ML20217Q118

Petition Pursuant to 10CFR2.206 Requesting That OL Be Revoked,Tva Be Required to Submit Decommissioning Plan or lay-up Plan,Insps Be Conducted Against Decommissioning Plan & Hearing Be Conducted

ML20217Q118
Person / Time
Site:	Browns Ferry
Issue date:	04/05/1998
From:	Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Callan L NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
References
2.206, DD-99-06, DD-99-6, NUDOCS 9805070210
Download: ML20217Q118 (5)

Text

,

I_ *

}. c0012023320905 UCS DC 073 P02/13 APR 06 '98 10:50

9. -

,r l -

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS April 5,1998

]

Mr. L. Joseph Callan  ;

i Executne Director for Operations Untted States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washmgton, DC 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

PETITION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206, BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT  :

UNIT 1. DOCKET NO. 50-259 '

1 l

Dear Mr. Callan:

t The Umon of Concemed Scientists submits this petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 requesting that the operating license for Tennessee Va:hy Authority's Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant Umt I be revoked.

B_ackground The NRC issued TVA a full power operating license for Browns Ferry Unit I on December 20,1973.

TVA declared Unit I to be in commercial operation m August 1974.

Brons Ferry Units 1 and 3 were shut down m March 1985 after "TVA identified a failure at BFN to consistently mamtam a documented design basis and to control the plant's configuration in accordance with that basis."' Umt 2, which had been shut down in Septerr.ber 1984 for a scheduled refueling outage, remamed shut down because of the same programmatic deficiencies that affected Umts 1 and 3. After extensive upgrades to the plant's equipment. procedures, and organizational structure, Unit 2 returned to bervice in May 1991. Umt 3 subscquently resumed operation in early 1996.

' Leuer frum O. J. Zenngue. Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations, Tennence Valley Authority, to United States Nuclear Reguistory Commission. " Response tu Request for lofonnation Regarding Adequacy. Availability, and Contml of Design Bases Infomution." February 12.1997.

I 9905070210 990405 l PDR ADOCK 05000259 1

H PDR Washmgton Offico: 1816 P Street NW SuHe 310 e Washin0 ton DC 200361495 e 202 332 0900 e FAX: 202 332.o905 Cambridge Meadquaners. Two Brattle Souare e CamDriego MA 02238-9105 e 617 547 5552 e FAX. 617 864 9405 CaMornia Othca 2397 Shattuck Avenue Suite 203 e Berkeley CA 94704-1567 e $10-843-1872 e FAX. 510 843 3785 s ge Age zu iI go\i G* d f)EDO--G98019 9

. , +0022023320905 UCS DC 073 P03/13 APR 06 '98 10:50

> o April 5,1998 Page 2 of 5 On June 1.1985. TVA placed Unit I on administrative hold so as to be able to focus resources on the efforts necessary to restart Units 2 and 3 Unit I remains on administrative hold. According to the NRC staff, there are no plans to restan the umt,'

Basis for Requested Action '

UCS is a non. profit, public. interest organir.stion with sponsors across the Umted States, including the .

territories serviced by TVA.

TVA has an operstmg license for Unit 1, but the facility has not been operated since March 1985 and has been on admimstrative hold since June 1,1985. 'ne NRC has issued approximately 39 bulletins,141 generic letters, and 1,047 information notices to its licensees while Unit I has been on administrative hold. While some of these 1,228 NRC documents do not apply to Browns Ferry Unit I, the majority of them do. TVA's typical response to these document has been as follows:

"BFN Umt I is shutdown, defueled, and under admmistrative hold. The conditions described by this GL will be addressed prior to its return to service."'

