ML20207H337
ML20207H337 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Maine Yankee |
Issue date: | 06/11/1999 |
From: | Zwolinski J NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
To: | Shadis R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
References | |
NUDOCS 9906160103 | |
Download: ML20207H337 (3) | |
Text
]
E
\\
l y mtg g
4 UNITED STATES j
g j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
]
WASHINGTON, D.c. 2066H001 1
- ,o June 11,' 1999 Mr. Ray Shadis l
Friends of the Coast P. O. Box 98 l
l Edgecomb, ME 04556
Dear Mr. Shadis:
t i
l am writing to convey my thanks for your attendance and participation at the April 13,1999, Reactor Decommissioning Public meeting as well as the meeting on May 5,1999. During the meeting of the 13*, you made reference to the absence of timeliness on the part of the NRC replying to your letters. I was surprised by your assertions, and, if you recall, apologized for any decrease in public confidence that might have resulted. I have carefully looked into this matter and I believe the circumstances are different from those you portrayed.
j With regard to your June 5,1998, letter, on June 8,1998, shortly after we received it, the i
project manager, Mike Webb, called you and left a telephone message regarding how we would
}
respond to your concerns. He noted that since a number of technical areas were involved in i
developing a response, the review would take a significant amount of time to complete and that we would keep you informed of our progress. On August 14,1998, Mr. Webb spoke with you on the telephone and provided the overall status of our review of your concerns. Subsequently, on November 9,1998, at a public meeting of the Maine Advisory Committee on Radiation, Mr. Webb again provided you with the status of the review and the conclusions reached on those items that had been completed. On March 4,1999, at the Regulatory information j
Conference in Washington, DC, Mr. Webb again provided you with the status of our response j
to your concerns. In fact, the March 26,1999, letter from the NRC which you criticized as being untimely stated in the first paragraph, "The NRC has already discussed these issues at meetings and phone conversations between you and Mike Webb, the MYAPS Project Manager.
O This letter serves to document the results of all the NRC interactions with you on these issues."
g) l In your comments on the March 26,1999, letter, you raised the issue of whether the trailer-mounted generator that is located outside the spent fuel building is a potential j
tornado-driven missile. As we explained in the letter, the possibility of wood blocks under the l
trailer becoming an issue need not be separately analyzed because this event is bounded by the tornado missile analysis of an 1,850-pound utility pole that is 35 feet long and 14 inches in i
diameter, traveling at 150 mph. We also noted that the heavy weight of the trailer (more than l
l 15 times the weight of the tornado missiles already analyzed), combined with the low likelihood l
of the path of the object being in the direction of the spent fuel pool and deposited therein,7D i 6,$ Dr&6!
l es us confidence that the trailer-mounted generator d t
t 5[
'U3ON l
You also raised a timeliness issue relative to a memorandum provide i
February 4,1997. This document presented issues raised by a concerned individual. Our
{
review of those concerns was performed in accordance with NRC allegation review procedures.
1 The NRC sent letters to you and the concerned individual on April,8,1997, acknowledging j
receipt of the concerns and describing the allegation process Due to the complexity, age, 9906160103 990611 PDR ADDCK 05000309 N-/df H
pop i
J
w y
g L
R. Shadis-June 11, 1999 scope, and number of concerns, a significant NRC review effort was required to address these issues in addition to status letters that were sent to the concemed individual, the staff sent letters to you on October 21,1997, and March 20,1998, regarding the status of the review.
1-l The NRC originally scheduled a response date prior to the licensee's advertised restart date of July 15,1997. However, in May 1997 the licensee indicated it might not restart the facility, but was pursuing sale of the facility.' On August 7,1997, the licensee certified permanent cessation of power operation. Since the issues under consideration were related only to operation of the facility, the NRC schedule for completion of the review was extended consistent with other priorities. On January 20,1999, the NRC sent a letter notifying you that the issues had been resolved and that the concerned individual had been informed of the results of the review.
The last item I wish to clarify pertains to the November 30,1993, letter from Adam Bless, the nuclear safety advisor from the State of Oregon, to Dr. Michael Masnik, who was then the Trojan plant project manager. As you correctly state, this letter contained advice on preparing for issues that might be raised by antinuclear proponents at public meetings.
The NRC frequently receives communications from parties with different views on nuclear power plant issues. The letter you questioned was available to the public in the Public Document Room. Although the NRC staff recognized that statements were made in the letter.
that could be viewed as prejudicial to Mr. Bless, the staff took no action to suppress the document. The NRC did not act upon the information in this letter in its dealings with the public.
Your incorrect assertion of wrongdoing by the NRC only results in hindering open communications between the NRC and the public.
In conclusion, we appreciate your comments and feedback. We recognize the need for timely response to public concerns and comments, and we place a priority on such communications, consistent with other work demands. Again, I would like to thank you for participating in our meetings. If you would like to discuss these issues further, please contact Michael T. Masnik of my staff on (301) 415-1191.
Sincerely, Jhnbokin Di tor Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation DISTRIBUTION:
wDocket Fue
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCES DOCUMENT NAME: G:\\PDIV-3 roj to -.. coo 4 se in,. oocum.ne. inoic.i. in in.hr fcoco.an\\LTRshadis.wpdv.io.ii.cnm.nir.ncio.u,. e copy.nn.ei. cam.niQ
(
so cor" s /
OFFICE
' LPM' PM E
LA/PDl%3 E
DIPM*
,t3 PD/PDIV&D*
E D/
NAME SWeiss:db '
DDutiley CJamersonk JLee MMosn SRichards JZ DATE 05/17/99 lf /
/99 bl. 7 /99 h hl
/99 05/24/99
/
/99 05/13/99 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
n 4 --
e.
R. Shadis scope, and number of concerns, a significant NRC review effort was required to address these j
' issues. In addition to status letters that were sent to the concerned individual, the staff sent 1
letters to you on October 21,1997, and March 20,1998, regarding the status of the review.
The NRC originally scheduled a response date prior to the licensee's advertised restart date of July 15,1997. However, in May 1997 the licensee indicated it might not restart the facility, but was pursuing sale of the facility. On August 7,1997, the licensee certified permanent cessation of power operation. Since the issues under consideration were related only to operation of the
. facility, the NRC schedule for completion of the review was extended consistent with other priorities. On January 20,1999, the NRC sent a letter notifying you that the issues had been resolved and that the concerned individual had been informed of the results of the review.
J
. The last item I wish to clarify pertains to the November 30,1993, letter from Adam Bless, the i
nuclear safety advisor from the State of Oregon, to Dr. Michael Masnik, who was then the j
Trojan plant project manager. As you correctly state, this letter contained advice on preparing l
for issues that might be raised by antinuclear proponents at public meetings.
The NRC frequently receives communications from parties with different views on nuclear power plant issues. The letter you questioned was available to the public in the Public Document Room. Although the NRC staff recognized that statements were made in the letter that could be viewed as prejudicial to Mr. Bless, the staff took no action to suppress the document. The NRC did not act upon the information in this letter in its dealings with the public.
Your incorrect assertion of wrongdoing by the NRC only results in hindering open communications between the NRC and the public.
In conclusion, we appreciate your comments and feedback. We recognize the need for timely response to public concerns and comments, and we place a priority on such communications, consistent with other work demands. Again, I would like to thank you for participating in our meetings.' If you would like to discuss these issues further, please contact Michael T. Masnik of my staff on (301) 415-1191.
Sincerely, k',
i Joh. A. Zwolinski, Director Division of Licensing Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation a