ML20003G049
| ML20003G049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Marble Hill |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1981 |
| From: | Hendrie J NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Myers J HOUSE OF REP., APPROPRIATIONS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20003G050 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104280133 | |
| Download: ML20003G049 (2) | |
Text
,
/
4o UNITED STATES F"
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~
n W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20665
%,...../
April 13, 1981 CHAIRMAN Co.'C.tI3510:(
l CCERESPCDDENCE M
g The Honorable John T. Myers de Subcomittee on Energy and Water
'E P
l Development
' o.,,%cq*g#8'%\\g q) g 8/
Comittee on Appropriations
'b '
A United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C.
20515 i
}
s
Dear Congressman Myers:
This is in response to your letter of March 19, 1981 in which you request the Commission to disregard Senator Ford's letter on the Marble Hill adjudicatory proceeding.
Your letter expresses the view that by asking the Comission "to defer to [an] intervenor group" Senator Ford might be compromising the due process rights of the applicant, in violation of the rule in Pillsbury v. FTC, 354 F.2d 952 (5th Cir.1966).
The Director of I&E had issued an order suspending construction at the site. A subsequent order established a program for resuming construction if certain conditions were met.
Since the licensee agreed to that subsequent order, and since the Comission denied a request for an adjudicatory hearing by certain community organizations, there has never been a formal adjudicatory hearing in connection with the I&E enforcement action. Since there is presently no contested adjudication involving the Marble Hill facility, Senator Ford's concerns about I&E's enforcement review would not trigger an application of the Pillsbury rule.
L view of the above facts, I believe that Senator Ford could properly re iuest the Comission to evaluate the technical information to which he referred in his letter and that the Comission staff was fully justified in considering that information and responding to it.
You can be assured that the Comission will not permit its processes to be abused by any efforts to delay licensing, but consideration of technical information relevant to our public health and safety mandate must be a top priority.
The staff has already responded to the concerns passed on by Senator Ford and has authorized resumption of construction work at Marble Hill including concrete placement.
Copies of Senator Ford's letter and the staff's response to Dr. Cassaro's concerns are enclosed.
8104280 @
a The Honorable John T. Myers If I may be of further assistance in this regard, please feel free to write to me.
- incerely,
\\'&b>
o,
Jo M. Hendrie
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Senator Wendell H. Ford I
'..' 'Ctt.1. H. FO R D an==musei cows 4cacc. scichet KDriverev AM) N wSNl>RTAT80N re*J43Y AND
?JCnifeb Sfafes Sc=cle h.f' ES ANS WASHINGTON. D.C.
- Sit AD ** '"'87"AT 8 0N March 6, 1981 r
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In regard to the question of the resumption of safety ~
related constriaction at Marble Hill, I respectfully request that no decision be made to resume this critical work at least until the Nuclear Regulatory. Commission har made a formal response to two reports submitted by Dr. Michael Cassaro and Save the Valley on the sound testing of heretofore flawed concrete already in place.
Both reports question the acceptability, under criteria established by the NRC, of testing performed by Mr. Richard A. Muenow.
One report was sent to the NRC last September; a second is now in the mail.
Given the imperative that every precaution must be taken to insure that repairs nade are indeed scund, it is important that these reports be examined in full.
I appreciate your cooperation in this matter and look forward to receiving your assurance that Dr. Cassaro's reports will be studied and acknowledged.
