ML20033C088
| ML20033C088 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/24/1981 |
| From: | Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20033C084 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8112020647 | |
| Download: ML20033C088 (14) | |
Text
.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION U3N?C B E F 0111: TITE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAT D.
L,m,30 P 2 :21 a
In the Matter of I!O1:. TON LIGHTING AND POIiER Docket Nos. 5n-498 C O. :)ANY, ET AL.
50-499 (South Texas Project, Units and 2 CITIZENS CONCERNED ABOUT NUCLEAR POWER MOTION FOR ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD TO ISSUE'RECOfE NDATION TO NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO;GIISSIOY I. Introduction On November 23, 1981, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power (CCANP) filed " Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power Motion to File Additional Contentions Ba sed on New Infort::a tion and to Establish a Discovery and Hearing Schedule with Respect to New Contentions" (hereinafter referred to as CCANP Motion).
On Page 31, footnote 17 sta ted:
CCANP believes the facts set forth in this motion are a sufficient basis for the issuance of an Order to Show Cause as to why the construction permit should not be revoked and the convening of a hea ring on such an Order Wither before this Board, another Board, or the Commission itself. CCANP urges the Board to seriously consider such a recommendation to the Commission. As far a s CCANP is concernod, enough is enough."
The purpose of this motion is to formally place before the Board the decision on issuing just such a recommendation to the Commission.
II. Discussion l
On May 28, 1980, CCANP, on wehalf of itself and Citizens l
for Equitable Utilities (CEU), sent a letter to Victor Stello, Jr.,
Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In this letter, Inter-venors a sked tha t a public hearing be convened on the NRC's i
Order to Show Cause issued to. Houston Lighting and Power on A9ril 30,
'980.
8112020647 [ h e PDR ADOCK PDR k
~ _.. ~
~-
i
i i
On September 22, 1980, the Nucloor Regulatory Commission issued a Memorandum and Order denying that request. Houston Lichting and Power Co. (South Texa s Project, Units 1 and 2),
f CLI-80-32 (1980).
While denying the hearing, the Memorandum and Order did state:
"The history of the South Texas Project - at least 12 separa te NRC investiga tions over a 2 1/2 year period, resulting in' conferences with the licensee, several prior items of non-compliance, a deviation, five immediate action letter, and now substantiated allegations of harra ssment, intimidation, and threats directed to QA/QC personnel and apparent false sta te-ments in the FSAR - is relevant to the issue of the basic competence and character of Houston. Central to that issue are two questions: whether the facts demonstrate that the licensee ha s abdicated too much responsibility for construction to its contractor, Brown and Root, Inc. and whether the facts demonstrate an unacceptable failure on the part of Houston Lighting and Power to keep itself knowledgeable about necessary-construction activities. Either abdication of respon-sibility or abdication of knowledge, whether at the construction or operating phase, could form an inde-pendent and sufficient ba sis for revoking a license or denying a license application on grounds of lack of competence (i.
e.
technical) or character quali-fication on the part of the licensee or license applicants."
Id.,
p.
17-18.
The Commission noted tha t Intervenors were contemplating a petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
Section 2.206 to revoke the construction license for the South Texa s Nuclear-Project'.1 The Commission responded:
"We must candidly sta te that such a petition is likely to be an exercise in futility in this instance.
The Director has reached a conclusionfas to appropria te remedy and Citizens have been unable to provide new evidence which could be expected to cause the Director to reconsider...." p.
16.
CCANP contends that the facts set forth in_the CCANP
' motion noted in the introduction to this motion, constitute significant new evidence on which the Director of Inspection and Enforcement has taken no enforcement action to date.
The Quadrex report alone is viewed by the NRC as showing a magnitude of potential problems far grea ter than those
/
i l
-_.2
=
m a lending toEthe' Order to Show,Cause. (CCANP Motion, p.
8) y This view was expressed by ths. highest sta ff member of the Nuclear Roguin tory Commission af ter he wa s introduced the Congressi-ong.1'coramitted by the Chairman of the to 1
Commi'ssion.
This new ev dance concerns both the, character and the
^
I competenme of Houston Lighting and Power.
A. Character Evideice
!., Eouston Lishting and Power had no nuclear experience when the : South Texa s Nuclear Project began. Houston Lighting and Power hixad.3r.own and Root.to be architect-engineer and constructor of this nuclear plant knowing of Brown and Root's l
. lack of-experience in nuclear plants, particularly the absence of.any experience as architect-engineer.
