ML19208D755

Asks That NRC Reject Conclusions of ACRS 790716 Ltr as Unsubstantiated.Recommends Full Evidentiary Hearings

ML19208D755
Person / Time
Site:	Bailly
Issue date:	08/17/1979
From:	Weinberg J BAILLY ALLIANCE, IL
To:	Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 7909290488
Download: ML19208D755 (5)

Text

.

...L' :..::.:.t i

f % Its 0/ eq$E .

- 7 don. 73:e,-h ... .:en W e, Chair.t n E" OgT N73 ':$

Iuolerr 3e uhtory Connia; ion h -

Tiachin: ton, J.C. 20555 g ~7 ,%** 1 Gentle =en: ~%

e ww The Sailly Alliance requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reject the conclusions of the ACRS as contained in its letter of July 16, and instead repri=and the co=mittee. The ACRS carried out no serious or independant investigation of the questions put to them by the IGC. Behind a facade of pomp and professionalism, they did little more than provide a public re-lations forum for the utility--Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

For scoe time, residents of Horthwest Indiana have been con-cerned about settling problems at Bailly I which could cause a nuclear accident. During the original construction permit hearings, NIPSCC proposed driving long pl.les down to bedrock or to glacial till, a design that would avoid settling problems at a site where the underly.ng soil is composed of sand and clay.

Later, however, NIPSCC declared that long piles were unnecessary and proposed instead the use of shorter piles resting only on sand and clay. There has been large scale public distrust of this proposed design change and w:.despread sentiment that full evidentiaq hearings (with the righ to cross-exacine util:. y M]fM bf v d 9L

, s[/

b 0 A) 2

. 1 11 / 9 7909290

.nin m a m %o a 1054223

axperts and the right .to introduce testi=ony fro = independent experts) are required to determine whether this prcposed design change was in fact safe. We believe that the activities of the ACRS a=ounted to nothing more than a public relations gi==ic--

an atte=pt to shore up public c onfidence in NIPSCO's short pilings design, and to blunt the de=and for full evidentiary hearings.

The ACRS carried out no serious investigations of its own.

The only ti=e ACRS experts exa=ined the site was on July 9, the

=orning of the subco==ittee =eeting in Portage. Dr. Richart and Dr. Scott, consultants to the ACRS, acco=panied the press on a walking tour. This was the su= total of ACRS's independent in-vestigation of the soil conditiens at the Bailly I site.

Dr. Richart's and Dr. Scott's testi=cny at the Washington ACRS =eeting en July 12 indicates that they were uneasy.at ,the proceedings. When asked to co==ent on Dr. Lawroski's report to the ACRS of the =eeting of the Bailly subco==1 tee, Dr. Richart stated, "It has to be considered in the nature of a progress report. It's certainly not a ec=plete report." (Transc rip t ,

page 4c) He continued, "I think this is a fairly i=portan; point.

If the staff he l not yet cc=ple ted its review, and it's been working On this for =onths, we can't expect to co=e up with a co=plete report at the =o=ent."

Dr. Scott says (pages 52-5 3) . "I felt, however, particularly in view of cc==ents by =e=bers of the public who tend to disbe-lieve all the state =ents =ade by all par;;ec on one side of this issue that as a consultant to the ACRS here, I would personally like to sit down and go over the numbers with sc=ebody, so tha; J

70i MP ypppenaiq&

t 1054 224 Mus!

-3 I have some kind of personal assurance as to how the calculations came out and how the numbers look, so that I am not in a position myself of being accused of only accepting numbers that the appli-cant gives me."

At some points during the hearings Drs. Scott and Richart indicated that they had not been given sufficient time or oppor-tunity to investigate the mass of data presented to them. On page 118, Dr. Scott requests permission to take the data to Cal Tech over the weekend, where he could review it "with the equipment I know and I'm familiar with, and programs that are available to me."

The ACRS's Dr. Seiss replied, "I think we can respond to Chairman Hendrie's request without necessar11y awaiting the last word frca either our consultants or from the staff or from the applicant." In the transcript of the July 12th meeting there is no testimony by the ACRS consultants that substantia es the con-clusions of the ACRS in its letter of July 15.

The Bailly Alliance is aware of what happened at the July 12 meeting only becau'se David Canright of the Chesterton Tribune (a newspaper opposed to the construction of 3ailly I) attended 3

that meeting and because the ACRS mailed a copy of the transcript of the proceedings to George Wilson of United Steel Workers Local 67S7. Although Mr. Muller of the ACES staff promised us a copy of the transcript, we never received it. Nor have any of us in Northwest Indiana been able :s find cut in detail what happened at the July 14th session when the ACES adopted its pre-sen recc=nendations to the iRC .

