ML20236S569

Discusses Recently Scheduled Meeting on 980423 in Region I W/Licensee That Will Be Closed to Public Because Results of OI Inquiries Will Be Discussed.Nrc Investigation of Noted Problems Turned Oversight Function Into Mockery

ML20236S569
Person / Time
Site:	Maine Yankee
Issue date:	04/10/1998
From:	Lochbaum D UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
To:	Diaz N, Dicus G, Shirley Ann Jackson, Mcgaffigan E, The Chairman NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20236S553	List: ML20236S551 ML20236S569
References
NUDOCS 9807270043
Download: ML20236S569 (2)

Text

-,

,e L'

UNION OF l

CONCERNED SCIENTISTS April 10,1998 Chairman Shirley A. Jackson Commissioner Greta J. Dieus Commissioner Nils J. Diaz Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr.

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Dear Chairman Jackson and Commissioners:

A meeting was recently scheduled for April 23,1998,in the NRC's Region I offices in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, with the licensee for the Maine Yankee Atomic Power Station. According to Ms. Diane Serenci of the Region I Public Affairs office, that meeting will be closed to public observation because the results from the Office ofInvestigations inquiries will be discussed.

The charges purportedly to be discussed at this meeting were communicated to the Mainc Yankee licensee in a letter from Mr. Ilubert Miller dated December 19,1997. These charges are indeed serious as Mr. Miller expressed to the licensee:

"It appears that careless disregard on the part of your staff contributed to these apparent violations" and "These apparent violations collectively represent a potentially significant lack of attention or carelessness toward licensed responsibilities and a failure to conduct adequate oversight of a vendor, resulting in the use of services of defective or indeterminate quality."

laegardless of the outcome of the April 23,1998, meeting, the NRC's investigation of these problems tumed the agency's regulatory oversight function into a mockery. If the Commission wants to understand why the public lacks confidence in the restart process for problem plants like Millstone, you should examine the sequence of events at Maine Yankee. It's a case study in how not to do things.

Background

In_ December 1995, UCS forwarded allegations we received from an anonymous source to state officials in Maine. These allegations were forwarded to the NRC that same month. In the furor that these allegations produced, the Govemor of Maine asked the NRC to detennine if the plant was safe. The NRC responded by I

sending in an Independent Safety Assessment Team tlSAT). The ISAT concluded in its October 1996 report that while there were a few weaknesses that needed to be resolved before the plant increased power l

Washington Office: 1616 P Street NW Suite 310. Washington DC 200361495 202-332-0900. FAX: 202 332 0905 Cambridge Headquarters: Two Brattle Square. Carnbridge MA 02238-9105 617 547-5552. FAX: 617-864-9405 California Office: 2397 Shattuck Avenue Suite 203. Berkeley CA 947041567 510-843-1872. FAX: 510-843-3785 9007270043 980716 PDR CDPMS MtCC U

PDR d

)

s*

's a

April 10,1998 Page 2 of 2

~ above 90% rated, it was safe and in general compliance with its licensing and design bases. The licensee closed the plant in December 1996 because of cable separation problems (i.e., non-compliance with the licen<ing and design bases). 'lhe owners elected in May 1997 to permanently close the plant rather than spend the money required to restore the facility to within its licensing and design bases.

Concerns

'lhe NRC staff will be meeting with the Maine Yankee licensee to discuss very serious charges. "Signincant lack of attention" and " careless disregard" would be troublesome problems for any business, but are simply intolerable when applied to the operation of a nuclear power plant. 'lhese charges raise the following questions:

i

1. Does the Commission consider it acceptable for this investigation to have taken over 2 years?

2.

If the charges are valid, how can the Commission justify that it permitted this plant to operate from January 1996 until December 1996?

' 3. Whether' the charges are valid or not, how can the public be expected to trust an agency that seemingly Dip-Hops on safety issues?

In January 1996, the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation ordered the plant's output dropped by 10% due to safety concerns (Potentially Unsafe). In October 1996, the ISAT gives the l

plant a clean bill of health, reinforced by the ISAT's leader repeatedly proclaiming to the public that

)

' he wouldn't mind living next to Maine Yankee (Safe). In December 1998, the Region I Administrator charges the plant's management with careless disregard (Potentially Unsafe).

J 4.

If the charges are valid, does it not mean that the NRC is also guilty of"a failure to conduct adequate oversight of a vendor (the Maine Yankee licensee], resulting in the use of services of defective or indeterminate quality"?

i

.. Conclusion -

The NRC's investigation lasted over 2 years and charged the Maine Yankee licensee with careless disregard

.j

in its oversight of a nuclear power plant While this investigation was underway, a separate NRC investigation reassured the Governor and citizens ofMaine that the facility was being operated within its licensing and design bases. 'Ihe plant closed 6 weeks later because it was outside its licensing and design bases. If the Commission ever expects to have public con 6dence in the agency's oversight effectiveness, it must figure out what went wrong at Maine Yankee and make sure these mistakes are not repeated.

Sincerely, S

I i

David A. Loch aum Nuclear Safety Engineer l'