ML20127L436
| ML20127L436 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 06/26/1985 |
| From: | Sinkin L Citizens Concerned About Nuclear Power, INC. |
| To: | Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#285-610 OL, NUDOCS 8506280018 | |
| Download: ML20127L436 (5) | |
Text
r-g De -
~
Wednesday, June 26, 1985 00UUU USNRC Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Chairman ASLB 15 JN 27 A10:37 U.
S.
N.
R.
C.
Washington, D.C.
20555 0FFi2 ff Eicut lA-00CKETihG & SERvF
Dr. James C.
Lamb, III SRANCH Administrative Judge 313 Woodhaven Road Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 Frederick J.
Shon Administrative. Judge U.
S.
N.
R.
C.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Re: Houston Lighting and Power Co.,
et als South Texas Nuclear Project Docket Nos. 50-498 OL, 50-499 OL
Dear Members of the Board:
Recently, the judge presiding over the law suit against Brown and Root filed by the partners in the South Texas Nuclear Project removed a gag order which had kept all-documents, depositions, etc.
in the suit secret.
Numerous newspapers stories are now appearing in the Texas media based on these documents.
Enclosed are two articles which appear to be relevant to the issues in Phase II of this proceeding.
I am forwarding these to the Doard and the parties for their information.
Sincerely, 1
-f.
t
@M Lanny ainkin 3022 Porter St.,
N.W.
4304 Washington, D.C.
20008 (202) 966-2141 c.c.
Service List 8506280018 850626 PDR ADOCK 05000498 0-PDR
&)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BELATED CORRN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
~~
BEFORE THE ATOMIC EAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD C.x a r",
In the Matter of
(
USIIC
)
HOUSTON LIGHTING AND
(
Docket Nos. 50-498 OL 15 JWi27 40:38 POWER COMPANY, ET AL.
)
50-499 OL (South Texas Project,
(
Units 1 and 2)
(
GFFM v. 5,,x 00CXEllNG & SE6v" -
CEBIIEIC6IE DE SESVICE BRANCH I
hereby certify that copies of CCANP'S LETTER TO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD DATED JUNE 25, 1985 were served by hand delivery (*)
or deposit in the U.S.
- Mail, first class postage paid to the following individuals and entitles on the 25th day of June 1985.
- Charles Bechhoefer, Esquire Brian Berwick, Esquire Chairman Asst. Atty. Gen.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board State of Texas U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Environmtl. Protection Washington, D.C.
20555 P.
O.
Box 12548, Capitol Sta.
Austin, Texas 78711 Dr. James C.
Lamb, III Administrative Judge Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esquire 313 Woodhaven Road Office of the Exec. Leg. Dir.
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27514 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Washington, D.C.
20555
- Frederick J.
Shan Administrative Judge
- Jack R.
Newman, Esquire U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1615 L Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20036 Melbert Schwarz, Esquire Baker and Botts Mrs. Peggy Buchorn 300 One Shell Plaza Executive Director, C.E.U.
Houston, Texas 77002 Route 1,
Box 1684 Brazoria, Texas 77422 Atomic Safety and Licensing Bd.
U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
William S.
Jordan, III, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20535 Harmon, Weiss & Jordan 2001 S Street, N.W.,
Suite 430 Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, D.C.
20009 Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Pat Coy Washington, D.C.
20555 5106 Casa Oro San Antonio, Texas 7G233 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Ray Goldstein U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
1001 Vaughn Bldg.
Washington, D.C.
20555 807 Brazos Au in, Texas 78701 (nkin Lanny e
STNP probe found f aws
, by Bechtel, other firm
'84 documents say ventilation faulty J
n /b r 6 - nc.n~
l and HAROLD SCNJM By MARE SANDERS month that freed millions of court documents from'a i
judicial gag order.
Post ? :g%.
In his testimony, Jordan said the heating, ventil.
4
" Serious problems" with the constmetion and de-tion and air conditioning problems were caused by l
sign of the critical ventilation work done by the cur-either an oversight by a particular engineer ori rent builders of the South Texas Nuclear Project difference in judgment among engineers.
"Often these types of deficiencies result as a differ-were uncovered by a Houston Lighting & Power Co.
J investigation in 1984, documents revealed Monday.
ence in engineering judgment," he said. "Sometimes, An HIAP spokesman said Monday after his com-it's just an oversight due to, you know, just a judg.
