ML12194A451

6/18/12 Summary of Meeting with Tennessee Valley Regarding Areva Xm Fuel Transition for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3. (TAC Nos. ME8766, ME8767, and ME8768)

ML12194A451
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	07/18/2012
From:	Ellen Brown Plant Licensing Branch II
To:
Brown, Eva A.
Shared Package
ML12194A440	List: ML12194A451
References
TAC ME8766, TAC ME8767, TAC ME8768
Download: ML12194A451 (3)

Text

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 July 18, 2012 LICENSEE: Tennessee Valley Authority FACILITIES: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Units 1, 2, and 3 SUB..IECT:

SUMMARY

OF JUNE 18, 2012, MEETING WITH THE TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY TO DISCUSS PROPOSED FUEL TYPE CHANGE (TAC NOS. ME8766, ME8767, AND ME8768)

On June 18, 2012, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff conducted a Category 1 public meeting with Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA, the licensee) at NRC Headquarters, 11555 Rockville Pike, One White Flint North, Rockville, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss TVA's proposal to change the fuel type for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Units 1, 2, and 3. Enclosure 1 contains a list of attendees. The meeting notice and agenda dated May 29, 2012, are available in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML12150A120. The licensee presented a slide presentation [see the ADAMS Accession No. ML12170A014].

DISCUSSION The licensee provided an overview regarding the pending submittal by TVA regarding a transition from AREVA ATRIUM-10 to ATRIUM-10XM fuel. The proposed fuel change would be targeted for the spring of 2015 for Unit 2, spring of 2016 for Unit 3, and the fall of 2016 for Unit 1. It was discussed that the methodology for performing the analyses related to the ATRIUM-10XM fuel analyses was similar with three exceptions. These exceptions were related to the:

Addition of RODEX4 for thermal mechanical analyses; Addition of ACE for critical power ratio monitoring; and Replacement of SAFLlM2 safety limit methodology with SAFLlM-3D.

It was mentioned that the proposed submittal would be similar in scope to a submittal from a similar boiling-water reactor facility. The NRC staff identified that the precedent discussed contained a mixed core and, therefore, the usefulness of the precedent may not be substantial.

It was suggested that the licensee review the associated safety evaluation limitations and conditions related to the second cycle for the similar facility, as the second cycle may possibly better represent the proposed BFN submittal.

-2 The affect that the ongoing activities related to issues, thermal conductivity degradation and the ACE correlation was discussed. The NRC staff inquired as to TVA's proposed path forward should the generic efforts not be complete upon submittal of the proposed amendment request.

TVA indicated that should the generic efforts not be complete, a plant-specific analysis would be provided. The NRC staff questioned whether additional amendment requests would be needed to support the proposed fuel changes. TVA identified that changes to the safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) may be needed on Units 1 and 3.

The licensee addressed the affect the proposal would have on the extended power uprate (EPU) submittal. The licensee explained that Unit 2 would be the first to use the new fuel type, if approved, and that would be at current licensed thermal power. Units 1 and 3's first use of the new fuel would possibly be at EPU conditions. It was noted that the current docketed EPUs for BFN were submitted assuming initial cores of either GE-14 or ATRIUM-10 fuel and not the proposed ATRIUM-10XM. TVA indicated that the revision of the EPU would be the topic of a future meeting with the NRC staff.

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 extended power uprate, and other activities related to the Fukushima orders and 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.

No members of the public were in attendance, and one feedback form was received. No commitments or regulatory decisions were made by the NRC staff during the meeting.

Sincerely, IRA!

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

Enclosure:

List of Attendees cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv

JUNE 18, 2012 LIST OF ATTENDEES PUBLIC MEETING WITH TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY AND THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION REGARDING PROPOSED FUEL TYPE CHANGE FOR BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT, UNITS 1, 2, AND 3 U. S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Anthony Mendiola Diana Woodyatt Andrew Proffitt Eva Brown TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Greg Storey Tom Eichenberg Tom Hess AREVA Gayle Elliott Peter Newby AI McGinnis*

Dave McBirney*

• By phone Enclosure

- 2 The affect that the ongoing activities related to issues, thermal conductivity degradation and the ACE correlation was discussed. The NRC staff inquired as to TVA's proposed path forward should the generic efforts not be complete upon submittal of the proposed amendment request.

TVA indicated that should the generic efforts not be complete, a plant-specific analysis would be provided. The NRC staff questioned whether additional amendment requests would be needed to support the proposed fuel changes. TVA identified that changes to the safety limit minimum critical power ratio (SLMCPR) may be needed on Units 1 and 3.

The licensee addressed the affect the proposal would have on the extended power uprate (EPU) submittal. The licensee explained that Unit 2 would be the first to use the new fuel type, if approved, and that would be at current licensed thermal power. Units 1 and 3's first use of the new fuel would possibly be at EPU conditions. It was noted that the current docketed EPUs for BFN were submitted assuming initial cores of either GE-14 or ATRIUM-10 fuel and not the proposed ATRI UM-1 OXM. TVA indicated that the revision of the EPU would be the topic of a future meeting with the NRC staff.

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 extended power uprate, and other activities related to the Fukushima orders and 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.

No members of the public were in attendance, and one feedback form was received. No commitments or regulatory decisions were made by the NRC staff during the meeting.

Sincerely, IRA!

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

Enclosure:

List of Attendees cc w/encl: Distribution via Listserv DISTRIBUTION:

PUBLIC Lp12-2 RtF RidsNrrDorlLpl2-2 BParks, NRR RidsNrrPMBrownsFerry RidsNrrLABClayton RidsAcrsAcnw_MailCTR TWertz, NRR RidsNrrDssSrxb RidsNrrDssSnpb RidsNrrDss JAdams, EDO RidsOgcRp RidsRgn2MailCenter DWoodyatt AProffitt ,NRR

, N0,: ML12194A440 Package ADAMS A ceesslon Norlee ML12150A120 Sl'd I es ML12170A014 Summary ML12194A451 OFFICE LPLII*2/PM LPLlI-21LA LPLlI-21BC(A)

NAME EBrown BClayton JQuiehocho DATE 07/18/12 07/13/12 07/18/12 OFFICIAL RECORD COpy