ML20140H045

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Urges Serious Consideration of Const Problems at Plant Site, Rated One of Five Worst Nuclear Plants in Country Per W Dircks May 1981 Testimony Before Congress.Util Should Be Held Accountable for Public Safety
ML20140H045
Person / Time
Site: Midland, 05000000
Issue date: 01/11/1983
From: Garde B
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT
To: Seiss C
ILLINOIS, UNIV. OF, URBANA, IL, Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
Shared Package
ML19255C661 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-85-602 NUDOCS 8510080409
Download: ML20140H045 (8)
v • d • e


Text

', GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT ( ILITY PROJECT

/Y1 L A M

(

}(f

,Instituto for Policy Studiss

( 1901 Que Street. N W.. Washington, D.C. 20009 (202)234 9382 l 1

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 208 N. Romine -

University of Illinois b OM;,iy, _. .

88 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 tion weekly setbacks have produced a nuclear industrial regula-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 that pose a threat to the health and safety of the American public.

i 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 glq$ BRu.".NEReksoa eon & I[ N '

(

. .- i .:

.. ( f Dr. Choster Siess, Acting' Chairman' -

2 - January 11, ,1983 0

Midland ACRS Subcommittee and ,

offices and agencies, state and local governmental bodies, and state legislatures for analysis responds to requests by Congress accountable to the public.

of legislation to make government more

[*

In March 1982 GAP's Citizens Clinic A beca=c actively local citizens involved with organization C the Midland Nuclear Power Plant.

asked GAP to pursue allegations from workers of major problems at I we compiled After our preliminary investigation, the Midland plant. filed with the NRC on June 29, 1982. Since 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.

of our original witnesses, Mr. E.

Earl Kent, affidavits who from oneserious welding construction problems at the has alleged Other alarming all'egations, rangingcome fromtosecurity our atten-Midland site. safety problems,have system breakdowns to worker tion recently. As a result, we have expanded our investigation of the Midland plant.

As we are all paintfully aware, the most serious problemindustry. at Midland is a construction flaw unprecedented foundation within the nuclear 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 It boondoggle, which has not yet been, and may never be, solved.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

ot only to the disregard Midland's management has demonstrated. improper fill and did Consumers and Bechtel take a risk by using inadequate compacting techniques that led to the foundationInprob- 1979, lems, they also misled the NRC about the risk they took.

the NRC cited Consumers Power for a material false statement "in that the fill used at theInsite was not the type stated in the FSAR the strongly-worded recommendation from as having been used." Reactor Construction Inspection the Director of the Division of (RCI), IE (now Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)) for enforcement accurately described Bechtel's error in sub-action, Mr. Thornburg (Septem-mitting the PSAR as "in careless disregard of the facts."

ber 27, 1979 memorandumi)

Although the NRC responded to the discovery of the soil settlement stop-work order on December 6, 1979, a legal problems decisively with'aConsumers Power Company By requesting a public_ mana and its contractor work.

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

IJ

{ .

Dr. Chester Sieso, Acting Chaira'an.' '-3 -

January 11,,1983 g

. Midland ACRS Subcommittee how Bechtel and the In fact, the NRC staf f's own observations about utility responded to unprecedented structural problems at aOne nuclear such apprehension among all of us.

power plant raises extreme observation was that: b CP and Bechtel are proceeding with construction of foundation of the plant }

remedial measures reviewon bythe the NRC staff and without without any any committal by the NRR as to the feasibility or suitabili'ty of the proposed actions.

J. Gallagher to G. Fiorelli, Chief, (January 21, 1980 Letter from E. Meeting Support Branch, re Reactor Construction and EngineeringUnfortunately for the residents ofa problems are not with Consumers Michigan, Power Company.) sensational spil settlementand builders o Midland's unique and unusual occurrence for the owners stem from a corporate attitude facility. Instead, these problems regulate atomic power and de-that has disregarded the lawsfrom that ,the beginning of this project.

emphasized quality assurance licensing appeal panel members felt 1973 In fact, the original _ Midland so strongly about the QA violations discoveredthen Manning Muntzing, in a Director November of Regu-L.

7E inspection that Mr. He pointed out that even though lations, wrote a prophetic letter.

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)Consumers their firmPower beliefand that more drastic action against its architect-engineer should be promptly considered.

In this connection, had the. construction permit pro-ceeding still been before our Board at the time that ,

the results of the November 6-8 inspection were wouldan-have nounced, it is a virtual certaintyall that we construction ordered forthwith a cessation of activities....

Letter from L. Manning Muntzing, Director of (November 26, 1973 Quality Assurance Deficiencies Encountered at Regulations, re:

Mr. Muntzing's warning in 1973 should Midland Facility, p. 2.)

have served as notice to both Quite Bechtel and Consumers Power to re-to the contrary, however, they solve their QA problems. The QA problems at ignored the notice. So did the NRC staff! ,

Midland continued unabated.

of Licensing Procedure Both the 1979 and 1980 Systematic Assessmentfurther and expanded problems at (SALP) reports give notice of (lack of qualifications of The problems ident fiad then Midland.

QC inspectors, continuation of work prior to corrective action) are similar to those cited as re; causes Midland in the recent Stop-Work Orders,stop-work Dec. 82) order.