0 ed La]

JU

[, uM m m_s l3_auL _A7~_2 1054226

_4-Following the July 14th session David Canright asked ACRS Public Officer Muller, over the phone, the conclusions reached at the meeting. Muller told him that, although the meeting had been open to the public, the committee subsequently questioned whether it should have been. Therefore, as late as July 16th, Muller refused to give any indications of the ACRS conclusions to Canright.

No copy of the transcript of the July 14 meeting has reached us, held up presace.bly cn the question of the openness of the meeting.

Results of this ACRS meeting, however, were made available to.NIPSCO. The Gary Post Tribune reported sh<rtly thereafter,

" Roger Robb, HIPSCO's nuclear licensing cngineer _said Monday

[ July 16] an NRC advisory subcommittee told the utility,last week that it found no safety problems in building the plant using shorter foundation pilings than originally planned." This sta:cment was used to substantiate the assertion tlt "NIPSCC will be able to resume construction on its Bailly I nuclear power plant in Porter County, the NRC has indicated."

The ACRS subcommittee meeting in Portage had the trappings, but no; the substance, of genuine hearings probing the safety of the short pilings request. ACRS press handouts which claimed tha the "ACRS has had a continuing responsibility for conducting independent reviews and evaluations of the heal h and safety aspec;s of nuclear power reactors," were not borne out by the actual functioning of the committee.

The conmittee's conclusions were centro 11ed in a nanner D

Jh6ID 1 10'54 T [Ep erm a n 226) dJiJUijJdd!!b

_5_

that suggests that they were calculated to fulfill the press relations objectives of NIPSCO--it seemed an effort to generate the public impression that a full study of the piling contro-versy had been made and that the NRC had cleared the way for resumption of construction.

The Bailly Alliance asks that the IaC reject the conclusions of the ACRS July 16th letter as unwarranted and unsubstantiated.

We believe that full evidentiary hearings are needed, and that the public will not be fooled or reassured by the actions of the ACRS.

Sincerely Yours,

/

Jack Weinberg,_

Co-chairperson, 3ailly Alliance ,

J S inrymyg o p 1054 22 91 - e m_. _ ,,

2 J.* :.i.',ld m ., 7.; c?cD. ?. UTit fl.C. 86-3G2

---i.-.... s. m Bailly Alliance Of

/,

.ce

-pQE 7

h

. ion. ~o 3e.-h .:. .Ie ndr i e , Ch.tirnsn

.'uclecr le{ul: tory Conniscion 5

" Mgg[ N73 ' $-

'lach'.n:-ton,

. D.C . 205 55 g ~'Nf.** f Gentlemen: ~% w The Bailly Alliance requests that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reject the conclusions of the ACRS as contained in its letter of July 16, and instead repri=and the co=mittee. The ACRS carried out no serious or independant investigation of the question, put to them by the NRC. Behind a facade of po=p and professionalism, they did little more than provide a public re-lations forus for the utility--Northern Indiana Public Service Company.

For some time, residents of :icrthwes Indiana have been con-cerned about settling problems at 3ailly I which could cause a nuclear accident. During the original construction pe::=i nearings, NIPSCC proposed driving long piles down to bedrock or to glacial till, a design that would avoid settling proble=s at a site where the underlying soil is composed of sand and clay.

later, however, HIPSCC declared that long piles were unnecessary and proposed instead the use of shorter piles resting only on sand e " M ny. There has been large scale public distrust of this proposed design change and w:.despread sentinent that f .0.1 evidentiary hearings (with the right to cross-examine utill:7 5 ~!

105422%

[o,lhIOl?m^

ut u D

MFU a r/,

L;./J'd / *--

w

experts and the right to introduce testi=ony from independent experts) are required to determine whether this proposed desi6n change was in fact safe. We believe that the activities of the ACRS amounted to nothing more than a public relations gi=mic--

an attempt to shore up public confidence in NIPSCO's short pilings design, and to blunt the demand for full evidentiary hearings.

The ACRS carried out no serious investi6ations of its own.

The only time ACRS experts examined the site was on July 9, the morning of the subcommittee meeting in Portage. Dr. Richart and Dr. Scott, consultants to the ACRS, accompanied the press en a walking tour. This was the sum total of ACRS's independent in -

vesti6ation of the soil conditions at the'3ailly I site.