Sincerely, m
/_
nl = i l l The Honorable Joseph M. Hendrie l Chairman l Nuclear Regulatory Commissicn Mc.s hington, D. C. 20555 i l I I b u PE: 8.1 ps a 3 55 5 172.C Nrw Frnten Bw6Jpass 19 L*.C 'etr= 0,,g g a=3 Cav.twavec Pt! F ret.h Seks.es he v w
<d 'o UNITEu STATES '. [,c [,,g, NUC LEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- j. ;
wAss:NGToN, D. C. 20555 n g $p / MAR 2 61981 I'he Honorable Wendell H. Ford United States Senate Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Sena' tor Eord:
We are pleased to respond to your letter of March 6,1981 in which you requested that no decision be made concerning resumption of safety-related construction at Marble Hill until formal responses had been made to two reports submitted by Dr. Michael A. Cassaro and Save the Valley "on the testing of concrete already in place. As,you may know, the NRC staff has already permitted some safety-related work to be resumed at Marble Hill. The initial authorized work was limited to inspection of materiaJs received at the site. Authorization was then expanded in December 1980 to include some electrical and pipe installation activities. Ihe NRC staff has completed its review and inspection activities related to the readiness of.Public Service of Indiana to resume concrete work. The staff and its consultants have concluded that the previously placed concrete is i structurally sound, and that the utility has improved its construction manage-ment and quality assurance programs and is capable of resuming concrete work with the necessary regard for quality. The NEC staff and its consultants have carefully considered the reports submitted by Dr. Cassaro and Save the Valley. Both the staff and the consultants disagree with the conclusions drawn in the reports. The NRC Region III Office has replied to both of the letters--a copy of the response is enclosed--and has offered to meet with Dr. Cassaro and his associate, Dr. Alexander, to discuss the bases for staff conclusions. Based on our inspection findings and evaluations, we intend to permit gradual l resumption of concrete work including repairs of patched. areas and placement i of new concrete. Ihe inspection staff will closely monitor the work as it l progresses. i l 1 l DuPLYL Md7$ M S
e e l e The Honorable Wendell H. Ford - We share your concern for the quality of the Marble Hill project and believe that the problems identified at Marble Hill have been dealt with effectively. I Sincerely, (sipe9WJG bM ~ William J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations
Enclosure:
Letter to Dr. M. A. Cassaro from J. G. Keppler, dated March 20, 1981
f[ 'e UNITED STATES y
- p. 5.,
~ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ^ L r R E G IO N lit t [ 7e9 ROtsEVELT COAD U h, * ,c GLEN ELLYN,ILLINots So137 a.... Mau:ch 20, 1981 Dr. Michael A. Cassaro Professor of Civil Engineering University of Louisville Louisville, KY
Dear Dr. Cassaro:
This is in reply to your let.ters of September 26, 1980 and March 4, 1981, expressing your concerns and evaluation of the Public S.trvice Company of Indiana (PSI) Report entitled " Evaluation of In-Place Concrete - Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2". We understand your principal concern to be that the test program devised by Sargent and Lundy (S&L) engineers and conducted by the Portland Cement Association (PCA) does'not satisfy the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) criteria ~ for 95% reliability with 95% confidence factor. The NRC has reviewed your concerns and concludes that the required reli-ability and confid'nce can be demonstrated by the methodology described in e the S&L revised report. The NRC's basis for this conclusion is outlined in Attachment "A" to this letter which addresses your major concerns and considerations and is summarized as follows: 1. The methodology you recommend (MIL-STD-105D) is intended primarily for controlling production quality. The assessment at Marble Hill does not involve production. Testing was performed for the purpose l of evaluating concrete consolidation at different locations containing l various configurations of concrete and embedded reinforcing steel, t 2. While MIL-STD-105D would require more samples, it would also allow more defectives, whereas the S&L methodology allowed no defectives l in the first test samples. If a defect were to be found in the first l iS9 tests, the S&L program requires an increase in the sample size. 1. Both MIL-STD-105D and the S&L methodology are based on the same l concept; however., their use for a given problem requires engineering judgment. The S&L program combined the conceptual model with 'engi-neering judgment to obtain conservative results. 4. MIL-STD-105D does not account for human error. The S&L methodology requirement of 95% reliability and 95% confidence is supported by photographic records, evaluation by drawings, review of placement records, evaluation of concrete cores, and the involvement of thr.ee separate organizations Lin the evaluation process. This has minimized l the potential for error, t 1 ~ ~ D u PE: D M3$ 699 L}}