On October 9,1996, the NRC asked TVA to provide a response regarding the adequacy, availability, and control of design basis mformation for all three Browns Ferry units. This NRC request, prompted by the three umt shut down at Millstone in March 1996, went to the very core of the problems that forced the three unit shut down at Browns Ferry beginning in March 1985. TVA's response described several improvement programs, including a comprehensive design basis verification program (DBVP) for Units 2 und 3. TVA's response included the followmg statement, in a foomote, covering Unit 1:

"In accordance with TVA's prior commitnents, TVA will implement the DBVP on Unit I pnor 3 to its return to service."' i Due to design similarities, the work required for the restart and sustained operation of Units 2 and 3 will have collateral benefit for Unit 1 if and when TVA pursues restarting it. However, due to design diflerences, substantial work m the configuration management area is still required before Unit I could resume operstmg Lener from Alben W. DeAgazio, Senior Project Manager. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to David A.

Lochbaum. Union of Concemed Scienusts. January 20,1998.

8 1.enst from T. !!. Abney, Manager of Licensing and Industry Affairs. Tennesso Valley Authority, to United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant (BFN)- Revis'an 1. Response to NRC Gencnc Letter (GL) 96 06, Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integnty Durms Design Liasis Accident Conditions," October 23,1997.

• Letter from O J. Zeringue, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations Tennessee Valley Authority, to United

' States Nuclear Regulatory Commission," Response to Request for Infonnation Regarding Adequacy. Availability, and Control of Design Bases Infannation," February 12.1997.

l

' 1

, , o001202332505 UCS DC 073 PO4/13 APR 86 '90 10:50 r

April 5,1998 Page 3 of 5 Unit I was shut down due to configuration management problems, problems which can only have deepened after 12 years on " administrative hold." In addition, the plant's material condition is, at best, equal to that which contributed to it being shut down in 1985 and is, more likely, deteriorated from that deficient state. -

Browns Ferry Unit I has been on " administrative hold" longer than it operated. No US commercial

. nuclear power plant has ever retumed to service after an outage lasting over 12 years.

I While there are no precedents for restarting Browns Ferry Unit I after such a lengthy outage, there are precedents if it doe: not restart. The first of the three nuclear units constructed at Indian Point, Dresden, .

and San Onofre were all permanently shut down hy their owners. The remaining two units at each of I' these sites are still operational.The pennanently closed units at these sites are covered by decommissionmg plans These plans provide reasonable assurance that the irradiated fuel at the -

permanently closed units is safely stored and that the operating plants are sufficiently independent from the closed facility..

1 If TVA elects not to restart Unit I at Browns Ferry, then like Dresden, San Onofre, and Indian Pomt, it should arguably be made subject to federal regulations designed to provide assurance that irradiated fuel

- is safely stored and that operstmg units are independent from the closed unit. Revokmg its operating license would initiate the sequence of actions necessary to follow the Indian Point, Dresden, and San

- Onofre precedents. Thus, granting this petition would move Brons Ferry Umt 1 out of" administrative

' hold." a non-defined regulatory state, into a condition govemed by applicable regulations.

Even if TVA elects to restart Unit 1, revokmg its operating license now should actually facilitate the restart process or at least make this process safer. The NRC's current administrative process for restartmg problems plants, controlled by Insper-tion Manual Chapter 0350, could be twisted to fit a plant closed for over a decade, but a heense application process would be a much better, and safer, avenue.

Thus, grantmg UCS's petition would essentially wipe the licensing slate clean and allow TVA, the NRC, I

and the pubhc to examine restaning the plant without the burden of unraveling the mess caused by more than a decade of heensing hmbo.

Despite Browns Ferry Unit.1 bems on " administrative hold,"it "is mspected by NRC inspectors as is nny .

other operating nuclear power station."' [Sec Attachment i for a copy of the NRC letter to UCS describing how Browns Feny Unit 1 is inspected by the NRC.J TVA has not restored the unit's design and beensms bases, the extensive configuration management problems which forced the plant to be shut down. TVA ts not taking actions required by the NRC for Unit I while it is on " administrative hold."In other words, TVA's configuration management for Browns Ferry, inadequate to support plant operation m March _1985, has been degraded by subsequent neglect.

