ML20149J384
| ML20149J384 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1997 |
| From: | Myers H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149J376 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9707280197 | |
| Download: ML20149J384 (4) | |
Text
o=.
?*g a
P.O. Box 88 Peaks Island, ME 04108 April 24, 1997 Hon. Shirley Jackson Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 205550-0001
Dear Chairman Jackson:
I am writing in reference to an April 14, 1997 letter from Mr. Zwolinski that purports to address concerna expressed in my February 13, 1997 letter to you.
Mr.
Zwolinksi's letter did not resolve concerns expressed in my letter of February 13 End in prior letters nor did it resolve similar concerns expressed in subsequent letters, the most recent being my April 18 letter to you.
The latter was mailed b3 fore I received Mr. Zwolinski's April 14 letter.
I will not reiterate here the concerns expressed in my February 13 letter and in letters written since and prior to that date; the record is clear that I have raised these questions repeatedly and th:t neither the Commission (nor the staff acting at your direction) have provided Entwers consistent with the facts.
While I do not intend here to discuss again reasons for my concerns about compliance with the requirements of TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.30, Mr. Zwolinski's letter does cause me to bring some related items to your attention.
First, Mr. Zwolinski's letter states that the January 3, 1996 Order " accounts for the SBLOCA modeling uncertainties addressed by TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 end II.K.3.31."
This statement leads to an inference that Maine Yankee, operating at 2440 MWt, would comply with the requirements of TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30
~
and II.K.3.31.
If Mr. Zwolinski does in fact intend to state that Maine Yankee satisfies the requirements of the said TMI Action Items at 2440 MWt, his statement is in conflict with statemer.ts in an attachment to Mr. Russell's April 10, 1996 letter to Mr. Christine and in an attachment to Mr. Russell's April 26, 1990 letter to Mr. Hewett, Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Governor, State of Maine. The attachments to both letters contain language indicating that Maine Yankee, when operating at 2440 MWt, was not in compliance with requirements of TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.
If it is now the NRC's position that Maine Yankee does and did in fact sativfy the requirements of these Action Items at 2440 MWt, the Commission should state this in an unambiguous manner; e.g. by changing "No" to "Yes" in the answer to Question 2 in the attachment to Mr. Russell's April 26 letter to Pk. Hewett and, in so doing, it should explain the basis for this change.
Another item of concern raised by Mr. Zwolinski's April 14 letter relates to the manner in which Mr. Zwolinski responded to my statements concerning whether the Commission had conducted a significant review of the January 3, 1996 Order.
Mr.
Zwolinksi states there is no requirement for the Director of Reactor Regulation to consult with the Commission in issuance of orders pursuant to 10 CFR 50.46 (a) (2).
I nsver said there was such a requirement. But I do note there is nothing that pro-hibited such a significant matter from having been brought to the Commission's attention. Had the staff done so and had the Commission conducted an in-depth review of the Order, there would most likely have been considerably less basis for questions that have subsequently come to the fore.
Mr. Zwolinski states that I am incorrect in assuming that the discussion brtween staff and the Commission prior to issuance of the January 3, 1996 Order was inadequate. My inference that the matter had not been adequately considered by the Commission arises as a result of the lack of documentation of any such consider-ation.
Mr. Zwolinski is fully entitled to hold his view of what constitutes adequate consideration by the Commission just as I am entitled to hold a dif ferent view. My view is that the lack of documentation means that the Commission did not give the Order the attertion that it deserved.
Another item relating to Mr. Zwolinski's April 14 letter concerns my having previously taken exception to letters addressed to you having been referred for preparation of responses to staff who have a vested interest in the subject matter of these letters.
In his April 14 letter, Mr. Zwolinski stated: "A copy of your letter will be forwarded to the NRC's Office of the Inspection General He 9707280197 970723 PDR ADOCK 05000309 H
pm
. * : y.
