ML20247M272
| ML20247M272 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Browns Ferry  |
| Issue date: | 05/12/1998 |
| From: | De Agazio A NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | Zeringue O TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY |
| References | |
| 2.206, TAC-MA1434, NUDOCS 9805260228 | |
| Download: ML20247M272 (2) | |
Text
_ - _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ - - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - _ .
~ r . ._ -
Mr. O. J. Z:ringu) . May 12, 1998 j Chief Nuclear Officer i cnd Executiva Vice Presid:nt -
Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place -
1101 Market Street Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801
SUBJECT:
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS PETITION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206 i (TAC MA1434) l L
Dear Mr. Zoringue:
1 I
. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a request (Enclosure 1) from the Union of concerned Scientists that the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 operating license be revoked, and that the NRC require the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to submit either a decommissioning plan or lay-up plan for the unit. The Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor
, Regulation has acknowledged receipt of the request (Enclosure 2) and that action on the request l will be taken pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the NRC's regulations. Additionally, the NRC has l- published a notice (Enclosure 3) in the Federal Register regarding the petition. 1 The NRC will provide copies to the petitioner of all NRC correspondence, Generic Letters, and Bulletins relevant to the issues raised in the petition (except documentation related to investigations by the Office of Investigation) from the date of the petition until a Director's
, Decision is issued. TVA is encouraged to place the petitioner on distribution for any 1 correspondence pertaining to the petition. I Sincerely, (Original Signed By) y Albert W. De Agazio, Sr. Project Manager 9805260228 980512 e Project Directorate 11-3 PDR ADOCK 05000259 P PDR Division of Reactor Projects- 1/Il h
' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-259 m Serial No. BFN-98-010 m
Enclosures:
- 1. Petition
- 2. Acknowledgment letter to Petitioner
- 3. Federal Register notice
. cc w/ enclosures:
See next page i DISTRIBUTION-SeelieMiele-
- PUBLIC JZwolinski BFN r/f FHebdon l BClayton h* f= h k h Q f g ) p"f g p g=
~
.ADeAgazio OGC.
ACRS-
. LPlisco, Ril . 1 N
\
OFFICE PDil-3/PM Ok PDil-3/LA' PDil,Wt[ A l NAME ADEAGAZIO:cw BCLA k FHEb5Nb d////98 h / b8 l1 DATE [ / 11 / 9 8 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY i
DOCUMENT NAyEk " G:\BFN\A1434LET.WPD ,
.a a b a !
Mr. O. J. Zeringue BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT Tennessee Valley Authority cc:
l Mr. J. A. Scalice, Senior Vice President Mr. Mark J. Burzynski, Managar Nuclear Operations Nuclear Ucensing Tennessee Valley Authority Tennessee Valley Authority 6A Lookout Place 4J Blue Ridge 1101 Market Street 1101 Market Street j Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Mr. Jack A. Bailey, Vice President Mr. Timothy E. Abney, Manager Engineering & Technical Services Licensing and Industry Affairs Tennessee Valley Authority Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 6A Lookout Place Tennessee Valley Authority 1101 Market Street P.O. Sox 2000 Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Decatur,' AL 37402-2801
. Mr. C. M. Crane, Site Vice President Regional Administrator, Region 11 Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cor, mission Tennessee Valley Authority 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 23T85 P.O. Box 2000 Atlanta, GA 30303-3415
, Decatur, AL 3560g l ' Mr. Leonard D. Wert General Counsel . Senior Resident inspector Tennessee Valley Authority U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ET 10H Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 400 West Summit Hill Drive 10833 Shaw Road Knoxville, TN 37902 Athens, AL 35611 l- Mr. Raul R. Baron, General Manager State Health Officer l Nuclear Assurance Alabama Dept. of Public Health i Tennessee Valley Authority 434 Monroe Street
! 4J Blue Ridge Montgomery, AL 35130-1701 1101 Market Street Chattanooga, TN 37402-2801 Chairman Limestone County Commission Mr. Karl W. Singer, Plant Manager 310 West Washington Street
[ _ Gmwns Ferry Nuclear Plant Athens, AL' 35611 4 Tennessee Valley Authority P.O. Box 2000 Decatur, AL 3560g
,. o0012023320905 UCs DC 073 P02/13 APR 06 '90 10:50 e
UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS 1
April 5,1998 l Mr. L. Joseph Callan Executive Director for Operations Umted States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washmgton, DC 20555 0001 SilBJECT: PETITION PURSUANT TO 10 CFR 2.206 BROWNS FERRY NUCLEAR PLANT ,
UNIT 1. DOCKET NO. 50 259 Dear Mr. Callan.