I pany complained about the problems to Bechtel Pow-mental error or oversight by an individual engineer.
i J er Corp. and Ebasco Services Inc., they addressed "If the design criteria for a system or particular l the errors and have corrected all but one or two, component was not applied to those components in the design, by definition, that's a problem," he said. -
The 57-page report dated Sept. 25, 1984, outlined scores of problems that could threaten an operating The problems outlined in the report generally license for the nuclear plant and impair the quality of would not affect the safety of the plant, he testified.
the project, according to testimony of 'Ihomas James When questioned about Bechtel's reported failure Jordan HIAP's quality assurance manager for the to consider tornado winds on certain parts of the l
project.
ventilation system Jordan said that if the problem In his sworn testimony, Jordan called the list of had gone unnoticed, " systems could possibly be or-r I
discrepancies " serious problems" and said: "I was dered and fabricated and installed and not be in disappointed with the number of these types of deft-compliance with the design criteria for the plant."-
ciencies."
In his March 1985 deposition, Jordan also discussed
'Ibe report criticized poorly finished and rusting other problems at the STNP attributable to the work duct welding, inadequate calculations for such things of Bechtel-Ebasco.
as the impact of tornado winds on air vents and He said in early 1984, the builders were accidental-I walls, and poor calculations for keeping the plant ly creating volds in the concrete they were pouring.
cool.
That problem was later " closed, based on an im-f Jordan said some of the problems with the heating, provement in that area," he said.
ventilation and air conditioning system were never Defects in welding by the builders and structural reported to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission be-steel deficiencies were also uncovered in 1984.
7 cause they could be corrected quickly.
Jordan said HIAP sent Bechtel and Ebasco "back i
HL&P spokesman Don Beeth said the fact that the to the drawing boards" in November 1984 "to com'e I
problems were discovered and corrected indicated an up with a way to reduce the level of structural steel I
intention "by HIAP, Bechtel and Ebasco to catch deficiencies."
problems in the bud."
Earlier that year, HIAP had warned the builders
" Quality assurance people consider everything se-of the problem, but Jordan said the error was not rious," he said, explaining Jordan's characterization fully corrected.
J of the problems.
Beeth said Monday those problems, too, had been Bechtel and Ebasco took over the building of the addressed and either had been corrected or were project after Brown & Root Inc. was fired late in 1981.
being corrected. He said there had been a "five-fold
'Ihe owners of the project subsequently sued Brown &
improvement" in correcting the problems with strue.
Root, but reached an out-of-court settlement last tural steel since HIAP issued the November order.
l
O STNP backfill soi questioned i Reactor site unstable,p*ap-bTers allege l-/v. > TZ ra ?o p r
/.
Hy MARK SANDERS into the reactor building. This car.
That investigation led to a and HAROLD SCARIEli lead to potential safety problems
$100,000 fine against HIAP for tax Post Reporterm during operation.
management of the nuclear prol-Landsman's concerns were rein-ect and was a factor in the 1981 A soil scientist in the Nuclear forced by another court exhibit -
firing of Brown & Root Inc. from Regulatory Commission reported a 1984 audit review by the Houston the project.
doubts about the stability of back.
Lighting & Power Co. which de-The March-April 1984 audit by fill soil under buildings at the tected some of the same backfill HL&P concluded that the backfill South Texas Nuclear Project, new-problems found in the IJ79 investi-practices of Bechtel Power Corp.,
ty opened court documents re-gation.
vealed Thursday which replaced Brown & Root as Soil expert Hoss Landsman said the project's designer builder, in a July I'384 depusition he did not were " unacceptable because of the large number of deficiencies I beheve that backfill pr oblems.
Survey pleases identified.'
which he discovered m a sweeping
}{1AP's reviewers said Bech-1(IT9 NRC investigation of the nu-officials at MTA ters quality control people had not clear plant, were ever fully reme-performed an " effectiveness in-died or resolved.
Metropolitan Transit Author.
spection" of backfill operations Backfill is used to refill excava.
ity officials are pleased with the since Octobei IW2 - a peclod of tions made for the extensive foun.
tesults of a new poll about Met
- almost 16 months at the time the dations and other underground ro's performance, but they also report was wTitten.
structures of a nuclear reactor say it remains to be seen wheth.