'. y
~
- Hon. Sh'irlcy Jackson 2-April 24, 1997 apparently believes the Inspector General might believe it his responsibility to datarmine whether the staff has a vested interest in the issues that are the subject of these letters. Why would Mr. Zwolinski send this matter to the Inspector Gen-cral? Surely he knows that an investigation of whether staff responsible for rsgponding to my letters have had a " vested interest" in the subject matter addressed in those letters would be an investigation into a question that has an obvious conclusion; e.g. persons who make a decision (and persons organizationally proximate to such persons) have an interest in-upholding that decision. Therefore, en inquiry into whether the Staff has-a vested interest would rve no useful pur-po30.
-On the other hand, there is a real issue that needs to be addressed; e.g. the
.qusation is that of whether the January 3, 1996 Order does or does not have a sound legal basis. Whether the staff or I (and persons who have advised me on this mat-
.l tar) are correct, the legal soundness of the January 3 Order is simply not a matter i
that is likely to be resolved by the Inspector General's Special Agents. The ques-tion of whether NRC staff acted in accord with the Commission's procedures and regulations is a matter that can be resolved only by Commission level attorneys.
If the Commissioners perceive no need to request a finding by the General Counsel, the matter is unlikely to be resolved in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Zwolinski also raises by implication another matter that the Commission could resolve were it to desire to do so.
This concerns a seemingly self-serving practice which predates by many years the tenure of the existing Commissioners; this is.the practice of assigning responsibility for responding to external inquiries to staff who have a vested interest in defense of a previously taken position relating to the external inquiry, as in the case of repeated inquiries with respect to the January 3, 1996 Order at Maine Yankee. This practice has long undermined the Com-mission's credibility; it should be changed.
Sincerely, R. Myers} M Hen c: Commissioner Kenneth Rogers i
Commissioner Greta Dicus Commissioner Nils Diaz j
Commissioner Edward McGaffigan
)
1-c.
gggggy 9
EDO Principal Correspondence Control WROM:
DUE: 06/10/97 EDO CONTROL: G970400 l
DOC DT: 05/19/97 FINAL REPLY:
Ccnry R. Myers
)Pcck] Island, Maine t
5'O :
Chairman Jackson IFOR SIGNATURE OF :
- GRN CRC NO: 97-0534 J. Zwolinski WESC:
ROUTING:
MAINE YANKEE Callan l
Jordan 7
Thompson Norry Blaha l
Burns
(? ATE: 05/29/97 Cyr, OGC i
Miller, RI hSSIGNEDTO:
CONTACT:
NRR Collins
(
[ZPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:
t PUT EDO AND CHAIRMAN ON FOR CONCURRENCE.
CHAIRMAN'S OFFICE TO REVIEW RESPONSE PRIOR TO DISPATCH NRR RECEIVED:
MAY 30,1997 NRR ACTION:
DRPE:VARGA ACTION r NRR ROUTING:
COLLINS "If!?R$N DUE TO NRR DIRECTOR'S OFF MARTIN i
SLOSSON 4
/Cf
""l' '
/
/
BY " /)
TRAVERS B0HRER 7
k
=
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY CORRESPONDENCE CONTROL TICKET
' PAPER NUMBER:
CRC-97-0534 LOGGING DATE: May 28 97
' ACTION OFFICE:
EDO AUTHOR:
HENRY MYERS AFFILIATION:
MAINE ADDRESSEE:
CHAIRMAN JACKSON LETTER DATE:
May-2.9 97 FILE CODE: ID&R 5 MAINE YANKEE
SUBJECT:
MAINE YANKEE ACTION:
Direct Reply DISTRIBUTION:
CHAIRMAN SPECIAL HANDLING: SECY TO ACK j
CONSTITUENT:
NOTES:
OCM #8747 -- CHAIRMAN TO REVIEW RESPONSE PRIOR TO DISPATCH DATE DUE:
Jun 97 j
/k SIGNATURE:
DATE SIGNED:
AFFILIATION:
l a
i i
i t
.w EDO -- G970400
.I