ML20133D948

Response to Aslab 850423 Order.Aslab Should Cancel OL Application & CPs Because Compliance W/Nrc Basic Requirements Not Met

ML20133D948
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	05/13/1985
From:	Sinclair M SINCLAIR, M.P.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
Shared Package
ML20133D946	List: ML20133D942 ML20133D948
References
OL, OM, NUDOCS 8508070527
Download: ML20133D948 (7)

Text

.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A'IOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Administrative Judges:

DCf.KETE" Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 'iMC

'Ihomas S. Moore

%5 MAY 13 P3:31

)

In the Matter of )

U FL-  :. U.  :

CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos kI) 3k idh M

) 50-330 OL&OM (Hidland Plant, Units 1 & 2) )

)

MARY SINCLAIR'S RESPONSE 'IO THE APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF APRIL 23, 1985 In their April 23, 1985, Order, the Appeal Board requested that inter-venors' responses to the memoranda of the applicant, Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff, and amicus curiae briefs to the Appeal Board April

.. 15, 1985, Order be filed by May 10, 1985.

Intervener Mary Sinclair responds to the Board as follows:

1. The Bechtel Cesrporation is not and has not been a formal party to these actions, but it has used its capacity as architect-engineer at the Midland nuclear plant to make its own decisions as to how it would proceed with construction at the Midland nuclear plant without being bound by the rules of the Licensirg body of the Atomic Energy Comission ( ADC), now the NRC.

In this role, they were able to disregard the Dames and Moore consul-tants' report that Consumers Power Co. (CPCo) filed with the AEC as the strict criteria for the compaction of soil at the Midland nuclear plant site and to use their own judgment as to how they would proceed with soils and compaction. This was revealed in the Dow/CPCo trial now underway at the Midland County Courthouse (Martinez Testimony, Mar. 18, 1985). Although Dames and Moore study required the use of sand, lif t thickness of 7 to 8 inches, and special compacting equipnent to prepare this site for ccnstnac-tion of a nuclear plant, Bechtel opted to use the randem soil, mostly clay, 8500070527 850507 PDR ADOCK 05000329 A PDH

~

from their excavation of the cooling pond area. The Dow/CPCo trial (Don Horn Testimony beginning October 30, Midland County Courthouse) has brought out these facts under oath, as well as the fact that appropriate lift thick-ness criteria and proper compaction methods were not used. Bis is contrary to the criteria sent to the AEC (now NRC) as part of the construction license requirements. Even the original loose ground cover, called loose sands, were not removed, which was specifically recommended by the Dames and Moore consul-

' tants to CPCo. As a result of this fundamental decision and the unresisting 6P 6%

complianceA, the soils problems at Midland have been characterized as "unpre-l cedented at any other facility" by an NRC staff inspector, E. Gallagher

) - (TR 2463).

Bechtel now states to the Appeal Board that canceling the operating license would not only do CPCo serious economic harm in its efforts to sell I

this plant, but would jeopardize the licenseability and prospects of other I projects where Bechtel has a substantial contractual interest. R ese are i

economic, self-serving interests, which are totally inimical to the chief obligation of the NRC, i.e., to protect the public health and safety. In fact, they should be the cue for this Appe'al Board to alert the NRC staff, which has obligations at other Bechtel nuclear projects, to review very care-

' fully the construction practices at these sites.*

he fact is that Bechtel's construction practices have made this nuclear plant unsafe and economically unviable.

l 2. he Midland City Council and the Midland County Board of Commissioners have relied primarily upon the public relation's staff assurances of CPCo as

• @e Appeal Board should be apprised of the fact that af ter the CBS i

"60 Minutes" segment on Midland (Jan. 27, '85), I received numerous phone

! calls from workers and citizens at other nuclear plant sites. They told me l about the serious construction deficiencies at other nuclear plants, scene of l them also being built by Bechtel. One specific example of this is the Alvin Ifogtle plant in Georgia. A worker who had worked at the plant called and said that several foundations of safety-related buildings were cracked be-