Given this combina tion of two inexperienced companiss a tt empting a complex and difficult ta sk, there should have been an expecta, tion of difficulties from the first day forward. The potsntial for error inherent in this combination
-called for ~a' ' system to ensure careful monitoring, early dhtection ~ of probleme and prompt corrective actions. Otherwise, deficiencios in per'
.c e could occur and continue for long periods of time without detection or correction.2 Just such long standing deficiencies in construction and quality' control practices are already documented in the Order to Show Cause of April, 1980 and in this proceeding. Now the Quadrex report documents similar long standing deficiencies in design and engineering. Clea rly, Houston Lighting and Power failed to take 'adequa te mea sures to prevent such deficiencies.
Houston Lighting and Power did not even protect itself.
The Quadrex report contains the following:
"We found no evidence that B&R has considered or assumed responsibility for HL&P power production needs in their sta ted design criteria. Many individual opera tional problems observed on the plant model a t Crestpark provide evidence that reliability, main-tainability and similar considerations have been w
largely overlooked, and appear to be compromising the maintainability and accessibility of the plant. "
(Section 3.2(k),
- p. 3-14)
More importantly, the Quadrex report shows that Houston Lighting and Power failed to protect the general public. The Quadrex report contains many safety-related findings concerning the design and engineering process. (See " Bases for Immediate Suspension of Construction" in " Citizens for Equitable Utilities' Petition to Suspend Construction of the South Texas Project,"
dated October 28, 1981,
- p. 6-14; CCANP Motion, p.
14-18 and Contentions 3, 4, 6, 9, 13-22, p.
36, 37, 39-43).
Houston Lighting and Power hired the Quadrex Corporation in January, 1981. For Houston Lighting and Power to wait so long to hire a third party reviewer to examine Brown and Root's design engineering indicates Houston Lighting and Power never realized there wa s a potential for errors caused by inexperience on Brown and Root's part or that Houston's. inexperienced personnel might not catch and correct promptly such errors.
It took the Order to Show Cause to get Houston Lighting and Power to hire someone competent to perceive the existing problem.
From 10 C.F.R Part 50, it is obvious the NRC views the Quality Assurance program a s the mechanism for insuring continuous monitoring, early detoction of problems, and prompt corrective actions. Given its inexperience, Houston Lighting and Power voluntarily a ssumed an even higher burden than contemplated by 10 C.F.R. Part 50 when it hired an inexperienced architect-angineer-constructor to produce the entire plant. With the only check on the prime contractor being Houston, Houston should have set up an especially effective Quality Assurance program. Instead, Houston Lighting and Power failed to establish and implement even a minimally effective Quality Assurance program.
2.
The Houston Lighting and Power failure to report more than three of the hundreds of findings in the Quadrex report to the NRC pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Section 50 55(e) is a violation of NRC regulations. (CCANP-Motion,
- p. 9-19). Mony o f the non-reported findings a re clearly reportable. This
failure to report other findings, or to release the entire Quadrex report to the NRC upon receipt, appears to be a deliberate decision by Houston Lighting and Power to with-hold significant sa fe ty-rela ted informa tion from the NRC.
(CCANP Motion, p.
19-2h).3
- 3. I&E Report 81-28 records that an HL&P QA employee attended a meeting on June 11, 1981 a t which the director of Quality Assurance for HL&P told QA personnel that the Final Safety Analysis Report and the new QA program (written in response to the Order to Show Cause) were just " licensing documents" and not regulatory mandatos. (CCANP Motion, p.
27-29 and Attachment 2 thereto, p.
6-7). I&E Report 81-28 further records that five other QA personnel confirmed.
the remarks were made. The remarks of the QA manager for Houston Lighting and Power show a " contempt" for the entire NRC regulatory process.
- 4. HLAP received the Quadrex report on May 7, 1981.N On May 19, 1981, an NRC attorney in this proceeding askad HL&P's Vice President for Nuclear Engineering and Construction:
"Now, as to design, what are the principal area s you have found them hrown and Rooj) lacking?" (Tr. 2405).The response is contained in only four pages of testimony and refers to only three areas in a superficial manner. (Tr. 2405-2408).
