ML20138E004
| ML20138E004 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 02/26/1997 |
| From: | Myers H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138D964 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705010329 | |
| Download: ML20138E004 (3) | |
Text
,
(
.4
/~
P.O.
Box 88 Peaks Island, ME 04108 February 26, 1997 Hon. Shirley Jackson Chairman U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
205550-0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
I l
I am writing in referen to a February 14 1997 letter from Mr.
i Zwolinski which, according Mr. Zwolinski, r sponds to my letters to you dated December 13, 1996, December 30, 199 and January 13, 199 As I have indicated previously, NRC staff associated with Maine Yankee have an overall position to defend with respect to the Maine Yankee situation; it is therefore not likely that the staff will respond to my questions in a manner other that which supports their previously stated positions and rationales.
The staff's proclivity in this regard was demonstrated in Mr. Zwolinski's February 3, 1997 letter that I commented upon in a February 2 letter to you.
Mr. Zwolinski's February 14, 1997 letter to me, notwit standing my respect for Mr.
Zwolinski, further demonstrates that t e questions in my letters can-not be resolved by responses generated t the staff level.
G"f70/JO Mr. Zwolinski's February 14 letter refers to my having expressed
" views rer ' ding the standard that should be applied in determining whether or 'ot plant operation should be allowed to continue."
I note that the Feoruary 14 letter does not refer to the specific standard that I assume to be the basis for allowing a plant to operate; e.g.
substantial compliance with the Commission's regulations.
In omitting a reference to " substantial compliance," Mr. Zwolinski's February 14 letter avoids what I believe to be the primary issue; e.g. whether the Commission has authority to permit operations when a plant is not in substantial compliance with the body of the Commission's regulations.
Ironically, as noted below, in seeking to defend its position, the staff provides support for the proposition that " substantial compli-ance" is indeed the appropriate standard.
Mr. Zwolinski's February 14 letter seems to contend that, in order to allow a plant to operate, it is sufficient for the Commission to make a finding that the plant does not pose an " undue risk" to the public health and safety.
This staff contention is made with refer-ence to previous decisions by NRC entities that apparently addressed the question of whether the Commission had authority to allow opera-tions when there had been a " failure to comply with one regulation or another."
In particular, the staff's February 14 letter refers to a that 1985 Commission decision stating that it was not correct l
failure to comply with one regulation or another is an indication of the absence of adequate protection, at least in a situation where the l
Commission has reviewed the noncompliance and found that it does not pose an ' undue risk' to the public health and safety."
Implicit in this 1985 decision is that review of the noncomplying condition found it to be not of substantial safety significance.
A review (such as that referred to in the 1985 Commission decision cited
((g501032997o4pg ADOCK 05000309 H
l
[
Uon. Shirley Jackson February 26, 1997
[
i by Mr. Zwolinski) demonstrating that noncompliance does not pose an
" undue risk" is thus, on its face, equivalent either to (A) a finding of " substantial compliance" or to (B) a finding that the violated regulations were not necessary to assure that there was "no undue risk."
Since I assume that regulations in place are necessary to l
assure safety (if they are not necessary, the Commission presumably would have made them void), the referenced review of the noncompliance leading to a "no undue risk" finding is in reality a review leading to a finding of " substantial compliance."
Therefore, the staff's "no R
l undue risk" standard is in fact tantamount to a " substantial compli-ance" standard.
l In the case of Maine Yankee and the Independent Safety Assessment (ISA), as far as I know, there has been no review of the kind cited above; e.g.
there has been no review of the nonconpliances because, among other things, all noncompliances had not been identified. (I note also that the 1985 Commission decision, which was cited by Mr.
i Zwolinski in his February 14 letter, referred to "the noncompliance" l
l whereas in the case of Maine Yankee there are multiole noncompli-ances.)
Nor did the ISA lead to a conclusion that operation of Maine l
Yankee did not pose an " undue risk."
Rather your formulation of the l
ISA primary finding, cited in Mr. Zwolinski's February 14 letter, was that "[o]verall perf ormance at Maine Yankee was co'nsidered adequate for operation."
This finding, which appears in the passive voice (e.g. considered adequate by whom?), raises the critical question as i
to whether "overall performance" encompasses only " performance" in physical operation of the plant or whether the staff intends that i
"overall performance" includes design, construction and maintenance of all items covered by the Commission's regulations.
Does " adequate for operation" mean the level of safety is at the level that would pertain l
had there been " substantial compliance?"
Or is it the Commission l
position that the level of safety is less than that which would exist at a plant in " substantial compliance" and if a lesser level, how much less?
If the ISA had found that operation of Maine Yankee did not pose an " undue risk to the public health and safety" and if this finding was based on a review of noncompliances, why did the ISA report not use the "no undue risk" statement as its primary conclusion?
The record indicates that the ISA's primary conclusory statement was not a "no undue risk" finding because the staff knew that the facts would not support such a conclusion.
This situation seems then to have led to the regulatory indeterminate and ambiguous phraseology used as the l
l conclusory sentence in your October 7, 1996 letter to Mr. Frizzle:
"Overall performance at Maine Yankee was considered adequate for operation."
Moreover, even this amorphous language cannot be recon-ciled with the existence of the numerous, safety-significant noncomplying conditions enumerated in Maine Yankee Inspection Report 96-16.
The latter clearly called for a shutdown until completion of corrective actions.
I again urge that the Commission address the matter of whether it has authority to allow operation of a plant found to be deficient in the manner specified by the ISA at Maine Yankee. If the Commission agrees with the staff, this will at least place on notice those who j
agree with sentiments expressed in my lettera that, if the matter is l
i
- ,. * ' ~,
, flgn. shirley Jackson February 26, 1997 i
to be pursued, it will be necessary to take action via the adjudica-tory process.
The staff's February 14 letter also addressed my request that Mr.
Blanch and Mr. Lochbaum be afforded an opportunity to make a presen-tation at the recent Commission meeting on Maine Yankee.
The letter stated that "The Commission is interested in hearing public concerns i
in this matter; thus a portion of the meeting was devoted to presen-tations by the following individuals The February 14 letter did not provide the reasons why Mr. Blanch was not afforded the opportu-nity to appear at the February 4 meeting.
I did not attend the meeting, but I.did read the transcript which leads to the following observation: the little time afforded the presentations from the pub-lic, the paucity of Commissioners' questions for the public witnesses, and the presence of one witness whose familiarity with the regulatory issucs under discussion was not apparent, are facts that do not sup-port a contention that the Commission has a serious interest in the public concerns about Maine Yankee that fall within the Commission's jurisdiction.
In its reference to the adequacy of the Small Break Loss of Coolant Accident issues, Mr. Zwolinski's February 14 letter does not deal with my concerns, referring instead to previous responses with which I have repeatedly taken issue.
I do not believe it productive to reiterate again my observations on the matter; I simply request that the Commission address directly the points made many times, most recently in my letter dated February 13, 199k. G-770//9 Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,h%y-ro
}
f Hen R.
Myers C.:
Commissioner Kenneth Rogers Commissioner Greta Dicus Commissioner Nils Diaz Commissioner Edward McGaffigan l
i 1
l l