The Umon of Concemed Scientists submits this petition pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 requesting that the operating beente for Tennessee Valley Authority's Broww Ferry Nuclear Plant Unit I be revoked.
Background
'The NRC issued TVA a full power operating heense for Browns Ferry Unit I on December 20,1973. I TVA declared L'nat I to be in commercial operation m August 1974. l Browns Fe:Ty Units I and 3 were shut down m March 1985 after "TVA identified a failure at DFN 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 September 1984 for a scheduled refueling outage, remamed shut down because of the same programmatic deficiencies that affected Units 1 and 3. After extensive upgrades to the plant's equipment, procedures, and organizational structure, Unit 2 returned to service in May 1991. IJmt 3 subsequently resumed operation in early 1996.
' l eiter from O. L Zermgue. Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations, Tennence Valley Authority, to United States Nuclear Regulatory Conunission. "Responw to Request for Information Regarding Adequacy, Availability, and Control of Design Bases infomution," February 12,1997.
Washington Office: 1818 P Street NW Sutte 310 e Washington DC 200361495 e 202 332 0900 e FAX: 202 332 0905 Cambrid0e Heacewarters. Two Brattle Souare e Cambrdpe MA 02236 9105 e 617 547 5552 e FAX. 617 864 9405 CaMornia Othce 2397 Shattuck Avenue Suite 203 e Serkeley CA 947041567 e 510 84318r2 e FAX. 510 843 3785 DCIDSURE 1 l
w g gggg gff, EDO -- G980199
I'
!: +0012023320905 UC5 DC l . ,; ', ' . .. , 073 PO3/13 APR 96.'98 10:50
. April 5,1998 Page 2 of 5 On June 1.1985, TVA placed Unit I ori administrative hold so as to be able to focus resources on the
' efforts necessary to restan Units 2 and 3. Unit I remains on administrative hold. According to the NRC staff, there are no plans to restart the unit.'
Basis for Requested Action
. UCS is a non. profit, public interest organization with sponsors across the United States, including t l
territories serviced by TVA.
TVA has an operating license for Unit 1, but the facility has not been operated since March 1985 and has '
been on admimstrative hold since June 1,1985. The NRC has issued approximately 39 b.nlletins,141 generic letters, and 1,047 information notices to its licensecs while Unit I has been on administrative hold. While some of these 1.228 NRC documents do not apply to Browns Ferry Unit 1, 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 retum 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 unn 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 and 3. TVA's response included the followmg statement, in a foomote, covering Unit 1:
"In accordance with TVA's prior commitments. TVA will implement the DBVP on Unit I pnor to its return to service."'
Due to design similarities, the work required for the restart and sustamed operation of Units 2 and 3 will have collateral benefit for Unit 1 if and when TVA pursues restarting it. However, due to design differences, substantial work m the configuration management area is still required before Unit 1 could resume operstmg.
- Lener flom Alben W. DeAgar.io, Senior project Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, to David A.
Lochbaum. Union of Concemed Scientists. January 20,1998.
- 1.ener from T. !!, Abney, Manager of Licensing and Industry Affairs. Tennessee Valley Authority, to Unite Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Browns Feny Nuclear Plant (BFN)- Revision I, Responss to NRC Genenc Letter (GL) 96-06. Assurance of Equipment Operability and Containment Integnty Durms Design 15 asis Accident Conditions." October 23,1997.
I
- Letter from O J. Zeringue, Senior Vice President - Nuclear Operations, Tennessee Valley Authority, to U States Nuclear Reguistory Commission," Response to Request for Infonnation Regarding Adequacy, Availability, and Control of Design Bases 1nformation," february 12,1997.
L . l 1-i i t _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ u______________
. c0012023320905 UCS DC 073 PO4/13 APR 86 '98 10:J0
. l April 5,1998 Page 3 of 5
. Unit I wu 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, l
equal to that which contributed to it being shut down in 1985 and is, more likely, deteriorated from that deficient state.
Browns Ferry Umt I has been on " administrative hold" longer than it operated. No US commercial nuclear power plant has ever returned to service after an outage lasting over 12 years.
While there are no precedents for restarting Browns Ferry Unit I after such a longthy outage, there are precedents ifit does not restan. The first of the three nuclear units constructed at Indian Point Dresden, . .
and San Onofre were all permanently shut down by their owers. The remaining two umts at each of these sites are still operational. The permanently closed units at these sites are covered by decommissioning 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 i the closed facility.
If TVA elects not to restart Unit I at Browns Ferry, then like Dresden, San Onofre, and Indian Point, it should arguably be made subject to federal regulations designed to provide assurance that irradiated fuel is safely stored and that operstmg umts are independent from the closed unit. Revokmg its operating license would imtiate the sequence of actions necessary to follow the Indian Point Dresden, and San Onofre precedents. Thus, granting this petition would move Brons Ferry Unit I out of" administrative hold " a non-defined regulatory state, into a condition governed by applicabic regulations.
Even if TVA elects to restan Unit 1, revokmg its operating license now should actually facilitate the i
restan procca or at least make this process safer. The NRC's cunent administrative process for l restanmg problems plants, controlled by Inspection Manual Chapter 0350, could be twisted to fit a plant j closed for over a decade, but a heense application process would be a much better, and safer, avenue.' l Thus, grantmg UCS's petition would essentially wipe the licensing state clean and allow TVA, the NRC, j and the public in examine restaning the plant without the burden of unraveling the mess caused by more 1 than a decade of heensing hmbo.
l 1
Despite Browns Ferry Unit.1 being on " administrative hold,"it "is inspected by NRC inspectors as is any
, other operating nuclear power station."'[Sec Attachment I for a copy of the NRC letter to UCS !
i describing how Browns Ferry Unit 1 is inspected by the NRC.) TVA has not restored the unit's design and beensms bases, the extensive configuration management problems which forced the plant to be shut L down. TVA is not taking actions required by the NRC for Unit I while it is on " administrative hold."In
- i other words TVA's configuration management for Browns Ferry, inadequate to suppon plant operation !
m March 1985, has been degraded by subsequent neglect.
8 Lener from Albert W. DeAgazio, Semor Project Manager, Nuclear Regulatory Comminion, to David A.
..ochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists, January 20,1998. !
l - -,.. . +0012023320905 (KS DC 073 P05/13 APR 86 '90 10:51 April 5,1998 Page 4 of 5 It is not clear what criteria the NRC inspectors are using when they inspect a facility 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 meaningfully inspected Unit l's Generic Letter 89 10 Motor Operated Valve l (MOV) program as it has done for operating plants. The NRC should not be wasting its inspection efforts on a facility in an unce tain licensing 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, restaning the plant would require. evaluating its material condition and c .
administrative programs against a complicated, confusing patchwork of applicable regulations spanning three decades. His time consuming effort is extremely vulnerable to mistakes. Commitments might be overlooked and design bases requirements might be changed without NRC approval. Considerable effort j would still be required to restart Umt I if this petition is granted, but that effort would be properly i
focused on determinmg if the applicable regulations were satisfied. Otherwisc, much of the effort wsil be
' unnecessarily diverted to determining which regulations are applicable. Since 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 be 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 Browns Feny Unit I being inspected like any other operating plant are consistent 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 mspection 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 Feny Unit 1. In fact, the Browns Ferry site is designated by the NRC as a " Dual Unit Site" and inspection hours are provided for Units 2 and 3. Hus, it appears to UCS that the NRC is already treating Browns Feny as if Unit I were not an operatmg reactor.
l
( . !
I l
i I
l
. 00012023320905 UCS DC 073 P06/13 APR 06 '98 10:51 z
i April 5,1998 Page 5 of 5 l
Recuested 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.
l The NRC should conduct its inspections at Browns Ferry Unit I against the decommissioning plan or the l
! lay-up plan submitted by TVA. The NRC should stop conducting inspections on Unit I as it does for operating plants.
~
UCS respectfully requests aa he' ring on this petit en to present 'new information on Browns Ferry Unit 1.
This new information 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 " administrative 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.
{
'$ i !
N2ah0- ~
David A. Loc baum Nuclear Safety Engmeer i
attachments: as stated I
. O.