Since the witness had almost certainly received the Quadrex report prior to testifying, his testimony, including his failure to mention the existence of the Quadrex report, casts doubt on the credibility and veracity of HL&P testimony before this Board. (CCANP Motion,
- p. 24-25).
- 5. Failure to report matters of serious concern to the NRC, denigrating the two most important commitments made
'by Houston Lighting and Power to the NRC, and failing to testify fully in answer to NRC questions show a more general pa ttern of Houston Lighting and Power's failure to respect the regula tory function and role of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
l L
- 6. At no time betwoon the receipt of the Quadrex report and the termina tion of Brown and Root a s architect-engineer, a period of more than four and a half months, did Houston Lighting and Power issue a stop work order to Brown and Root design and engineering. (CCANP Motion, Contention 7, p.
36-37) While at least four HL&P QA personnel favored a partial stop work order, HL&P management personnel over-ruled their recommendation. (CCANP Motion,
- p. 23-26 and A t ta chment 2 thereto,
- p. 4-6).
The failure of HL&P to issue such a stop work order permitted the continuation of a design and engineering process called into question by HL&P's own expert consultant. The decision not to issue a stop work order representsa failure to adequa tely appreciate the underlying purpose of 10 C.F.R. Part 50, which is to prevent any activity potenticily detri-mental to the safe opera tion of a nuclear power plant.
- 7. The failure to ishk a stop work order is compounded by HL&P's repeated requests to the NRC to proceed with major ssfety-related construction items. (CCANP Motion, Contention 8, P. 37)
The October 16, 1981 letter from HL&P to Region IV NRC, a letter prompting the Board to schedule a special hearing, is only one example of the determination of HL&P to continue construction work based on questionable design and engineering.
These requests represent a-second and more substantial failure to adequately appreciate the purpose of 10 C.F.R. Part 50
- 8. In addition to denigrating safety commitments to the NRC and supporting the decision to not issue a stop work order, the HL&P QA manager failed to provide guidanco and/or direction to an HL&P QA individual clearly in need of a ssistance. (CCANP Motion,
- p. 29-30 and Attachment 2
- thereto,
- p. 8-9).
In their response to the Order to Show Ca use, HL&P claimed to recognize that " 60 pper management ha s the responsibility to assure that quality function ha ve a high degree of visibility to enhance quality awareness throughout the project." Cited in CLI-80-32,
- p. 5 (CCANP Motion,
- p. 29-30 and Attachment 2 thereto,
- p. 8-9)
~
The bohsvior of the Quality Assurance Manager for Houston Lighting and Power shows there was no such recog-nition more than a year after the issuance of the Order to Show Cause.
B.
Character and Competence Evidence
- 9. The collapse of the South Texa s Nuclear Project partnership constitutes a judgment by the partners that Houston Lighting and Power lacks the necessary managerial character to build a nuclear plant co mpe t en tly. Such a judgment is highly probative of Houston Lighting and Power's having the requisite character and competence to continue to hold construction permits: granted by the NRC. (CCANP Motion, p. 30).
At least one partner is expected to file suit shortly, possibly charging fraud and incompetence.
- 10. The circumstances surrounding the removal of Brown and Root from the design and engineering of the South Texa s Nuclear Project raise additional concerns about the corporate character and technical competence of Houston Lighting and Power. (CCANP Motion,
- p. 30-31).
On September 24, 1981, Houston Lighting and Power informed the Board that HL&P had " decided to reallocate responsibilities for certain functions for the completion of the South Texas Project (STP)." (Attachment 2 hereto, p.
- 1) Their letter said HL&P was negotiating with Bechtel i
l Power Corporation to " assume responsibility for engineering, design, and construction management services necessary to I
complete the project." (p. 2) The letter also said: " Brown and Root (B&R) has been asked by HL&P to continue to perform the construction work at STP." (p. 2)
This letter makes no mention of the Quadrex report.
l The letter says: "The availability of Bechtel's personne'l will enable design and engineering to progress more expedi-tiously in support of the construction effort." (p. 2)
The problem of Brown and Root's engineering program l
l i
l
not keeping poco with cenotruction in one of the three problems testified to by Mr. Goldberg on May 19. (Tr. 2407-2409). This explanation for Brown and Root's removal became the public position of HL&P. For example, "An HL&P spokesman, Don Beeth, said the ligh; company had concluded that Droun and Root, although it.'tried hard to do so,'
simply was unable to attract and retain a nuclear engineering force that could keep construction moving at a proper pace."5 Essentially, Houston Lighting and Power maintins that shortages of personnel and inability of engineering to keep pacf with construction led to Brown and Root's removal as architect-engineer.
