ML20108B087

Comments on 841003 Order Re G Harstead Conflict of Interest W/Respect to Studies Conducted on Basemat.Truly Independent Study on Basemat Requested

ML20108B087
Person / Time
Site:	Waterford
Issue date:	11/14/1984
From:	Bernabei L GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY PROJECT, OYSTERSHELL ALLIANCE, INC., SAVE OUR WETLANDS, INC.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#484-129 OL, NUDOCS 8411150300
Download: ML20108B087 (2)

Text

-

UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION' BeforetheAtomicSahe't

~

bdLicensingAppealBoard

'84 NOV 15 - A9 M6 In the Matter of .)

o )

LOUISIANA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANYu)' W .

Docket No.: 50-3820L i<f)Cu (Waterford' Steam Electric Station,)

Unit 3)' )

)

JOINT INTERVENORS' COMMENTS ON HARSTEAD CONFLICT-OF INTEREST In the Appeal Board's October 3, 1984 order, the Board allowed for -a comment, period on possible conflict of interest by Gunnar Harstead. Joint intervenors' comments follow.-

It is clear.that Gunnar Harstead, President of Harstead-Engineering Associates, has a conflict of interest with respect to studies he conducted on the Waterford 3 basemat. Mr. Harstead worked on~a Waterford 3 basemat study while employed by the NRC.

He was later employed by Louisiana Power and Light Company to do f an " independent" review of the same basemat. Mr. Harstead's theoretically independent review could have been influenced by his earlier work upon the basemat.

What is clear is that the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) studies conducted to date have relied upon the Harstead 1

l Engineering reports for some of the calculations. See BNL Report of April 16, 1984, pages 1 and 9. Page 1 demonstrates that Brook-haven National Laboratory has performed a review and evaluation i

j of Harstead Engineering reports. ". . . BNL undertook a review i and evaluation of the HEA Waterford III mat analysis documented  ;

in Harstead Engineering Associates 0HEA) Reports, Nos. 8304-1 and 8304-2." On page 9, BNL states, "The validity of BNL conclu-8411150300 841114

[

PDR ADOCK 05000382 %bQ.

O PDR f'

-I2 -

sions depend mainly on the, information: supplied by Ebasco, HEA and LP&L, either verbally, in' reports or in computer outputs."

~

From these facts-it is clear that'.due to Mr. Harstead's conflict of interest,there-has been no independent analysis of the basemat done to date. What is not truly clear is what effect-Mr. Harstead's participation in the NRC study had upon his work for LP&L.

Due to Mr. Harstead's conflict of interest, a truly inde-pendent study still must be performed on the basemat to assure it is structurally safe for the operation of the facility.

Respectfully submitted, 04 Jc Lynne/Bernabei U Government Accountability Project 1555 Connecticut Ave. N.W.

Suite 202 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 232-8550 DATED: November 14, 1984 Attorney for Save Our Wetlands and the Oyster Shell Alliance i

l

\

\

l t