ML20039E243
| ML20039E243 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1981 |
| From: | Gonzales H HOUSE OF REP. |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201070063 | |
| Download: ML20039E243 (3) | |
Text
couwiTTats.
,iENkY B. GONZAM h DistmicT,TtzAs SANKING. FINANCE ANS URBAN AFFAIRS 2332 RatsumM House OFFICE SufLDfMG gy3COWutTTEC34
- ^~Ci *"
Cottgregg of the Uttitch sbtateg
__. _. C fr."; o_.
,7 Gcutm46 OvenssGMT an.o RCNEGOTRAff0N con.uwsm Ar,Asas Amo COINAGE S-124 Buth 0
SMAgt,,cust""* M,A e# -
727 E. DuaANoe Stats?
Ma5Ijtngt0H,D.C. 2051o,
,81
& 3:
SAN Auro,asTexAs 7stoe 8"'**""
312-229-6 t99 ANTI.TNUsh AND RCETRA4NT Or TRADE ACTtwsttES ArrtCTsNa SuAu. BussNess ZONE WHIPS l S3A AND SSTCAtm.sarTT. MINonrTT TERAS Dmocmaric Ocksaarin Decomber 29, 1981 cNT A,
co ms.Au.Bu House MAJon:TT Wseap OmaANszATION
,Q\\y eno=w =
~
ll<
'Q
/q i
ru acr A23 i lgi g' j
j t
The Honorable Nuncio Palladino
/
Chairman g -.
.....;;$g U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
,r Washington, D. C.
20555
- ' "~. x
.w
Dear Mr. Palladino:
I am certain that you are aware of the numerous problems at the South Texas Nuclear Project, a power plant consisting of two 1250 megawatt reactors at Bay City, Texas.
You are aware, I know, that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ordered that the plant owner be fined the maximum of $100,000 and to show cause why its con-struction permit should not be suspended, given numerous violations of NRC regulations.
Since that time, the project manager has dis-missed the project engineers and constructors, and has placed the plant on a hold status until new engineering studies can be completed and new constructors employed.
As part of its response to the Show Cause order, the Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) in '.ts capacity as project manager ordered an independent st2dy of the South Texas Nuclear Project.
This study, performed by the Quadrex Corporation, was delivered on or about May 7, 1981.
As required by NRC regulatitas, Houston Lighting and Power advised the Commission that the report contained three items that might fall within the reporting requirements of 10 CFR 50.55 (c).
The company did not advise the Commission of the scope of the report, nor did it make a oopf available at tat time.
Subsequent events reveal that the report was considerably mor; critical than the Commission had been led to believe.
Coincidentally, hearings on the operating license petition for the South Texas Nuclear 2ro]ect commenced the same week that the Quadrex report b2came available t. the project manager.
During the course of the hearings, HL&P's vice p esident for nuclear engineering and construction a' erred to findings of the Quadrex report, but did not mention the repcet by name, nor state its length or refer to the large number of findings therein.
At about the same time, a listing of con-sultants on the project supplied to ittervenors by the company, failed to show the Quadrex Corporation as'a ;onsultant.
9 03 s
G201070063 811229 hDRADOCK 05000498 PDR
- 7
.(
The Hon. Nuncio Palladino December 29, 1981 l
Page Two 4
On June 21, 1981, Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power.
L
' received allegations that the management of Houston Lighting and Power nad blocked a stop' work order by its own quality assurance personnel.
The information was reported to the NRC the next day.
In the course of investigating this' matter, NRC investigators saw the Quadrex report, which had been produced in response to a request for all. documents since January 1979.
The investigators reported that the document appeared important, and it was reviewed by-Don Sells, l
HRS's licensing manager, on September 14.
Immediately.thereafter, NRC asked that the report be sent to its Licensing Board.
Houscon 4
Lighting and Power agreed to send the report, and that same week dismissed the project engineers, Brown and Root.
i.
Testifying before the House Interior Committee's Subcommittee l
on Energy and the Environment on November 19, the Commission's Executive Director for Operations stated that "...the magnitude of potential l
problems (at the South Texas Nuclear Project) was not' fully appreciated l'
until we first' reviewed the report in August, 1981."
His referencefwas to the Quadrex report.
Clearly, the Quadrex document is significant, and it is of i
more than passing curiosity _ that Houston Lighting and Power did not make the report available to the NRC until it was specifically requested l
i to do so, and then only as part of a request for all~ relevant documents.
The company did not deny the existenc e of the report, but neitheredid' it volunteer significant information about it.
The Commission plainly i
felt the document was.important, as indicated by the testimony referred to above.
Once the report was promised to the Commission, Houston Lighting and Power moved to dismiss brown and Root, first as archi-tect-engineer and then as constructor, which suggests that HL&P also knew how critical the Quadrex report was.
The Commission had earlier fcund that Houston Lighting and Power knew, or should have known, of the numerous problems and deficiencies at the South Texas Nuclear Project.
The April 30, 1980 order was a blunt warning that the project manar2r had been grossly negligent.
The n
treatmert of the Quadrex report is eridence that the company either was unaware of the continuing deficienci rs or did not want the NRC to know of the scope of the problems.
In e_.her case, confidence in the manage-ment capability of Houston Lighting.nd Power is not inspired by'the treatment of the Quadrex report.
The South Texas Nuclear Proje t is not only years behind schedule and billions of dollars over project:d costs, it is now completely frozen,.pending new studies by new c>ntractors.
For years, the project
~
.(
?
The Hon. Nuncio Palladino Page Three December 29, 1981 managers have been unwilling or unable to assure that the plant is adequately planned,~that its quality is anywhere close to NRC requirements, or that it has the confidence and ability to deal with complete candor with the NRC.
All of this raises serious questions about the fitness of the Houston Liehting and Power Company as project manager or prospective operator, assuming the South Texas Nuclear Project ever. qualifies for an operating license.
I commend you for the actions and statements you have under--
taken to date by.way of demanding that nuclear power plant licensees improve the quality of_their management and product.
Yet it seems clear to me that the South Texas Nuclear Project licensee fails to understand the seriousness of its management failures in the past, and that the Commission has done nothing to correct matters. ' The.
critical nature of those failures is only suggested by the necessity of theproject management's move to dismiss the plant designers and builders, at the very midstream of the construction program.
That drastic action suggests a kind of repentance,.but the failure of Houston Lighting and Power to appreciate the significance of, or to promptly report the Quadrex document indicates that the project
- managers are not only guilty of continued neglect, but may be res-ponsible for deliberate obstruction of the whole regulatory process.
As you so well understand, Mr. Chairman, the completion and operation of a nuclear plant can never be permitted to become more important than quality. control and plant safety.
The project manager in this instance appears to take an opposite riew of matters.
~
The Commission has earlier found the South Texas Nuclear Project.
management grossly deficient.
In light of the developments of the past l
year or so, I wonder what actions the Commission will now take to insure that the project management will not continue to fail in its responsi-bilities.
It seems to me that the licensing issues are made much more critical now than at any previous time, given the amply demonstrated failures of the project management to gain control over quality control or even to comply with the plain responsibilities of NRC licensees.
I believe the Commission should immedi tely review the qualifications of the South Texas Nuclear Project Mana ers, end decide at once whether or not Houston Lighting and Power shoul continue to hold its license.
Surely it would be better to correct the problems and errors now than to wait longer, when the costs of cc: cective action will be immeasurably higher.
With best wishes, I am incerely yours, 69uf -
f Henry B. Gonzalez Member of Congress
.