8 1.etter from Alben W. DeAgazio, Senior Project Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Commistion, to David A.

3

• . ochbaum, linion of Concerned Scientists, January 20,1998. i I

I

, +0012023320905 UCS DC 073 P05/13 APR 06 '98 10:51 April 5.1998 Page 4 of 5 It is not clear what criteria the NRC inspectors are using when they inspect a facihty that has been frozen in time more than a decade ago in a degraded condition. For example,it would seem impossible for the NRC to have meamngfully inspected Unit l's Generic Letter 89-10 Motor-Operated Valve (MOV) program as it has done for operating plants. The NRC should not be wasting its inspection efforts "

on a facility in an uncertain heensing condition. Denying this petition would sustain ineffective oversight.

Denying this petition could have far more senous consequences if TVA ever seeks to restart Browns Ferry Unit .1. Presently, restarting the plant would require evaluating its material condition and admmistrative programs against a comphcated, confusing patchwork of applicable regulations spanning three decades. This time consuming effort is extremely vulnerable to mistakes Commitments might be overlooked and design bases requirements might be changed without NRC approval. Considerable effort would still be required to restart Umt I if this petition is granted, but that effort would be properly focused on determinmg if the applicable regulations were satisfied. Otherwise, much of the effort will be unnecessanly diverted to determming which regulations are applicable. Smee both approaches require intensive effort, it is prudent to chose the option that yields greater assurance of safety. The only prudent approach for restarting Unit I would he for TVA to seek a new license rather than attempt to resurrect an old, long-disused license.

It is not clear that the NRC's reassuring words about Bromis Ferry Unit I being inspected like any other operating plant are consntent with their actions. UCS recently obtained a copy of the NRC's response to a Freedom ofInformation Act request (No. 98 101). Part of that response listed the NRC inspection {

hours for each plant in 1995 1997. [See Attachment 2 for portions of this FOIA response.] The data clearly shows that there are zero (0) inspection hours indicated for Browns Fe:Ty Unit 1. In fact, the l Browns Ferry site is designated by the NRC as a " Dual Umt Site" and inspection hours are provided for Units 2 and 3.'thus, it appears to UCS that the NRC is already treating Browns FerTy as if Unit I were not an operating reactor. '

i l

i i

00012023320905 UCS DC 073 P06/13 APR 06 98 20:51 r

4 April 5,1998 Page 5 of 5 A Requested Actions UCS petitions the NRC to revoke the operating license for Browns Ferry Unit 1. Additionally, UCS petitions the NRC to require TVA to submit either a decommissioning plan or a lay-up plan for Unit 1.

The NRC should conduct its inspections at Browns Ferry Unit I against the decommissionmg plan or the lay-up plan submitted by TVA. The NRC should stop conducting inspections on Unit I as it does for operating plants.

UCS respectfully rei t uests a hearing on this petition to present 'new information on Browns Ferry Unit 1.

This new mformation will include, but is not limited to, a discussion of the voluminous licensing bases reconstitution that would be required to support restart and a presentation on the potential for TVA wanting to keep Unit 1 on "admmistrative hold" to prevent exceeding its statutory debt ceilmg. UCS would prefer that this hearing be held m the DC area with at least 30 days notice.

Sincerely.

A' i

N2ahG-David A. Loc baum Nuclear Safety Engmeer attachments: as stated

1 l

40012023320905 UCS DC 073 P07/13 APR 9698 10:52 i

Amew,meur i

.p* p %g%

UNITED STATES

u 9

", NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasuiworow. o.c. asses 4ee

,y,

• January 20, 1998 Mr. David A. Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists 1616 P Street, NW., Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495

Dear Mr. Lochbaum:

~ ' ~

This is in response to your January 14,1998 E-mail query sent to the'U.S. Nuclear R'egulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Public Affairs. You asked if the fees charged to the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for Browns Ferry Unit 1 are discounted in some manner because the l unit is on administrative hold.

