ML20140H045
Text
/Y1 L A M
', GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ( ILITY PROJECT
(
}(f
,Instituto for Policy Studiss
( 1901 Que Street. N W.. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202)234 9382 l
January 11, 1983 UMD70f.C @ A;UCCRS R E C F'IU ~ n l' r CU.'.
Dr. Chester Siess, Acting Chairman Midland ACRS Subcommittee db l l ' ' Ft '.
3110 Newmark Laboratories Aff b OM;,iy, _.
208 N.
Romine -
University of Illinois 8 8 Urbana, Illinois 61801 f.
Dear Dr. Siess:
As you know, the Midland Nuclear Power Plant being constructed by Consumers Power Company (Consumers) in Midland, Michigan has historically had serious construction problems.
Your committee and your Washington staff have consistently demonstrated a sin-
~
cere concern about developments at the construction site.
You may not be aware, however, that the situation at Midland has deteriorated dramatically in recent months.
At the same time the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has taken a number of actions that may have irreversible consequences for the construc-tion project and upon the ability of the NRC to now assure the public that this nuclear plant can operate safely.
We urge you to consider seriously the current events at Midland, and to take decisive action through the ACRS meeting process to pull together the fragmented Midland story.
The complications and contradictions of the after-the-fact Operating License and Soils / Quality Assurance hearing, the numerous independent audits, the overlapping and incomplete staf f investigations and inspections, and the weekly setbacks have produced a nuclear industrial regula-tion nightmare.
The Government Accountability Project (GAP) is a project of the Institute for Policy Studies (IPS), Washington, D.
C.
The purpose of GAP's three clinics -- Federal Government, Citizens Clinic and Nuclear Clinic -- is to broaden the understanding of the vital role of the public employee, private citizen and nuclear worker in preventing waste, corruption or health and safety dangers.
GAP also offers legal and strategic counsel to whistleblowers, provides a unique legal education for law stuuent interns, brings meaningful c
and significant refo2r to the government workplace, and exposes government actions that are repressive, wasteful or illegal, or i
that pose a threat to the health and safety of the American public.
Presently, the Project provides a program of multi-level assistance for government employees, citizens and corporate employees who re-port illegal, wasteful or improper actions.
CAP also regularly monitors nm r. t a,1_ r e f o rm s, offert expertise to Executive Branch 5
-%g 6
.khDl E.hhh B510000409 850930 PDR FDIA I[ N '
glq$
BRu.".NEReksoa eon
(
f
.- i
(
Dr. Choster Siess, Acting' Chairman' 0
January 11,,1983 2
Midland ACRS Subcommittee and offices and agencies, state and local governmental bodies, legislatures for analysis and state responds to requests by Congress accountable to the public.
of legislation to make government more
[
In March 1982 GAP's Citizens Clinic beca=c actively involved with A local citizens organization C
the Midland Nuclear Power Plant.
allegations from workers of major problems at I
we compiled asked GAP to pursue After our preliminary investigation,1982.
Since the Midland plant.
filed with the NRC on June 29, six affidavits.which we affidavits resulting from the then we have filed four additional (HVAC) system's quality assu-heating / ventilation / air conditioning We are also preparing an expanded rance breakdown revelations.
Mr.
E.
Earl Kent, of our original witnesses, the affidavits from oneserious welding construction problems at Midland site.
Other alarming all'egations, ranging from security who has alleged come to our atten-safety problems,have system breakdowns to worker have expanded our investigation of tion recently.
As a result, we the Midland plant.
serious problem at Midland the most As we are all paintfully aware, industry.
unprecedented within the nuclear is a construction flaw foundation soil settlement problem The Midland site is plagued by a the auxiliary that has left the diesel generator building cracked, building unstable, and other safety structures in serious jeopardy has been a massive construction of shifting or settling.
The result boondoggle, which has not yet been, and may never be, solved.
It on a has been characterized recently as " corporate mismanagement massive scale" by the CBS National News.
The history of the soil settlement problems speaks all too clearly has demonstrated.
- ot only the disregard Midland's management improper fill and to Consumers and Bechtel take a risk by using inadequate compacting techniques that led to the foundation prob-did lems, they also misled the NRC about the risk they took.
In 1979, for a material false statement "in the NRC cited Consumers Power that the fill used at the site was not the type stated in the FSAR having been used."
