ML20210M730
| ML20210M730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Maine Yankee |
| Issue date: | 07/03/1997 |
| From: | Myers H AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Shirley Ann Jackson, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20210M724 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9708220174 | |
| Download: ML20210M730 (5) | |
Text
.
.y,;..
/
e'-
P.O. Box BB Peaks Island, ME 04108 July 3, 1997 Hon. Shirley Jackson
-Chairman U.S.-Nuclear RegulatoryLCommission LWashington,.D.C. 205550 0001
Dear Chairman-Jackson:
- This letter is-in reference to'Mr. Zwolinski's June 20. 1997 letter to
'me concerning Maine Yankee matters addressed in my April 18, 1997 letter to you.-
)
I am writing to inform you that-the June 20 letter is not responsive
- to concerns expressed by me and others. First, these concerns are not being
')
addressed adequately by persons having played a role in creating and/or dealing with the issues addressed in my letters.
Second, I note that the question of whether the Atherton cable issues had been resolved remains opens-this is the case-although documentation required by' Commission regu-
-lations should have contained information indicating whether or not those issues had been appropriately closed. Third, the June 20 letter fails again to confront the fact that NRC staff allowed Maine Yankee to operate without=
the staff having followed procedures-for permitting operations in a situa-tion where compliance with SBLOCA requirements had not been achieved.
Fourth, the June 20 letter appears to state a staff position that seems counter to the proposition that compliance with regulations is a sine qua non for reactor operations; e.g. the staff pcsition seems to ** thatifind-
'ings-of: undue risk can properly be based upon intuition and sineering 1
judgement rather than upon a finding of compliance with regulationc.
Of. -
'particular concern are recent remarks by Commissioner Diaz whose denigration of the existing regulatory regime (i.e., a regime-based on compliance with regulations). encourages a dangerous disrespect for regulations among both licensee personnel and NRC-staff.
Text following "JZ/NRC:" is from Mr. Zwolinski's letter and my com-ments follow "HM comments."
JZ/NRC:
On April 18, 1997 you wrote-a letter to Chairman Jackson on topics crelating to the Maine Yankee facility and'other industry issues. Your letter has been referred to me for reply.
HM comment:
=I have previously expressed concern that my letters have been j
referred for response to staff having an interest in defending certain actions at Maine Yankee. These actions, in my opinion. /
were not taken in accord with legislation and procedures that govern NRC operations.
JZ/NRC:
You questioned whether documents'had been located that were associated with the 1978 resolution of cable separation concerns raised by Mr.
Atherton. The staff is again reviewing these concerns to ensure that they were addressed. We are not aware of any inability to locate the documents needed for this review.
HM comment:
The apparent inability to answer in specific language the A n..,,
9708220174 970819 PDR ADOCK 05000309
=
H PDR
~l
Hon. Shir1cy Jcck:on 2-July 3, 1997 question as to whether the Atherton concerns had been resolved-has created an inference that documents necessary for such resolution had not been located. That the staff is encounter-ing difficulties in bringing this issue to closure is manifest in the staff not having-fulfilled its commitment to discuss-the matter in public in May or June. The following is an excerpt of Atherton issue discussion taken from the transcript of the-April 3, 1997 Wiscasset transcripts MR. H. MYERS: Have you identified documents that dem-onstrate resolution of cable problems identified by Atherton and then adjusted subsequent NRC documents (sic)? It's my understanding the documents dated sub-sequent to Atherton's notes describe or address 4
problems along the lines that Atherton seemed to be discussing. And then it's not clear though where the documents are that address resolution of those problems that seemed to be raised by Atherton and then raised subsequently in other NRC documents.
MR. DORMAN: Okay, I think all I can say at this point is we're reviewing considerable history in this area, and we'll be back in June to talk more about that.
MR H. MYERS: I'd just like to leave this question for the record about the whether there is a document trail that begins with Atherton and ends with a docu-ment that describes what was raised by Atherton in subsequent NRC documents. I'd just like to leave that for the record. You cannot point to the series of documents starting with Atherton tracking through sub-sequent NRC documents and then back and to Maine Yankee and ending with something that says this issue is closed?
