 2023 Staff Assessment of Updated Seismic Hazards at TVA Sites Following the NRC Process for the Ongoing Assessment of Natural Hazards Information CNL-23-055, Tennessee Valley Authority - Emergency Preparedness Department Procedure Revision. Includes EPDP-3, Revision 3, Emergency Plan Exercises and Preparedness Drills2023-07-25025 July 2023 Tennessee Valley Authority - Emergency Preparedness Department Procedure Revision. Includes EPDP-3, Revision 3, Emergency Plan Exercises and Preparedness Drills ML23171A8862023-07-24024 July 2023 Issuance of Amend. Nos. 331, 354, and 314; 365 and 359 Regarding Adoption of TSTF-541-A, Add Exceptions to Surveillance Requirements for Valves and Dampers Locked in the Actuated Position ML23201A2182023-07-20020 July 2023 Registration of Use of Cask to Store Spent Fuel (MPC-298 and -299) ML23159A2552023-07-20020 July 2023 Proposed Alternative to the Requirements of the ASME Code Regarding Volumetric Inspection of Standby Liquid Control Nozzles ML23199A3072023-07-18018 July 2023 Site Emergency Plan Implementing Procedure Revision CNL-23-053, Tennessee Valley Authority - Radiological Emergency Plan Revisions2023-07-18018 July 2023 Tennessee Valley Authority - Radiological Emergency Plan Revisions IR 05000259/20233012023-07-18018 July 2023 NRC Operator License Examination Report Nos. 05000259/2023301, 05000260/2023301, and 05000296/2023301 2024-02-01
[Table view] Category:Request for Additional Information (RAI)
MONTHYEARML23332A0042023-11-27027 November 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Related to Proposed Revised Alternative 0-ISI-47 ML23243A9892023-08-29029 August 2023 Inspection Information Request ML23124A0082023-05-0303 May 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Related to Proposed Alternative Requests for the 5th 10-Year Inservice Testing Interval for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 ML23041A0022023-02-0909 February 2023 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Related to TVA Alternative Request BFN-0-ISI-32 (CNL-22-025) ML22299A0292022-10-26026 October 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information for Relief Request BFN-2-ISI-003 Re Weld Examination Coverage ML22292A2722022-10-19019 October 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Related to Tva'S Request to Adopt TSTF-505 and TSTF-439 for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 ML22208A2172022-07-15015 July 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Related to TVA Relief Request BFN-21-ISI-02 (CNL-21-081) ML22174A2722022-06-24024 June 2022 Notification of Inspection and Request for Information for NRC Problem Identification and Resolution Inspection ML22168A0802022-06-17017 June 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Confirmation of Information and Additional Information Related to Tva'S Request to Use Control Bay Chiller Cross-Tie ML22160A4742022-06-0303 June 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Re LAR to Use Advanced Framatome Methodologies in Support of Atrium 11 Fuel ML22168A0392022-05-13013 May 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft Request for Confirmation of Information and Additional Information Related to Tva'S Request to Use Control Bay Chiller Cross-Tie ML22144A1002022-05-12012 May 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Related to Tva'S Request to Revised the TVA Plants' Radiological Emergency Plans ML22047A1612022-02-16016 February 2022 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Regarding Tva'S Request to Expand the SFP Criticality Safety Analysis for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 ML22025A4132022-01-25025 January 2022 RP Inspection Doc Request ML21343A4232021-12-0909 December 2021 Notification of an NRC Fire Protection Team Inspection (FPTI) (NRC Inspection Report 05000259/2022010, 05000260/2022010, and 05000296/2022010) and Request for Information (RFI) ML21173A1042021-06-21021 June 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Regarding Request to TS 3.8.6 ML21041A5422021-02-10010 February 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Regarding Request to Adopt 10 CFR 50.69 ML21041A5432021-02-0505 February 2021 NRR E-mail Capture - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Draft Request for Additional Information Regarding 10 CFR 50.69 LAR ML21026A1652021-01-26026 January 2021 Document Request for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant - Radiation Protection Inspection - Inspection Report 2021-02 ML20296A3782020-10-22022 October 2020 NRR E-mail Capture - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Regarding Request to Incorporate TMRE ML20297A3012020-10-22022 October 2020 NRR E-mail Capture - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Regarding Request to Adopt TSTF-425 ML20294A3762020-09-23023 September 2020 NRR E-mail Capture - Draft Request for Additional