Dr. Richart's and Dr. Scott's testi=ony at the Washington ACRS meeting on July 12 indicates tha: they were uneasy at ,

the proceedings. When asked to co= cent on Dr. Lawroski's report to the ACRS of the meeting of the Bailly subco==ittee, Dr. Richar; stated, "It has to be considered in the nature of a pro 6ress report. It's certainly not a cc=plete report." (Transc ript ,

page 4c) He continued, "I think this is a fairly important point.

If the staff has not yet comple ted its review, and it's been working on this for months, we can't expec to come up with a complete report at the moment."

Dr. Scott says (pages 52-53). "I felt, however, particularly in view of ec==ents by members of the public who tend to disbe-lieve all the statements =ade by all parties en one side of -his issue that as a censultant to the ACRS here, I would personally like -

and go over the numbers with socebody, so tha; v L.

W, _ P D l 3 a 105422{

la u m w t: S

I have some kind of personal assurance as to how the calculations came out and how the nu=bers look, so that I am not in a position myself of being accused of only accepting numbers that the appli-cant gives me."

At some points during the hearings Drs. Scott and Richart indicated that they had not been 6i ven sufficient time or oppor-tunity to investigate the mass of data presented to them. On page 118, Dr. Scott requests permission to take the data to Cal Tech over the weekend, where he could review it "with the equipment I know'and I'm familiar with, and programs that are available to =e."

The ACRS's Dr. Seiss replied, "I think we can respond to Chairman Hendrie's request without necessarily awaiting the last word from either our consultants or from the staff or from the applicant." In the transcript of the July 12th =eeting there is no testimony by the ACRS consultants that substantiates the cen-clusions of the ACRS La its letter of July 16. .

The Bailly Alliance is aware of what happened at the July 12 meeting cnly because David Canrigh of the Chesterton Tribune (a newspaper opposed to the construction of 3ailly I) attended that meeting and because the ACRS mailed a copy of the transc rip t of the proceedings to Gecrge Wilson of United Steel Workers Lccal 67c7. Although Mr. Muller of the ACRS staff promised us a ccpy of the transcript, we never received it. Nor have any of us in Northwes Indiana teen able to find ou; in detail what happened at the July 14th session when the ACES adopted its pre-sent recc=mendaticns to the NRC.

1054 239 aOr[m t m, f ~

nn o.

r@ - l hT /3 p1

'a1.

.b nl U &fJJ bUL t

Following the July 14th session David Canright asked ACRS Public Officer Muller, over the phone, the conclusiona reached at the meeting. Muller told him that, although the meeting had been open to the public, the committee subsequently questioned whether it should have been. Therefore, as late as July 15th, Muller refused to give any indications of the ACRS conclusions to Canright.

No copy of the transcript of the July 14 meeting has reached us, held up presu= ably on the question of the openness of the meeting, Results of this ACRS =eeting, however, were made available to NIPSCO.- The Gary Post Tribune reported shortly thereaf ter,

" Roger Robb, NIPSCO's nuclear licensing engineer _said Monday

[ July 16] an NRC advisory subco=mittee told the utility,last week that it found no safety problems in building the plant using shorter foundation pilings than originally planned.' This state =ent was used to substantiate the assertion that "NIPSCC will be able to resu=e construction on its Bailly I nuclear power plant in Porter County, the NRC has indicated."

The ACRS subcommittee =eeting in Portage had the trappings, but not the substance, of genuine hearings probing the safety of the short pilings request. ACRS press handouts which claimed that the "ACRS has had a continuing responsibility for conducting independent reviews and evalua:1:ns of the health and safety aspects of nuclear power reactors," were not borne out by the actual functioning of the co==ittee.

Ihe cc=mi ee's conclusions were con rolled in a canner lhI[lO,D

~ i t _

pa n,- g , ,g. s g, 1054 23$

S i L iillJ cu bdb

that suB6ests that they were calculated to fulfill the press relations objectives of NIPSCO--it seemed an effort to generate the public impression that a full study of the piling contro-versy had been made and that the NRC had cleared the way for resumption of construction.

The Bailly Alliance asks that the URC reject the conclusions of the ACRS July 16th letter as unwarranted and unsubstantiated.

We believe that full evidentiary hearings are needed, and that the public will not be fooled or reassured by the actions of the ACRS.

Sincerely Yours,

/

Jack Weinberg, _

Co-chairperson, Bailly Alliance ,

Ef P dH@f@J w

- 1054 230

,Ilpr,!' '!; r, , m - i

' i i) ..

ol:p

2) O b d dJ d im [N3 a