! cause they were backfilled too soon after concrete was poured. Were is a

! leak in the Turbine building. The Auxiliary building has settled three

! inches and one containment building is tilted. Bere is a serious drug

! problem at the nuclear plant and many documents sent to the NRC have been altered by management personnel. S is Appeal Board s'hould relay this infor-mation to the appropriate sources in the NRC to follow up on these matters.

i l

i i

. . to the potential cost and completion date of the Midland nuclear plant; on the need for power for Michigan from Roger Fischer, now Chief of Staff of the Public Service Commission (PSC), but formerly head of the rate-making decision of CPCo, who conveniently moved through the swinging door to the PSC, well-acquainted with the applicant's interests; and for the license-ability of the plant on James Keppler, director of Region III staff, who in his testimony before the Michigan Legislature, disavowed what several of his own key inspectors stated under oath during the Midland soils hearings, i.e.,

that the shoddy workmanship was so pervasive at Midland that it constituted ,

a grave threat to the health and safety of the people of the tri-county area (Testimony of Ron Cook and Ross Landsman, Nov.,1982).

The record of what has actually gone on in construction in Midland is in the NRC licensing hearings record, but most significantly, in the sworn testimony now being developed in the record of the Dow/CPCo trial currently going on in the Midland County Courthouse.

Without basing their approach and information based on these data, which is established under oath, and by relying instea,d on public relation's ploys, the Midland City Council and the Midland County Comissioners and their law firms are violating their public' trust and are playing games with taxpayers' money.

'Ihe Public Service Comissioners, themselves, have recently specifically stated that any rate relief granted to CPCo must not be used on the Midland nuclear plant. Major industries of Michigan, including Dow Chemical, General Motors, Chrysler, Ford Motor Co., and many other industries have stated they do not want to have the Midland plant completed because they could not afford the cost or the power. Many Michigan industries are planning their own power source if they are to survive economically. Since these are CPCo major market areas, any claim about future need for power from the Midland nuclear plant in a fiction.

The Appeal Board should not only cancel the operating license application, but also the construction permits, because there was no compliance with the basic requirements upon which those permits were given.

Respectfully submitted, P. Si

+

air

. I u. h 4 -

cc: Attached Service List

SERVICE LIST Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Ms. Barbara Stamiris Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel 5795 North River Road E/W 532 Rt 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Freeland, MI 48623 Washington, D.C. 20555

,Mr. Frank J. Kelley Thomas S. Moore Attorney General's Office Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel 720 Law Building E/W 532 Lansing, MI 48913 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Myron M. Cherry, Esq.

Suite 3700 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. Three First National Plaza

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Chicago, IL 60602 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Towers, Room E-413 C. Jean Shoemaker Bethesda, MD 20014 Secretary to the Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Frederick P. Cowan Washington, D.C. 20555 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, FL 33433 Miller, Canfield, Paddock & Stone Suite 900 Dr. Jerry liarbour One Michigan Avenue Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Lansing, MI 48933 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissi East-West Towers, Room E-454 Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbrickge 1800 M. Street, N.W.

Bethesda, MD 20014 Washington, D.C. 20036 Secretary, Docketing & Services U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Mr. Michael 1. Miller, Esq.

Isham, Lincoln & Beale '

Three First National Plaza 52nd Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Mr. William D. Paton, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

l Mr. Wendell li. Marshall RFD10 Midland, MI 43640

~

wel */

• 2463 ~

[ b//gk t>

t I

sites, to a much different degree, however. -

2 G

But there have been, in fact, problems on other 3

nuclear" sites with semething as simple as soils, haven't 4 there? i 5

{h To a much lesser extent. The degree of the 6 l' problem is what's importanc here.

The extent of what has j (

occurred at the Midland f acility is unprecedented at any '

8 other facility.

9 O a

The point remains, however, that other people il 10 9 have had some problems with something as simple as soils, or 'I 11 haven't they?