Information - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3, Request to Adopt TSTF-425 ML20266G4472020-09-22022 September 2020 Notification of Inspection and Request for Information ML20224A4732020-08-11011 August 2020 Requalification Program Inspection Browns Ferry Nuclear ML20195B1302020-07-13013 July 2020 NRR E-mail Capture - Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Regarding Alternative Request No. 0-ISI-47 ML20149K3212020-05-27027 May 2020 RP Inspection Document Request, Browns Ferry 2020-003 ML20254A3032020-05-13013 May 2020 Request for Supporting Information for the Browns Ferry, Units 1, 2, and 3 Seismic Probabilistic Risk Assessment Audit Review ML20054B8592020-02-20020 February 2020 Emergency Preparedness Program Inspection Request for Information ML20014E6552020-01-14014 January 2020 01 RP Inspection Document Request ML19196A0752019-07-12012 July 2019 NRR E-mail Capture - Final RAIs Browns Ferry Nuclear, Units 1, 2, 3 - Application to Revise Technical Specifications to Adopt TSTF-542 Revision 2, Reactor Pressure Vessel Water Inventory Control ML19116A0712019-06-0303 June 2019 Request for Additional Information Related Resubmittal of Proposed Alternative Request No. 1-ISI-27 for the Period of Extended Operation ML18331A5442018-12-0606 December 2018 Request for Additional Information Regarding Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Plus License Amendment Request (EPID L-2018-LLA-0048) - (Non-Proprietary) ML18317A1642018-11-20020 November 2018 Request for Additional Information Regarding Maximum Extended Load Line Limit Plus License Amendment Request (EPID L-2018-LLA-0048) - Non-Proprietary ML18263A1412018-09-11011 September 2018 NRR E-mail Capture - Browns Ferry Unit 1: RAI Associated with Relief Request 1-ISI-28 ML18138A1102018-05-17017 May 2018 Enclosurequest for Additional Information (Letter to E. D. Schrull Request for Additional Information Regarding Tennessee Valley Authority'S Decommissioning Funding Plan Update for Browns Ferry and Sequoyah Isfsis) ML18108A1872018-04-18018 April 2018 Information Request for the Cyber-Security Baseline Security Inspection, Notification to Perform Inspection 05000259/2018411, 05000260/2018411, and 05000296/2018411 ML18057A6372018-02-23023 February 2018 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Related to TVA Fleet Topical Report TVA-NPG-AWA16 - EPIC: L-2016-TOP-0011) ML17216A0062017-08-18018 August 2017 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Related to LAR to Revise Modifications and Implementations Related to NFPA 805 for Fire Protection for Light Water Reactor Generating Plants (CAC Nos. MF9814-MF9816) ML17163A0502017-06-0808 June 2017 NRR E-mail Capture - RAI for Browns Ferry RR 3-ISI-28 CAC No. MF9257 ML17150A0792017-05-23023 May 2017 NRR E-mail Capture - Request for Additional Information Related to TVA Fleet LAR for EAL Change to Adopt NEI-99-01 Rev.6 (CAC Nos. MF9054 - MF9060) ML16288A0182016-10-27027 October 2016 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 2 and 3 - RAI Related to Relief Request for the Use of Alternatives to Certain American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section XI Requirements (CAC Nos. MF7795 and MF7796) ML16236A0732016-08-31031 August 2016 Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request to Add New Technical Specification 3.3.8.3 ML16203A0272016-07-25025 July 2016 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request for Adding New Specifications to Technical Specification 3.3.8.3 (CAC Nos. MF6738, MF6739, and MF6740) ML16187A2932016-07-21021 July 2016 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request Regarding Extended Power Uprate (CAC Nos. MF6741, MF6742, and MF6743) ML16194A2292016-07-21021 July 2016 Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request Regarding Extended Power Uprate ML16154A5442016-06-21021 June 2016 Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request Regarding Extended Power Uprate ML16146A6352016-06-13013 June 2016 Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request Regarding Extended Power Uprate ML16145A1582016-06-0303 June 2016 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request Regarding Extended Power Uprate (SBPB-RAI 4) (CAC Nos. MF6741, MF6742, and MF6743) ML16144A6452016-06-0303 June 2016 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Non-proprietary Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request Regarding Extended Power Uprate (EMCB-RAI) ML16119A1332016-05-0606 May 2016 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 - Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request Regarding Extended Power Uprate (SNPB-RAI) (CAC Nos. MF6741, MF6742, and MF6743) 2023-08-29
[Table view] |
Text
pA REGf* 4:Ia E ¢ .. :N..a V UNI'TED STATES-
.--NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
.... .May 2,2008 Mr. William R. Campbell, Jr.