Offering this explanation, HL&f took the position that the decision itself had no bearing on this proceeding. (At-tachment 2, p.
2)
CCANP suggests the history relevant to this Board seeing the Quadrex report for the first time offers an alternative and more likely exp1& nation. (CCANP Motion,
- p. 21-23). The first review of the report itself by NRC staff came during
~
the August 1931 investigation which led to I&E Report 81-28.0 After their discovery,.the investigators informed Mr.
Don Sells, Project Manager, NRC Division of Licensing, about the report. On September 1h, Mr. Sells a sked HL&P for a copy to review and spent that morning studying the report. Thi s l
pr oceeding wa s in asssion at the time in Houston, Texas.
During the week of September.14, Mr. Sells briefed Mr.'Reis and Mr. Gutierrez, NRC attorneys in this proceeding, regarding the contents of the Quadrex report.
Upon their return to Washington, D.C.,
Mr. Reis and Mr.
Gutierrez decided the report should be provided to the Board.
HL&P was then called and given the option of sending the
' report to the Board or having the NRC do so.
On September 24, HL&P announced the termination of Brown and Root from design and engineering. On September 28, HL&P sent the Quadrex report to the Board and selected party representatives.
{
l I
From May 7 until September 24, HL&P was content to ha ve Brown and Root remain as engineer and designer. When forced to release the Quadrex report, however, HL&P fired Brown and Root.
The inference is clear to CCANP that HL&P recognized the Quadrex report would destroy the credibility with the Board of the Brown and Root design and engineering effort. Rather than still have Brown and Root doing auch work when the Board received the report, HL&D fired Brown and Root. The rush wa s so great tha t it seems some partners learned of the firing on the day it took place.
To accept,the public position of HL&P regarding this firing, CCANP must conclude tha t Hous ton Lighting'and Power demonstrated a lack of technical competence in their failure to assess the Quadrex report as requiring the removal of Brown and Root. If manpower shortages and scheduling difficulties are the real reason HL&P fired Brown and Root, then HL&P failed to give the Quadrex report the technical weight it deserves.
To accept the CCANP explanation of this firing, CCANP nust conclude tha t HL&P demonstra ted a lack of character in not firing Brown and Root until the Board wa s about to see the Quadrex report and, therefore, HL&P would be called upon to defend their retention of Brown and Root in design and engineering. If t'e Quadrez report was the basis for the firing, then HL&P did recognize how devasta ting the Quadrex critique really is. But for reasons other than the quality of the Brown and Root effort, HL&P decided to keep Brown and Root as architect-engineer. Only when the Quadrex report wa s about to be exposed to the Board did HL&P make the appropriate response to the findings in the report and fire Brown and Root.
By September 24, HL&P could not admit the Quadrex report for the d' cision or such a sta tement would was the basis e
constitute an admission that the Brown and Root work of the past four and a half months should never have been allowed.
w 4
,r,-
~
~ - -
Either the lack of technical competence evidenced by the HL&P position or the lack of character evidence by the CCANP explana tion support the Board taking the action requested in this motion.
- 11. The circumstances surrounding th e removal of Brown and Root from construction and quality control at the South Texas Nuclear Project also raise additional concerns about the corporate character and technical competence of Houston Lighting and Power.
As noted above, when HL&P removed Brown and Root as architect-engineer, HL&P asked Brown and Root to remain in a
the construction and quality control roles. Mr. Beeth sta ted:
"The construction of that project (STN$3 is - and has been -
very good to excellent."7 The official HL&P announcement of Brown and Root's withdrawal from construction and quality control indicated the cause was an inability to negotiate a successful contract to continue Brown and Root's involvement. ( Atta chment 3 hereto).
The fact that HL&P was still trying to keep Brown and Root and the s.tatement by Mr. Beeth show Houston Lighting and Power lacked'the technical competence to assess the deficien-cies in the Brown and Root construction and quality control programs. These deficiencies are adequately documented in i
this proceeding.
