ML20094P589

Transcript of B Stamiris 840425 Statement Re Soil Settlement Problems at Plant

ML20094P589
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/25/1984
From:	Stamiris B STAMIRIS, B.
To:
Shared Package
ML19258A087	List: IR 05000329/1978020 IR 05000329/1981012 IR 05000329/1982007 IR 05000329/1982009 IR 05000329/1982014 ML19258A086 ML19351C947 ML20093B251 ML20093B495 ML20093B616 ML20093B708 ML20093B747 ML20093B900 ML20093B940 ML20093C001 ML20093C006 ML20093C017 ML20093C025 ML20093C030 ML20093C035 ML20093C068 ML20093C073 ML20093C079 ML20093C082 ML20093C101 ML20093C104 ML20093C108 ML20093C116 ML20093C174 ML20093C189 ML20093C196 ML20093C226 ML20093C231 ML20093C262 ML20093C318 ML20093C324 ML20093C347 ML20093C354 ML20093C374 ML20093C377 ML20093C390 ML20093C394 ML20093C398 ML20093C405 ML20093C440 ML20093C444 ML20093C649 ML20093M884 ML20093M994 ML20093N005 ... further results
References
CON-BX19-041, CON-BX19-41, FOIA-84-96 NUDOCS 8408170292
Download: ML20094P589 (3)

Text

.

se. -=

e o,

STATEMENT OF BARBARA G. STAMIRIS INTERVENOR, MIDLAND OM & OL PROCEEDINGS APRIL 25,1984, MEETING OF THE U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COWISSION Chairman Palladino and Commission Membe rs, I appreciate this opportunity to address the Commission regarding the Midland Plant.

The first Commission briefing on the Midland soll settlement problems was held in June 1983 the day before the Congressional Oversight Hearing on Midland,,six years after the discovery of those problems.

During that briefing, one major misrepresentation was made which warrants correction. The Commissioners were told that the soils problems were discovered at Midland in 1978 after the settle-ment of the Diesel Generator Building. Actually, the soils problems were discovered by Consumers in 1977, before the Diesel Generator Building and other safety structures were begun on the defective soils; a significant distinction.

In their 1982 Proposed Findings of Fact in the So!! Settlement Hearing, Consumers admits " evidence existed in 1977, which if given different weight would have revealed the plant-wide soils conditions in time to have prevented the problems which now confront us." But this evidence was ignored by Consumers and withheld from the NRC in their push to proceed with construction.

Just as the original soils problems were ignored and kept culet in 1977, the underpinning repair problems are not being acknow-1 edged by Consumers toomy. For despite the significant setbacks and 0400170292 840718

'h$$E0 6

PDR

a delays encountered in the underpinning work, Consumers maintains an optimistic estimate for its completion.

Problems encountered in the Aux!!!!ary Butiding operation to date includethe discovery that:

. foundation solls beneath the pters had only half their in-tended supoort strength

. design errors and miscalculations resulted in unconservative estimates of differential settlement

. piers have settled and failed to accept their Intended loads

. bu!! ding movement and cracking has exceeded alert levels

. water seepage threatens the Integrity of the concrete pier bases As a result, the underpinning operation which was supposed to take 18 months to complete, is only 1/3 complete 17 months after its inception.

At this rate, it w!!! take at least three and probably four more years to complete the underpinning operation. For once pters are in place at the Auxilliary Building, new problems await the next phase of the work, and the underpinning of the Service Water Pump Structure yet to come.

I in their third annual S.A.L.P. evaluation, the NRC rated.

Consumers' so!!s work a " category 3" for the third consecutive year, but noted a declining trend. In fact " a rating of less than minimally acceptable was considered by the Board" but was not given only becadse

'or stringent third party and NRC controls in place.fo.r the softs work.

Despite these prob!' ems and negative assessments of the soi'Is underp' inning work,. consumers be!!evts. Unit.11 can be completed in

i 4,

1986 and is seeking an early statement of assurance from the NRC.'.

that.ths : plant can' be completed on. time and operatedsafe ty.

This request is a part of Consumers desparate effort to convince doubtful members of the Public Service Commission and large Industry in Mich-Igan, and financiers on Wall Street that this plant is st!!! a good inves baent.

The NRC has allowed Consumers to proceed with what they have termed their asperimental so!! settlement solutions over the last

~

five years, saying that Consumers does so at their own financial risk.

In 1976, the NRC project manager cautioned Consumers that the NRC was not approving their soils remedial plans and that the remedial actions woitId have to demonstrate "that the original requirements of the construction permit had been met or exceeded" in the end.

I~ urge you today to bear in mind that original NRC commitment, and evaluate Consumers' operating 11 cense petition in terms of safety issues alone, without regard for the financial plight of Consumers who chose to undertake the risk that they did.

For it is the public, and their health and safety, not the nuclear power Industry, that the NRC was estabitshed to protect.

i I

_ _ _, -. _ _ _ _... _...