ML20149M125
Text
~. _ _.. __._ __._ _._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _. _
1 i
i From:
PAUL M. BLANCH <PMBLANCH91x.netcom.com>
To:
JZ <JAZWOL9aol.com>
Date:
11/20/96 1:47pm-
Subject:
Maine Yankee Meeting John:
Just thought you may want my comments on the ISAT report even though - the NRC got a copy at the meeting last night. Dave Lochbaum and Dr. -
l Myers were also on the panel.
I would like a formal response to the - issues addressed below.
l 11/17/96 COP 91ENTS ON MAINE YANKEE ISAT REPORT DATED OCTOBER 7,1996 In her letter dated October 7,1996 Dr. Jackson stated in her letter - to Mr.
Charles D. Frizzle =B3The purpose of the ISA was to determine = whether Maine Yankee was in conformity with its design and licensing - bases;-B2 Dr.
Jackson completely avoided addressing this objective.
l The simple answer is that the plant is not in compliance with -B3its - design I
and licensing bases.-B2 This conclusion is supported by the - content of the l
Very ISAT report attached to this letter.
l It appears the tone of the report is different from anything I have - ever l
j seen come out of the NRC. They refuse to even attempt to - directly address the issue of compliance with the regulations and use = words such as:
-B3These tests may have shown some degree of - cavitation and an uncertain, but likely very small, margin. These - limiting conditions would exist only j
in the low probability event of - a large break LOCA.-82 What does this actually mean? To me it means that both the NRC and - the i
licensee don-B9t know if the ECCS system will operate even at =
2440 Mwt. They state that these systems will not likely function at -
i 2700 MW but they fail to address the issue if they will operate at =
2440MW. This appears to be intentional deception of the general = public and the State of Maine.
Throughout the document they use the words: -B3These limiting - conditions would exist only in the low probability event of a large - break LOCA.-B2 A large break LOCA is part of the design basis and = the ECCS systems must function for this design basis event. This is - like saying I don-B9t need seat belts, air bags of brakes because the - probability of needing them is very low.
l On page =B3v=B2 the NRC states: =B2 Maine Yankee was in general = conformance with its licensing-basis although SIGNIFICANT ITEMS OF =
NON-CONFORMANCE WERE IDENTIFIED [ emphasis added].-B2 Translated this - means the licensee is not in compliance with the requirements.
i On page =B3vii-B2 the NRC states: -83there is a lack of a questioning -
culture which has resulted in the failure to identify or promptly - correct significant problems in areas perceived by management to.be - of low safety significance.=B2 What are these significant problems - and why does the NRC allow them to operate?
l 9612120304 961210 l
l i
On page 19 of the report the NRC states: -B3The ISA team reviewed - this l
information and concluded that these heat exchangers could be - considered l
operable at the higher thermal values resulting from plant - operation at 2700 l
Mwt.-B2 l
l The NRC has no authority to determine if a component is operable.
The licensee has a formal process outlined in Generic Letter 91 and if the operability of a system, structure or component [SSC-B9s) = is in question, the licensee MUST make a formal determination of - operability. The NRC did this in the past and got burned and - admitted to me they do not have is authority.
This issue was - discussed in an NRC Inspector General-B9s report transmitted to me on =
l July 11, 1994.
l At the top of page 20 the NRC again conducts operability = determinations in violation of their own statutory authority.
l On page 21 they state: =B3W0 96-01785-00, completed August 9, 1996, -
l (SCCW), did not demonstrate whether these valves would perform their - safety l
related function.-82 Why is the plant operating if it can-B9t - be shown that l
safety systems are operable?
Page 23
-B3The ISA team did not consider the licensee's position - that the 345 kV system back-feed operation, completed within six - hours, was an l
acceptable basis for compliance with the FSAR and Maine =
l Yankee Design Criterion 39.=B2 This is an open acknowledgment that - the plant is not in compliance with the design basis therefore not in - compliance with the regulations.
Page 29 -B3The ISA team found that the licensee was not meeting 10 -
CFR 50.49 requirements in that there were certain electrical - components that l
were not qualified for their expected environment - following a design basis i
event.-B2 With this one statement the NRC - admits the plant is in violation of the regulations.
j l
Page 30: -B3a walkdown on July 24, 1996, of reactor ccntainmeit that -
revealed 30 components outside of Maine Yankee's design basis.-B2 These are only examples but the very clear message is that the plant - is not i
in compliance with the design basis and not in compliana with - the regulations and the NRC lets them continue to operate.
In my opinion, given the fact that a token audit uncovered many areas - of l
non-compliance,. Maine Yankee should not be operating this plant - until they complete a review as required by last week-B9s 50.54 f - letter from the NRC.
They are breaking the law and the NRC is - helping them.
I could continue and cite many other examples but it is very clear to - me that the NRC did not want to ask the difficult questions because - the knew the correct answer would result in a plant shutdown for not - being in compliance with the regulations.
I have recently reviewed the NRC report on Connecticut Yankee.
l Comparing the two reports, the information contained in the MY report - is
l every bit as condemning as the CY report.
Some of the same = deficiencies, l
such as the NPSH for the containment recirculation = pumps, were identified at both plants.
The difference is the -
-83 spin-B2 put on the MY report.
From my perspective, the NRC is again covering their own incompetence - and embarrassment created by UCS-B9s disclosure of falsified LOCA = codes and the NRC-B9s Inspector General-B9s Event Inquiry dated May -
8, 1996. Maine Yankee, with all the deficiencies identified in the -
ISAT report, should conduct a complete design review before the plant - is l
allowed to continue operation.
It is clear from this report, the - plant in i
non-compliance with both the design and licensing bases. The - conclusion of l
=B3(C]onsidered adequate for operation-82 is totally = unsupported by any l
objective evidence and is contradicted by the - report itself.
l l
Sincerely, i
Paul M. Blanch 135 Hyde Rd. West Hartford CT. 06117 860-236-0326 l
I i
Paul M. Blanch Energy Consultant 135 Hyde Rd.
1 West Hartford CT 06117 l
Voice 860-236-0326 Fax 860-232-9250 l
l
\\
l l
i