Further, HL&P lacked the corporate character to make j
the appropria te decision - termina tion - in the face of these deficiencies.
C.
Competence Evidence
- 12. The findings of the Quadrex report show a design and engineering process lacking the most fundamental systems,
' bases, documentation, analyses, and implementation necessary to nuclear plant work. (CCANP Motion, p.
7-9 and Contentions 8,
13-22, p.
37, 39-43).
l
- 13. EL&P's inability to control the design and engineering process shows a lack of technical competence.
(CCANP Motion, p.
25-27; the Quadrex report itself).
i i
- 14. HL&P managsmont lock on oblility to provido adequate support to QA personnel. (CCANP Motion, p.
29-30 and Attachment 2 thereto,
- p. 8-9).
- 15. HL&P has no management consensus on implementa tion o f QA programs. (CCANP Motion, p.
27 and Attachment 2 thereto, P. 4-6)
The question presented by this motion is:
Given the new evidence available since the Order to Show Cause of April, 1980 and the pre-Order to Show Cause history of Houston Lighting and Power's acti-vities pursuant to construction permits CPPR-128 and CPPR-129 for the-South Texa s Project, Units 1 and 2, is there now a sufficient basis for the Board to send a recommendation to the Commission that an Order to Show Cause a s to why the referenced construction permits should not be revoked be issued by the Commission?
Based on the facts set forth in our November 23 motion and the argument herein, CCANP believe the answer to that question must be "yes." As a consequence, CCANP moves this Board to send just such a recommendation to the Commission.
Respect,11y submitted, 7
Lanny Sinkin Pro Se Counsel Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power 2207 D Nueces Austin, Texa s 78705 (512) 478-3290 4
Dated November 24, 1981 e
FOOTNOTES 1.
?O C.F.R.
Section 2.206 states in part:
"(a ) Any person may file a request for the
- Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement to institute a proceeding pursuant to Section 2.202 to modify, suspend or revoke a license Section 2.202 describes the procedures involved in the issuance of an Order to Show Cause.
2.
CCANP contends that the single most important ta sk of a l
nuclear plant operator is the detection and correction of problems before such problems become accidents.
To achieve this ta sk requires an a tt1tude and performance clearly oriented towards that goal.
The most important a ttitude is one of constant questioning
{
and skepticism. A nuclear plant opera tor must be willing a t all times to challenge even the opera tor's most fundamental a ssump-tions.
The performance of a nuclear plant opera tor should include hiring qualified personnel, the use of the most up-to-date methodologies, the establishment and execution of a comprehen-sive Quality Assurance program, the accomplishment of consis-tently high quality work, constant oversight on work being done, and the checking and double checking of such work.
In the history to date of Houston Lighting and Power's attitud s and performance et the South Texa s Nuclear Project, none the characteristics necessary appear and a failure to achieve the central ta sk is obvious.
Since operating license decisions are predictive decisions based on the history of construction, this history disqualifies Houston Lighting and Power from receiving an, opera ting license.
- 3. During the second week of hearings in this proceeding, the Applicants responded to a request-from CEU by fgoviding a list of consultants used by the project to date. CCANP has not had the opportunity to review the record to determine exactly what was requested.
The list, however. purports to be a " List of Consultants to H14P or the Management Committee on Project Management, QA/QC, or Inspection of Completed Construction Work." The consultants are those paid "$10,000 or more in any calendar year since issuance of CP." The list is appended to this motion as Attachment 1 Though the list is dated 5/21/81, the Quadrex Corporation does not appear on this list.
CCANP views the Quadrex report as clearly a consultant's
, report to HL&P on Quality Assurance matters. CCANP assumes the magnitude of the study and the number of personnel involved resulted in Quadrex being paid more than $10,000 in 1981.
CCANP awaits an explana tion from Applicants as to the omission of the Quadrex Corporation from this list before CCANP draws any conclusions.
Footnotes Pnco Two
- 4. Austin American Statesman, November 24, 1981, p.
B2
- 5. Houston Post, September 24, 1981, p.
1
- 6. CCANP notes tha t Mr. Beeth told ontreporter the Quadrex report wa s made available to the NRC one week af ter it wa s received. Dallas Morning News (UPI), November 24, 1981, p.
21A.
Mr. Beeth told another reporter the Commission was briefed on the Quadrex report in June. Austin American Statesman, November 24, 1981, p.
