ML20134L561
| ML20134L561 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 11/15/1996 |
| From: | Jordan E NRC OFFICE FOR ANALYSIS & EVALUATION OF OPERATIONAL DATA (AEOD) |
| To: | Hartman E AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20134L564 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9611210082 | |
| Download: ML20134L561 (2) | |
Text
-..
o orc
[o v4 UNITED STATES o
o i
G NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'f WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001
%...../
-wm November 15,1996 l
Mr. Eric W. Hartmann RR 1, Box 2960 Edgecomb, ME 04556
Dear Mr. Hartmann:
I am concemed that the Independent Safety Assessment (ISA) failed to meet your expectations as expressed in your October 11 letter. I was interested in your suggestions for improving the process for obtaining public input.
As you are aware, Chairman Jackson requested the ISA in response to findings of an NRC Office of Inspector General investigation, and to concems raised by the Govemor of Maine.
The findings raised issues not only regarding NRC confidence in the Maine Yankee plant, but also public confidence in both Maine Yankee and the NRC.
The dominant planning features of the safety assessment were scope and depth, timeliness, and State participation. I expected that the extensive State participation through three team members, two process reviewers, a five member citizens group and periodic briefings with the Govemor would provide a measure of confidence to the public about the credibility and technical strength of the team and the findings. The scope and de9th of the review by an independent highly qualified team were designed to resolve through Tactual findings, uncertainties about safety of operations at Maine Yankee and where appropriate, to identify corrective measures that could be implemented in NRC oversight to improve NRC ability to detect problems.
The technical and regulatory review, as provided by the independent safety assessment (ISA) had the goal of determining whether there was adequate assurance of safety of operations.
This review was, of necessity, separated from any consideration of political or economic considerations by the State, utility, or the public. Deliberations by the ISA were based on the technical findings of fact. The draft report was not provided for licensee, other NRC, State, or public comment before issuance based on NRC policy regarding predecisional findings.
Perhaps there was a misunderstanding about the "public participation" part of the meeting.
My object in that meeting was to respond to questions and comments in order to improve public understanding of what was done, what the team found, the root causes of problems and the safety significance of the findings. I did not mean to imply that this meeting represented public participation in the independent Safety Assessment process. I understand your comment that you would like more public participation and I plan to address it in two ways. First, with regard to future similar team assessments I have included, in the lessons teamed, consideration of a public participation meeting at the beginning of the review to explain and discuss the objectives and scope, and make provision in the schedule for a 230034 9611210082 961115 PDR ADOCK 05000309 P
i i
l I
Eric W. Hartmann ;
longer time interval from issuance of the report to the public meeting to facilitate more informed discussion at the end of the review. Second, your comments are relevant to one of the Direction Setting Issues from the NRC Strategic Assessment and Rebaselining Initiative, i
"Public Communication initiatives." I have enclosed a copy for your information, and I have i
forwarded your letter to the sponsor of the paper for consideration with other comments on this issue.1 believe your comment on logic irregularities in safety standards is based on NRC i
use of terminology. The team used terminology from existing NRC guidance to convey relative performance of various functional areas of Maine Yankee such as maintenance or i
operations. Statements in the report about overall performance were made to sum up the j
performance of the functions, in terms the NRC currently uses.
l
}
An overall " adequate" in the NRC regulatory jargon means that there is general conformance j
with the regulations and that the plant is being operated safely. A plant found less than adequate must be shutdown. Perhaps we should have spent more time in defining our j
terminology during the meeting.
l l remain confident that the ISAT process for assessing safety is a valid technical process. It j
is clear from your comments that a " citizen's group" does not speak for all citizens and that in j
the future the process should provide for early public input from any member of the public wishing to comment. Thus, your suggestions for improving public communications will be factored into our future considerations for improving public processes. Thank you for your
{
concemed statements.
f I
l Sincerely, OriginalSigned by:
E. L Joraan l
Edward L. Jordan, Director i
Office for Analysis and Evaluation of. Operational Data
Enclosure:
As stated i
cc/w enclosure:
Distribution:
i Karen Cyr, General Counsel, NRC See page 3 l
Sponsor for DSI-14 j
Peter Wiley, State of Maine
{
DOCUMENT NAME: HARTMAN.LTR.
]
To receive a copy of this dociperit, Indicate in the box: "C" = Copy without enclosures "E" = Copy with enclosures "N" = No copy 2
0FFICE 0:AEGE Y /
OGC l
l l
l NAME ELMdan' W0lmstead DATE ll//5796:jr 11/14/96 via fax 0FFICIA._ RECORD COPY a
i
Eric W. Hartmann,
Distribution w/incomina:
JTaylor, OEDO GCaputo, Ol JMilhoan, OEDO WOlmstead, OGC FMiraglia, NRR Dross, AEOD DMorrison,RES DChanagg,RI HMiller, RI VMcCree, OEDO i
SEbneter, Ril Docket File 50-309 ABeach, Rlli Public LCallan, RIV PDI-3 Plant WBeecher, OPA SVarga, NRR DRathbun, OCA JZwolinski, NRR KCyr, OGC PMcKee, NRR i
JLieberman, OE EPeyton, NRR DDorman, NRR ACRS JRogge,RI File Center AEOD R/F 1
1 1
l 1
4 J
G