+0012023320905 UCS DC
'.s #a reg 073 P07/13 APR 06 '90 10:52 Anne,geneur I p %* UNITED STATES g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wasmwerow. o.c. asses.esos
.\ . ,! ,,, 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'eg'u Commission (NRC), Office of Public Affairs. You asked if the fees charged to the Tennessee l
Valley Authority (TVA) for Browns Ferry Unit 1 are discounted in some manner because the unit is on administrative hold.
Browns Ferry Unit 1 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 concems, and there are no plans currently to restart the unit.
l ,
l l
! The Unit 1 Technical Specifications are maintained and they are amended penodically along i with those of the other units. Many of the Unit i systems and components are in layup status to l {
protect and preserve the equipment in the event a decision is made to restart the unit, and i certain other systems are required to support the unit in the defueled condition and the -
j !
continued operation of Units 2 and 3. The unit is insoected by NRC insoectors as is any other '
l operating nuclear oower station.
The administrative hold notwithstanding. TVA is the holder of an operating license for Brownc
! 4 Ferry Unit 1, as defined in Part 171 of Title 10 of the Code o/Feders/ Regulations (10 CFR l l 171.5). Furthermore, the exemption provisions of 10 CFR 170.11 and 10 CFR 171.11 do not apply. Thus, TVA is fully subject to all applicable fees as specified in 10 CFR Paris 170 and l j
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.
Sincersty, Albert W. De Agarlo, Senior Prke Manager l Project Directorate 11-3 Division of Reactor Projects - t/ll l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
yggg,2g(ggg .gge. _ ________ -----_- - - .-
- +0012023320905 UCS DC
... 073 P08/13 WR 06 '98 10:52 tur 27 '06 11547 F. 02
- , . - _ _ ... A F o~ i A- 9 E- AI ~
TOTAL INSFECTION EFFORT FOR SINGLE UNIT SITES FY 1997 AJO
- Baswas %
TOTAL PLANT HQIE5 BIG ROCK POINT 3,475.6 WOLF CREEK 1 3,964J OYSTER CREEK 4,131.2 HADDAM NECK 4,388J SUMMER 4,436.7 MEDIAN BOURS = 4,436.7 DUANE ARNOLD , 4,471.0 MONTICELLO MEAN HOURS = 4,275.2 4,483.5 '
MILIATONE1 4,583.0 (
MD1 STONE 2 -
4,571.7 FITZPATRICK 4,594.7 EEWAUNEE 4,673.5 FALISADES 4,705.0 ;
GRAND GULF 1 4,743.4 i RIVER BEND 4,757.1 ;
HOPE CREEK 1 MEDIAN BOUR8 = 4,757.1 i 4,766.4 GINNA MEAN BOURS = 4,790.3 i
4.797J DAVIS BESSE 4,822.6 SEABROOK1 5,162.4 THRFR MILE ISLAND 1 5,200.1 ROBINSON 2 5,202.4 MAINE YANEEE 5,213.6 CALLAWAY 5.399.1 RARRIS 1 5,472J PILGRIM 1 MEDIANHOURS = 5,472J 5,605.0 MEAN HOURS = 5,489.7 WATTS RAR 1 5,667.2 FORT CALHOUN 1 5,712.0 PERRY 1 S,936J VERMONT YANEEE 6,217J COOPER 6,707.3 WATERPORD 3 6,967.7 INDIAN POINT 2 7,181.1 INDIAN POINT 3 7,293.5 MEDIAN HOURS = 1,300.1
, MILLSTONE 3 7,306.6 MEAN HOUR $ = 7,717.9 FERMI 2 - 7,475.0 WNF3 7,529J CRYSTAL RIVER 3 8,853J CLINTON 11,637.0 Semen. ar7sDATA.Eatet W 3pH ras.,6 I,os
- Ma,e ti. tsee(4mpm)
l
. +0012023320905 UCS DC 073 P09/13 MR 06 '90 10:52
[ -
Nr 2T '98 11:47 P.03 ECPO
~~ ~
Foee ol%-loI
- 1DTAL INSFECTION EFFORT FOR DUAL 11Nrf SITgg FY 1M ,
=
No tRowd FetRY l TOTAL
_ PLANT Nofma j
{ BROWNS siGY 11 4.u3.3 Y .