Browns Ferry Unit i has been shutdown since March 1985 and has been in a defueled condition since late 1985. The unit is on administrative hold pending resolution of regulatory concerns, and there are no plans currently to restart the unit.

The Unit 1 Technical Specifications are maintained and they are amended periodically along with those of the other units. Many of the Unit 1 systems and componerto are in layup status to protect and preserve the equipment in the event a decision is made to restart the unit, and certain other systems are required to support the unit in the defueled condion and the -

continued operation of Units 2 and 3. The unit is inspected by NRC insoecers as is any other operatina nuclear oower station-l The administrative hold notwithstanding. TVA is the holder of an operating license for Browns i

Ferry Unit 1, as defined in Part 171 of Title 10 of the Code of Feders/ Regulations (10 CFR 171.5). Furthermore, the exemption provisions of 10 CFR 170.11 and 10 CFR 171.11 do not j'

apply. Thus, TVA is fully subject to all applicable fees as specified in 10 CFR Parts 170 and 171 for Browns Ferry Unit 1, and the fee schedules and annual fees specified in the regulations  ;

are not discounted in any manner because of the current operational status of the facility. i Sincerely,  !

Afbeit W. De Agarlo, Senior Prke Manager Project Directorate ll-3  ;

Division of Reactor Projects - t/ll l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation  ;

i

[ .

+0012023320905 UCS DC 073 P08/13 FPR 06 '98 10:52 tur 27 '90 11547 P. o2 *, * *[, {

N s _&_ , N- A i

_ = _ = .A TOTAL INSPECTION EFFORT FOR SINGIK UNIT SITES$ Sesma Mgrey FY1997 **

{

TOTAL P1 ANT HOURS BIG ROCK POINT 3,475.6 ,

WOLF CREEE 1 3,964.9 OYSTER CREEE 4,131.3 HADDAM NECK 4,388J SUMMER 4,436.7 MEDIAN HOURS = 4,436.7 DUANE ARNOLD 4,471.0 MEAN HOURS =. 4,275.2 MONTICELLO 4,483.5 MILIETONE 1 4,553.0 MILIETONE 2 -

4,571.7 FITZPATRICK 4,594.7 EEWAUNEE 4,673.5 PALISADES 4,705.0 GRAND GULF 1 4,743.4 RIVER BEND 4,757.1 MEDIAN HOURS = 4,757.1 HOPE c'nFRE 1 4,166.4 MEAN HOURS = 4,780.3 GINNA 4,797.9 DAVIS BESSE 4,822.6 SEABROOK1 5,162.4 THERR MILE ISLAND 1 5,200.1 I ROBINSON 2 5,202.4 MAINE YANKEE 5,213.6 CALLAWAY 5,399.1 HARRM 1 5,472.5 MEDIAN HOURS = 5,472J PILGRIM 1 5,605.0 ,

MEAN HOURS = 5,489.7 WATr$ BAR 1 5,667.2 l FORT CALHOUN 1 5,712.0 FERRY 1 5,FJ5J ,

VERMONT YANKEE 6,227.3 COOPER 6,707.3 WATERFORD 3 6,967.7 i INDIAN POINT 2 7,181.1 INDIAN POINT 3 7,293J MEDIAN HOURS = 7,300.1

, hDLISTONE 3 7,306.6 MEAN HOUR $ = 7,717.9 FERMI 2 7,475,0 WNP2 7,52PJ CRYSTAL RIVER 3 8,853.3 CLINION 11,637.0 Suwma. ATTs DATA . Sad af M kDM file efie 19 96 Mafek II.1998 (4:06 pus) ,

