ML20138J027
| ML20138J027 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1997 |
| From: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Shadis R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138J032 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9705070369 | |
| Download: ML20138J027 (8) | |
Text
.-
- - ~
I,*
Y UNITED STATES 9
k NUCLEAR BEGULATORY COMMISSION 3"
g g
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001 Distribution - ltr & Enc 1 1 3~*
LJCallan Only o,,
8 April 30, 1997 EJordan
%.*****p HThompson CHAIRMAN PNorry JBlaha SCollins, NRR DDorman, NRR KCyr, OGC HMiller, RI Mr. Raymond Shadis JLieberman, OE Information Coordinator OPA Friends of the Coast OCA Opposing Nuclear Pollution GT970115 P. O. Box 98 EDO r/f Edgecomb, Maine 04556
Dear Mr. Shadis:
I am responding to your letter of February 17, 1997, regarding the Commission's February 4, 1997, meeting on Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station (MYAPS). As I indicated at the conclusion of that meeting, the Commission appreciated the views and comments of all the participants, including your l
presentation on behalf of Friends of the Coast.
From our perspective, the j
meeting was both useful and informative.
I want.to make clear that the Commission certainly did not intend to signal
)
less esteem for any participant through seating or speaking arrangements in 4
the conference room. We have frequently used a podium for presentations to I
the Commission, particularly when we have had care speakers than can be j
simultaneously accommodated at the conference.able.
In retrospect, it would have been more appropriate to have had yau and other members of the public take a seat at the table once it became clear that the seats would be vacated following the staff's presentation.
I regret any perceived slight that may have occurred, and assure you that we have and will consider your views seriously, as well as those of other members of the public.
Our purpose in scheduling the meeting was to obtain specific follow-up L
information from both Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company (MYAPCo or the licensee) and the NRC staff about (1) MYAPCo's response to the Independent Safety Assessment Team (ISAT) report and (2) MYAPCo's progress in correcting deficiencies. We also agreed to hear from members of the public who offered additional or differing perspectives on these issues. The February 4, 1997, meeting afforded you and others an opportunity to present your concerns directly to the Commission, a step taken by the Commission to better understand all views.
Given the purpose of the meeting, it is not surprising that the Commission had many questions for both the staff and the licensee, i
and that it took a significant amount of time in addition to that scheduled for the staff and the licensee to answer the questions asked of them and complete their presentations.. Note that we considered Mr. Paul Blanch's request to participate in the meeting based on his letter of January 8, 1997.
Because his views, as described in his letter, were similar to comments that other members of the public had proposed to present at the meeting, the Office of the Secretary denied his request to participate.
n 4.,4..+,,a s,.
rn nneman. NRRL kf 9705070369 970430 PDR ADOCK 05000309 H
\\
i
~>
l l
As you are aware, the NRC held a predecisional enforcement conference in Maine with MYAPCo on March 11, 1997, in order to obtain further information on the l
apparent violations identified in the ISAT report.
The NRC staff is reviewing l
this information. As for the technical issues you raise in your letter, they are addressed in Enclosure 1.
Your observations regarding staff conduct, in particular that the ISAT findings were a " predetermined" conclusion, will be l
forwarded to the NRC's Office of the Inspector General for whatever action the Inspector General deems appropriate.
For the ISAT, the NRC developed an inspection team to assess the performance of MYAPCo. The selection of individuals for the team was intended to provide l
complete independence from Region I and NRR staff who had been involved in oversight of Maine Yankee, and was not, as you suggest, prompted by political I
considerations.
Your letter characterizes the ISAT's conclusions related to facility safety as
" predetermined." Contrary to that perception, the safety concerns identified by the ISAT resulted in MYAPCo shutting down Maine Yankee from July 20, 1996, i
to September 2, 1996, while equipment operability issues were resolved. At the time of the September 1996 restart, several considerations were involved in the staff's restart decision.
Given (1) the resolution of the known operability concerns, (2) plans and schedules for resolution of other specific issues raised by the ISAT, and (3) the licensee's commitment to identify and resolve the broader implications of the ISAT findings, the staff determined that continued operation did not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.
The staff expected, and continues to expect, that the licensee will resolve new operability concerns identified as a result of ISAT follow up through their normal process, including facility shutdown or derating, as warranted. The staff will also take appropriate action if concerns are identified that are broader than those found by the ISAT.
i You are correct that the ISAT considered the issued involving the 115 kv offsite power lines to be of low safety significance; however, we do not agree that this issue was glossed over.
