ML20149J392

Discusses Signed by Zwolinski Addressing Matters Raised in .Commission Urged to Address SBLOCA Issues Raised & Reiterated in Series of Ltrs,Including Ltrs Dtd as Listed

ML20149J392
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	05/19/1997
From:	Myers H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20149J376	List: ML20149J372 ML20149J384 ML20149J392 ML20149J402
References
NUDOCS 9707280201
Download: ML20149J392 (3)

Text

_.m

_m_-m

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ ~ _ _ _ _ _.

I

?..

p(f

( ".'

P.O. Box 88 Peaks Island, ME 04108 May 19, 1997 Hon. Shirley Jackson j

Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission e

i Washington, D.C. 205550-0001 i

Dear Chairman Jackson:

I am writing in reference to a May 6, 1997. letter, signed by Mr. Zwolin-i ski, that addresses matters raised in my April 14, 1997 letter to you, i

The staff's May 6 letter does not resolve questions I have raised repeat-edly. These questions relate to a record indicating that NRC staff, via its January 3, 1996 Order, permitted operations at Maine Yankee notwithstanding noncompliance with requirements based on TMI Action Plan Itero II.K.3.30 e.nd I

II.K.3.31.

To the extent there has been a response to my numerous inquiries, it has been a conclusory, inadequately documented statement to the effect that this j

situation was acceptable because the NRC staff says so.

Accordingly, it is not surprising that the staff's May 6 letter follows the same general path taken by previous responses to my letters.

In this case, I

however, there is a new wrinkle: the May 6 letter states that the January 3, 1996 order " appropriately accounted for the concerns which prompted TMI Action Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31, as most recently explained in my (JZ] letter to you (KM] of April 14, 1997, responding to your [RM] letter of February 13, 1997."

It is unclear what the May 6 letter means when it refers to " concerns which prompted TMI Action Items II.K.3.30."

I have reviewed the staff's April 14 letter to which the staff's May 6 letter refers, and I identify no discussion of " concerns which prompted" these TMI Action Items. (If there exists a document that, in relation to the January 3 Order, addresses the " concerns which prompt-ed" these TMI Action Items, I would appreciate your requesting the staff to provide this document to me.)

With this reference to the. origins of the TMI Action Plan Items, do the authors of the May 6 letter now intend to state that the requirements of TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 were satisfied notwithstanding past statements that Maine Yankee did not comply with these-Action Plan Items when operating at 2440 MWt?

(To review past staf f statements with respect to compliance with these Action Plan Items, see 02/A2 in the Enclosure to Mr. Russel's April 26, 1996 letter to Mr. Hewett, Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Governor, State of Maine.

See also Item 4 in Mr. Rus-sell's April 10, 1996 letter to Mr. Christine et al.)

Or is it now the staff position that an analysis was performed demon-strating that the deficiencies that led to the imposition of the requirements of TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.30 did not exist at Maine Yankee when operating at 2440 MWt? If this is the case, I would assume documentation exists to support such a position: e.g. documentation that describes analysis defi-ciencies in the pre-TMI Action Plan era and documentation that demonstrates how those deficiencies were remedied in the analyses which the staff now cites in support of the January 3 Order.

I note also that discussion of this matter is made unnecessarily complex by the apparent lack of a staff analysis indicating the reasons for the lic-ensee's failure to comply with requirements acsociated with TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.

Did this noncompliance result from the lic-ensee's inability to develop an acceptable analysis technique? If the noncompliance was in fact rooted in a problem with the analysis technique, what is different about Maine Yankee that led to the problem existing there but not at the plants that have demonstrated compliance with the requirements of TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31?

Or did noncompliance result from Mains Yankee design deficiencies that created a situation where safety systems could not be relied upon to bring about a safe shutdown following a SBLOCA?

With respect to delegating to staff (who themselves are directly involved in dealing with Maine Yankee matters) the responsibility for responding to my 9707280201 970723 PDR ADOCK 05000309 H

PDR

,s

. Hon. Shirley Jackson May 19, 1997 inquiries, I note that the staff's vested interest in defending the January 3 Order means that the staff cannot be expected to address objectively the SBLOCA concerns I have repeatedly expressed.

It is also inappropriate to leave this matter unresolved; it needs to be addressed in a manner that is credible in the eyes of those who believe that the Commission's rules should be either enforced or abolished. To do otherwise engenders disrespect for the Commission and its regulations; to do otherwise leads to regulation based not on written rules but on the NRC staf f's intuition and engineering judgement, the long-standing regu-latory mode at Maine Yankee.

Accordingly, I urge again that the Commission address the SBLOCA issues I have raised and reiterated in a series of latters including those dated as fol-lows: March 3, 1996; March 15, 1996; April 4, 1996; April 15, 1996; May 6, 1996; May 14, 1996; May 22, 1996; June 12, 1996: June 27, 1996; July 15, 1996; August 10, 1996; August 14, 1996; September 4, 1996; September 13, 1996; September 25, 1996; October 2, 1996; October 7, 1996; October 25, 1996; December 13, December 30, 1996; February 13, 1997; February 26, 1997; March 18, 1997; March 28, 1997; April 18, 1997; and April 24, 1997. These letters document conclucions that I (and persons with whom I have consulted) have reachad with respect to the NRC staff's failure to ensure compliance with requirements based on TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31.

Sincerely, b b b^)Pr*3 Henry R. Myers c: Commissioner Kenneth Rogers Commissioner Creta Dicus Commissioner Nils Diaz Commissioner Edward McGaffigan

l l

i 1bh

~

[ FROM:

ORIGINAL DUE DT: 06/16/97 TICKET NO: 0970070 l

DOC DT: 05/05/97 NRR RCVD DATE: 05/12/97 j

TO:

l S. J. COLLINS l FOR SIGNATURE OF

• • YEL i DESC:

ROUTING:

MAINE YANKEE COLLINS MIRAGLIA ZIMMERMAN MARTIN SLOSSON i

TRAVERS BOHRER ASSIGNED TO:

CONTACT:

DRPE VARGA SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS OR REMARKS:

ACTION DUE TO NRR D!RECicriS OFFIC i

BY-ll, ' 7'7 l

i i

...