ML20197J024

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Refers to Re Implementation of Maint Rule for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit 1.Concludes That Scope of Unit 1 Maint Rule Program Was Inconsistent with Requirements of Rule.Memo Partially Deleted
ML20197J024
Person / Time
Site: Browns Ferry Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 11/06/1997
From: Black S
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To: Hebdon F
NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
Shared Package
ML20197H447 List:
References
FOIA-98-330 TAC-M98931, NUDOCS 9812140238
Download: ML20197J024 (3)


Text

( $.S l []

. _)

~

.[f%,t UNITED STATES laN l

E NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y

1 I

wasm oTon,o.c.m m moi November 6, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick J. Hebdon, Director Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects Suzanne C. Black, Chief th Quality Assurance, Vendor Inspection and Maintenance Branch FROM:

Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors y

^

REGION ll TIA 97-015 REGARDING MAINTENANCE RULE

SUBJECT:

COMPLIANCE FOR BROWNS FERRY, UNIT 1 (TAC NO. M98931)

By letter dated September 29,1997, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) sub response to the NRC's letter dated July 30,1997, regarding implementation l

Rule for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1. As described in the NRC's

- concluded that the scope of the Unit 1 Maintenance Rule Program was inconsis requirements of the rule. Furthermore, the NRC's letter provided the following thre attematives to the existing condition:

Revise the scope of the Maintenance Rule monitoring program for Unit 1 to in I

1.

structures, systems,and components as specified in paragraph (b) of the rule, or Submit a written certification to the NRC as specifed in 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (1) th 2.

has determined to permanentiy cease BFN Unit 1 operations, or Petition the NRC for an exemption from the requirements of the rule that are not 3.

currently being met.

(' 3 The staff requested that TVA describe which of these three attematives they con k

applicable or propose another course of action that they believed satisfed the Maintenance Rule. In their response to this proposal, TVA stated that they d i

the selection of any of these attematives was warranted since TVA's program to Maintenance Rule for Unit 1 was in compliance with 10 CFR 50.65.

y' l

l 9

\\

Ir/:t--o

,a y

~

l c ::., [.]

"* M M 0i U NrT,j!jn 4 g,.

C l

. r MYN j

J,w -

/

n.

f

~ ~ %y i

~

l i

1 1

l i

1 9812140238 981202 PDR FOIA t.OCHBAU98-330 PDR QLifill{A$b

l wt Y,,,, %

uylew

.> 1

\\

/

r p

t UNITED STATES b

l j)

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,y wAsnimaton, o.c. somewooi

/'

9,,,g*

Noveraber 6, 1997 MEMORANDUM TO: Frederick J. Hebdon, Director j

Project Directorate ll-3 1

Division of Reactor Projects Suzanne C. Black, Chief f,h FROM:

Quality Assurance, Vendor inspection and Maintenance Branch

~

Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors

-e i

SUBJECT:

REGION 11 TIA 97-015 REGARDING MAINTENANCE f tULE

~

COMPLIANCE FOR BROWNS FERRY. UNIT 1 (TACTiO. M98931)

By letter dated September 29 1997, Tennessee Valley Authonty (TVA) submitted their response to the NRC's letter dated July 30,1997, regarding implementation of the Maintenance Rule for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1. As described in the NRC's letter, the staff concluded that the scope of the Unit 1 Maintenance Rule Program was inconsistent with the requirements of the rule. Furthermore, the NRC's letter provided the following three attematives to the existing condition:

1.

Revise the scope of the Maintenance Rule monitoring program for Unit 1 to include structures, systems and components as specified in paragraph (b) of the rule, or 2.

Submit a wv. ten certitication !o the NRC as specified in 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (1) that TVA has determined to permanently cease BFN Unit 1 cperations, or 3.

Petition the NRC for an exemption from the requirements of the rule that are not currently being met.

The staff requested that TVA describe which of these three attematives they considered to M applicable or propose another course of action that they believed satisfied the requirements of the Maintenance Rule. In their response to this proposal TVA stated that they did not consider l

the selection of any of these altamatives was warranted since TVA's program to implement the Maintenance Rule for Unit 1 was in compliance with 10 CFR 50.65.

l t..:: n 6

  • ~:
  • 2 n.

u s

'i k.hkh h 8

ogws v

l ~

.dRANDUM TO.' ~FrcoericiU. tuocon, Director

~

~'

~

l

J-Project Dir:ctorate 11-3 3y?

Division of R: actor Proj: cts a

f,

!mw

~

FROM:

Suzanne C. Black, Chief Quality Assurance, Vendor inspection and Maintenance Branch Division of Reactor Controls and Human Factors

SUBJECT:

REGION li TIA 97-015 REGARDING MAINTENANCE RULE COMPLIANCE FOR BROWNS FERRY, UNIT 1 (TAC NO. M98931)

By letter dated September 29,1997, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted their response to the NRC's letter dated July 30,1997, regarding implementation of the Maintenance Rule for Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN) Unit 1. As described in the NRC's letter, the staff concluded that the scope of the Unit 1 Maintenance Rule Program was inconsistent with the requirements of the rule. Furthermore, the NRC's letter provided the following thrw

~

altematives to the existing condition:

j 1.

Revise the scope of the Maintenance Rule monitoring program for Unit'1-to include structures, systems and components as specified in paragraph (b) of the rule, or 2.

Submit a written certification to the NRC as specified in 10 CFR 50.82 (a) (1) that TVA has determin::f to permanently cease BFN Unit 1 operations, or 3.

Petition the NRC for an exemption from the requirements of the rule that are not currently being met.

The staff requested that TVA describe which of these three attematives they considered to be j

applicable or propose another course of action that they believed satisfied the requirements of i

the Maintenance Rule. In their response to this proposal, TVA stated that they did not consider the selection of any of these attematives was warranted since TVA's program to implement the Maintenance Rule for Unit 1 was in compliance with 10 CFR 50.65.

V 7

1 t-3 l

I l

w)

DISTRIBUTION: CENTRAL FILES HQMB R/F i

6 3CUMENT NAME: G:\\DRAFTV.ATT\\BFMR.ENF o receive a copy of this document, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with l

iciosures "N" = No copy N

, m..P

)FFICE HOMB/DRCH HQMB/DRCH l HOMB/DRCH C-OEg OGC M" C

JAME RLatta RCorreia SBlack 4

Li6behnan MizunthM t

) ATE 110/29/97*

10/29/97*

10/31/97*,\\q 11/(f/97 11/@97 OFFICIAL RECORD' COPY u

g w

hjCT43M9

'k-