ML13079A238

11/15/2012 Summary of Meeting with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to Discuss Proposed Fuel Type Change (TAC Nos. ME8766, ME8767 and ME8768)

ML13079A238
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	03/26/2013
From:	Farideh Saba Plant Licensing Branch II
To:	Tennessee Valley Authority
Saba F
References
TAC ME8766, TAC ME8767, TAC ME8768
Download: ML13079A238 (4)

Text

UNITED NUCLEAR REGULATORY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555*0001 March 26, 2013 LICENSEE:

Tennessee Valley Authority FACILITIES:

Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2 and 3

SUMMARY

OF NOVEMBER 15, 2012, MEETING WITH THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY TO DISCUSS PROPOSED FUEL TYPE CHANGE (TAC NOS. ME8766, ME8767, AND ME8768) On November 15, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff conducted Category 1 public meeting with Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee) at Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland.

The of the meeting was to discuss TVA's proposal to change the fuel type for Browns Ferry Plant (BFN) Units 1, 2, and 3. The enclosure contains a list of attendees.

The presented a slide presentation (Agencywide Documents Access and Management Accession No. ML The licensee provided an overview its planned submittal regarding a transition from ATRIUM-10 to ATRIUM-10XM fuel. The proposed fuel change would be targeted for use in spring of 2015 for Unit 2, spring of 2016 for Unit 3, and the fall of 2016 for Unit 1. The stated that the content of this planned license amendment request (LAR) was similar to the Unit 1 ATRIUM-10 LAR with three exceptions.

These exceptions were related to -Addition of RODEX4 for thermal mechanical

-Addition of ACE for critical power ratio monitoring; -Replacement of SAFLlM2 safety limit methodology with The licensee indicated that the cores will be comprised of all AREVA fuel types. The NRC indicated that regardless of the vendors, the use of different fuel types would be considered mixed core. The licensee stated that the request would be at the current licensed power for all three units; however the first use of the fuel type for Units 1 and 3 will be for uprated core. The transition affects will need to be addressed in the extended power (EPU) submittal.

TVA indicated that changes to the safety limit minimum critical power also will be requested for Unit 2 with this LAR. The NRC staff questioned the values for two-loop operation, and indicated that this would be an area of focus during the The affect that the ongoing activities related to issues, thermal conductivity degradation and the ACE correlation was discussed.

TVA indicated that a plant-specific analysis would provided for both issues. For the TCD issue, the NRC staff questioned how the average planar linear heat generation rate would be treated. The licensee indicated that penalty would be assessed as the predicted curves are sufficient to counter the TCD

-2 Emerging issues were discussed associated with regulatory and guidance changes for a reactivity insertion accident, loss-of-coolant accident, and hydrogen content. The licensee indicated the intent to address these issues upon the issuance of requests for additional complete application addressing existing regulations and guidance, to the best information known at the time. A failure to address known issues with a regulation, guidance, or an approved methodology, may be considered an insufficiency during the acceptance review for the proposed amendment request. The NRC staff commented that the proposed submittal dates appear to be within the same timeframe as other significant licensing actions including a voluntary fire protection licensing bases change, the EPU, and other activities related to the Fukushima orders and Title 10 of Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.54(f) requests for information.

The comment was related to the availability of resources for both the NRC and the licensee given the significant amount of review needed for all these items and the proposed fuel change. Additionally, the NRC staff identified a potential-linked amendment with the need to have approval to use the new fuel type, if it is being reviewed for the EPU planned submittal for the same timeframe.

The NRC staff also mentioned that TVA should be aware that a licensee for another facility had identified a loss of stator cooling as a limiting event for the minimum critical power ratio analysis during the EPU review. No members of the public were in attendance, and no feedback forms were received.

No commitments or regulatory decisions were made by the NRC staff during the meeting. Sincerely, Farideh E. Saba, 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

Enclosure:

List of Attendees cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv LIST OF PUBLIC MEETING WITH TENNESEE VALLEY REGARDING PROPOSED FUEL TYPE NOVEMBER 15. U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ben Parks* Matthew Panicker Diana Woodyatt Andrew Proffitt Eva Brown TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Greg Storey Jim Lemmons Tom Eichenberg Brye Mitchell John Osbourne Mickey Bentley James Emens Tom Hess AREVA Alan McGinnis*

Dave McBirney*

• By phone Enclosure Emerging issues were discussed associated with regulatory and guidance changes for a reactivity insertion accident, loss-of-coolant accident, and hydrogen content. The licensee indicated the intent to address these issues upon the issuance of requests for additional complete application addressing existing regulations and guidance.

to the best information known at the time. A failure to address known issues with a regulation, guidance, or an approved methodology, may be considered an insufficiency during the acceptance review for the proposed amendment request. The NRC staff commented that the proposed submittal dates appear to be within the same timeframe as other significant licensing actions including a voluntary fire protection licensing bases change, the EPU, and other activities related to the Fukushima orders and Title 10 of Code of Federal Regulations, Section 50.54(f) requests for information.

The comment was related to the availability of resources for both the NRC and the licensee given the significant amount of review needed for all these items and the proposed fuel change. Additionally, the NRC staff identified a potential-linked amendment with the need to have approval to use the new fuel type, if it is being reviewed for the EPU planned submittal for the same timeframe.

The NRC staff also mentioned that TVA should be aware that a licensee for another facility had identified a loss of stator cooling as a limiting event for the minimum critical power ratio analysis during the EPU review. No members of the public were in attendance, and no feedback forms were received.

No commitments or regulatory decisions were made by the NRC staff during the meeting. Sincerely, IRA! Farideh E. Saba, 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

Enclosure:

List of Attendees cc w/encl: Distribution via Lis tserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR RidsNrrDssSrxb DWoodyatt NDiFrancesco Lp12-2 RtF RidsNrrDssSnpb RidsOgcRp TWert EBrown RidsNrrDorlLpl2-2 RidsNrrLABClayton BParks MPanicker RidsNrrPMBrowns Ferry RidsRgn2MailCenter AProffitt DMerzke, EDO ADAMS Accession No.: ML13079A238 OFFICE LPLlI-2/PM LPLII-2/LA LPLlI-2/BC LPLlI-2/PM NAME FSaba BClayton JQuichocho FSaba DATE 03/21/13 03/21/13 03/26/13 !,3/26/13 OFFICIAL RECORD