MR ZWOLINSKI: Mr. Myers, the NRC staff tonight 1 com-mitted to you, the public, that we would come back in May or June and discuss all the issues accociated with fire protection, concerns raised by Mr. Atherton and other technical issues in a forum something along the lines of this in which we would make presentations to at least disposition the issues-that we're aware of and the status of issues as the licensee proceeds in the recovery.
MR. H. MYERS: Let me just say why.I think this is sig-nificant. Namely, Atherton raised issues that subsequent NRC documents seem to confirm that certain of these questions raised by Atherton were indeed real questions. Then Maine Yankee was asked to do certain things in response to this. So documents go along in the spring of 1978, and then as far as I know there's nothing subsequent to that says these issues are closed. Now, that's just a f actual thing. If the docu-ments are there -
PR. DORMAN: That's not correct. There is an inspection report on the fire protection program at Maine Yankee that was issued roughly in January of '85.
I believe the number is Inspection Report 8411. At the back of that inspection report there's about a two and a half page listing of documents back and forth between
l l'
Hon. Shir1cy Jackson 3
July 3, 1997
.V the licensee and the staff from April of 1978, right after Mr. Atherton's notes, up until the time of that 2 inspection. That's a large portion of the documentation that we're that we're looking at to find the answers to just the question you're MR. H. MYERS: Okay. So it's in those documents?
MR. DORMAN: So I think the answer at this point is we are certainly taking that question and following it.
MR. HEHL: And part of the time it takes to do that is because unfortunately documents that far back don't exist, you know, in our electronic retrieval system. We have to go back and search through hard copy records that are archived and things, and it just takes time, MR. H. MYERS: But there is a list of documents that if you track through those documents you will be able to say yes or no or maybe to this, whether or not the Atherton issues were resolved.
MR. DORMAN: I think I can commit to yes, no or maybe.
JZ/NRC:
You also repeated your contention that the NRC acted inappropriately in allowing Maine Yankee to operate under the conditions imposed in several letters to you, and our position is unchanged. You stated that you found our responses in our previous letters "conclusory," and
" inadequately documented." To the contrary, our responses have pro-vided detailed answers and supporting documents for your use.
HM comment:
I again reiterate previous statements made with respect to this matter which will not be resolved unless the Commission takes direct responsibility for reviewing the concerns expressed by me and others to the ef f ect that staf f permitted Maine Yankee (via the January 3, 1996 Order) to operate notwithstanding noncom-pliance with the requirements associated with TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K 3.31.
Such a Commission directed review, I assume, would seek comments by citizens who have been critical of the January 3 Order.
JZ/NRC:
We also note that each NRC Commissioner has the freedom to express individual views on any given topic. As for your observations regarding Commissioner Diaz's specific remarks at the April 1997 Regulatory Information Conference: the Commission has stated clearly that licensees bear the primary responsibility for ensuring safe operation of their facilities, and that compliance with NRC require-ments, including regulations and license conditions, is fundamental to giving the NRC confidence that safety is being maintained. The Com-mission is in full agreement on that premise.
However, when 1 evaluating the overall performance of a facility in terms of its jus-tification for continued operation, or.the need for prompt remedial action (including shutdown), the Commission's decisions are not based upon a " substantial compliance" standard.
Rather, such decisions are based on a determination as to whether operation of the facility poses undue risk to public health and safety. Where needed to ensure adequate protection of public health and safety, the NRC may demand
7
' I '..'. ' '.
.Hon. Shir1cy Jackson 4
July 3, 1997 a
i immediate licensee action, including shutdown.