Given that the Maine Yankee Technical Specifications (TSs) permitted operation with only one of the two 115 kv l
offsite power lines operable, the staff did not designate this matter as an l
issue to prevent the September 2, 1996 restart. However, the ISAT team l
referred this issue to the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) for I
additional analysis, to determine whether the TSs were consistent with the Maine Yankee licensing basis. As the result of that analysis, including a review of additional information requested from and provided by MYAPCo, NRR concluded that a TS amendment was needed, and the resolution of this concern was made a restart issue (See the Enclosure 1 discussion).
As identified in the staff's Confirmatory Action Letter (CAL) dated December 18, 1996, and Supplement 1 to the CAL dated January 30, 1997, there are i
substantive issues at MYAPS, including the offsite power issue, that the licensee has agreed to resolve to the staff's satisfaction before restart.
The NRC staff is closely following the licensee's resolution of these issues and other areas identified in the licensee's response to the ISAT report.
Before approving restart of MYAPS, the staff must be satisfied that there is reasonable assurance that operation of the facility will not pose an undue risk to public health and safety.
--=-
1 n
RESPONSES TO TECHNICAL ISSUES The technical issue identified in section number 3 of your letter is related to the emergency diesel generator (EDG) loading and offsite power system issues raised by the ISAT.
Specifically, you assert that "the offsite power l
issue was inextricable from questions surrounding the next line of defense, l
the EDGs."
l The ISAT raised concerns about a licensing issue associated with the offsite l
power system.
The staff issued a letter dated November 21, 1996, to require the licensee to submit additional information on the licensing basis for the 115 kV offsite power system.
The licensee responded on December 12, 1996.
The staff conducted a comprehensive review of the licensee's response and other available information and concluded that the existing offsite power capability did not meet the design criterion specified in the Maine Yankee l
Final Safety Analysis Report, which is the current licensing basis (see l
Supplement 1 to the CAL, dated January 30, 1997). The staff also concluded l
that a Technical Specification change was required to provide assurance that i
l the facility would be operated within its licensing basis in the future. The i
licensee has proposed a revision to the affected Technical Specification which is currently under staff review.
1 Before the September 2, 1996, restart, the EDGs at Maine Yankee were found to be capable of accepting anticipated loads following a loss-of-coolant accident l
(LOCA) assuming a complete loss of offsite power as follows.
l l
The maximum post LOCA loads at Maine Yankee are calculated to be 2842 kW.
l These loads are applied to EDGs with the following ratings:
2597 kW l
continuous duty, 2850 kW for 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br />, 2950 kW for 168 hours0.00194 days <br />0.0467 hours <br />2.777778e-4 weeks <br />6.3924e-5 months <br />, and 3050 kW for 30 minutes.
The EDGs at Maine Yankee are capable of accepting post LOCA loads for the following reasons:
l (1) After one hour into the accident, per licensee procedures the load l
of 2842 kW will be reduced by several hundred kilowatts to below the l
continuous duty rating of the EDGs.
(2) The calculated loads include approximately 100 kW for runout on the Low Pressure Safety Injection and Emergency Feedwater pumps. A full f
runout condition is a conservative assumption.
(3) The loads were calculated using name plate data.
These data are typically conservative, that is, the actual loads are generally lower.
The staff concluded that the existing margins, although reduced, did not require suspension of operation of the facility. The licensee is developing a design and operating margin review program to identify existing margins on important issues. The NRC staff will continue to monitor these activities, i
The technical issues identified in section 4 of your letter involve several documents regarding cable separation and environmental qualification issues that appear to be similar to issues the licensee is currently attempting to resolve.
The cited documents are related to NRC oversight of Maine Yankee i
from 15-25 years ago.
l l
1
t mp l
2 l
l The staff is evaluating the information provided, as well as other historical l
information, to assess its significance in light of the current issues.
The i
staff's immediate concern is evaluation of the licensee's resolution of the current issues. The staff will consider the historical information in developing and focusing its inspection plans and in determining what enforcement action, if any, might be warranted.
i l
l l
l I
i l
l l
l l
l l
l
g-
~6 Mr. Raymond Shadis As noted in the RRP. 30 to 60 days before pr cted restart, the licensee will submit a restart readiness report.
