ML20099C091
| ML20099C091 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 11/13/1984 |
| From: | Sinkin L AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8411190396 | |
| Download: ML20099C091 (5) | |
Text
.
s.
Tuesday, November 13, 1984 Mr.
D.
G.
Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Eisenhut:
South Texas Nuclear Project Units 1 &2 Docket Nos. STN 50-498, STN 50-499 Eggigggrigg Assutggce Pcggtgm I
am in receipt of Mr.
J.
H.
Goldberg's letter to you of November 2, 1984 regarding the Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P)
Engineering Assurance Program (EAP).
As I understand the
- letter, the NRC has delegated to an internal component of the HL&P engineering process the responsibility for independent design review that previously would have been carried out by a
third party, independent group. With the NRC delegating more and more of its regulatory responsibilities to the nuclear
- industry, this development comes as no particular surprise.
What I did find surprising,
- however, is the composition of the committee performing annual oversight of the EAP.
In particular the presence of Dr. Herbert H.
Woodson.
Apparently there is some semblance of independence required of this oversight committee.
Perhaps simply not having participated in the design or engineering of the
- project, not holding a large financial interest r el at ed to the partners in the
- project, and not having relatives employed by the partners or their prime contractor is enough to demonstrate
" independence" adequately to the NRC.
But from where I sit, Dr.
Woodson could hardly be considered " independent" of the South Texas Nuclear Project.
Enclosed for your information is an article detailing some of Dr.
Woodson's partisan efforts on behalf of the South Texas Nuclear Project. I do not hold it against him that he said people receive marc radiation making love than standing next to a
nuclear plant.
We are all entitled to our
- opinions, however unscientific.
But such opinions do at least call into question his objectivity regarding this particular technology.
More serious is his deep and continued involvement in l
pushing STNP politically. Dr. Woodson omitted at least one office he held from his Community Activities list.
He was Chairman of the Committee ftr Economic Energy in 1979, a
committee which campaigned in favor of passing $216 million in bonds for STNP and in favor of Austin retaining its share of STNP, a share Austin voters have since voted to sell.
Perhaps I can highlight my concern by posing the following question:
Setting aside the matter of technical qualifications g
for the
- moment, if the NRC insisted that I be placed on the h4 NI I review commi tt ee for the EAP would HL&P accept me as having no g8Alo8SPoE$$h fMM. y(
potential or apparent conflict of interest because I meet the
Mr.
D.
G.
Eisenhut Page Two Ngvember_13,_1283 criteria set forth in the statement signed by Dr. Woodson and the others?
I bring this matter to your attention realizing that the whole review committee is simply the nuclear industry taking care of its
- own, that Mr.
Hendrie and Mr.
Laney both are so inextricably tied to the further development of nuclear power that they can hardly avoid a bias in favor of approving the work HLLP is doing on STNP.
But I thought you might be interested anyway.
Towards a non-nuclear Earth, A
dit
/
4s Lanny Sinkin 114 W.
7th, Suite 220 Austin, Texas 78701 (512) 478-3290 I
l l
1
s
[
l 1
40v 2 4 g EVE History oftNGN.uk.ecreated b
strong backers, _ foes Austin is moving into its second decade of paying for the South Texas Nuclear Project.
M
.This is the second part of a series looldag at the MN_N history, people and futuse of the plant.
. g By BILL MCCANN j
aEBRUCE HICH
,,t American statesman staff
~
iMNE_N j
l Thousands of people have walked '
through the pages of the checkered history '
of the South Texas Nuclear Project.
8 They are engineers, cori truction '
2 workers, executives, politicians, bureau-crats and ordinary citizens caught up in the complex and costly project known irrever-- sive and time-consuming issue that citizens have ever faced.
ently in Austin as the Nuke. Some have spent years watching it grow out of the Over the years of conflict, a few of those Southeast Texas lowlands near Bay City. citizens have emerged as main characters, Others have never set foot on the site.
while others have played important sup-pordng roles.
They have watched its cost grow from less than 31 billion a decade ago to 35.5 bil-Among the key players are hard< ore lion. And they have seen the completion supporters like former Electric Director schedule of the two l.250 megawatt nuclear R.L. Hancock, University of Texas profes-units slip from 1980 to 1987 for Unit One' sor Herbert Wocdson, and former mayors and from 1982 to 1989 for Unit Two.
Roy Butler and Carole McClellan.
