ML20138H809
| ML20138H809 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 12/30/1996 |
| From: | Linnell W AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9701060249 | |
| Download: ML20138H809 (2) | |
Text
.
1
~
i Committee for a Safe Energy Future l
1 P.O. Box 2627 P.O. Box 4034 Augusta.ME 04338
'N Portland ME 04101 Fax:(207)7801266 O
Phaos:(207)772-2958 i
Safe energyfor Maine'sfuture...it's in our hands!
i I
The Honorable Shirley Jackson, Chair December 30, 1996 United States Nuclear Regulator'y Commission l
Washington, DC 20555 j
eent by fax Maine Yankee January 9, 1997 meeting re:
l
References:
Independent Safety Assessment of Maine Yankee Atomic 1:
Power Company, October, 1996.
l Minutes of Commission Meeting, October 18, 1996.
2:
1996.
3: Maine Yankee response to ref.1, dated December 10, 4
Dear Chairwoman Jackson,
i I
As spokesperson for the oldest nuclear watchdog organization in the State of Maine, and as a local elected official, I would like j
to share my thoughts with you both in this letter and at the January 9, meeting with Maine Yankee. Please let me know if I may have an opportunity to briefly address the Commission at that meeting.
I note that the NRC staff identifies " economic stress" In ref.1, as one of the root causes of problems at Maine Yankee. And in ref.2, Commissioner McGaffigan recognizes that the owners of ~
i Maine Yankee have not allowed the plant to retain sufficient earnings in order to maintain the plant properly. I would agree that these financial observations go to the heart of the matter.
4
(
I see in ref.3, that while Maine Yankee agrees that " economic stress" is a root cause of their problems, Maine Yankee disaarees_ with the NRC staff's finding that the economic stress was caused by the plant owners' unwi'llingness to avhatically j
allow the plant to retain earnings. In other words, the official g
j response is that it was management's fault, not the plant owners' fault, because management never asked the plant owners j
j 060066 for anoush =oa*Y-
[/
Meanwhile, the plant owners have announced that they have asked 7
for the resignation of President Charles Frissle.
1 1
970106c249 961230 PDR COMMS NRCC PDR pum pr has hebuy-0(.)&
n t
-.- -.. ~. _-... - -. -
_. -_..~... - -.
1
~:
e 7
i l
1996 P.2 W.S.LINNELL LETTER TO NRC CHAIR SHIRLEY JACKSON, DEC.30 i
t There is a significant discrepancy between the ISAT repor,and Ma (Hef.1), on the one hand, l
the other, because The question is, does Maine Yankee not retain earningsor because it neve plant owners have not allowed it, for the money?
f the plant's management (Charles Frizzle) to ask f many It is an important question, as it lies at the root oi l to safety problems. The correct answer is therefore crit ca i
that resolving these safety problems. It seems imperative, then, Mr. Frissle be at the January 9th meeting.
l d to attend the January 9 meeting, by subpoena if nec l
y in order by the to confirm, under oath, and under further questioning y to NRC,whether or not he ever asked plant owners for more mone l
I truly do not wish to cause Mr.
l d
has, I just operate the plant safely.
Frizzle any more anxiety than his termination alrea itted to resolving this root cause, I think you wou blem and the Frizzle could lend tremendous insight to both the pro t
i f
- solution, t self-interest f
Plant owners, it can be argued, have a significan d be blamed on in promoting the notion that all problems shoul j
j management:
avoiding
- 1. They can sidestep the retained earnings issue, otherwise 1
new (and prudent) requirements that they post a bond or h
that Maine put up the money to guarantee, not merely prom to operate 1
i I am not the plant safely for the duration of its license.in ref.3, that plant owners 4
impressed by the comment," conceptually endorsed" future inves 1).
l their
- 2. To the extent that they can blame management for tion from the problems, Maine Yankee's owners can deflect atten l ost nothing to l
deteriorated condition of the plant. It costs a m of hiring 50 off. But proper h
more employees can be easily cut by laying t em investment in the plant itself is expensive, anif o lt in a premature i
shutdown.
l 1 look forward to your response.
With best wishes for the New Year, William S.Linnell II 5
i(