ML20058F302
| ML20058F302 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1982 |
| From: | Jay Collins, Driskill D, Gagliardo J, Johnson E NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20058F294 | List: |
| References | |
| 50-498-82-02, 50-498-82-2, 50-499-82-02, 50-499-82-2, NUDOCS 8207300390 | |
| Download: ML20058F302 (14) | |
See also: IR 05000498/1982002
Text
.
.
.
-
.
-
^~-
~
'
~
.
-
.
,
.
-
-
'
.~
. ,
,
.
'
,I
'
,
,
U..S. NUCLEAR. REGULATORY, COMMISSION
,
~
'
'
s.
_
REGION IV.
,
~
Investigation Report No. 82-02-
4:
Docket No.:
50-498/50-499
Licensee:
Houston Lighting & Power Company
P. O. Box 1700-
Houston, Texas- '77001'
Facility:
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
Investigation at:
Houston, Texas; San Jose, California; Washington, D. C.
Investigation Conducted:
February 5, 8-12, 23, March 11 and 19, 1982
-Investigator:
dsM
A -73-$2_
D. D. Driskill, Investigator
Date
Inspector:
w/
0 H"lu b
1/
bb9lfv
f.E.Gagliardo,Actinggirector,Divisionof
Ddte~
Resident, Reactor Project and Engineering
Programs
T' k-
4/t* IfL
Reviewed by:
E. H.-Johnson, Director, Investigative and.
Date
Enforcement Staff
4 /b9/h/
Approved by:
40 [
s
/
J./ ' . Collins, R'egional Administrator
Dste/
Summary
Investigation conducted February 5, 8-12, 23, March 11 and 19, 1982 (Report No.
50-498/82-02; 50-499/82-02).
8207300390 820603
'
gDRADOCK 05000498
~
-
.G
_,
.
_
.
.
.
',
..
.
.
2
Area Investigated:
On December 16, 1981, Mr. Lanny Sinkin, Pro Se Counsel, Citizens Concerned
About Nuclear Power, San Antonio, Texas, alleged, in writing to the Director,
Office of Inspection and Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
that substantial evidence exists "that Houston Lighting and Power management
personnel deliberately withheld the Quadrex Report from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission." Mr. Sinkin's letter also stated, "the allegation, if proven,
would be a conspiracy to obstruct the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from
conducting its lawful regulatory duties."
Results:
The allegation that HL&P deliberately withheld the Quadrex Report from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, was not substantiated.
Other than reporting
deficiencies, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.55(e), HL&P was not required to formally
submit the Quadrex Report to NRC.
Investigation disclosed that the existence
of the Quadrex Report and a summary of its significant findings were reported
to the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation through their STP Project
Manager.
As reported herein, the major unresolved question was whether the
NRR Project Manager reviewed the report (or any portion thereof) during a May
1981 briefing concerning the report.
Investigation disclosed it was the
opinion of HL&P management that the prompt notification of 10 CFR 50.55(e)
reportable items did not become effective until they had recieved the final
report from Quadrex.
Interviews disclosed that HL&P was cognizant of
information subject to 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportability criteria prior to receipt
of the final report; therefore, the 10 CFR 50.55(e) requirement to notify the
NRC Region IV office of potential deficiencies, within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, was not'
accomplished.
f
.
-
.
.
'
-
.
-
.
,
.
3
-
DETAILS
1.
Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
Mr. G. Oprea, Executive Vice President
Mr. J. Goldberg, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Construction
Mr. J. Sumpter, Manager, Nuclear Services Department
Mr. C. Robertson, Manager, Nuclear Licensing Department
Mr. R. Frazar, Manager, Engineering Assurance Department
Other Persons Contacted
Mr. D. Sells, The NRR Project Manager for STP, NRC
Mr. L. Stanley, Group Manager, Consulting Engineering Department,
Group Manager, Quadrex Corporation
2.
Investigation of Alleoations
Allegation No. 1
Houston Lighting and Power management personnel deliberately withheld the
results of the Quadrex Report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
wnich would constitute a conspiracy to obstruct the NRC from conducting
its lawful regulatory duties.
Interviews of HL&P Executive Vice President
On February 5,1982, Mr. George Oprea, Executive Vice President, HL&P,
was interviewed.
Mr. Oprea stated that it became apparent to him, in
about mid-1980, that Brown & Root, Inc. (B&R), engineering firm for the
South Texas Project (STP) was experiencing problems, based on the number
of 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports being submitted to NRC containing engineering
~
overtones. He stated that when Mr. Jerry Goldberg joined HL&P, in
fall 1980, he (Goldberg) expressed the need to have an engineering
assessment, by a third party, of the Brown & Root engineering effort.
Mr. Oprea stated that the Quadrex Corporation was chosen to conduct the
engineering assessment.
Mr. 0prea stated that during the period that the
assessment was being conducted (February 1981 to May 1981), Mr. Goldberg
had briefed him periodically regarding its progress.
Mr. Oprea stated he
did not attend any of the. interim meetings or the final meeting with
Quadrex wherein they presented their assessment. Mr. Oprea stated,that
the Quadrex Report was provided to HL&P. on May 7,1981, and immediate
reviews of the report, by both HL&P and B&R, were conducte'd which
resulted in three 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportable items being reported to NRC
Region IV on May 8, 1981. 'Mr. Oprea stated that in May 1981, Mr. Goldberg
had requested that Brown & Root prepare a corrective action plan for
problems identified in the Quadrex Report.
He stated that B&R had
submitted this corrective action plan to-HL&P in mid-July 1981.
Mr. Oprea stated that in May 1981, Jerry Goldberg had briefed Don Sells
concerning the Quadrex Report il Bay City, Texas.
He stated that
.