Chief NuclearOfficer and Executive Vice President Tennessee Valley-Authority .
6A Lookout Place 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1,2, AND 3 - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR EXTENDED POWER UPRATE.- ROUND 17 (TS-431 AND TS-41 8) (TAC NOS. MD5262, MD5263, AND MD5264)
Dear Mr. Campbell:
By letters dated June 28 and 24, 2004, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee) submitted amendment requests for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN), Unit 1 and Units 2 and 3, as supplemented by letters dated August 23, 2004, February 23, April 25, June 6, and December 19, 2005, February 1 and 28, March 7, 9, 23 and 31, April 13, May 5 and 11, June 12, 15, 23 and 27, July 6, 21, 24, 26, and 31, December 1, 5, 11 and 21, 2006, January 31, February 16, and 26, and April 6, 18 and 24, March 6, July 27, August 13, and 21, September 24, November 15 and 21, and December 14, 2007; January 25, February 11 and 21, March 6, and April 14, 2008. The proposed amendment would change the BFN operating licenses for all three units to increase the maximum authorized power level by approximately 15 percent.
A response to the enclosed Request for Additional Information is needed before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff can complete the review. This request was discussed with Mr. James Emens of your staff on April 23, 2008, and it was agreed that TVA would respond by June 16, 2008. Non-proprietary versions of these requests were provided in separate correspondence.
If you have any questions, please contact me .at (301) 415-2315.
Sincerely, Enclosure 2 transmitted herewith contains SUNSI. When separated from proprietary enclosure, this transmittal document is decontrolled. Eva A. Brown, Senior Project Manager Plant Licensing Branch 11-2 Division of Operating Reactor Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-259, 50-260, and 50-296
Enclosures:
- 1. Request for Additional Information - Non-proprietary
- 2. Request for Additional Information - Proprietary cc w/enclosure 1: See next page AFF6 A P F
ML081350222 I NRR-088 OFFICE LPL2-2/PM LPL2-2/LA DEEMCB 0 LPL2-2/13-_
NAME EBrown M;SV *, BClayton/YV' KManoly TBoyce '
DATE "/-10 5 / . t REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EXTENDED POWER UPRATE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 DOCKET NOS. 50-259, 50-260, AND 50-296 EMCB (Units 2 and 3 only) 135. TVA has indicated the intent to install main steam line (MSL) strain gages and Acoustic Vibration Suppressors in the blind flanges responsible for the 218 Hz tones currently present on Unit 3. Therefore, a revised stress analysis of the Unit 3 dryer, using Unit 3 loads, will need to be used to develop limit curves.
Provide information about the strain gage instrumentation, including number of strain gages at each of the eight MSL locations, as well as their connections (i.e.,
whether all the strain gages will be used simultaneously) and associated uncertainties. Address how a strain gage failure at a MSL location would affect the uncertainty.
(All units) 168./136. For the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) units:
(a) Describe the evolution of BFN tie bar design including the latest tie bar modification; (b) Explain how the difference between the BFN and Susquehanna steam dryer designs (slanted hood versus curved hood) affect the amplitude of the 15 Hz frequency, which is the resonance frequency associated with the MSL dead legs, present in the MSL strain gage signal. Discuss the insights into the cause(s) of the 15 Hz tones which can be inferred from Unit 3 low power MSL measurements.
169./137. (a) The BFN operating experience reveals that the steam dryers have experienced high-cycle fatigue cracking at three locations: vertical weld of drain channel of all three units in 1988-to-1992 period, Unit 3 tie bar failure in 2003, and Unit 1 support beam welded connection to support ring in 2006. Generally, high-cycle fatigue failures take place in the first few months of operation. However, the fatigue cracking in BFN steam dryers has occurred after 12 to 30 years of operation.
Address why it took so long for the cracking to be observed.
Provide time histories of the stress intensities at these three failure locations and identify the frequencies of the highest alternating stress Enclosure I Official Uce Only Prop:!ctai~f' t~
Infomatio M V
Only
-sibalUo rcOpriotaý'; nomto intensities that may be responsible for the observed cracking.
Additionally, provide the root cause analyses reports for these three failures.
(b) The justification for the high-cycle fatigue failure of the BFN drain channels, indicates that the original fillet welds on the channels may have had root defects. Therefore it appears that the high fatigue strength reduction factor (3.6) should be used. This factor is twice the one used in the stress analysis presented in Continuum Dynamics, Inc. (CDI) Report 07-06P.
Address why the higher fatigue strength reduction factor for the fillet welds, which might have root defects, is not used in the stress analyses of the dryers presented in CDI Reports07-06P and 08-06P.
(c) Regarding the fatigue failure of Unit 3 tie bar in 2003, confirm whether fatigue failure has occurred through the base metal, away from the weld.
Provide a description of the loading acting on the tie bar and of its design.
(d) As the purpose of the response to EMCB 134/101 was to assess the consistency of the stress analysis in lieu of support'of the failure of the support beam; it appears that the observed failure of the support beam is not a fatigue failure. Explain the root cause of this failure, whether the fractured surface of the beam was flat, and if it revealed the presence of any plastic deformation.
170./138. (a) For the nodes listed in Table EMCB 138/105-1 of the TVA response to EMCB 138/105 and located on shell elements, identify the section location and orientation of these components. For Top Cover/Tie Bar Base locations, discuss whether the plotted stress components act along the length of the tie bar. For locations including tie bars, indicate whether the dominating alternating loads acting on the tie bars are tensile loads or bending moments.
(b) Provide accumulative power spectral density (PSD) curves of overall stress intensity, rather than individual stress components. Also, provide mode shapes (or unit MSL source driven dryer displacement response shapes) of the dryer at and near the peak stress frequencies of 34, 47, and 62 Hz. The mode shapes should show overall dryer vibration, as well as close-ups of smaller regions with strong vibration. For each mode shape, also show the motion of the perforated plates.
171./139. Expand the table in the response to EMCB 139/106-2 to include frequencies near 47 and 62 Hz. Also, explain why the stress ratio decreases from 2.00 to only 1.77 at node 76,452 (inner hood top cover plate/tie bar) in Tables EMCB 139/106-3 and 106-4, when Table EMCB 139/106-2 and Figure EMCB 139/106-2a show that the dominant 34 Hz peak stress decreases by 42 percent. Discuss what contributes to the major portion of stress near 34, 47 and 62 Hz frequencies to the peak alternating stresses at Node 76,452.
Official On.? ...... . eUtta 1nfr m PAi.
Official Use OnI', Propriotary !tnr-frmatin /
(Unit 1 only) 172. (a) Provide the following for Unit 1:
(i) Plots comparing MSL strain gage PSDs for current licensed thermal power (CLTP) (without low-flow background noise removal), low-f!ow conditions, and CLTP (with low-flow background noise removal).
