ML20132B692

Refers to from Jackson to C Frizzle.Statement Made by Jackson Which States, Overall Performance at Myap Considered Adequate for Operation, Discussed

ML20132B692
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	10/14/1996
From:	Myers H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20132B456	List: ML20132B453 ML20132B564 ML20132B588 ML20132B631 ML20132B673 ML20132B692
References
NUDOCS 9612170353
Download: ML20132B692 (2)

Text

... _ _ _ _ _____ . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . . _ . - . . _._ _. _ ___ _ _ . _ _ _ __m.

i

. 5W1 -

l i-

P.O. Box 88 i Peaks Island, ME 04108

! October 14, 1996 i

i- Hon. Shirley Jackson

Chairmwoman

! -U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C. 20555 0001 i

l

Dear Madame Chairwoman:

On October 7, I sent you a letter relating to the question of whether Maine Yankee was in substantial compliance with Com-

mission regulations. In an October 7 letter, from you to Maine 1 Yankee President Charles Frizzle, you stated

I i

i Overall performance at Maine Yankee was considered adequate for operation.

In stating this conclusion, your letter did not indicate explic-itly that the Commission (or staff) had found Maine Yankee to be in substantial compliance with the Commission's regulations. The distinction between " adequate for operation" and " substantial compliance with regulations" is not nitpicking, as NRC staff implied at the October 10 Wiscasset public meeting. " Compliance with regulations" implies the degree of safety that the-NRC has long claimed as the sine qua non for permitting reactor opera-tions. " Adequate for operation" is a lesser standard, how much less we do not know.

We can be sure, however, that the language in your 1 October ~7 letter to Mr. Frizzle was chosen with care. While conclusory sentences necessarily leave room for interpretation, ,

this one is notable for its vagueness, particularly its omission '

of an explicit statement with respect to compliance. If "sub-stantial compliance with regulations" best characterizes Maine ,

Yankee's current status, it is reasonable to infer that you would l l

have used this term in place of the ambiguous " adequate for operation." The use of " adequate for operation" thus creates an inference that, in fact, Maine Yankee is not in substantial com-pliance with regulations.

In light of long standing deficiencies that have come to light at Maine Yankee in recent months, it'is important that the Commission either (1) state explicitly that the Commission believes that the plant complies with regulations or (2) explain why plant safety is " adequate" notwithstanding noncompliance. If the' Commission. takes the latter tack, it is important that the Commission provide the legal rationale for a regulatory path that appears'to circumvent the road that the agency is required by law to follow.

9612170353 961205 POR

?

CONNS NRCC

,_ CORRESPONDENCE PDR

/

_ _ ._ _ ._ _ ~ _ . . _ . - . . - _

. i e,

. H:n. Shirley Jacks:a 2- Cetcber '.4, 1996 Thank you for your attention to this matter.

)

\

Sincerely, Henry R. Myers cc: Senator Cohen Senator Snowe Senator Lieberman Senator Biden Congressman Dingell Congressman Markey l

1 1

1 l

l

\

l 1

i t

A a.

J