Most of the names connected with the And vocal opponents like City Council project are scrawled on countless engineer-member Roger Duncan and anti-nuclear ing and inspection reports, or on construc-activist Lanny Sinkin. And political consul-tion rosters. Other names and faces have tant Peck Young, who has been on both become familiar ones in the news.
sides of the issue.
The project has helped carry some to Their sto. des tell much of the history of power. And it has cost a few their jobs. It the Austln involvement in the project:
has helped enrich some, and has left indell.
R.L Ilancock. In September 1971, %n.
ble scars on others.
cock was one of a handful of utility execu-j In Austin, the South Texas Nuclear Pro-tives who sat in the offices of the Lower ject has become the most expensive divi-See N Jke, A8 i
t I
N
@ Prem At there. While Hancock was not re-partmentin early IM2 after 33 years spensible for the huge cost cverruns
.e
- Colorado River Authority and first and other problems at the nuclear
,?
.. i '-
disenmed the idea of a shared as. Project. they eroded his credibility.
t clear plant.
In addition, Duncan and other coun-
-@N.
Hancock, who was appolated elec* Cil members elected in 1961 saw I
tric director eartier that year, liked Hancock as too committed to con-p""ePe the idea. He was a respected engl. ventional energy technolostet and
, Mi%
i neer, and city officials listened when resistant to new ideas-and theylet [
l.I f
him know it.
he and others cheered the promise N
g s
of cheap nuclear power. Support Hancock moved to the thwer Colo-(,p grew as consultant studies also rec. rado River Authority, where his phi-e3 f
. ommeaded that the city 30 nuclear. Iceophy would be appreciated -
t
. I, fM The imue hit home hard when a although ironica!!y the river author-1t
- /
serious natural gas shortage threw a ity itself balled out of the project In
'l 4' . 3 "h. :. i scare into Austin in early 1973. By September 1972, citing the unproven
~Yl' late 19~ 1 the Arab oil embargo, nature of nuclear technology.
'/'
which started in late October, wes Rey Batter. If Hancock was the s-setting off fears of impending crisg spark for the involvement of Attstln w*
over much of the nation.
in the nuclear project,former Mayor w J,
. '(
Voters had turned down the nu-oy udu,, was the fuel.
Utimately the refepayers clear plant idea in 1972, but then Butler, a former car dealer who are going to benefit.
came the scare of the winter of 1973, became mayor in 1971, drove hard.
R. L. Hancock when gas curta!!ments to Austle especially in 1973, to get th; city in threatened to shut down its power the project.
pk.nts and in fact forced a tempo.
But!er and other city officials tried Ilty Commission, which sometimes t.ry shutdown at the University of and failed to get $289 m!!!!on in nu-resembled a war zone with Wood-Te..as. This incident and the growing clear bonds passed in 1972.It was the son's pro-nuclear faction on one side fears of a national energy crists had first of seven times in the next 11 and Peck Young's forces on the oth-obvious effects when they approved years that Austin voters would go to er.
participauon la the project a year the polls over the nuclear plant ques-Woodson once brought groans of i
later.
t!cn.But that campaign was wrecked disbelief from adversaries when he
}
A 1973 memo from Hancock said with the he:p of an lith-hour an-told one meeting that people receive t
Austin would save at least 83.4 mil. nouncement by the Lower Colorado more radiation making love than lion in 1981 with its share of the nu. River Authority that it was getting standing nett to a nuclear plant.
h_
clear plant and would save more out of the project because of its ques-
\\
than $6.3 mt!!!on a year over lignite tionable economics and experimen-In Aprt! 1979, Woodson beenme or coal. The memo was optimistic, to tal nature.
the voice of nuclear supporters seek-i say the least.
Ing voter approvst of $235.8 million In the 1973 bond election, F.er to continue financing the city's is Another error occurred in predlet. mobilized the business establish. percent share of the project. He re.
1 ing future peak power demands of ment to back an energy package, in-calls that he was about to hold a news the city - the martmum total de. cluding $161 million for the nuclear conference March 28,1979,10 days g
mandon the ut!!!tysystem at any one plant.
before the bond election, when a re.
i tim % It is cruelat that a ut!!!!y plan With Hancock feeding him glow-porter handed him a news story of carefully to have ecough generating Ing reports about the huge savings the accident at the Three Mlle Islar.<!
t -
caract;y available to meet peak that the city would see from invest-nuclear plant in Pe.,nsylvania.
demanos.
