ML20129D105

Ack Receipt of from Hoyle Ack Receipt of Concerning Maine Yankee.Expresses Concern Over 90% Power Restriction Complies W/Various Provisions of 10CFR50.46

ML20129D105
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	08/10/1996
From:	Myers H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20129D083	List: ML20129D077 ML20129D105 ML20129D117
References
NUDOCS 9610240199
Download: ML20129D105 (3)

Text

, .

'. . .' fd(t P.O. Box 88 Peaks Island, ME 04108 August 10, 1996 Hon. Shirley Jackson Chairwoman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Madame Chairwoman:

I am writing to acknowledge receipt of a July 30, 1996 letter from Mr. Hoyle acknowledging receipt of my July 15, 1996 letter to you concerning Maine Yankee.

In his July 30 letter Mr. Hoyle states: "The Commission is looking into this matter and will respond to you soon." I infer from Mr. Hoyle's statement that the Commission is looking into questions raised in my July 15 and previous letters in which I sought informa-tion pertaining to the Commission's position with respect to Maine Yankee's noncompliance with Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident (SBLOCA) requirements and related questions. In these letters I sought, in particular, the Commission's position with respect to the regulatory basis cited by NRC staff several months after issuance of the January 3, 1996 Order that allowed Maine Yankee to operate in circumstances where the plant did not comply with SBLOCA requirements specified in TMI Action Plan Items II.K.30 and II.K.3.31.

Documents provided by NRC staff (which may or may not reflect the view of a Commission majority) cite 10 CFR 50.46 (a) (2) as the regulation that enables the staff to allow Maine Yankee to operate although the plant does not comply with said TMI Action Items. In its consideration of the matter, I urge the Commission to note that the first public document citing the 50.46 (a) (2) rationale was put forth in late April, nearly four months after issuance of the January 3 Order.

I urge also that the Commission review the analysis that is the basis for the staff conclusion that, with the 90% power restriction, Maine Yankee complies with various provisions of 10 CFR 50.46, not-withstanding noncompliance with TMI. Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31. The inference from the staff's action is that there exists somewhere an analysis demonstrating that compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 and related requirements can be achieved without compliance with these TMI Action Items. Yet, I am unaware of any analysis, conducted after the coming into effect of requirements of these TMI Action Items, that shows that the 90% restriction alleviates the need to comply with II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31. I.e., what facet of the review leading to the imposition of II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 shows that the analysis required by these provisions is necessary when Maine Yankee operates at 2700 MWt but not necessary when Maine Yankee operates at 90% of this level?  !

l l

9610240199 961018 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR

l t

Hon. Shirley Jackson August 10, 1996 Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely, Henr 7hR'% R. Myers cc: Senator Cohen Senator Snowe Senator Lieberman Senator Biden Congressman Dingell Congressman Markey l -

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER: CRC-96-0885 LOGGING DATE: Aug 16 96 ACTION OFFICE: EDO/OGC AUTHOR: HENRY MEYERS AFFILIATION: MAINE ADDRESSEE: CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE: Aug 10 96 FILE CODE: IDR-5 MAINE YANKEE

SUBJECT:

MAINE YANKEE ACTION: Signature of Chairman DISTRIBUTION: CHAIRMAN, COMRS, RF SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK CONSTITUENT:

NOTES:

DATE DUE: Aug 30 96 SIGNATURE: .

DATE SIGNED:

AFFILIATION:

_