ML20197H723
| ML20197H723 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1997 |
| From: | Black S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Hebdon F NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20197H447 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-98-330 50-259-97-04, 50-259-97-4, 50-260-97-04, 50-260-97-4, 50-296-97-04, 50-296-97-4, NUDOCS 9812140162 | |
| Download: ML20197H723 (2) | |
See also: IR 05000259/1997004
Text
.
_
_
_.
-
_f
-
Y
ME%q\\
[4'
j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
"
4
UNITED STATES
o
&
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20666-0001
- 'g ***** ,e
June 17,1997
-
MEMORANDUM T0:
Frederick J. Hebdon, Director
Project Directorate 11-3
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
FROM:
Suzanne C. Black, Chief $3AC
Quality Assurance and Maintenance Branch
Division of Reactor Controls
and Human Factors
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
TIA 97-015 REQUEST FOR REVIEW ASSISTANCE-MAINTENANCE RULE
IMPLEMENTATION FOR BROWNS FERRY, UNIT 1
i
The purpose of Region II's subject task interface agreement is to request
technical assistance with the issue of the limited implementation of
10 CFR 50.65 (maintenance rule, or Rule) at Browns Ferry Unit 1.
The issue
was raised during Region II's maintenance rule baseline inspection at Browns
Ferry on April 18, 1997.
The results of that inspection are documented in NRC
inspection report 50-259,260,296/97-04.
.
Paragraph (a)(1) of the Rule requires "each holder of an operating license
under f950.21(b) or 50.22" to conform to the provisions of the Rule.
However,
paragraph (a)(1) later limits the extent that the Rule applies to nuclear
i
power plants "for which the licensee has submitted the certifications
specified in E50.82(a)(1)." That is, licensees that have " determined to
permanently cease operations" and that have appropriately notified the NRC of
that determination are permitted to reduce their maintenance rule scope to
,
include only "all structures, systems, and components associated with the
i
storage, control, and maintenance of spent fuel in a safe condition ...."
1
There are no other categories of nuclear power plants granted exception under
i
the Rule.
The above noted inspection report states, "(TVA's maintenance rule
implementation) program was comprehensive and was being effectively
impl emented. "
However, one unresolved item remains regarding implementation
of the Rule on Unit 1.
The unresolved item resulted from the licensee's
consideration of plant status in its program development.
Unit 1 is shut down
and defueled, and has been in that condition for several years.
As well, the
licensee has made a specific commitment to notify the NRC of any plans to
return the unit to operation, and the licensee's maintenance rule implementing
procedure specifically states that scoping would be reevaluated if Unit 1
l
conditions were to change.
!
l
[
9812140162 981202
-x
J
LOCHBAU98-330
.,
- /.7
-.
.
7.
.
.
_
. . _ _ _ , .
_ . _ . . _ .
. _ _ .
V
i
.I
%
i
\\
F. Hebdon
- 7. -
June 17, 1997
-
k
Your subject TIA requests a " list of actions necessary for TVA to comply
-
!
legally with the Rule on Unit 1."
Because Browns Ferry Unit I falls within
the category of nuclear power plants by which full compliance with the
maintenance rule is required, in that TVA has not submitted certifications
i
'
specified in 550.82(a)(1), TVA has three apparent alternatives:
,
1.
Revise the scope of the maintenance rule monitoring program for Unit 1
!
to include structures, systems, and components as specified in paragraph
j
(b) of the Rule, or
',
-
2.
Submit a written certification to the NRC, as specified in 650.82(a)(1),
that TVA has determined to permanently cease Unit I operations, or
'
3.
Petition the NRC for an exemption from the requirements of the Rule that
are not currently being met.
I
DISTRIBUTION:
Central Files
,
HQMB R.F.
,
i
..
l
1
i
1
.
-
.
- ,
-
.
- . , - . .