ML20149J402
| ML20149J402 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 05/05/1997 |
| From: | Myers H Q AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Collins S NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20149J376 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9707280205 | |
| Download: ML20149J402 (2) | |
Text
t, * *,)Y '
G P.O. Box 88 h
o Peaks' Island, ME 04108 May 5, 1997 Mr. Samuel J. Collins, Director 1
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001 l
Dear Mr. Collins:
I am writing to comment upon your April 23, 1997 letter written in reference to my March 18, 1997 letter to Chairman Jackson.
Among other matters, my March 18 letter addressed a statement made by i
the Regional Administrator for Region I, Mr. Miller, in the course of a March 11 press conference at Maine Yankee.
Mr. Miller said it was the staff's " view that this plant was never unsafe." This statement, devoid of j
regulatory meaning, signified NRC staff confusion as to the nature of its safety responsibilities. The use of such meaningless language and defense j
of it by a high level NRC official, such as yourself, indicate that the NRC has abrogated its responsibility to protect the public safety in the manner l
required by the Atomic Energy Act.
The undeniable fact is that Maine Yankee, during most, if not all its operating history, failed to Osmply with Commission regulations that need be satisfied by an operating reactor.
If NRC staff knew of the noncomply-ing conditions now known to exist throughout the period beginning with issuance of the Operating License, the staff, pending correction of such noncompliances, at no time could have made the "no undae risk" findings and/or other determinations necessary for plant operations.
The question thus arises as to what was the intended meaning of the Regional Administrator's "never unsafe" statement. Did he intend to make a distinction between compliance and safety similar to that made by Commis-sioner Diaz on April 2? If he did intend this distinction how does this comport with Chairman Jackson's October 1996 statements concerning the strong coupling between compliance and safety where she said:
I see a real danger in being ensnared by false distinctions between safety and compliance in our regulatory program.
In fact, the con-cepts are bound tightly to each other. A licensee's compliance with our regulations and license conditions is fundamental to our conf 1-
)
dence in the safety of licensed activities.
Your April 23 letter implies that the Regional Administrator's "never unsafe" statement was appropriate. The letter states "... the context in which that statement was made was that defense-in-depth provided adequate i
margins for safety at MYAPS."
What analysis demonstrated, for example, that, prior to the shutdown for steam tube sleeving, adequate margins of
)
safety existed at Maine Yankee notwithstanding numerous steam tubes having 1
crack depths in excess of allowable limits (several in excess of 90%),
missing pressure relief valves, misplaced cables, inaccurate and unreliable safety calculations, and inadequate fire seals?
Is it the NRC staff'r position that defense-in-depth provided adequate margins of safe's notwithstanding the existence of the deficien-cies that have resu1* a in Maine Yankee's shutdown? If " adequate margins for safety" do e dst, why is the plant shutdown? Does the NRC make a dis-tinction betwusn a situation where there is an " adequate margins for safety" and one in which reactor operations create "no undue risk?"
i Without a further explanation of the Regional Administrator's rea-soning underlying his "never unsafe" statement, the impression left for the record is that of a high level NRC official seeking to deflate public con-cerns arising from a stream of revelations indicating the Maine Yankee licensee's historic failure to meet the Commission's safety standards l
embodied in regulations.
9707290205 970723 PDR ADOCK 05000309 H
i I
=
Mr. Samuel J. Collins May 5, 1997 With respect to whether the staff is enforcing regulations at Maine Yankee. I call your attention to the fact that the bottom line conclusion of the Incependent Safety Assessment (ISAT), as stated by Chairman Jackson:
"Overall performance at Maine Yankee was considered adequate for operation." I have noted in previous communications with the Chairman that, whatever this means, it is certainly a standard lesser than a find.ng of "no undue risk," assuming again that "no undue risk" is tantamount to "significant compliance with regulations."
If Maine Yankee presented "no undue risk" why did the ISAT not reach this conclusion?
l Also, the authors and/or editors minimized the significance of defi-ciencies revealed in the ISAT report; e.g. the report omitted significant information that was available to the ISA team.
For example, the ISAT discussion on page 38 fails to note that Maine Yankee had failed to comply with ICC requirements stated in NUREG 0737; the discussion on page 40, in not stating the specifics of the fire seal issue, leaves an impression that the problem was of much lesser significance than is actually the case. The unwarranted favorable gloss of the ISAT language readily leads to a con-clusion that NRC staff have modified requirements in the direction of making regulations fit the plant and its associated documentation rather than assuring that the plant and documentation comply with regulations.
With respect to the question of the relationship between current cable problems and those identified by Mr. Atherton in 1978, the matter will be resolved only when the NRC and/or licensee produce documentation demonstrating resolution of the Atherton issues. As far as I know, docu-ments, that would show problems identified by Mr. Atherton had been corrected, have not been located.
In any event, it appears, at bottom, that over most of its operating history, Maine Yankee's cable installation procedures and/or implementation of such procedures did not comply with NRC regulations.
With respect to your comments to the effect that my concerns about TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 were fully discussed in Mr.
i Zwolinski's April 14 letter, I note that Mr. Zwolinski did not resolve the issues I have raised previously, including questions posed in my March 18 letter to which your April 23 was intended to respond.
I will not reiter-ate my concerns about the SBLOCA matter other than to refer you to previous correspondence and to note that the basic concerns giving rise to my SBLOCA inquiries remain unresolved: e.g. concerns that the January 3, 1996 Order allowed Maine Yankee to operate notwithstanding noncompliance with requirements of TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 and that, in issuing this Order, the staff inappropriately allowed Maine Yankee to operate without compliance with requirements based on these items.
Sincerely, A My~'
Henry R. Myers c: Chairman Shirley Jackson l
Commissioner Kenneth Rogers l
Conniasioner Greta Dicus i
Commissioner Nils Diaz Commissioner Edward McGaffigan I
l l
l l
i