B2.
CCANP believes both these representations by Mr. Beeth will turn out to be inaccurate.
- 7. The Daily Texan, September 29, 1981, p.
1 0
.--r-.
w.
ye y
y
..w,,-
-+
ATTACHMENT 1 LIST OF CONSULTANTS TO HL&P OR THE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE ON PROJECT MANAGEMENT, QA/QC OR INSPECTION OF COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION WORK
($10,000 or more in any calendar year since issuance of CP)
Firm Time Period Scope Management 19 77--present General consultation regard-Analysis ing organizational develop-Company (;MAC) ment, ccst, and schedule planning Nuclear 1977--1960 Periodic reviews to assist Services HL&P in determining review Company (NSC) areas and manpower needs for engineering general planning for startup Nuclear 1977--present Review of capabilities and Associates manpower needs for in-core Internati g
fuel management.
Assistance (NAI) in development of records
'O
\\
management system DOCKETED NUS 6 ustm0 L 978--1980 Review of health physics 140V 3 01981 r:Z and safety analysis T,
areas to assist in. deter-
>O 0 r.c; c' P "Tl7 mining areas of review C;w.
-- -' s /
and manpower needs 4
'87HE 7
Applied as 1979--1980 Review of capabilities and Physics manpower needs for a central Technology health physics laboratory Bechtel 1980--present QA program evaluation and review of organizational alternatives contained in Order to Show Cause Earthquake late 1980--
Consultation and review Engineering present related to development of Systens operations QA organization.
Incorporated and program Gilbert--
late 1980--
General consultation on Commonwealth present development of operations QA program and organization Nuclear 1980--present Review of NRC criteria and Power EL&P inplementation plans Consultants for records management MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE CONSULTANTS Gibbs & Hill 1979--1980 Examination of Baseline as
?
of June, 1979, to determine' realism of cost and schedule 5
ATTACID1ENT 2 uw crrecEs LoWENSTEIN, NzwxAN, REIs & Axzz.nn 1O85 COMMECTICUT AVENUE, N. W.
.-g wAs HINGToN, D. C. Roo3.
h ks x
me: cat 6o-cas,ci=
s N.
m e.........
. '.**.'!/."S..
me........
o gy
.~ :e~
e
- g.,
" J. A. C@VE N'c$.T. J a,
i-
.*wsc=
I
' 3 #3
.c.. s,.6 i Ci SG.Gattw
'J 4
Sswa6 e
f.,
. D it 6. powE66 f
.-_.,,j' Aunt w. CQ,teno...*
/
moetet..Cw6*
t E
[
ncs:
~~
...w,,.....
..o....
September 24, 1981
. 6 s. m ve...~
Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Chief Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
~
Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge l
313 Woodhaven Road Chapel-Hill, North Carolina 27514 Ernest E. Hill Administrative Judge Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Post Office Box 808, L-123 Livermore, California 94550 RE:
Houston Lighting & Power Co. et al.
South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Gentlemen:
This is to inform you that Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) has decided to reallocate responsibilities for certain functions for the completion of the South Texas Project (STP).
l Although contractual negotiations have not yet been l
completed, HL&P and the Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) l have agreed in principle that (a) Bechtel will provide technical assistance consisting of the review of the exist-ing engineering, design and construction activities and 1
l
. ~gp( $ 0
!$\\kono N s
LowzxcTz1x, NzwxAx, Rzio & Axzt.aA1)
Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Dr. James C. Lamb Ernest E.
Hill September 24, 1981 Page Two their associated records in order to " benchmark" project status, to verify conformance with applicable requirements and practices and to prepare a project completion cost and schedule forecast; and (b) after an orderly transition period, Bechtel will assume responsibility for engineering, design and construction management services necessary to complete the project.
Brown & Root (B&R) has been asked by HL&P to continue to perform the construction work at STP.
The availability of Bechtel's personnel will enable design and engineering to progress more expeditiously in support of the construction effort.
In addition, Bechtel will bolster construction management by strengthening the scheduling and planning functions.
HL&P will be developing over the next several months specific information concerning the qualifications of_Bechtel and its QA/QC program, as well as the details of the ultimate relationship among HL&P, Bechtel and B&R.
We have not yet had an opportunity to discuss with the NRC Staff and the intervenors the effect of this development in the present proceeding.