Ing in the Nuke, Butler got the bust-In November 1981, Woodson was In 1973. Electric Department offp ness community fired up to beat again prominent among nuctent clats were predlettfig that Austin back the first major organized oppo-plant supporters trying to beat down peak demand would exceed 2.3 mil. stilon to e bondissuein memory.The another attempt to get the city out of lion kilowatts by 1083, thusjustifying bonds squeaked by.
the project. But this time cost over-the need for a 400.000 k!!owatt share Butler recalls that the City Council runs and critical stories about con.
of nuclearproject power by the earty then was "very. very aggressive, struction problems at the plant were 1
1980s.
more than any council in history, on too much for supporters to counter.
The actual Austin peak demand in annexation." Even without annexa. The voters authorized the City Coun-1P83, however, reactied 1.8 millloa tion the etty was growing rapidly. til to sell the city share of the plant.
.+
kilowatts.The 1973 projection, mere ConsequenUy, more electricity Since then, Woodson safd. he has than tutce the actual demand, would be needed and natural gas,il.c ttfed to stay out of the forefront of i
missed the mark badly.
fuel of cholce, would no longer be the conflict.
i Tm confident in the economics l
and environmentaladvantages of nv diff ert Woodson, who is director of the b
In the late UT Center for Energy Studies, safd j
clear power," Hancock told a report. IT70s, cuy omcants Dekan turning to he is still a strong nuclear supporter.
er Nov.17,1973, the day Austinites Woodson as the outstde energy er. But he has doubts about anyone decided by 722 votes to get into the pert to help persuade Austinites to building a new nuclear plant today.
- project, support the project.
Carate McClellan. Like most ctfy Today Hancock, 57, sull holds Woodson, $$. came to Austin in offtetals before her, McClellan em.
those views.
1971 as chairman of the University brnced Austin participation in the "There have of Texas department of electrical en-South Texas Nuclear Project. Me.
l varying degrees,,been problems in gineering. He first got pulled into the Clerin. 44, a former school boa'd t
l recent Interview.,Hancock said in a confilet in 1973 when he was appoint-president, wt.s elected mayor in 197 But ufumately the ed to a Chamber of Commerce task on a campaign thnt included a f rce set up to look at the Austin en-I cause h n the p wil su pledge to get spira"ng electricity l
cess'ully completed.,,
ergy future. Task forca recommen-bills under control.
dallops included jotr.Ing in the it was pnrtly ifuncock's dogged de-nuclear p:'oject, She enjoyed enntfd ?rnble popular-termlnnt'on to support the project From 1977 to 1981 Woodson ify during her six yea rs ns mnynr. but that drove bl.n from the Electric De. served on the advisory Electric UU. throughout muth of her tenurc the q
s j4 l
.O pd
J l
1 NukehungsverherWietheguerd af his ceNer was launched by See ler -was esecutive director of the -
Democles. Only foer months efter Nube,and it has causumed south of Uthee Caeligion of Metroponten Sen she spearheaded thesuccousfulcom-his thee in recent years.
Antente.The coelttlen, which was al-techhg socW ymWes in Sam h poign to persuade volets to speed en gg,,,,,g y,,,,,,,
I'*0% '" ' '"I 'II"' dI" "
addelleest 3215.3 nelines se the pre-ject, Hoesten IJghting & Power en organiser. peIWeel campaignw and 8'd' 'I I"' "''7 I"' 8 87'8*
olde to Oty Causen aiembw Mer.
eeuend M Seemer cost mrns' gmt Ilehneen hetere he began to ln 1975 the San Antonio business one of 8400 mitlios. Amerward, the emerge es e pubHc figure in 1973 by community, which had financed co-estimate jumped $300 milIIen store. Felsing ehree ever the Nuke Mcoenen sw up creme et la March 1973 Duncan wrote a re-forced old Se k I"'
i port lessed by Hofmann on the eco-the action partly on his battles
'gg ng egehut me nuclear plant. l he j e
in which her 7
y Sinkin and a few supportb kept close emottauen WMk the Nehe was poor performance end rising con.
crlHeiand myseW struction costs of other nuclear et the San / *tonio City Council. And i
Now a member of the state Board plants, the report warned that the in 1979 his group, celled Cittaens of Insurance, McClellen says: "I've project would not be the energy bor.
Concernei About Nuclear Power, gotlots of scar tissue from the South gain that it was prectalmed. The re-became e format party in federalli-Texas Nuclear Prefect. My greatest port also sugested that city use of ceasing hearings on the project.
disappeheiment of my mayoret len-energy welsid not grow es rapidly as Over the years, even optiments ure is the frustrettee of an ever4pi-predicted.
