ML20141F728
| ML20141F728 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/18/1997 |
| From: | Myers H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20141F717 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9707030150 | |
| Download: ML20141F728 (2) | |
Text
_ _ _
'ckI7 e.'
/
l
\\
s P.O. Box 88 Peaks Island, ME 04108 Apfil 18, 1997 Hon. Shirley Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 205550 0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
i 1
I am writing in part to call your attention to the fact that documents I
demonstrating resolution of cable issues addressed by Mr. Atherton and NRC.
staff in 1978 have not been located. What actions has the Commission taken j
to determine whether the inability to locate these documents indicates a 1
failure by the Maine. Yankee licensee to maintain documents in the manner l-required by NRC regulations?
o i
)
I again call your attention to the NRC staff persisting, most recently l
at tne April 3 Wiscasset meeting, in its contention that authorization of 1
Maine Yankee operations, notwithstanding noncompliance with TMI Action Items L
II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31, was appropriate; i.e. the staff implies that its authorization was formulated in accord with the Commission's proceduras for allowing plant operation notwithstanding noncompliance with regulations. To the contrary, I believe the staff errs in holding to the position that it has l
acted in accord with procedures.
As you know, the January 3, 1996 Order regarding Maine Yankee was l
based, in part, on an analysis of a type used prior to the coming into effe't l
of the post TMI requirements; tnis analysis, as far as I know, was not do:..
in accord with the provisions of TMI Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.
I again request that the Commission ask NRC staff to provide an explanation l
as to what it is about the Maine Yankee design that leads to findings that the regulations associated with TMI Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 are superfluous (or otherwise need not be complied with) at 2400 MWt but not at 2700 MWt.
I have previously referred to my several letters relating to the fact that the NRC staff had permitted operations at Maine Yankee notwithstanding noncompliance with TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.
I have previously said that, to the extent there has been a response to these let-ters, it has been, in essence, a conclusory, inadequately documented statement implying this situation was acceptable because the NRC staff says so.
The staff, in effect, reiterated this position during the April 3 meet-ing in Wiscasset.
The overall staff position regarding the significance of noncompliance at Maine Yankee appears more understandable after we learn that Commissioner Diaz, an official at nuclear regulation's highest echelon, appears to believe that many NRC regulations have little or no safety significance and that at Maine Yankee, where there were "a few thousand issues in need of resolution,"
it was the, case, at least in his view, that "only a couple were safety significant."
Commissioner Diaz's opinions, expressed on April 2 at the NRC's Regu-latory Information Conference, have the effect of denigrating the significance of the history of noncompliance at Maine Yankee and elsewhere.
With Commissioner Diaz claiming that "most compliance issues are not safety issues," it is not surprising that high level NRC staff continue to demon-l strate a proclivity to portray regulatory violations at Maine Yankee as not i
creating an undue risk.
It is of course noteworthy that Commissioner Diaz revealed his regula-tory visioq in a industry-friendly forum where applause (literal and figurative) could be counted upon, rather than in Wiscasset, in the area l
where people pay the costs and incur the risks. At a minimum, Commissioner Diaz should tell us which " couple" of the f ew thousand issues at Maine Yankee are the ones that he believes to be safety significant and why he believes 9707030150 970620 PDR ADOCF. 05000309 H
PDR 7
~
liod. Shirl'ey Jackson April 18, 1987 the others are not safety significant.
Commissioner Diaz should also pro-vide a detailed listing of the Commission's regulations that he believes are not necessary.
While on April 2 Commissioner Diaz may have provided comfort to an industry that has failed to meet its regulatory commitments (a failure for which a high price is being paid), his statements may very well have a con-sequence that was not intended. The unintended consequence of advocating, without a supporting analysis, a massive relaxation of the rules will be an undermining of support for the nuclear enterprise among those who believe that nuclear reactors (when designed, constructed and operated in accord with Commission regulations that are strictly enforced) do not pose an undue risk to the public safety.
Commissioner Diaz's remarks may well raise doubts in the minds of members of this group as to whether those in charge of nuclear regulation can be relied upon to maintain regulatory standards at the high level that reflects a de facto compromise between enthusiastic supporters of nuclear development and those who accepted it with reluctance.
Commissioner Diaz's comments generate distrust.
Here is an official near the top of the regulatory structure advocating a major move to safety deregulation; yet he fails to provide specifics and he does not put forth an analysis that shows the increment in nuclear risk that would result from the regulatory modifications that he favors. The appearance is that of a Com-missioner minimizing the risk while seeming intent on helping the nuclear industry emerge from a quagmire of its own making.
Commissioner Diaz's per-ceptions as to the safety significance of the Commission's regulations undermines public confidence in the nucle 6r power technology and its regula-tor, the NRC, an entity established to play a critical role in keeping the nuclear hazard within acceptable bounds.
Finally, I note that Commission words in support of public participa-tion are not translated into action. A recent case in point is the April 3 public meeting chaired by NRC staff in Wiscasset. The modalities of this meeting were such that it was not possible to address complex questions in more than cursory fashion.
The staff, I suspect, waives off this criticism with statements to the effect that "Those people up there are upset because we did not say what they wanted to hear" or words to that effect.
I suggest that if the Commission has a genuine interest in public participation that it would run meetings, such as that held in Wiscasset, in a mode that allows more detailed discussion of complex issues and in accord with an agenda for-mulated, at least in part, on the basis of public input.
I Sincerely, L-
<D Henry E. Myers c: Commissioner Kenneth Rogers Commissioner Greta Dicus Commissioner Nils Diaz Commissioner Edward McGaffigan e
/