The ff will again meet with the public in the v cinity of MYAPS to receive ic comments on the licensee's report.
I hope you will take advantage of ese opportunities to continue to inform the NRC of your concerns.
I thank you for your part' ipation in the recent Commission meeting and for-sharing your views on ne Yankee performance.
Sincerely.
Enclosures:
1.
Responses to Technical Issues 2.
Maine Yankee Restart Readiness Plan DISTRIBUTION:
DOCKET (50-309)
JLieberman RConte, R-I PUBLIC (w/ incoming)
RZimmerman JGoldberg, OGC EDO #970115 TMartin. DRPM PMilano PDI-3 Reading (w/inc)
BSheron.
N01 son JCallan WTravers OPA HThompson SVarga OCA JBlaha JZwolinski NRR Mailroom (w/inc)
KCyr. OGC DDorman CNorsworthy SCollins HMiller, R-I EPeyton FMiraglia SECY (CRC-97-0163) i D oi j F
DOCUMENT:
G:\\DORMAN\\ TICKETS \\GT970115.GRN
- See Previous Concurrence To receive a copy of this document indicate in the box:
"C" - Copy without attachment / enclosure "E" - Copy with attachment / enclosure "N" - No copy 0FFICE PM:DRPE*
DD:DRPE* l ADPR:NRR*
OGC* NLO w/ changes l
Jl NAME DDorman:
JZwolinski RZimmermar.
GLongo DATE 02/25/97 02/26/97 03/03/97 03/18/97 0FFICE D:NRR*
R1 (Email)* l EDO EDO _
OCM l
NAME SCol1 ins HMil1er EJordan M T)
LJC&]h3n SJackson DATE 03/23/97 3/31/97 4// /97 9'/ 9J97 4/30/97 0FFICIAL RECORD COPY
[,"j 0 h
4
..v pa 3
/
By letter dated March 7, 1997, the licensee submitted its Restart Readiness f
Plan (RRP). The appendices to the RRP address the licensee's plans to resolve specific issues before restart. As you know, on April 3, 1997, the staff met with the licensee and the public in the vicinity of MYAPS.
During the meeting I
with the public, the staff received comments regarding the RRP.
The staff will consider these comments in completing its plan to assess the readiness of MYAPS for restart. The RRP is enclosed for your information.
As noted in the RRP, 30 to 60 days before projected restart, the licensee will I
submit a Restart Plan Closure Report. The staff will meet again with the i
public in the vicinity of MYAPS to receive public comments on the licensee's report.
I hope you will take advantage of these opportunities to continue to inform the NRC of your concerns.
~
I thank you for your participation in the recent Commission meeting and for sharing your views on Maine Yankee performance.
I Sincerely, L
~
Enclosures:
1.
Responses to Technical Issues 2.
Maine Yankee Restart Readiness Plan j
l l
l i
1 e
I
I ' e}. - g,,.
r f"
ACTIOR i
EDO Principal Correspondence Control
- FROM:
DUE: 03/04/97 EDO CONTROL: G970115 DOC DT: 02/17/97 j
FINAL REPLY:
- ROymond Shadis lFrAcnds of the coast TO:
Chairman Jackson FOR SIGNATURE OF :
ROUTING:
MAINE YANKEE Callan Jordan Thompson Norry Blaha DATE: 02/20/97 ASSIGNED TO:
CONTACT:
NRR Sollins SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
NRR RECEIVED:
FEBRUARY 21, 1997 NRR ACTION:
DRPE:VARGA' NRR ROUTING:
COLLINS MIRAGLIA THADANI ACTION ZIMMERMAN MARTIN
"$gs DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFFlCE ;
BY
,'Lb A 9, i
l
l ly p '.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY l
CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-97-0163 LOGGING DATE: Feb 20 97 ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
RAYMOND SHADIS t
AFFILIATION:
MAINE ADDRESSEE:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE:
Feb 17 97 FILE CODE: IDR-5 MAINE YANKEE
SUBJECT:
MAINE YANKEE ACTION:
Signature of Chairman DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN, COMRS, RF, OGC SPFCIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK CONSTITUENT:
HOTES:
IN RESPNSE TO #1 & 2 WE SHOUULD FIRST PROVIDE THE l
PURPOSE OF THE COMMISSION MEETING......
DATE DUE:
Mar 6 97 SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
l
\\
l EDO -- G970115