+001202332090s ucs oc 073 P09/13 APR 06 '98 10:52

.[

Nr 27 '98 11:47 P. 03 Z8PE

& Fosh onbpl -

TOTAL INSPECTION EFFORT FOR DUAL UNIT SITES

=

FY 1997 ,

No anom.s FERRY I TOTAL PLANT MofTRA BROWNS daRY 11 ~ 4. u 3.3 nuRTH ANNA 1,2 4,234J

• LIMERICK 1,2 4,282.6 l CALVERT CLIFFS 1,2 4,622.4

• TURKEY POINT 3,4 4,641.4 MEDIAN = 4.632.1

, PEACH BOTTOM 2,3 4,655.1 MEAN = 4,652.9 BYRON 1,2 -

5,140.2

. COMANCHE PEAK 1,2 5,442.7 PRAIRIE ISLAND 1,2 5,475.5 VOGTLE 1,2 5,546.7 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 5,663.5 LA SALLE 1,2 5,702.2 MEDIAN = 5,705.2 e B E A V E R V A L L E Y 1 ,2 5,708J MEAN = 5,717.7 y DIABLO CANYON 1,2 5,930.2 M SURRY 1,2 6,027.1 SOUTH TEXAS 1,2 f

6,168.5

• QUAD CITIES 1,2 6,246.9 FARLEY 1,2 6,313J ,,

CATAWBA 1,2 6,674.7 I AREANSAS 1,2 RA'1CH 1J 6,684.1 6,766.7 MEDIAN = 6,725.4 j

SAN ONOFRE 2,3 6,987.8 MEAN = 6,734.0 BRUNSWICK 1,2 7,004.6 BRAIDWOOD 1,2 7,193.8 McGUIRE 1,2 '7,209.5 ST. LUCIE 1,2 7,521.7 '

SEQUOYAH 1,2 8,033.0 COOK 1,2 5,095.0 NINE MILE POINT 1,2 8,383.2 MEDIAN = 8,383.2 ZION 1,2 9,427J MEAN = 9,849.7

.. POINT BEACH 1,2 10,537.9 .:

DRESDEN 2,3 11,413.3 SALEM 1,2 18,025.9

. Site with N + 1 esanpdon sw am poem.ses ern urr File = rie 2ats March 12.1998(4mpe)

. +0012023320905 UCS X

" ' 073 P10/13 APR 06 '98 10:53 t

ter 27 *D6 11:40 p. N g' y 7.,M' -

. f **

Quesh J Po t A 4%-101 TOTAL INSPECTION EFFORT FOR TRIPLE UNIT SITES FY 1997 N o 3 ft.o W N Feel TOTAL M . ROURS PALO VERDE 1,2,3 6,426.4 MFDIAN = 5,170.7 -

OCONEE 1,2,3 9,914.9 MEAN =,8,170.7 ,

1 e

m:nwr 1

l

.n. . . .. , , .

s..  ;...

,, +0012023320905 UCS DC 073 P11/13 APR 06 '90, 10:53

. / s s

. .g ..

6 =

. 11-i.

ls

!! l <

2 a.

ll lg! ell -

l Hli si -

!!!!!!illilill

.lailm lll!i lill1illilili l l? 1i1111111111111111i I g

- ,,e g, il1gelil,=ilii,1 i e IlliIllillllillill i

.m v .. 0. _ ... , .. . . . _ l

._mmes me x it' i

No Bitow .

! n lg 5I!IEIl!!llllllll

.p

.lIlt I IlIIIlulllluillI. I lyv nunn,nunun,,

Ezs \' .

lII llil!llillllllIllui l

G

" /

. . m?' " "' " " w i x  :,, - ... wnma

..,m>>_. ms x

.. e23 ,

,e,i

,;31, 7., . ..e

]iJ .

na m e i$ 1111111111111{i111111 i i

i hi l!iillill!llibilillillli!Il e

t i!

i ls 8.

111111111111111lll111111 i Ei -

l il llli li!!lii-lllll!!!llll l liiiiiiiillilillillillillilililililli H

l!!Illililill!hl0lll0 g-