In the strongly-worded recommendation from Reactor Construction Inspection asthe Director of the Division of (now Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)) for enforcement error in sub-(RCI), IE accurately described Bechtel's action, Mr. Thornburg facts."
(Septem-
"in careless disregard of the mitting the PSAR as ber 27, 1979 memorandumi)
Although the NRC responded to the discovery of the soil settlement
- 1979, stop-work order on December 6, problems decisively with'aConsumers Power Company and its contractor mana a legal work.
By requesting a public_
loophole by which they could continue hearing, using the process intended to protect the public, Midland management has succeeded in protecting the utility's timetable in.
disregard of the public health and safety.
2
Dr. Chester Sieso, Acting Chaira'an.' '
IJ
{
January 11,,1983 g
-3 Midland ACRS Subcommittee how Bechtel and the staf f's own observations about utility responded to unprecedented structural problems at a nuclear In fact, the NRC all of us.
One such apprehension among power plant raises extreme observation was that:
b with construction of CP and Bechtel are proceeding foundation of the plant
}
remedial measures on the review by the NRC staff and without to the feasibility or without any NRR as any committal by the suitabili'ty of the proposed actions.
(January 21, 1980 Letter from E.
J.
Gallagher to G.
Fiorelli, Chief, Support Branch, re Meeting Reactor Construction and EngineeringUnfortunately for the residents of with Consumers Power Company.) sensational spil settlementand builders o problems are not a
Michigan, Midland's for the owners stem from a corporate attitude unique and unusual occurrence facility.
Instead, these problems regulate atomic power and de-that has disregarded the laws that from,the beginning of this project.
emphasized quality assurance felt licensing appeal panel members In fact, the original _ Midland 1973 QA violations discovered in a November so strongly about the 7E inspection that Mr.
L. Manning Muntzing, then Director of Regu-lations, wrote a prophetic letter.
He pointed out that even though the Appeals Board could not take action on the IE findings,
...the members of the Midland Appeals Board feel con-strained to record (1) their extreme dismay respecting this latest developments and (2) their firm belief Consumers Power and that more drastic action against its architect-engineer should be promptly considered.
had the. construction permit pro-In this connection, ceeding still been before our Board at the time that results of the November 6-8 inspection were an-would have the nounced, it is a virtual certainty that we all construction ordered forthwith a cessation of activities....
Letter from L. Manning Muntzing, Director of (November 26, 1973Quality Assurance Deficiencies Encountered at Muntzing's warning in 1973 should Regulations, re:
2.)
Mr.
Midland Facility, p.
to both Bechtel and Consumers Power to re-have served as notice solve their QA problems.
Quite to the contrary, however, they So did the NRC staff!
The QA problems at ignored the notice.
Midland continued unabated.
of Licensing Procedure 1980 Systematic Assessmentfurther and expanded problems at Both the 1979 and (SALP) reports give notice of (lack of qualifications of Midland.
The problems ident fiad then corrective action) continuation of work prior to are similar to those cited as causes in the recent stop-work order.
QC inspectors, Midland Stop-Work Orders, Dec. 82)
(Attachments 1 and 2,
re;
(
(
Dr. Chester Siess, Acting Chairman Midland ACRS Subcommittee
-4 January 11, 1983 The reports also included acknowledgements of excessive QA backlogs and lack of timeliness.
(SALP Report 1980.)
Consumers Power Com-pany's failure to learn from its mistakes passed the stage of ac-cidental oversight long ago.
The lack of quality assurance at Midland has been a continuous U
concern of the Regional Administrator, James G.
Keppler.
In the spring of 1982 at the release of the 1981 SALP rating, Mr. Keppler publicly reporte'd that he was going to have to change his previous I
testimony before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board in which he gave
(
his " reasonable assurance" that the plant would be constructed in accordance with nuclear construction regulations.
His revised testimony was submitted October 27, 1982.
Although Mr. Keppler did not withdraw or modify his original testimony substantially, i
he did refer to and attach a number of revealing staff memoranda.
I have attached these, as well as several articles surrounding Mr. Keppler's testimony for your own review (Attachment #3).
It is f
clear that virtually all of the NRC staff working on Midland have strong opinions about the lack of quality performance of Consumers Power Company and its contractor, the Bechtel Corporation.
In July 1982 your committee issued its interim approval for the remedial soils work on the Midland plant.
