ML20135E167
| ML20135E167 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1997 |
| From: | Linnell W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20135E162 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9703060304 | |
| Download: ML20135E167 (10) | |
Text
-
FEBt03-97 O'1:23 PM JULIE A.
LINHELL,ESQ.
2077996711 P.01 4
Maine Safe Energy P.O. Box 40.14.Ponland MTi 04101 Phone 207 772 2958. Fat 207 7801266
~
l Safe energyfor Maine... It's in our hands !
l l
743 l
t The Honorable Shirley Jackson, January 30, 1997 Chairwoman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 VIA FAX re: February 4, 1997, presentation at NRC
Dear Chairwoman Jackson,
Attached herewith are copies of the viewgraphs which I will be presenting on Tuesday.
In addition to these viewgraphs and my oral comments, I would like to submit several questions for you. Of course, I don't expect answcrs to these questions next week. but I would i
appreciate a response from you or your staff at your convenience:
i) I would like to know approximately how much high-level radiation, in curies, is produced annually by Maine Yankee, and approximately how much radiation, in curies, is present in *he spent fuel pool there. I have been told that Maine Yankee producer, about ten million curies of high level waste per year, and that there are approximately 230 million curies of high-level 3
l waste in the Opent fuel pool today. Could you let me know if these estimates are correct?
4
- 11) I understand that a controversy developed in the early 1970's over whether or not the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) in Light-Water reactors would work. I also understand that a series of five mock tests of ECCS conducted in 1970 to 1971 by Idaho Nuclear all failed. I would like to know if this controversy was ever resolved? If it was resolved, what tests or studies that you are confident in demonstrate same?
I look forward to meeting you on Tuesday.
Best wishes, a
William S.Linnell II Spokesperson 9703060304 970228 PDR ADOCK 05000309 H
.1 Has Maine Yankee Credibility I!
Been a Problem?
i!
g "We don't feel there is any technical merit to these El allegations. We feel the emergency core cooling system and all the safety systems at the plant are jl adequate."
F!
a:
-Marshall Murphy, Maine Yankee spokesman, after an anonymous letter prompted a probe of jl conditions at the nuclear power plant.
j!
Maine Sunday Telegram December 10,1995 Slide 1 n
1 qi
-o
- l
- i 3!
i> \\
Economic Pressure:
i w
1 i
c E'
First Root Cause of Safety Problems
?
at Maine Yankee E!
E!
r :
c:
PL
-NRC Independent Safety Assessment Team (ISAT)
Report, Section 5.3.1, page 71, October,1996.
3' m
- i Slide 2 i{
t
Jr Economic Pressure:
~!
Lack of Retained Earnings j
i u5; "Unlike most utilities, MYAPCo does not retain 1
earnings and does not set aside reserve funds for unplanned requirements, except those required by i!
law. All monies in excess of operational expenses E
are periodically returned to the owners. The owner E
utilities are required to either capitalize or immediately finance emergent requirements from ll their operating budgets."
l} j
-lSAT Report, Section 4.3.3, page 68.
L i
Slide 3 i!
.1::
'? i NRC Commissioners Discuss First Root Cause il a!
Commissioner McGaffigan:
!l s
"It struck me that this owner-operator interaction h'
3 l here is really sort of the heart of the matter, to some i
degree. If they could retain some earnings, ifit didn't always go back to the owners
[
instantaneously, which must come from pressure from the owners, then some of these workarounds might have been addressed earlier."
i
-From the minutes of NRC Commissioners' Meeting, October 18,1996.
Slide 4 m
h
l
,1 5I Maine Yankee Disagrees with the Cause i!
of the First Root Cause ll
- l i
i t!
"With respect to the issue of ownership structure,
- l we respectfully suggest that Maine Yankee's non-traditional ownership structure and practice of not ll 4
retaining earnings is not a contributor to the ISA's b!
first root cause.....the actual limiting factor has been "l
l management's funding requests."
"/,
!i
-Maine Yankee response to ISAT Roport, section 1-
~l 2, dated December 10.1996.
i Slide 5 7
h!
rt i:
The Mother and Father of All Workarounds:
}{
TMI Action Plan items ll.K.3.30 and 3 !
II.K.3.31 t
si i!
E!
E i Operator workarounds have been appropriately 5l identified as chronic problems. Yet Maine Yankee has been allowed to " work around" critical TMI s;
Action Plan items II.K.3.30 and 31. Meanwhile, the j'
NRC has not produced the analysis to justify E;
operation of Maine Yankee at any power level.
I Slide 6 5i i
Ms:
1:
l
- i l
The Mother and Father of All Workarounds:
TMI Action Plan items II.K.T.30 i!
and II.K.3.31 (continued)
?
I!
5!
r t
= How can the NRC expect licensees to follow NRC I.i 4
1 regulations, to avoid workaround conditions, if the Commissioners allow the biggest workarounds of gl them all to continue?
3i d
i 4
ii Slide 7 5l
..,~
l
- ', t c:
4 is Maine Yankee Owners' s;
Credibility a Problem?
!l
's i i!
- Just ask them what they pay for replacement a!
. power when Maine Yankee is shut down. Maine r !
Yankee's owners have been leading the pub!!c to
[l believe that replacement power is more costly than Maine Yankee power.
il E
In truth, Maine Yankee power is now about 50%
more expensive than replacement power. CMP has been saving over $2 million per month on s!
replacement power purchases. If they are willing to EI deceive the public, why should the NRC or anyone else trust them?
I Slide 8 i!
ci
.a ;
- f.,-
Conclusions
?.l f
t
- i Maine Yankee owners' excuse for inadequate funding is simply not believable.
r i !
F!
If the NRC intends to deal with the first root cause hi of economic stress, the NRC must act decisively O I and forcefully on the retained earnings issue.
a2i
- i
-t i
Slide 9 j
?
E i
.- - - - - - !