ML20135D786

Requests 15 Minutes to Present Issues to Commission Re Safe Operation of Maine Yankee During 970204 Meeting

ML20135D786
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	01/08/1997
From:	Blanch P AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Bates A NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20135D785	List: ML20135D782 ML20135D786
References
NUDOCS 9703050504
Download: ML20135D786 (4)

Text

I Paul M. Blanch Energy Consultant 1/8/97 Dr. Andrew Bates i USNRC l Office of the Secretary Washington DC 20555-0001 l

FAX: 301 415 1672

Subject:

Commission Meeting on Maine Yankee

Dear Dr. Bates:

)

It is my understanding the Commission will be conducting a meeting on Maine Yankee on February 4, 1997. I have been actively supporting many of the concerned residents and their questions regarding the j safety of the plant. ,

l 1

I have been communicating with the NRC Staff related to some of these safety issues. These issues are i discussed in my attached position paper regarding the NRC's ISAT report of October 7,1996. These issues have been forwarded to the Staff and I have yet to receive any meaningful response.

My additional concern is the NRC position that:

" . Commission adjudicatory decisions are clear that compliance with the Commission regulations is essential to a determination ofadequate protection of the public health und safety under the Atomic Energy A ct. "

1 The memorandum refers to Section 185 of the Atomic Energy that provides that Operating Licenses are issued "upon finding that the facility authorized has been constructed and will operate in conformity with .

the rules and regulations of the Commission." (Emphasis added.)

The ISAT report is clear in that the plant has not been verified to be in compliance " with Commission regulations" therefore the minimum safety requirements have not been satisfied. Until a complete verification of compliance is conducted, nuclear safety can not be assured.

The ISAT report states: " Maine Yankee was in general conformance with its licensing-basis although significant items of non-conformance were identified.'" This appears to be acknowledgment that the plant is not in compliance with Commission Regulations. The Staff and the Commission then concluded

" performance at Maine Yankee was considered adequate for operation."2 It mystifies me as to how this determination was made with the apparent admission of regulat)ry non-conformance.

i 9703050504 970228 PDR ADOCK 05000309 H PDR

' ISAT Report dated October 7,1996 page v

" Letter from Chairman Jackson to Mr. Charles Frizzle dated October 7,1996

. . .. - , . - . - . - . . . . - . . . ~ ~ . - . . - - . - . . ~ - - . . . - . . . .

l l

t-i \

j Given these questions and other issues related to the safe operation of Maine Yankee,I respectively request )

l 15 minutes to present these issues to the Commission during the meeting of February 4,1997. I will be speaking on my behalf and on behalf of many of the concerned local residents in the vicinity of the Maine . 1 Yankee plant. ,,

l I look forward to your favorable response. 1

'l Sincerely, I

Yh f Y i Paul M. Blanch j

, 135 Hyde Rd. j l West Hartford CT. 06117 860-236-0326 l

i

~b l

1 4

~

[

! \

i 1

l 1 l

i

, i i

i I

I t

l l

l t

5

l. . _ . . _. . __ _ . . - -. . --- -

4

• l COMMENTS ON MAINE YANKEE ISAT REPORT DATED OCTOBER 7,1996 In her letter dated October 7,1996 Dr. Jackson stated to Mr. Charles D. Frizzle "The purpose of the ISA was to determine whether Maine Yankee was in conformity with its design and licensing bases;" Dr.

Jackson completely avoided addressing this objective. The simple answer is that the plant is not in compliance weh "its design and licensing bases." This conclusion is supported by the content of the very ISAT report attached to this letter.

It appears the tone of the report is different from anything I have ever seen come out of the NRC. They refuse to even attempt to directly address the issue of compliance with the regulations and use words sah as: "These tests may have shown some degree of cavitation and an uncertain, bat likely very small, margin. These limiting conditions would exist only ir the low probability event of a large break LOCA."

What does this actually mean? To me it means that both the NRC and the licensee don't know if the ECCS system will operate even at 2440 Mwt. They state that these systems will not likely function at l

2700 MW but they fail to address the issue if they will operate at 2440MW. This appears to be intentional deception of the general public and the State of Maine.