As you are well aware, that approval comes after a lengthy and controversial debate re-garding Consumers Power Company and Bechtel's ability to implement the complex and exacting underpinning construction that successful completion of this project will require.
l It was my understanding that before any work began on the underpinning efforts that your committee would have the opportunity to review the i
independent audit that would ascertain the proper implementation of l
Consumers' Quality Assurance Plan.
Further, it was my understanding that the audit methodology of this critical work was to be reviewed publicly, allowing for citizen and public interest comments about procedures to be used by the auditor in insuring compliance with Consumers' QA plan.
Certainly, at a minimum, I understood that the i
ACRS had retained the authority to approve the actual beginning of U
soils work.
It appears that I was mistaken.
In perhaps one of the most arrogant NRC staff moves GAP has had the misfortune to observe, the Region III staff has allowed the, irreversible soils underpinning work to begin. ( See Attachment 4.)
Not only does this action represent a total disregard for the ACRS's prudent position as set forth in its July letter, it also
(
indicates a total failure to respect the seriousness of the prob-j lems of public mistrust of the Midland plant.
)
It is simply too much to expect the public to retain any confidence t
i after the 13RC's own revelations about " shoddy construction practices,"
l
" poor management," and " slipshod workmanship" ( Attachmen t 3 ), and the necessity of a subsequent major stop-work order resulting from t
l I
l 1
n
L
(
Dr. Chestor Siess, Acting C h'a i r m a n '
5 -
January 11,*1983 Midland ACRS Subcommittee an NRC investigation that revealed a quality assurance bre,akdown, construction flaws, unqualified / uncertified welders, questionable material traceability (Attachment 3), and the flip-flop " reasonable assurance" of the Regional Administrator.
These events of the past few months follow a decade of construction failures, cost overruns and major setbacks -- all attesting to the questionable integrity and ability of the licensee to safely construct a nuclear power g
plant.
It is clear that the major questions concerning the underpinning work undertaken by Consumers, as well as the extent of the damage already done to the diesel generator building and auxiliary building, cannot be answered until they are a " fait accompli".
Unfortunately for the residents of Central Michigan, Mr. Keppler's statement from the Operating License hearing carries heavy con-sequences:
Based upon (1) the third party assessments of the plant which will be performed, (2) the increased NRC inspection effort, and (3) the work authorization controls by the NRC, I believe that soils work at the Midland plant may continue.
As demonstrated by the previous stop-work effected in the remedial soils area, the staff will take whatever action is necessary to assure that construction is in accordance with applicable requirements and standards. (Atch.
3, at 6)
Mr. Keppler's ideological views of his role in protecting the public health and safety are disquieting however when those views are translated into his staff's refusal to honor their legislative mandate.
It is imperative that your committee respond swiftly.
You asked to review the audit plan, and Mr. Keppler made a commit-ment to allow public review.
Apparently Mr. Keppler has decided to relegate the public meeting to a press relations charade.
For example, on October 22, 1982, and again on November 11, 1982, GAP analysts prepared extensive comments about the independent audit that the ACRS required.
Although letters and public presentations were informative, they failed to provide the key methodology needed for GAP to assess the adequacy of the program.
When GAP investi-gators attempted to pursue the questions at the public meeting, they were told "to allow the NRC time to ask for those documents."
(NRC Open Meeting, Bethesda, Maryland, November 5, 1982.)
Subse-quently, GAP repeated the request in a November 11, 1982 letter
( Atta chmen t 5).
Last week GAP received the NRC's response, over two-and-a-half months after the original request:
"You may wish to request access to the documents from Consumers Power."
(See.)
It is clear to us that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff plans to evade or ignore requests made by GAP for the minimum L
i-..
(
l Dr. Chestar Sie00,
. ting, Chairmen.
January 11, 1983 2 Midland ACRS Subcommitteo information it will take to enable us to complete a responsible review of the proposed independent audit.
Currently, we are in-volved in a Freedom of Information Act suit against the NRC for that would have significantly altered the withholding documents conclusions of an NRC investigation of the Zimmer case.
Congressman l
explanation of that affair. (See 1b Udall voiced his own request for an
};
..)
