03 January 2004	Saturday	10 Ziqa'ad 1424

LAHORE, Jan 2: In spite of three intelligence reports in four years on use of sub-standard steel in the Ghazi-Brotha Hydropower Project (GBHP) and three inquiry committees verifying the reports, the Wapda authorities have failed to take any corrective measures.

This has raised questions about the strength and life expectancy of the structure. Wapda officials confirm the three intelligence reports, but deny that the GBHP's soundness or life has in any way been compromised.

According to records made available to Dawn, the Wapda Intelligence Network first pointed out in the mid-1999 the use of low quality steel in the GBHP. The then Wapda deputy chairman constituted a high-powered committee (headed by a general manager) on Oct 23, 1999, to look into the matter and report on the role of contractor in procurement of steel. It was also asked to fix responsibility and find out the circumstances "which led to the failure of the laid-down procedure".

According to one of the members of the committee, they submitted their findings by the end of 1999 that verified the use of sub-standard steel in the structure and apportioned blame. The authority fired the chief resident engineer, and a laboratory manager was removed from the job. But the use of substandard steel apparently continued, for the Wapda Intelligence Network again commented on this in its second report (2/GB/Int, dated Nov 8, 2000).

It pointed out that permissible limits for testing of steel were being violated in case of two suppliers, and defective steel was being cleared for use in the permanent structure. It also said that no joint sampling of the steel was being done and most of the samples for re-testing were being taken from the already cleared lots.

The report further commented that in the past also, the use of sub-standard steel was allowed in C-01 "which resulted in dismantling of some portions of the structure, causing delay in completion of the project. Still very mild action was taken."

The Wapda chairman again approved the setting up of an inquiry committee, and the general manager (C&I) formed a team (vide letter No. C&I/DD/05008/574/3963-67, dated 14-11-00) and banned purchase of steel from all the three suppliers involved in the episodes.

The committee submitted its report in the last week of Nov 2000 and substantiated almost all the allegations levelled by the intelligence report. In the concluding remarks, the engineer authors of the report said: "From steel reinforcement test, it is observed that there was no uniformity in strength of steel supplied by the three suppliers. There was an alarming situation when grade-60 steel did not qualify even for grade-40."

The report also said that the chief resident engineer withdrew the ban on suppliers merely 15 days after it was slapped by the chairman through a letter (No. C&I/DD(c)/05008/574/3969, dated 15-09-00), and restored supplies from the same suppliers.

The Wapda Intelligence Network again furnished a report (2/QC/GB/Int. Oct 20, 2003) alleging that two of the suppliers were still providing sub-standard steel. Samples were tested at the Steel Testing Laboratory, Tarbela, and failed by a considerable margin.

The written results were obtained and matter reported to general manager, GBHP, who ordered retesting of the lot. It was re-tested on Oct 17, 2003, and again failed the test. Representative of the suppliers disputed the results and further testing, under instructions of the authorities, took place where no one from the suppliers' side turned up.

A three-member team formed for investigation furnished another report in the first week of November, once again confirming allegations of the intelligence wing.

In its findings, the report said: "From the test carried out by the project authorities, intelligence wing and the inquiry committee, it has been observed that there was no consistency/uniformity in the strength of the steel supplied." In spite of consistent reports of supply malpractice, no action has reportedly been taken.

WAPDA'S VERSION: When contacted, a Wapda spokesman verified the veracity of the three intelligence reports and subsequent inquiry reports and conceded problems in the supply of steel. But he did not agree that, as a result, the strength and life of the GBHP had been compromised.

The spokesman said all formalities had been completed and action would be taken against those found guilty very soon. The spokesman said that all suppliers and consultants found guilty would be blacklisted. But he did not agree that any Wapda official had been guilty of the negligence.