.-
,
4
although he had not attended this briefing, he knew Sells was made aware
that a copy of the report was available for him to review.
Mr. Oprea
stated he believed it was logical to brief Don Sells on the Quadrex Report
because NRR is involved.in the design and technical areas for NRC.
Mr. Oprea stated he believed the briefing of Sells, regarding the report,
constituted a briefing of NRC.
Mr. Oprea stated there was no intent on +.he
part of HL&P to withhold information concerning the Quadrex Report from
NRC Region IV.
He stated that in late August 1981, he had apprised
Karl Seyfrit,- Director, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, Region IV,
NRC, of the existence of the Quadrex Report and his willingness to discuss
it with Region IV.
Mr. Oprea stated that in August 1981, Richard Frazar
had informed him that Richard Herr, Senior Investigator, Region IV, NRC,
and Shannon Phillips, Resident Reactor Inspector, STP, were looking at STP
QA activities and wanted to see the Quadrex Report.
Mr. Oprea stated he
had told Frazar to let them see the. report.
He stated he had never
instructed anyone to withhold the report from NRC.
Mr. Oprea did state,
however, that he wanted to maintain control of the report and not allow it
to leave the premises of the project.
Mr. Oprea provided a certified
statement regarding this matter.
Interview of HL&P Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Construction
~
On February 5, 1982, Jerome Goldberg, Vice= President, Nuclear Engineering
and Construction, was interviewed.
Mr. Goldberg stated that upon joining
HL&P, in October 1980, he had reviewed the history of the South Texas
Project, the NRC Show Cause Order, and information prepared for the May 1981
Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) hearings.
He stated that after
reviewing the STP engineering program, he felt there was a need to have a
third party assessment conducted, regarding the design and engineering
programs of B&R, in order that he_would be able to respond to any questions
regarding the status of these activities at STP.
Mr. Goldberg stated HL&P
management had authorized him to contract with Quadrex Corporation to
provide a timely assessment of STP engineering and nuclear design areas.
Mr. Goldberg stated that in about late November or early December 1980,
.
he explained to Mr. Loren Stanley, of Quadrex, that he wanted a timely
'
and objective assessment of STP in areas such as design verification,
single failu M criteria, consequences of pipe break, and other areas
where companies are known to have problems.
He stated that Quadrex
began their review in January 1981, and completed it near the end of
March 1981.
Mr. Goldberg stated that during the review Jim Sumpter was
the HL&P Coordinator for the assessment by Quadrex.
He stated that'in
mid-April 1981, Quadrex gave HL&P an interim report which consisted of a
series of questions and assessments utilizing viewgraphs.
He stated that
during this briefing Quadrex did not answer some of his specific questions
regarding their assessments.
Mr. Goldberg stated that in April 1981, he
h?d contacted Don Sells of NRR, told him about the Quadrex review, and
apprised him that he suspected some 10 CFR 50.55(e) reports would be
issued as a result of the report.
Mr. Goldberg stated he asked Sells if
it would be useful to give NRC an executive briefing regarding the final
assessment, to which Sells agreed.
He stated Sells had suggested they
.
.
-
.
,
-
.
,
5
.
'
meet the week of May 11, 1981, during the ASLB hearings in Bay
City, Texas, for the briefing on the Quadrex Report.
Mr. Goldberg stated that on May 6,1981, he sent a letter to B&R
requesting they review the Quadrex Report within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of its receipt
and identify any reportable item or items indicating a need to issue a
stop work order.
He stated that they were also asked to provide HL&P a
plan of corrective action relating to the Quadrex findings.
Mr. Goldberg
stated that on May 7,1981, a meeting was held at B&R during which Quadrex
representatives passed out the report and discussed their findings.
He
stated that during this meeting B&R expressed concern that the depth of
the review was not sufficient to resolve some of the issues.
He also
stated that HL&P challenged a number of the Quadrex findings; however, a-
number of the findings appeared to be valid.
Mr. Goldberg explained that
through the afternoon and evening of May 7, 1981, B&R reviewed the report
and presented him with a list of their findings, only one of which was
reportable under 10 CFR 50.55(e).
Mr. Goldberg stated that on May 8,
1981, he, Jim Sumpter, and Cloin Robertson reviewed the B&R findings and
identified two additional 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportable items which were
reported to Mr. Bill Crossman, NRC Region IV, on May 8, 1981. Mr. Gold-
berg stated that during the week of May 13, 1981, at the ASLB hearings
in Bay City, Texas, he met with Don Sells to give him an overview of the
Quadrex Report findings.
He stated that at that time he had either one-
volume or all three volumes of the Quadrex Report in his possession.
He
stated he briefed Sells regarding the general areas of concern for approxi-
mately 15 to 20 minutes, during which time Sells perused the report.
Mr. Goldberg stated that Sells had asked whether he (Goldberg) intended to
send him a copy of the report to which he replied no, but the report was
on file at HL&P and he (Sells) would be welcome to view it there. Mr. Gold-
berg stated that during his testimony in the hearings that week, NRC Attorney,
Ed Reis, asked him, "Were you satisfied with B&R design activities?" Mr.
Goldt,2rg stated that he had replied no and was asked, "What problems do you
see?" Mr. Goldberg stated he had identified two problem areas, subsequent
to which the line of questioning was changed.
He stated that if he had
been asked to discuss the Quadrex Report at that time he would have done so.
Mr. Goldberg stated that the Quadrex Report had not been sent to ASLB because
they were only looking at construction activities.
Mr. Goldberg stated that
between May and July 1981, B&R developed a corrective action plan in response
to his earlier request.
He stated this corrective action plan included the
hiring of several consultant and engineering firms to assist in resolving
the problems identified by the Quadrex Report.
Mr. