ML19340C332
| ML19340C332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Bailly |
| Issue date: | 11/02/1979 |
| From: | Rolonda Jackson Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19340C304 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8011140526 | |
| Download: ML19340C332 (7) | |
Text
.
[7 I
[
t ;i r r o s re.u s
, -['
(
. ~1iCl 5.1R REGULATORY CO' ~/,',lSSION
.,i r.m<ir.ct oN. o c. :ca
./ l
- ,e s,*
"0V 2 G79 I
liEI'0FA' DUii FOR:
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief 1
Environmentai Projects Brar.ch fio.1, DSE
~
FR0!::
Robert E. Jackson, Chief l
Gooscicnces Branch, DSS 1
SUBJECT:
REVIEW 0F C0f1STRUCTI0fi DE'-lATERlRG FOR BAILLY PLAtlT - GE0TECHillCAL Ef:GII:EERil!G ASPECTS Your :.t-r.orandum to me dated October 25, 1979, subject " Dewatering Iionitoring at the Bailly Site" asked for our review of a filPSCO report entitled " Supplementary Infor.ation, flydrogeologic Evaluation of Construction Dewatering" rehich is dated August 27, 1979.
Because our previous branch reviewers on the Bailly plant are either dedicated to the SEP program or have transferred to l'!iSS, we plan to engage the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to continue the work. We plan tu ask them to include the Dewatering report in the material they are reviewing for us on the Bailly plant. We expect the review of this report will be complete by early spring, 1980.
1 l'-Cf
- C t
obert E. Jackson,' hief Geosciences Bran Division of Syst ms Safety cc:
J. Knight W. Kreger L. Hulman R. Jackson I.T Heller D. Lynch, LPH t
4 8 01114 05.2d
engP 1;
H 7~6. ON I; ty lt. i Y jf.1.as/dc., l$-
, f,ul<wNL*!vt, Se f.-: r.",$<J.,
/0/ Al7V b i f /, y a. 9 p.4,.?/ a 4, // m / :
d f w 2 4 -- ;
'eAW F. h i d < C-(T:,fA C.-
D s-i~u cn jugh,
ca la'sa 4,
c-< - k d< 14 u #- L n ^CJ'A C.-
<4 6w.iA..
a.J-4 tu. pp c tw LJ d'.n
-.4 y
- a. "
T 4 " n./ mL-A41<,x s..e<8-
,7 2A
'l A&
U ga-<cp x & A~A:,4 n,b. p
- ,. 2 r s,.
?
p "Mb y f A,aq%bn "
cru
.A c. <a4
- l n
av ru$
fr-GuyM,
/l)il'.S d 0
( Es-& un-r n
.!- s,
. M L v M s e u d,.4' $ d 4 k a-<.
I ys g;g. n '
a
.42t&'ynug z% px c h j
m b..
s r - s - a.,a 29 a p s c u,-
m j u,yj s 2 M a u 2rgpas4 ABasp, 89 :
n
.a uppkr y % wa;w#,
4 m
t a
- p et see.
! ' J a...
's i.
- 1,,*.'
C ' !?
Pg23/79 v
.. (I:.:. c...:e p l !. r. m t.
r.btr, i:.. **
D:ta._
' r ~.1: ':://s'c:t) 1.
F. Schaner s
?.
R. Jackson V
\\
- \\q-j a.
\\
l'\\ I
/ - h k, j ' 1:
\\
)h. I {L
\\'
(
a..
~
'\\ ~-
\\.1. i
\\1 i
g 4
v
),:t;ca
'fre
(;cte t.nd Retum \\' _\\
Approval Ter Cf::ran:e Pcr Cony:r:stion \\
As Re:;uested for Correction Prepare Repfy
[
Circulate For Your Information S e e f.'s a
Comment inv::tigate SJgneNro I
Coerdination Justify e
.s r.EJ.ZRKS
/
l
- Come to my office on'Wed,10/24, at 1:00 p.m.
to discuss the attached.
Let Jane know if j
this time is not convenient.
t t
e6 I.
I j
Do f;oT use this form as a RECORD of approvals, concurrences, disposafs, cfcarances, and similar actions VT.o'.*:(Name, org. symbol, Agency / Post) i.
J,* Kni ht Room No.-Bfdg.
4 9
.c'
'.a Phone No.
5041-102 r
O..FT.ioNA1. FORM 41 (Rey.,7-76).
..~
om c o..c.e
,,,4.,ci a.r m.
raa m soi-um oQ\\fD fD i
a e
\\
q O
.5 e
1
Sb
?
6 v.=m
- # g" October 16, 1979 t
fp
Dear Dr. Hendrie:
It is my duty as president of NIPSCO to ask you'to
}
remedy the NRC's Staff's prolonged failure to assign the resources needed to complete its review of the pile foundations t
of the Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1.
I deeply regret having to write this letter.
How-I have concluded that no. alternative remains open to
- ever, this Company which is being grieviously harmed by-the continued j
lengthy stoppage in construction resulting from the Staff's failure to complete its review.
Under normal circumstances, I would not burden the a
Chairman of the Commission with a complaint concerning the Staff's allocation of its resources.
However, in this in-stance'"the past and potential future harm to the Company is so extensive and the Staff's performance is-so deficient that your attention is mandatory.
Moreover, the situati n has been exacerbated because both we and the Commissioners have been lulled into believing that the Staff's review was continuing and nearing completion when it appears that, in fact, no such review was taking place.
We realize these are serious allegations but, 4
as summarized,below, they are substantiated by the chronology of events.
You are aware, I know, that in accordance with the Bailly constructica permit NIPSCO has submitted to the Staff j
information to enable the S'Laff to follow the developing design l
i 1
e r,,
r a g e ?.<c l
I I shall not detail the of the foundations for the facility.
1 I
entire history of exchanges between NIPSCO and the Staff, but direct yror attention to the period since March 1978 when NIPSCO submitted the so-called " shorter piles" proposal on f
From the time of that which Staff review remains incomplete.
submittal until as recently as August 1979, NIPSCO has re-sponded to Staff inquiries in what we believe is a responsible manner and on a timely basis.
When the Commission itself inquired as to the status of l
the review, the Staff responded on January 10, 1979, that it P anned "as expeditious a review of the December 4th report l
l l
[ submitted by NIPSCO] as possible in order to complete its l
overall review of NIPSCO's March 8, 1978, proposal."
The Staff ex-its " initial review" would be completed by pressed the " hope" that late January or early February 1979, but stated that problems of personnel availability made "the schedule for completion of the review difficult to establish."
the next formal communication to NIPSCO from In fact, the Staff on this subject came more than five months later in the form of a letter of June 28, 1979, requesting additional informa-tion on three limited subjects: the " soft spots," pile load tests, and sheeting and bracing.
Meanwhile, as you know, on June 8 the Commission had requested the Advisory Com5ittee on Reactor Safeguhrds to promptly address several questions concerning the Bailly foundation.
the Staff's The Staf f orally advised the ACRS on July 9 and 12 that p
- =.
~
P t. g o...e-1 l
revic.: hr.d not been completed ' although it had concluded that i
the proposal has " considerable merit" and the Staff told the ACRS of its June 28 request for information on three limited I
subjects.
On July 10, the Staff advised the Commission of its June 28 letter to NIPSCO and stated that it was " awaiting i
NI?SCO's response to [those) information' requests be-j i
~
fore concluding its review."
A reasonable man would infer from the foregoing that the Staf f 's review was continuing, had substantially narrowed the remaining matters under consideration, and conceivably was nearing completion.
In fact, during this period the Staff explicitly ad-vised the Commission, the Congress, and the world at large that the pile foundations at Bailly were being reviewed as a matter We of priority even in the post-TMI reallocation of resources.
1 are aware of several instances in which representations were made s
to that effect; te suspect there were many.
For example, the May 21, 1979, Staff briefing of the Commission outlined the prioritics for " casework" and identified the "Bailly foundation" as a priority " construction permit matter having "special review considerations."
Mr. Gossich's letter of-July 12, 1979, to i
Senator Russell Long contains the same identification,of Bailly.
It is little wonder _that the~ Company believed that the
(
Staff's review was. nearing completion.
l And now, unbelievably, more than eighteen months after our proposal was submitted, we have been informed orally by the
- D*}D ~*D 7
' }(
d.
oe eJ
- t.,
Tage Four 4
Staff that, notwithstanding all of the information it has sought and obtained, notwithstanding the views it has ex-pressed to the Commission and the ACRS, notwithstanding its periodic reports on the priority and status of its review, the Staff not only has not completed its review but it cannot do I
the review at all. Instead it proposes to retain the Corps of Engineers to commence now the review of the pi*es foundation.
i We have been told that the Staff " foresees" completion of the Corps' review by late March 1980; no estimate is given for the i
Staff's review of the Corps' report.
We are well aware that heavy competing demands are cur-I rently imposed upon the Staff's overburdened manpower resources.
However, we must conclude that, in light of the circumstances l
we have described, the Staff's intention to abdicate its re-sponsibility to complete the review of the Bailly piles founda-tion after eighteen months is unacceptable.
fi I urge you to take immediate, effective, and continuing steps to insure that review of the Bailly piles proposal'is completed as soon as possible.
Yours very truly, Edmund A. Schroer 1
e 9
'~
w - -,
~,,,