HM comment:
It is unclear from the foregoing whether the current Commission believes that operating reactors are required to be in "sub*
stantial compliance" with regulations. Rather, Mr. Zwolinski seems to be saying that the criteria for allowing a reactor to operate are what the NRC staff states such criteria to be, nothing more and nothing less. I believe if Mr. Zwolinksi is
+
expressing an agency position, there exists a situation where safety is not assured by compliance with regulations but, instead, assurance of safety relies upon engineering judgement and intuition of particular NRC staff charged with assessing conditions at specific plants.
It is also unclear whether Mr.
Zwolinski agrees with Commissioner Diaz's radical proposals for regulatory reform.
l I also note that Commissioner Diaz has failed to cite specific i
deficiencies at Maine Yankee that he considers not to be safety 1
issues.
Commissioner Diaz's statements made on April 2 at the NRC's Regulatory Information Conference have the effect of denigrating the significance of the history of noncom-pliance at Maine Yankee and elsewhere. The Commissioner's assertion that "most compliance issues are not safety issues
- engenders disrespect for regulations at a time that you have stressed the coupling of saf3ty to the NRC's regula-tions. Commissioner Diaz seems to advocate institution of a necessarily arbitrary and capricious regulatory framework based l-on engineering judgement and intuition.
Commissioner Diaz's proposal appears to have emerged without an analysis, based on real world data, that demonstrates that the nuclear risk would be kept within acceptable grounds if the course he proposes were to be adopted. As things stand, the course he advocates is-counter to the one you appear intent upon following and the one you appear to believe necessary if_the use of fission is to be a viable option for electric generation.
JZ/NRC Furthermore, the NRC must continuously assess the efficacy of its requirements in light of operating experience and the results of risk-informed safety assessments. Where requirements exist that have no safety benefit, the NRC can and should take action to modify or remove such requirements form the regulations.
Since some require-ments are more important to safety than other, the Commission continues to support the use of risk informed approaches when consid-ering changes to NRC regulations, as well as when apply NRC resources to oversight of licensed activities.
HM comment:
I agree fully with the idea of the elimination of regulations that do not contribute significantly to keeping the overall risk within bounds established by the Commission. Any such elimina-tion, however, should be carried out in accord with the Commission's procedures for doing so. Regulatory requirements should not be eliminated, as was done in the case of the requirements associated with TMI Action Plan Items II.K.3.30 and II.K.3.31 as these requirements applied at Maine Yankee. Tne fact is that Maine Yankee was allowed to operate when it did not comply with these Action Plan requirements and the staff did not m
. f, S.2.. '.
ei follow-the Commission's procedures for allowing operations not-withstanding such noncompliance.
Overall, the staff's June 20 letter is not responsive to con + -
cerns stated in ry April 18-letter. -For the most part, these April 18 concerne had been-expressed in numerous letters that I have addressed to you since amergence of the allegations presented to the Union of Concerned Scientists in late 1995. The agency has been unwilling to respond to these letters with documents capabis of withstanding critical review. The fact that the Commission consid-era it unnecessary to respond to such questions with answers capable of holding up an an open forum is a manifestation of an agency that has gone astray. The failure to confront these issues forthrightly indicates that the NRC's actions are governed more by a perceived need to satisfy the near term imperatives of the nuclear enterprise than by its obligation to fulfill the mission assigned by Congress via the Atomic Energy Act and its various amendments.
-Finally, I note Commienioner Diat's comments nade in a May 30 speech before the Nuclear Energy Institutet."... let us be conscious of our responsibilities to the American people, especially the man-ner in which the industry and the NRC provide public informations clarity and specificity, full disclosure without speculation-that generates fear and distrust."
I respectfully suggest that Commis-sioner Diaz's time, instead of being devoted to promotion of a dangerous (and probably unattainable) restructuring of the regula-tory framework, would be better axpended.upon a review of the Maine Yankes record and in explaining to the public how this record stacks up with his beliefs in full disclosure and his confidence in an agency which "... when we erred it has been consistently on the conservative side.'
Sincerely, k
- }M Henry Myers ct Commissioner Greta Dicus Commissioner Nils Diaz Commissioner Edward McCaffigan
.i
.