ML20211Q162
| ML20211Q162 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 06/21/1999 |
| From: | Travers W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | Landsman R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211Q152 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-99-281 NUDOCS 9909150003 | |
| Download: ML20211Q162 (2) | |
Text
~ U:o g & UNITED STATES j
d g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l 2 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20665-0001
- June 21, 1999 ;
I l
MEMORANDUM TO: Ross B. Landsman C '6 3g Decommissioning Branch P_
Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region 111
/
l r m FROM: William D. Travers A3h w ~ w Executive Director for Operation g g j p j7o g
SUBJECT:
FINAL DECISION: DIFFERING PROFESSIONAL OPINION CONCERNING AMENDMENT NO. 7 TO CHEMETRON'S LICENSE FOR ;
BERT AVENUE Your memorandum to me dated November 3,1998, and received by this office on December 8, 1998, requested that the technical and process issues of your Differing Professional View be considered a Differing Professional Opinion (DPO). The issues concern Amendment No. 7 to Chemetron's license for the Bert Avenue site. The review of your issues has been completed and this memorandum documents my final decision. This action completes the agency's process, as delineated in Management Directive 10.159, for consideration of your issues.
On January 19,1999, I appointed a panel consisting of Andrew Murphy and Yong Kim to review your DPO. Subsequently, Mr. Murphy appointed Carl Costantino to be the third member on the panel; Dr. Costantino's appointment was in accordance with your suggestion.
The panel has completed its review and its report, transmitted by memorandum dated May 26, 1999, is attached for your information. Dr. Malcolm Knapp reviewed the report and provided me with his recommendations in a memorandum dated June 14,1999; a copy is attached for your information. I have reviewed the panel report. Dr. Knapp's recommendations, and your original DPO.
The panel report concluded that adding a portion of the unconfined compressive strength to the failure envelope obtained from the consolidated-undrained tests was not standard geotechnical engineering practice. The licensee's contractor (Dames and Moore) used such an additive l l
value in its analysis. The panet, therefore, sustained your technical issue, 1
At the time the amendment was granted, however, the staff had performed its own analysis, which did not utilize this non-standard practice. The staff used the criterion in Regulatory Guide 3.11 to assess the stability of the slope under seismic loads. That Regulatory Guide, which was written for assessment of the stability of mill tailings piles, is, I understand, an appropriate i standard to apply to the seismic stability of a slope of the type and regionallocation found at the Bert Avenue site.
I conclude, therefore, that termination of the license for the Bert Avenue site is justified because the staff's independent calculations, using technically adequate input data, show that our criterion for slope stability under seismic loads is met. I have approved the immediate termination of the license for the site.
9909150003 990913 PDR FOIA g g 1999 LANDSMA99-281 PDR Tw9/mo3
2 The panel recornmended, relative to the process issue, "that if a decision needs to be made in a similar situation in the future that, at least, a record note that provides the rationale for making the decision prior to receipt of the official final version of any document should be written and docketed." I agree with this recommendation. In addition, I note that the staff's Safety Evaluation Report does not discuss the major differences between the licensee's contractor's calculations and the staff's own calculations, the latter being the actual basis for the staff's conclusion of adequate slope stability. I recommended to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) that in the future he fully document the technical basis for Agency decisions. This will further our goal of enhancing public confidence.
The ad hoc panel further concluded: "it is not at all clear to the' panel members, however, that the studies presented satisfy the requirements of the [ Ohio Environmental Protection Agency) and sufficiently address their issues of uncertainty." Based on this, Dr. Knapp suggested that the NRC should send a courtesy copy of the panel report and his memorandum to the State agency. I concur.
A copy of my memorandum to Carl J. Paperiello taking action on my decisions on your issues is attached for your information.
This action concludes the agency's consideration of these technical issues. I want to thank you for your participation in the Differing Professional Opinion process. The willingness of staff members like you to bring issues to my attention contributes directly to the Agency's accomplishment of its mission.
Attachments: as stated cc: J. David Woodend Andrew Murphy ;
Yong Kim 1 i
I i
I