2, (Attachments 1 and

( -

(

Dr. Chester Siess, Acting Chairman

. Midland ACRS Subcommittee 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.

i It is simply too much to expect the public to retain any confidence t after the 13RC's own revelations about " shoddy construction practices,"

l

" poor management," and " slipshod workmanship" ( Attachmen t 3 ) , and  !

t the necessity of a subsequent major stop-work order resulting from I

l 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 These events

" reasonable of the past assurance" of the Regional Administrator.

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 auxiliary of the damage already done to the diesel generator building and 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 "You may wish two-and-a-half months after the original request:

to request access to the documents from Consumers Power." (See Attachment 6.)

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- .. -  : #,

. ting, Chairmen. ( *'

l Dr. Chestar Sie00, January 11, 1983 2 Midland ACRS Subcommitteo information it will take to enable us to complete a responsible Currently, we are in- ,

review of the proposed independent audit.

volved in a Freedom ofthat Information Act suit against the NRC for withholding documents would have significantly altered the Congressman l conclusions of an NRC investigation of the Zimmer of explanation case.

that affair. (See .

Udall voiced his own request for an 1b

};

Attachment 7.) I Likewise, the NRC's handling of the Midland investigation demands further explanations i'

--Why did Mr. Keppler site givewhenhis " hereasonable assurance" that was fully aware that l all waswere wellnumerous at the Midland major ongoing investigations, unresolved al-there Power to the NRC, and legations of false statementsdeficiencies?

by , Consumers 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  ;

assurance implementation audit and had not approved the audit methodology or audit contractor?

--Why has the investigation into the GAP allegations taken six months so far, with no projected completion before the end j

I of March 19837 ,.

the resul,ts of an

--Why has the NRC failed to resulted produce in a major work stoppage?

j October-November inspection that and f i

--Why did Mr. Keppler override his staff's the Midland concerns 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. A decision intervenor in the soil settlement hearings, and denied.

on appeal of the denial is now overdue by alnost 30 days.)

and similar questions about 4

I These questions about the Midland plant, form the basis for growing public skepticism about other plants, regulate adequately ,

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's ability to nuclear power. In Central Michigan this uneasiness and distrust ,

l have led previously inactive citizens and local In government fact, everybodies single in their own protection.

to become involved associated with the nuclear power plant going 1

hearing or license into operation is being contested.

The Ingrsoll Township and the Saginaw City Council, along with i

j various other citizen organizations, unions and individuals, have The Tittabawassec l

signed or passed a resolution opposed to the plant.

O

.,..-  ?
. .

(

Acting C'hairman

(

January 11, 1983 @e Dr. Chsstor Siess, - 7 -

. Midland ACRS Subconmittee Power Company's waste water 4

Township 3oard is opposing ConsumersAttorney General is an intervenor

  • discharge permit. inThe Michigan opposition to allowing Midland inStamaris the rate in the rate caseintervenors Mary Sinclair and Barbara has been ,_

Citizen 4 base. struggle upstream in a hearingprocess that continue to "the New York Jets against your local high .

Ti .

characterized as school football team."* that Ms. Stamaris is I

The entire NRC process has grown so absund hearing pro-her efforts within the re-evaluating the benefit of GAP has turned to Congress for assis- or i

cess. (See Attachment 8.) the NRC staff cannot

and more dis-tance in obtaining answers to questionsNuclear workers have become m will not answer. ability or willingness turning instead of 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, affidavit I have attached as He waited for over five months to the NRC through GAP in June 1982.

for an OI inspector.

106th ACRS Meeting on the h

1969 summary of the (

The February 6-8, Midland plant states:

j considers the site proposed to be un-The Committee with reactor plants designed and l acceptable for use in the PSAR. However, l analyzed as presently described acceptable for use

! it believes that the site may be ing if:

with reactor plants of the proposed power ratequipped with adequ (1) The facility is systems; (2) the faci- -

safety features and protectiveconservatively sufficiently

- part Q lity is analyzed tot determinatian of exclusion area

, cularly in respect assurance of low potential

[ and low population zone; doses at short distances from theevaluation reactor inofthe the un-likely event of a serious accidents who could be safely and j number and location of people and, use of assump-i quickly evacuated in such related an event to meterology, in dose tions, for example (3) thethose facility is designed, and constructed, calculations: sufficiently conservatively; (4) the ef-and utilizedis provided with thoroughly structured, f

' facility including evacuation plans.

fective emergency plans, i

later this ACRS is faced with one of the five testi-Thirteen years nuclear plants in the country (see William Dircks worst ), unprecedented construction l 1981 a pattern of false l' many flaws, bef ore Congress, May,a massive --

quality as of yet assurance

-- breakdown, undeveloped trust, and statements and broken evacuation plans. Energy Con-

' Judge Louis Carter's testimony in front of the Subcommittee ce, September 24, on i c sur-servation 1982.

and Power of the Co:mittee on Energy and Com rounding the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plant.

g i

. c. ( .

(

Dr. Choater Sicos, Acting Chairmen Midland ACRS Subcommittee -

8 - January 11, 1983 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 _

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20140H045&oldid=3366858"