ML20041F875
| ML20041F875 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon, Midland, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 12/03/1981 |
| From: | Sinclair M AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20041F851 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8203170498 | |
| Download: ML20041F875 (4) | |
Text
's).\\-
1 In the Matter of I
Docket Nos. 50-329 OM OM CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) -
)
Docket Nos. 50-329 OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2
)
50-330 OL MOTION'FOR AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT OF THE CONSTRUCTION 0-F THE MIDLAND N-PLANT I find that I am deeply concerned about the way in which the record for this hearing is being developed. To establish my reasons and without the benefit of a transcript, F have to rely on my memory for what was said in each of the last two days hearings. Therefore, those of you who enjoy the use of a trans-cript paid for by funds that we taxpaying and ratepaying citizens provide can correct me if necessary, in the early years of this construction license hearing when Myron Cherry was very ably representing the citizens here, the Board always allowed him a e py of the day's transcript to pre-pare for the following days hearings. In recent years and in this proceeding, without benefit of an attorney and expert witnesses
~
and without a transcript, we citizens must proceed to protect our interests,--our lives, our families, our property--as best we can.
This motiin is an effort to do just that.
I want to raise questions about the following points that are already a part of the record of this proceeding:
- 1. The audit report F7732 which was produced in 1977 is an s
, extensive list of inadequate soll placements at the Midland n-plant site which clearly indicates the soil c'ompaction prob'lem was site-wide.
8203170498 820308 PDR ADOCK 05000275
.i U
PDR f%.
_... L... x : =. - -
~; -._:.::.--
~ ~. ht
l This means that Consumers Power Company and Bechtel had j l t
knowledge that the soils problems were extensive. But regardless i
i of this fact, they decided to proceed with co'astruction of safety related buildings such as the auxiliary building whose structional problems are being addressed in this proceeding.
This Board has attempted to deny the admission of this audit report as an exhibit. I say the Board has attempted to deny admis-sion of this audit report (F7732) as 'an exhibit, because since that l
time we have found that it was referenced in Report 7820, dated i
3.
March 22,1979, which is already an exhibit. Therefore, it is already a part of the record. -This Board knows that because of l
the possible impact upon this are's in the future, these decisions l
by Consumers Power Company and Bechtel to construct on this i
poorly compacted soll might well be considered criminal negli-i
- gence, i
The Board also knows that the Nuclear Pegulatory Commis-i sion Staff shares in the responsibility of the decision to proceed with this construction because of their own negligence and over-sight in not identifying the.extensivd soils problem in 1977. Since i
the ALAB 106 order of 197J'i Consumers Power Company has been required to send these types of reports to the NBC monthly, speci-fically to prevent such negligent actions. This order was prompted by Consumers Power Company's unusual history of quality control
/
and quality assurance problems since the earliest days of con-i struction at Midland.
2 I have had this Board deny a motion to get Mr. William Dircks, FFC s Executive Director of Operations, to testify here on the grounds that he could add nothing new to the record.
1
~
^
~
gc:sse-
)
However, Mr. Dircks said in his testimony to a Congressional Committee about Midland, "The costs associated with assuring proper soll compaction and demonstrating the adequacy of the plant design are significant." We have not been able to get any realistic estimates of the costs of rectifying the soils problem from Consumers Power Company. This is only one example of the type of evidence that Mr. Dircks could supply that this' Board does not have at this' time.
3 We find that an extensive record about the possible stress damage to the auxiliary building is being provided by consultants Dr. W. Gene Corley and Dr. Mete Sozen, both of whom are paid by Bechtel. They are testifyir;g about a problem created by Bechtel. This certal'nly casts doubt on the objecti 7 of their conclusions.
~
4.
The conclusions of these experts'are that there are no cracks that are structurally significant and there is no structural t.
distress in the auxiliary building. Yet the most massive, expensive i
and extensive underpinning out of 4 options is being planned for the auxiliary building as a corrective means for problems that the experts say don't exist.
5.
Mr. Theodore Johnson, chief engineer for B'echtel, tells us that the-reason for this choice is that it reflects the long-standing philosophy of nuclear industry construction--i.e. to build for extraordinary events like earthquakes and tornados. The his-tory of the construction of this plant has been just the opposite.
In fact, the reason we are in this hearing is because basic structures at the plmt were sinking abnormally within' months of'their' con-structior. even before they were ready for any use at all.
p ee oeaw
+
e
This brief review should make it understandable tyhy we citizens have no confidence in the adequacy of this record so far, nor in the ability of the parties involved, the utility, the nuclear industry and Nuclear Pegulatory Commission to meet the basic requirements of their responsibilities here.
We citizens need a remedy for this extraordinarilybad situa-.
tion.
I am proposing.a solution. Yesterday, the Ci. airman of the Nuclear Regulatory Cominission, Nunzio Palladino, asked that an independent audit of the construction of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant be made because sd many problems were found in that plant that neither the utility, the architeck-engineer, nor NRC inspection had found and solved in a timely fashion.
Midland shares the same low rating with Diablo Canyon as one of tha 5 nuclear plants in the nation plagued with the most sericts problems.
Therefore, i move that this Board request the NRC to order an independent audit of this nuclear plact's construction now before billions more dollars are spent compounding the impact of a morass of errors of negligence, mismanagement and poor quality contr,o1 that characterize the history of this plant.
i Yours respectfully, Mary Sincla
'0]D O December 3 1981 i
1
- ' u-
-,n--
..--r
.,c,.
,. -.