. nuRTH ANNA 1,2 4,2M.S
- LIMERICK 1,2 4,252.6 CALVERT CLIFFS 1.2 4,622.4 TUREEY POINT 3,4
- 4,641.4 MEDIAN = 4.632.1
. PEACE 501"IVM 2,3 4,655.1 MEAN = 4,652.9 BYRON 1,2 -
5,140J -
, COMANCHE PEAK 1,2 5,442.7 PRADLIE ISLAND 1,2 5,475.5 VOGTLE 1,2 K,546.7 SUSQUEHANNA 1,2 5,663.5 LA SA(.LE 1,2 5,701.2 MEDIAN = 5,705.2 e BEAVI:R VALLEY 1,2 5,708.2 MEAN = 5,m.7 DIABLO CANYON 1,2 5,930.2 SURRY 1,2 M 6,027.1 . y SOUTH TEEAS 1,2 6,168.5 -
QUAD CITIES 1,2 6,246.9 5 FARLEY1,2 CATAWBA 1,2 6,313J 6,674.7 9 l
AREANS4$1,2 g,684,1 RAK'E 1,2 g 6,766.7 MEDIAN = 6,725.4 SAN ONOFRE 2,3 6,987J MEAN = 6,734.0 BRUNSWICK 1,2 7,004.6 BRAIDWOOD 1,2 7,193.3 McGUIRE 1,2 '7,209J .
ST. LUCIE 1,2 7,521.7 SEQUOYAH1,2 5,033.0 .
COOK 1,2 s,095.0 !
NINE MII2 POINT 1,2 8,383.2 MEDIAN = 8,383.2 ZION 1,2 9,427J MEAN = 9,849.7
. POINT BEACH 1,2 10,837.9 ,
DRESDEN 2,3 11,413.3 -
SALEM 1,2 18,025.9
. Site with N + 1 esanption Asures RJT5 Duen End ofFY teri
. I Pasa @ 98 March 12.1996 (426psm) )
- * +0012023320905 UCS DC
,- 073 P10/13 APR 06 '98 10:53
-s mr n w use c. m 3 ep 1.,
.. . . w-Ques h J i po t A 91-101 TOTAL INSPECTION EFFORT FOR TRIPLE UNIT SITES ry1997 No Brt.owwa pes ! -
l l
TOTAL ELABII .
EQUES !
1 l
PAID VERDE 1,2,3 6,426.4 MEDI4N = 5,1705 OCONEE 1,2,3 p,914.9 MEAN =.S,170.7 l .
i 1
l l
1
)
l Nnurr
?,- - .- , .. . ,
0 -_ - _ - _ -_-__._.-_-_________-._-__..-__a
e e *
- t s =
, 11 l ls
!! I '
e Is a, .
i gg, ll-g .
.g Hi dm '
guii !!!!!!illilill eqllll 9 iliiliiiliilll l
~
lllf s
1i1111111111111111i g 11,1 ,1 1 l,>i.l,, I e Illitillliililliill
- n..:- .. ...
\ .
g 1 m
- 1:n E=
8g Ilillllllilliglig '
- e E5 g g' ellIt IIIIlllilllIullli i yj plisiviiiininiiiii j 5=5 -
lIIlutIlllllllIg\ll;;gj I .
9 P b ?'" " " "% iu /
- ... ,osem
i;,,.,,&%r g.[
[. ._
Y <
nam *t" 11111111111111111111111ll 8
l i
hi lliillill!ilidilillilllillll
. ~
i i
i lm 8.
1111111111111111lll1i111 j t
8 I 1
l-l!ilid!lllllllilll!!!!!1 l 1111111111111111111111 l .
i
!!!ilililillllli!!lli!l 1
mism asassss,e r - .. .
e pJ Rf?