I the NRC's handling of the Midland investigation demands
- Likewise, further explanations
" reasonable assurance" that
--Why did Mr. Keppler give his i
site when he was fully aware that l
all was well at the Midland investigations, unresolved al-were numerous major ongoing Power to the NRC, and there legations of false statements by, Consumers deficiencies?
l serious quality assurance
--Why did the NBC staff allow work to begin on the under-
]
pinning work when it had already committed itself to a quality implementation audit and had not approved the audit assurance methodology or audit contractor?
investigation into the GAP allegations taken
--Why has the end with no projected completion before the j
six months so far, I
of March 19837 the resul,ts of an
--Why has the NRC failed to produce resulted in a major work stoppage?
j October-November inspection that and f
i
--Why did Mr. Keppler override his staff's concerns the Midland problems and grant recommendations in October aboutquality assurance was under control?
his " reasonable assurance" that
--Why has the NRC failed to release the " Secret Stipulation" Keppler and Consumers Power in Spring 19817 Barbara Stamaris, the citizen reached between Mr.
(It was originally requested by Ms.
intervenor in the soil settlement hearings, and denied.
A decision on appeal of the denial is now overdue by alnost 30 days.)
and similar questions about I
These questions about the Midland plant, 4
form the basis for growing public skepticism about regulate adequately other plants, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to and distrust In Central Michigan this uneasiness have led previously inactive citizens and local government bodies l
nuclear power.
In fact, every single in their own protection.
to become involved going associated with the nuclear power plant 1
hearing or license into operation is being contested.
Ingrsoll Township and the Saginaw City Council, along with i
various other citizen organizations, unions and individuals, have The j
signed or passed a resolution opposed to the plant.
The Tittabawassec l
O
? :..
(
(
@e Acting C'hairman January 11, 1983 Dr. Chsstor Siess, 7
Midland ACRS Subconmittee Power Company's waste water 4
Township 3oard is opposing ConsumersAttorney General is an intervenor The Michigan discharge permit.
allowing Midland in the rate in opposition to Stamaris intervenors Mary Sinclair and Barbara in the rate case has been struggle upstream in a hearingprocess that base.
Citizen "the New York Jets against your local high 4
continue to characterized as Ti.
school football team."*
I that Ms. Stamaris is The entire NRC process has grown so absund hearing pro-her efforts within the turned to Congress for assis-benefit of re-evaluating the (See Attachment 8.)
GAP has the NRC staff cannot or i
in obtaining answers to questionsNuclear workers have become m cess.
and more dis-tance ability or willingness of will not answer.
turning instead to GAP, Congress, enchanted with the One such worker, whose investigate their allegations, agencies.
turned in his allegations the media or law enforcement Attachment 9,
He waited for over five months affidavit I have attached as in June 1982.
to the NRC through GAP for an OI inspector.
h on the 106th ACRS Meeting The February 6-8, 1969 summary of the
(
Midland plant states:
j site proposed to be un-considers the designed and The Committee with reactor plants l
for use in the PSAR.
- However, acceptable analyzed as presently described acceptable for use l
it believes that the site may be ing if:
with reactor plants of the proposed power ratequipped with adequ systems; (2) the faci-(1) The facility is safety features and protectiveconservatively - part Q sufficiently lity is analyzed determinatian of exclusion area cularly in respect assurance of low potential tot
[
and low population zone; doses at short distances from the reactor in the un-evaluation of the serious accidents safely and likely event of a who could be j
number and location of people and, use of assump-quickly evacuated in such an event in dose i
related to meterology, (3) the facility is designed, constructed, tions, for example those and (4) the calculations: sufficiently conservatively; ef-and utilizedis provided with thoroughly structured, f
facility including evacuation plans.
fective emergency plans, five faced with one of the i
later this ACRS is testi-(see William Dircks Thirteen years nuclear plants in the country unprecedented construction 1981
),
worst a pattern of false l
many bef ore Congress, May,a massive quality assurance breakdown, undeveloped l
as of yet
- flaws, trust, and statements and broken evacuation plans.
Energy Con-
' Judge Louis Carter's testimony in front of the Subcommittee on ce, September 24, servation and Power of the Co:mittee on Energy and Com i c sur-rounding the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.
1982.
g i
c.
(
(
Dr. Choater Sicos, Acting Chairmen 8 -
January 11, 1983 Midland ACRS Subcommittee We urge you to act according to your mandate and aggressively pursue a leadership role in holding Consumers Power Company accountable for public safety.
Sincerely, W
BILLIE PIRNER GARDE i
Director, Citizens Clinic for Accountable Government BPG/mcy Attachments l
l l
l 1
l l
l l
1
_