ML20197J399

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Requests That NRC Remove Browns Ferrry Nuclear Plant Unit 1 as Category Plant on NRC Problem Plant List
ML20197J399
Person / Time
Site: Browns Ferry  Tennessee Valley Authority icon.png
Issue date: 04/16/1996
From: Kingsley O
TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY
To: Taylor J
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20197H447 List:
References
FOIA-98-330 NUDOCS 9812150065
Download: ML20197J399 (2)


Text

- - - . . - _ - - _ - _.

l ~.~

l

.:' 1 l

A00 960415 900 l

April 16, 1996 LL.LU- p 3

- s Of

.9 M$aa&I

$N Y Mr. James M. Taylor

! Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint, North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Dear Mr. Taylor In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-259 Tennessee Valley Authority ) 50-260 50-296 This letter requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) remove Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BrN) Unit 1 as a Category 3 plant on the NRC's Problem Plant List. This could be accomplished when NRC determines to remove BrN Unit 3, presently a Category 2 plant, from the list. Much has transpired since the BrN units were placed on the list in October 1986.

There have been major management and cultural changes in TVA's nuclear l program, which is now completely focused on operational excellence. At BFN, we have demonstrated our ability to restart Unit 3 and operate both Units 2 and 3 as a multi-unit site with sustained good performance. Unit 2 was removed from the Problem Plant List in June 1992.

At this time, TVA has not reached a decision on the long-term operational status of Unit 1. However, those Unit 1 systems that support operations of Units 2 and 3 will continue to be maintained in-service. Unit 1 is currently defueled and maintained-in a lay-up condition. There are no i I

current plans for equipment refurbishment or recovery activities. If TVA were to decide to return Unit 1 to operation, our policy of open communications with the NRC will ensure that the NRC is notified immediately upon that decision being made. Prior to'any restart of Unit 1, TVA has committed to implement the same programs that were employed for the Unit 3 recovery effort. Further, TVA has committed to not restart Unit 1 without prior Commissioners' approval. If TVA ultimately decides not to restart Unit 1, applicable NRC regulations governing decommissioning i activities will be followed.

9812150065 981202 PDR FOIA LOCH 8AU99-330 PDR I

ENCLOSURE 4 i- t(d % Db l

.o 3

Mr. James M. Taylor Page 2 April 16, 1996 TVA believes that retaining Unit 1 on the Problem Plant List would no longer fairly characterize the current condition of and situation regarding that unit. Close NRC monitoring of Unit 1 is unnecessary for the foregoing reasons, and TVA has acknowledged that prior NRC authorization will be required if Unit 1 is to be restarted. We urge that the NRC remove Unit 1 from the Problem Plant List.

I an available to respond to any questions which you or your staff may have with respect to this request. We appreciate your consideration of the thoughts expressed in this letter. If you have any questions concerning this request, please telephone me at (423) 751-4770.

Sincerely, Original signed by O. D. Kingsley Oliver D. Kingsley, Jr.

President, TVA Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer ces Mr. Stewart D. Ebneter, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Coorgia 30323 Mr. William Russell, Director Nuclear Reactor Regulations U.S. Nuclear Requiatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 Mr. Joseph F. Williams, Project Manager U.S. Nuclear Requiatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, Maryland 20852 U.S. Nuclear Requiatory Commission ATTNs Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 PRC Senior Resident inspector Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 10833 Shaw Road Athens, Alabama 35611 l

l 1

l

.