Ineve admitted set Sinkin lg a skititut-reling cent and slipping schedule -
and ycis med I both know it's going to History has shown that the report. adversary who haslearned ho* to do whleh was ridiculed at the time,was battle by getting his meescge to the be up more Sad slide more.-
Peek Yo'ung. In mid 1973, leaders of the business community teked ~ fn l976,Duncon teevned with peck In 1979 and 1980, Sinkin helped Ken Wendler, who was then county Youes in a comreign seeking voter drew nellonel attention to the South
- Democratic Party cheltmen, to help support to get the city out of the nu. Teses project when he got Den them pass bonds for en energy peck, clear project.With very Httle money $wayse, a quellig control Inspector ese that included the nuclear plant. Sed a confusing boHot, on which a et the plant, on nettonal television to Wendler got Itoy Spence,a principal "yes" vote was a vote against the tell horror stories of poor construc -
in the prominent advertising firm of Nuke,the effort lest by a 3 to I mar-tion and beatings of inspectors.
GSD&M, to handle the campaign.
gin. AntiNuke forces were hurt by the timing of the election,which was ~ In 1960 Sinkin came to Austin to et-And Men Wendler turned to his ed-held in August when college stu-tend the UT law school, where he is ministrouve elde, William Robert dents, who ususHy voted against the now finishing up. Although a late-
" Peck" Young, en eager 24 year old project, were gone.
comer to Austin, he has made his I
Affe t andle th in Duncan and Young teamed seein mark in the past year by heading a three years later to fight the $215.3 campelga to cancel the nuclear pro-end.
mHHon nuclear bond issue - and NCI-C yC ne nd ed d n e
h en rn o h me the issue, used TV and radio time, out the conserveuve vote. He had peigners had come true days before gotten his political feet wet earlier et Three Mild Island, but they could He hearing on "he question of t
that year when he ran successful not capitehze on it.
canceHauon.
compelens to put Jeff Friedman on the City Council and Lloyd Dogitett in in April 1981 he won a councilseat Last month he was back in the the state Senate.The successful bond and almost immediately began plan
- news, announcing his latest effort to election gave Young a threefor-ning. with council member Itichard prevent the project from getting a three record that year, Goodmen,en 2ffort to get the city out federal operating license. This time Until 1975, Young thought the city of the project.
he charged that unstable soll under made the right decision.
A referendum was scheduled for the plant could prevent it from gel-
"But then all those glowing Nov. 3.1981, almost eight years after ting a license. He asked a nuclear Il-numbers that Hancock was running Austtaltes first voted to get in, censing board hearing the case to accept the issue for investigation.
around spouting to everybody start-The plan was to attack the plant on Even lf the board never considers ed to look queer," he meld."That mis-economicgroundsbecemof thebig the sinking soll lesue, Sinkin got his take.will haunt us for 20 years et cost overruns, which Duncan heat message out.
ht.
predicted five years earlier. In a se-In 1976,Youngleaped to the oppo-tirical commercial, opponents plc.
Sinkin says he likes working out of sition, where he has been ever since. tured a Nuke supporter saying Auntin because residents are more Since 1981 he has been chattman of " Trust Me." The message worked. receptive to concerns about the the Electric Utility Commission, People who had bought McClellan's plant. He credits a group called Mo-which has become one of the most plee 2% yearseerlier did not buy H e bilization for Survival for a long.
Influential advisory groups la the second Ume.
grens-roots struggle that has helped
- city, keep the nuclear issue hot in Austin "My rewstd was that I got to be the over the years.
i "The Nuke is this city.s Vietnam,,, salesmen for the project," sold Dup.
"I am confident that the majorit)
Young sold in a recent inter-can. So ter en enempts to sell have of penple in Auelin are rendy to cut view."Those of us who got us in did feHed*
so for the bent panelble motives: to their losses and willing to get out of pave people money and have en as-1.sesy Sinkin,Sinkin,37,has been the project," Sinkin sold.
sured energy source for the future. a thorn in the side of the project But some people just didn't have the from almost the beginning - since "In San Antonio we had to hattle i
sense to know whenit was Ume toget the time a doctor celled him in 1973 continustly to get any silention, and out."
and warned that nuclear power was when we did get ettention we were bed from a health standpoint, attacked personally es kooke," he Reger Duneen. Duneen. 36, a phl-sold. "B :( ! think history has proven I
losophy major in college, is by no At the time. Sinkin - e Harvard un right."
i rneens a,elngleissue politician. But history graduate and FGbright scho-IsEXT: Prospects, I
I l
. ~ -.. -
.