Throughout the document they use the words: "These limiting conditions would exist bnly in the low probability event of a large break LOCA." A large break LOCA is part of the design basis and the ECCS i systems must function for this design basis event. His is like saying I don't need seat belts, air bags of l brakes because the probability of needing them is very low.

On page "v" the NRC states: " Maine Yankee was in general conformance with its licensing-basis although SIGNIFICANT ITEMS OF NON.CONFORMANCE WERE IDENTIFIED [ emphasis added]." Translated this means the licensee is not in compliance with the requirements.

On page "vii" the NRC states: "there is a lack of a questioning culture which has resulted in the failure to identify or promptly correct significant problems in areas perceived by management to be of low safety significance." What are these significant problems and why does the NRC allow them to operate?

On page 19 of the report the NRC states: "The ISA team reviewed this information and concluded that these heat exchangers could be considered operable at the higher thermal values resulting from plant operation at 2700 Mwt."

The NRC has no authority to determine if a component is operable. The licensee has a formal process outlined in Generic Letter 91-18 and if the operability of a system, structure or component [SSC's)is in question, the licensee MUST make a formal determination of operability. The NRC did this in the past and got burned and admitted to me they do not have this authority. This issue was discussed in an NRC Inspector General's report transmitted to me on July 11,1994.

At 5% iop of page 20 the NRC again conducts operability determinations in violation of their own sistutory authority.

On page 21 they state: "WO 96-01785-00, completed August 9,1996,(SCCW). did not" demonstrate whether these valves would perform their safety related function." Why is the plant operating ifit can't be shown that safety systems are operable?

Page 23 "The ISA team did not consider the licensee's position that the 345 kV system back-feed operation. completed within six hours, was an acceptable basis for compliance with the FSAR and Maine Yankee Design Criterion 39." nis is an open acknowledgment that the plant is not in compliance with the design basis therefore not in compliance with the regulations.

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

.- w , .

.j e ii Page 29 "%e ISA team found that the hcensee was not meetmg 10 CFR 50.49 requirements in that there were certain electrical components that were not qualified for their expected environment following a design basis event." With this one statement the NRC admits the plant is in violation of the regulations.

Page 30: "a walkdown on July 24,1996, of reactor containment that revealed 30 components outside of l Maine Yar.kee's design basis."

-1 Dese are only examples but the very clear message is that the plant is not in comphance with the design basis and not in compliance with the regulations and the NRC lets them continue to operate.

1 In my opinion, given the fact that a token audit uncovered many areas of non-compliance, Maine Yankee I l

should not be operating this plant until they complete a review as required by last week's 50.54 fletter

from the NRC. Dey are breaking the law and the NRC is helping them. j I could continue and cite many other examples but it is very clear to me that the NRC did not want to ask  ;

the difficult questions because the knew the correct answer would result in a plant shutdown for not being in i compliance -zi6 the regulations. l I have recently reviewed the NRC report on Connecticut Yankee. Comparing the two reports, the $

i infonnation contained in the MY report is every bit as condemning as the CY report. Some of the same J

_ deficiencies, such as the NPSH for the containment recirculation pumps, were identified at both plants. De i difference is the " spin" put on the MY report.

l^ l From my perspective,' the NRC is again covering their own incompetence and embarrassment created by ,

UCS's disclosure of falsified LOCA codes and the NRC's inspector General's Event Inquiry dated May 8, 1996. Maine Yankee, with all the deficiencies identified in the ISAT report, should conduct a complete  !

design review before the plaa' '- Slowed to continue operation. It is clear from this report, the plant in j non-compliance with bot'. stic ocsign and licensing bases. De conclusion of"[C]onsidered adequate for l- operation"is totally unsupported by any objective evidence and is contradicted by the report itself.

Sincerely, W'. r$ $ ,/ - - -

Paul M. Blanch -

135 Hyde Rd.

West Hartford CT. 06117 860-236-0326 1

t l

s