They said the backfill perfor-building. Other buildings abutting er the highest ever approval rat-rr.ance of Ebasco Services 'Inc.,
the reactor dome are then built Ing will help when the authority the new plant constructor, and partiv on top of the backfill.
takes a new transit plan to vot-Pittsburg Testing Laboratory, lindsman said poorly compact-ers, probably in the near future.
which does backfill tests, was sat-ed backfill can lead to settling of a I building th:tt can wreck piping E Delaus/page 18A isfactory, even though the report and other utility connections going See Backftll/page BSA Y l
7 i
20A /The Houston Post /Fri., June 14,1985
~
~
Bockf'll oo'l problems eyed in STNP depos't'on i
Centlased trem page 1A The soil specialist said he re_
the backfill was more than ade-turned to the South Texas Project quate, and that the loose sollin the listed 15 deficiencies for Ebasco in June 1980 on a followup inspec-top layer was no real problem.
and 16 for the testing lab.
tion and got into bitter arguments Asked if he believed the three But HL&P spokesman Don with Region IV staffers about their soil experts were qualified, Lands-Beeth said the utility has "no pm plans to close out the soilissues man replied in his deposition:
sent discomfort about the stability Both Landsman and his Region l "Yes, except I know who was and safety of the backfill, and III boss, D.W. Hayes, who headed paying them to write the report, any remaining backfill problems the 1979 investigating team, filed okay."
are being resolved.
protests that led to a meeting at An attorney told Landsman he He said the new backfill ques-NRC headquarters in Washington was making a serious charge by tions are one of the issues raised in an effort to resolve the internal accusing the respected experts of by project opponent Lanny Sinkin dispute.
lying.
t that will be considered at a &
Landsman said a resolution was l "I'm not saying they lied,"
sumed NRC licensing hearing to reached, and he accepted it with Landsman replied, "but you can begin July 11.
the proviso that Region IV work word things to sound -in this one i
We are going to litigate this,,
with the NRC's nuclear reactor issue, for instance - any way you Beeth said,,and we are complet'e-regulation group in making a fMal want it to sound."
ly confident that we are going to decision Landsman charged that the Re-satisf[the licensing board on this But later, he said, Region IV Eion IV staff dismissed his non-compliances as resolved on the ba-point.
Beeth disclosed the NRC early canceled the cooperation agree !
sis of preliminary reports and ment and closed out the soilissues i
in 1984 issued a notice of violation on its own promises of corrective steps be-I lavolving Bechtel's backfill testing The N*s 1W9 Mvestigadon by fore any action was actually tak.
ure, and that led to the a multi-region team came after i P audit. He said Jerry Gold-some critics charged that the Re-l But Joseph L Tapia, a Region fc s
preside a
me enns tion of tr ub thorough and complete,, audit of nuclear plant.
)
the entire soils program.
At the time of his deposition, k IV reactor inspector, said he be-j
'Ihe 1984 audit was the first indi-Landsman was helping supervise l lieved Landsman's fi were "in error," and another Re-cation of recent construction prob-the mothballing of the Midland, Mich., nuclear plant, which had to l gion II soils expert he called in for lems to emerge from court docu.
be abandoned when it was almost the June 1980 re-inspection agreed ments recently unsealed after a 8750 million settlement by Brown completed because of extensive l with him. Tapia acknowledged he l
& Root of a damage suit brought backfill problems.
and Landsman had heated words by the project partners.
In inspecting the South Texas l during the re-inspection.
Landsman, who has a Ph.D. in Project, Landsman said he was Landsman said be had learned concerned about the looseness of before the visit that the mechani-soil mechanics, was a reactor in-cal-electrical auxiliary building at spector with the NRC's Region III the upper 6 to 9 inches of the top [
the project had sunk on one side.
(Midwest) office in Glen Ellyn, lift, or layer, or backfill.
"This material was so loose on He said Region IV people told him top it was like beach sand," he l this was because construction of Ill., when be was brought in as part of a nationwide NRC team for the exhaustive 1L79 investigation said. "You actually sank into the the building had proceeded un-of the nuclear project near Bay top layer... and I thought it was, j evenly, and the heavier portion of
- City, well, I want to say strange, but t the building had sunk.
When asked in t.is deposition for that's not the right word. Why are But when he revisited the site, his reaction to the 1984 audit, we putting a building on this loose he discovered it was the lighter Landsman noted it had turned up material?"
I side of the building that had some of the same non-compliance Landsman said the sand used as [
tipped, and he believed it was be-items he had found in 1W9. In view backfill at the South Texas Project i cause of poor soil compaction.
of those circumstances, he added:
appeared to be too uniform for j He said, however, that he never "If it was a Region III plant and good compaction, no one really a followed up on the tilted building (we) found all those things, I think knew how much compaction had !
issue because "I had just had it by we would stop the soils work."
been done, and testing procedures I the time I left the site."
Landsman said the 1984 audit were inadequate.
[
results were "even more disheart.
Responding to an NRC show-I ening" because the NRC's Region cause order after the IW9 investi f IV staff, which covers Texas, in gation. HL&P ordered extensive,
1980 had closed out his 1W9 citings testing and hired a trio of recog-
- over his strong objections - as l nized soil experts as an indepen-resolved.
I dent review committee.
The three experts later reported
,,