12 A l Yes, cf course.

I 13 i O

In fact, a recer.: bulletin has been issued

l. ',

I 14 covering not only Midland but other plants as well, is that l 'I 15 right? .

16 1 A

I wrote the bulletin. ,

17 0 So the answer is that, yes, a recent bulletin i

i IS has been issued witn i:

egard to soils for not only this plant, l 19 but others?

20 A Excuse me. It was a circular; :nspection and i 21 Enforcement Circular.

i 23 O

l To someone like me, they're the same. I'm e

23 sorry. I i -

24 I A .

It has a different regulatory posture.

t 25 j

G ,

i So your answer is, yes, in fact there has been

,\

l .

L

h- t CbQ NRC giv@s examples to back criticism ~

st.ioned siory, po9* 3

^ ^ the NRC, but on two occasion- Bechtel H) pal'L HAl' liail3 Newn staff uriter Midland '"d c*d a d>d aot - at ta a e the form, Cook maid.

In recently filed testimony, the U S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commi3eion gave gggg "The opmion of the staf!'in that if Cun.

numern generate = a form that will and several exampler to justify its harsh critwaani of the Shdland nuclear plant gg them in not meurring regulatory dif4 culty, and w hwh has had NRC mput, the project. heennee ohould demand that the con.

For example, the NRC dmenbed two tractor comply with thene pohcies mstead occurrancen to back sta claim that "shp. of the contractor dictating thv regulatory shod workmannhip" in tolerated at the environment under which they will nuclear plant. work," Cook wrote.

Electrical cables, partscularly in the lie said Consumers protenttd that thi= Cook noted there is an obhgation to the control room, are at times allowed to dan- wae not a va1id finding of non- AN EXAMPLE cited by the NRC of NRC to supply a precise number of qual.

gle on the Ibor m walk area, despite the mnformance because plant quahty mn* ified persons for the mioil work, and said Consumer. " argumentative" nature was fact the ends of the partially installed troi tQCi mspetors had not yet inspected the information ultimately was obtamed the utihty8 response to an NRC report cables are uncovered, memor NRC resi. the anchwh by appeahng to Consumers' upper man- calk d Systematic Assessment of Licenmee dent inspector Ronald Cook said m an "The NRC mapectors treat this as in- agement. Pnfwmance 6 ALP , which grades the attachment to the NRC'n wntten tes- dvative that shpahod workmanship is *llowever, this indicates an implied regulatory performance of utshties build-timony. tolerated in the hopea that QC will find unwillingness of the constructor ing nuc ar plants.

Tb- testimony is to be ueed m an up- the mistaken,," Cook wrote. The latent SALP maid Con umers was commg portion of the federal heanng on (Ikhtch to share information with the weak in neveal areas. ne utilny re-the planti noil pn.blems. NRC and sometimes with the hcenace sp nded with a rebuttal document at TO SUPPORT its claim that Bechtel (Condumersi." Cook wrote.

"This is also another indicator of.hp. Power Corp , the plant's prime con- "liistoncally.one of the NRC questions leaat as long as,the SALP report nedf.

shod workmanahip which has been tractor, is uncooperative and seems to be han been *Who is running the y>b - Be- "The beenmee 6 argumentative posit son brought to the constructor's attention at rdnning the project rath(r than Con- chtel or Consumers?,'" Cook said, addmg is in the form of'we really are not all that ,

various times. but was last noted durmg a sumers, the NRC cited two more exam- that a second example "would allow one bad when the rnords, findmgs and oh- l recent mopection," Cook wrote. ples.