(ii) Plots similar to those in (a), ((
In the above plots, annotate and discuss any significant reductions in amplitude over broad and narrow frequency ranges, particularly near frequencies associated with high stresses, like 34, 47, and 62 Hz.
(b) Comparing Tables 9b and 10b in CDI Report No.08-06P, Rev. 0, dated March 2008, reveals that the alternating stress ratios at several locations in the Unit 1 dryer finite element (FE) model are improved significantly when plant and sensor background noise is removed from the MSL strain gage measurements.
Background noise removal reduces stresses by factors ranging from 1.03 to 1.40, and by an average of 22 percent. Explain how the background noise removal leads to the stress reductions, including which frequencies experience the strongest loading/stress reductions. The explanation should be consistent with the accumulative stress plots provided in the response to EMCB 138/105, which show that stresses are dominated by low frequency peaks at 34, 47, and 62 Hz.
(c) Describe the modeling simplifications made for the tie bar attachment to.
the steam dryer and explain why they are conservative.
(d) Since the strains due to non-acoustic piping structural bending modes will be filtered out by the MSL strain gages, explain how the piping structural modes can cause any other contamination of the strain gage signals.
(All units) 173./140. It was indicated that TVA plans to deviate from the FE modeling uncertainty used by PSEG for the Hope Creek dryer (25.26 percent), claiming that uncertainty in the loss factors inferred from the hammer tests reduces the FE modeling uncertainty to 21.5 percent. However, the uncertainty used in the Unit 1 limit
-curves (shown in Table 3 of CDI Technical Note 07-30P, Rev. 1) is 25.26 percent. Clarify the FE model uncertainty used in all BFN analyses, and provide more detail on how a 37 percent uncertainty in hammer test damping reduces FE modeling uncertainty from 25.26 percent to 21.5 percent.
174.1141. in the response to EMCB 153/120, TVA uses another set of Quad Cities Unit 2 (QC2) data to validate the Acoustic Circuit Model (ACM) Rev. 4. According to
the response to EMCB 154/121 (a), the dipole source terms calculated from ACM Rev. 4 are stronger in BFN than in QC2. Provide a validation of the ACM Rev. 4 against additional dryer data where the low frequency loading on the dryer is more pronounced (i.e., higher than that of BFN).
175./142.
I))
((1 176:/143.
]1 177./144. ((
]1 (a) Explain where this pressure is measured; (b) ((
11
(((
(c) 11 178./145. The (( 1] bias error associated with FE model displacement
.convergence should not be subsumed by the FE model uncertainty determined from the hammer test data. As the overall FE mesh convergence bias error reported in Table 3 of CDI Technical Note 07-30P, Rev. 1, appears to be [1 B1,address why 1r 1 percent is appropriate.
179-/146. Provide plots to support the information submitted in the response to EMCB 166/133. Limit curves for all plants discussed should be plotted on the same graphs so that they may be easily compared.
Officiol L' Oly Rrpprogt@F' Ipcpnoforaion
C'fficizi U:c On~v Propriot: r; ~nform~tion (Unit 1 only) 180. CDI Report 08-06P, Stress Assessment of Browns Ferry Nuclear Unit 1 Steam Dryer, Revision 0, states that the minimum alternating stress ratio for the Unit 1 dryer is 1.56. This ratio takes into account the hydrodynamic dampir~g due to perforated plates and the end-to-end uncertainties excluding the j[1] percent hiba errnr qqqnfiqtPd with the convergence of the finite element displacement results.
The inclusion of the rT percent bias error reduces the minimum alterating stress ratio for Unit 1 steam dryer from This m stress ratio will be further reduced to (( )) at the extended power uprate (115 percent of CLTP) provided no acoustic resonance appears during power ascension; otherwise it will be reduced further.
Given the response relies on the following: (a) ((
s11 (b) use of an ACM that may not include the sources that might be present in the reactor pressure vessel, and (c) [
1]
QEffirci=: L',, On!.'I. Drnnoporich Infnrrninn MC'V'