We plan to undertake such consultations promptly after the hearings of the week of September 28 and are hopeful that joint recommendations can be submitted to the Board by mid-October.
In any event, this development does not affect the hearings scheduled for the week of September 28 and should
'not affect the hearings scheduled for the week of October 19.
The new information has no bearing upon the testimony for EL&P of the operations panel and Mr. Williams,.nor the testimony for CEU of Mr. Swayze, who is testifying concern-ing past events.
Similarly this development should not affect the testimony of other witnesses for CCANP and CEU (since they also are testifying as to past events), with the possible exception of Mr. Hubbard.
To the extent hearing time is available in October, it would also be feasible to hear the testimony of the witnesses for the NRC Staff who deal with past events.
j Although it will be premature to discuss this new development in more detail at the hearings during the week
LowzNETz!N, NzWMMi. Rzzz & Axzz. nan f
Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Dr. James C. Lamb Ernest E.
Hill September 24, 1981 Page Three of September 28, any questions concerning scheduling sug-gestions can be usefully e.xplored at that time.
Respectfully submitted, 1
m ack R. Newman[
Of Counsel:
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis
& Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Ave., N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, Project Manager of the South Texas Project, acting herein on behalf of itself and the other Applicants, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
cc:
Certificate of Service w
--4e+-
-e-
-a y,..-
--,.,-.e,.,,-,--,wg----w--
,,y--
,,.-w.-,
-,.py,
-~,-,
~r
-w.
=
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00 PET,ED
.nhPu BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'81 i;0V 30 P2:21 In the Matter of
)
'9 5' E"!?!?
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL
~
' " ~ "
)
50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board regarding reallocation of responsibilities in the South Texas Project have been served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, or as indicated by footnotes below, on this 24th day of September, 1981.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.*
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Chief Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co= mission Division Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 12545, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge William S. Jordan, III, Esq.*
313 Woodhaven Road
.Harmon & Weiss Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1725 I Street, N.W.
Ernest E. Hill ***
Administrative Judge Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Barbara A. Miller University of California Pat Coy P.O. Box 808, L-123 Citizens Concerned About l
L,ivermore., CA 94550 Nuclear Power l
5106 Casa Oro l
Mrs. Peggy Buchorn San Antonio, T::
78233 l
Executive Director Citizens for Equitable Lanny Sinkin**
Utilities, Inc.
2207-D Mueces Route 1, Box 1684 Austin, TX 78705 I
Brazoria, TX 77422
2-Joy M. Gutierrez, Esq.*
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 f
p,; m s
(
Via Hand Delivery Via Express Mail Via Federal Express e
v ww-s--.i.r-
,,.--.--s._4
,,,,y,-,,,,wy 3
p-w, f
-.----.,9-9
,g.__,_.g9,,-.-.+--
.. _,.,,m
--..g-.my-,
-.---y
ATTACHMENT 3 law CrriCES LOWENSTEIN, NEwxAN, REIs & AXELRAD M XETED
'q r(-
acas CONNECTICUT AVENUC, N. W.
no ce?towsmsTE,.
WAS HINGTON, D. C. 20 036
,81 fl0V 30 P2:21
. C a.
=- -
-^3'L:n*,..
O
"
- B T
- s. a. Ecu m es iO wf. J a.
meecm&Eb A. DAu SCR
-' ? " ; Jj l'} \\*
, 2..
q
=
6L gggguas G. SmECN
,d ' '., h onwt3 6. powCbb a
S.6Eteo#T tassets AmirC w. CoTT'segname CH2CCRT m. CukP
- CTC3 S. Fb'N N gTCVSee P PeaseT3 ritStasC s. OmaT A6 vise ee. OuTTraneam
..o........
6.s..6 c....
November 5, 1981 Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Chief Adminis::rative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Ernest E. Hill Administrative Judge Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Post Office Box 808, L-123 Livermore, Ct.lifornia 94550 Re:. Houston Lighting & Power Co. et al.
South Texas Project, Units 1 & 2, Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 nontlenen:
This will confirm my telephone conversation of this date with Chairman Bechhoefer concerning the replacement of Brown & Root as constructor on the South Texas Project.
Attached is the text of a press release issued this date me-93 M1601' 3 d
LEWzNSTz1x, Nzwwer, Rzza & Axzt.cAn Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Dr. James C. Lamb, III Ernest E. Hill November 5, 1981 Page Two by Houston Lighting & Power Company.