• servati naof the NHCins to beheve it is Bechtel.. Just the oppomste position,ptors In the second example, Cook said NRC In one, Cook said, an NRC inspector Cook said.support inspectors found that some drop-in an- asked Consumers and Bechtel to provide The example involved a form that the chers uned to attach components to con- rmunn of workers involved m work to NRC insisted Consumers generate to co. ANOTilER PORTIONofthetestimony crete walin w ere improperly matalled and wrrect voil and foundation problems. The ordmate the installation er metrument, wntten by two other NRC ofTicials maid "obviously did not adhere to the in. inspector was told the recorda would not needed for the soil work. 'ihe form was '

James W. Cook, the Consumers vice stallation procedures." be providest because they were pi.rsonal. written by Consumers and approved by president in charge of the Midland project, is an " extremely capable and dy-

• namic mdividual" but that these attn-

-= , butes may be caiamg confusion because Cook is too mvolved m details of plant operations.

Consumers has dechned comment on the NRC testimony, and said it will re ,

spond with ita own tatamony during the soil hearmg.

But at a news conference Tuesday,

, Cook responded to the testimony that ad-drenned him personally.

"My pohey is to lie involved to the ex-tent one penson as able to be," Cook said, lie said such personal involvement by upper management is essential to satis-factordy complete any nuclear project Cook also said there was "some con-fusion in the way that (NRC testunonyl was wntten," and that Canannwrs will attempt to clanfy the actuation m its tas-timony, which has not yet been filed.

Sff f

• ~ e n

Busch adm ts corr @r ab@ut n-p anllt indicated the plant could be com- clumge in the ".;aina s community, Schuette also stressed agriculture By PATCASEY Daily News writer pleted on schedule and within bud- rec'agnizing that the Sas,inaw Valley as a key area foreconomic growth in isin a globalbattle for markets. , Mid. Michigan, pointing to the de.'

"I was wrong last March (1984) %et. " don't want to say I was misled - "I'm sensing that people know it's veloping'85 Farm Bill as a potential when I said the Midland nuclear plant should be completed," Rep' maybe  ! didn't ask enouah of the not going to be business as usual," pitfall.

Wierman said,"that we can't simply Michael Husch. R.Saginaw, said at right questions," Busch said.

"But I only learned later that Be- grab on to the coattails of $be econ . ..We have to help farm families get

"" " ' "" " fairer prices,"Schuette said. "But we Bus d fo chtel, the contractor, estimated omic recovery "

U.S. Rep Bill hh t R nfo ; ere vr ontv a lo percent chanceof He called for more creativity, cant ,o, ur international com-on-time.on. budget completion." risk.taking, and a bias for action Seginaw Valley State College's Dr Busch also said that Michigan en- from business, praising the bold, co-Japues Mitchell; Rod Coleman oj. Mitchell, of SVSC, commented

' General Motors Foundry;and David ergy c sta are not any higher than opertive effort of city, county and that the recent fire at the college .

Wierman, Saginaw News publisher neighboring states and will soon be state government in saving U.S. "came a couple of yeare pre-

-spoke to an audience of 40 for two significantly lower when states like Graphite. ,

maturely," referring to the 528.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> on the topic of Mid-Michigan Indiana begm complymg with con- Calhng Michigan the garden spot million construction program still in 1990and Beyond. sent orders to install expensive air of the rustbelt, Coleman, a trans- progress.

Sponsor of the program was the pollution controlequipment. plant from Washmgton, D.C., rec-e no at scholarly research Northeastern Michigan Estate l'heirenergy costa will go up30 to ommended greater emphasis on the flanningCouncil. 40 percent in Indiana, because they agriculture ind ustry. notmg a lack of n co ege campuses has more of a put offcleaning up their emmissions. promotion of Saginaw Valley pro- encountered. commercia flavor than previously.

He encouaged increas.

-IN RESPONSE TO ducts.

" " Michigan put the scrubbers on . government funding for the cre-Michtran's energy outt k us *They serve clam chowder on the 8t8V8 mind 80n C8mpus.

• • *

• street corners in New Orleans, why said his pro. completion position had been based on faulty intormation Wierman and Coleman em- not serve bean soup allover Fashion "You never know where the next fkom Consumers Power Co. which phasized the need for an attipde Square Mall?" little gemis coming from."

d

- - - - - - . _ _