3 % UNITED STATES g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o ,[g WASHINGTON, D.C. 20666-0001
%, ...../ April 29, 1998 l
i Mr. David A. Lochbaum Union of Concemed Scientists 1616 P Street, NW, Suite 310 Washington, DC 20036-1495
Dear Mr. Lochbaum:
This letter is to acknowledge receipt of a petition dated April 5,1998, submitted by you on behalf l of the Union of Concemed Scientists (UCS). The petition was addressed to the Executive Director for Operations of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The petition requests (1) that the Operating License for Browns Ferry, Unit 1 be revoked and (2) that the NRC should require the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to submit either a decommissioning plan or a lay-up plan for Browns Ferry, Unit 1. As the basis for the UCS request, the petition asserts that because Browns Ferry Unit 1 has been on " administrative ho!d" since June 1,1995, and has not operated since then, revocation of the operating license and requiring relicensing, if TVA later decides to restart Unit 1, is a better, safer process than is the current inspection Manual Chapter 0350 restart process. Further, the petition asserts that requiring a decommissioning plan would provide assurance that the irradiated fuel is stored safely and that Units 2 and 3 are sufficiently l independent of Unit 1 for safe operatica.
The petition has been referred to me pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations.
As provided by Section 2.206, action will be taken on the request within a reasonable time. I in the UCS petition, you requested a hearing to present new information on Browns Ferry, Unit 1 that would include a discussion of the licensing basis reconstitution that would be required to support restart, and certain financial aspects that might be a consideration for the TVA's decision for retaining the Browns Ferry, Unit 1 Operating License. NRC policy, as defined in Management Directive 8.11 " Review Process for 10 CFR 2.206 Petitions,"is to hold an informal public hearing if the 2.206 Petition meets either of the following criteria:
The petition provides new information with reasonable supporting facts that raise the potential for a significant safety issue.
The petition alleges violations of NRC requirements involving a significant safety issue for which new information or a new approach has been provided and presents reasonable supporting facts that tend to establish that the violation occurred.
The petition does not provide new information that raises the potential for a significant safety issue. According to the guidance in Management Directive 8.11, a significant safety issue would be one that could lead to an occupational exposure dose equivalent exceeding 10 rem, could cause significant core damage, or could otherwise significan!y reduce the protection of public health and safety. Furthermore, the Petition does not allege any violations of NRC requirements.
Therefore, the NRC does not intend to hold an informal hearing regarding the UCS Petition.
With regard to any new information that you believe should be considered by my staffin evaluating the issues in the UCS petition, please provide that information promptly in writing to Mr. Frederick J. Hebdon, U.S. NRC, PD!l-3, M/S 014821, Washington, DC 20555.
DCIDSURE 2 9fegw m o 2m_ ___-
l 1=
l D. Lochbaum April 29,1998 I have enclosed for your information a copy of the notice that is being filed with the Office of the Federal Register for publication. I have also enc!osed a pamphlet on the public petition process.
Sincerely, r
S or ffice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
- 1. FederalRegisterNotice
- 2. Petition Process Pamphlet cc: See next page w/o Enclosure 2 i
)
{. - _ . - - - _ - - - - - - - - --------___________________________________________i
6 7590-01P U S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-259 LICENSE NO. DPR-33 TENNESSEE vat i FY AUTHORITY
~
RECElPT OF PETITION FOR D'IRECTOR'S DECISION UNDER 10 CFR 2 2@
Notice is hereby given that by petition dated April 5,1998, the Union of Concerned Scientists, (or Petitioner), has requested that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) take action with regard to Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit No.1. Petitioner requests (1) that the operating license for Browns Feny Unit 1 be revoked and (2) that the NRC require the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to submit either a decommissioning plan or a lay-up plan for Browns Feny Unit 1. Petitioner further requests a hearing on this petition to present new information on Browns Ferry Unit 1 that would include a discussion of the licensing basis reconstitution that would be required to support restart, and certain financial aspects that might be a consideration for the TVA's decision for retaining the Browns Feny Unit 1 operating license.
As the bas!s for this request, the Petitioner asserts that revo1.ation of the operating I
license and requiring relicensing if TVA later decides to restart Unit 1 is a better, safer process than is the current inspection Manual Chapter 0350 restart process. Further, the petition asserts !
that requiring a decommissioning plan would provide assurance that the irradiated fuel is stored l safely and that Units 2 and 3 are sufficiently independent of Unit i for safe operation.
The petition is being treated pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 of the Commission's regulations and has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided i
ENCIDSURE 3 fju 5i/ws=7 QP
2-by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. j Byletter dated April 29, 1998 , the Director acknowledged receipt of the petition I
and denied Petitioner's request for a public hearing to present new information. I A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room at 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, D.C. 20555. -
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION or Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Dated at Rockville, M.aryland, This 29th dayof April 1998.
l I 4
1