Respectfully, W"
ack R. New6an Attachment Of Counsel:
Lowenstein, Newman, Reis
& Axelrad 1025 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 Baker & Botts 3000 One Shell Plaza Houston, Texas 77002 Attorneys for HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER COMPANY, Project Manager of the South Texas Project, acting herein on behalf of itself and the other Applicants, CITY OF SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS, acting by and through the City Public Service Board of the City of San Antonio, CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY and CITY OF AUSTIN, TEXAS.
cc:
Certificate of Service 9
Elk.[7 0
TEXT OF HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
PRESS RELEASE
. : ;P.E TAF
3 L SERVICE
. M?:H "On September 24, 1981, HL&P announced that it had decided to reallocate responsibilities for certain functions of the South Texas Project.
The planned reallocation contemplated that Bechtel would assume responsibility for engineering, design and construction management services.
Brown & Root was asked by HL&P to continue to perform the construction work.
It became apparent Wednesday that Brown & Root and HL&P could not reach agreement on the basis for Brown & Root's remaining as constructor.
As a result, EL&P is considering several options regarding a new construction contractor.
"HL&P said that the details of the transition will be worked out over the next several weeks."
-o
\\
.s UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
., $7"
- h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'81 hSV 30 P2:21 W
In the Matter of
)
. g g g.,.
)
,i & SERVICE HOUSTON LIGHTING AND POWER
)
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL
- :.';,:CH COMP ANY, ~ET AL.
)
50-499 OL
)
(South Texas Project,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Applicants' letter to the Atomic Safety. and Licensing Board dated November 5, 1981, have bsen served on the following individuals and entities by deposit in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, on this 5th day of November, 1981.
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Chief Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing for.the State of Texas Board Panel Environmental Protection U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Division Washington, D.C.
20555 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Austin, TX 78711 Dr. James C. Lamb, III Administrative Judge William S. Jordan, III, Esq.
j 313 Woodhaven Road Harmon & Weiss i
Chapel Hill, NC 27514 1725 I Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Ernest E. Hill l
Administrative Judge Kim Eastman, Co-coordinator l
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Barbara A. Miller
(
University of California Pat Coy P.O. Box 808, L-123 Citizens Concerned About Livermore, CA 94550 Nuclear Power 5106 Casa Oro l
Mrs. Peggy Buchorn San Antonio, T::
78233 l
Executive Director l
Citizens for Equitable Lanny Sinkin Utilities, Inc.
2207-D Uueces Route 1, Box 1684 Austin, TX 78705 Brazoria, TX 77422 l
- l.. -
2-Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Sai~ety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
, Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 6(
hih-}s-I I
e
"NITED STATES OF A:.TRICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:riISSION BCFORE T!IE ATO?!IC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOA T:D Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of CCANP'r letter to the Atomic Safe ty and LicensinC Board da ted Novenber 2h, 1;S1 and of " Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Pouer Motion for Atonic Sa fety and License Board to Issue Recommendation to N iclear Regula tory Commission" ha ve been served en the fc11owing individuals and entities by depo sit in the United States nail, first class, postage prepaid, on this 25th day of November, 1981 Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.
William S. Jordan, Esq.
Chief Administrative Judge Harmon and Weiss Atomic Safety and Licensing 1725 I Street, NW Board Panel Suite 506 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20006 Washington, D.C. 20555 Jack R. Newman, Esq.
Dr. James C. Lamb. III Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
Administrative Judge Axelrad 313 Woodhaven Road 1025 Connecticut Avenue, NW Chapel Hill, NC 27514 Washington, D.C. 20036 Ernest E. Hill Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq Administrative Judge Office of the Executive Lawrence Livermore Laboratory Legal Director University of California U. S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 808, L-123 Commission Livermore, CA 94550 Washington, D.C.
20555 Mrs. Peggy Buchorn Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Executive Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Citizens for Equitable Washington, D.C. 10555 Utilities Route 1, Box 1684 Atomic Safety and Licensing Brazoria, Texas 77411 Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Brian Berwick, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Assistant Attorney General for the State of Texas Docketing and Service Section Environmental Protection Office of the Secretary Division U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Washington, D.C.
%i LanngSinkin
, - - -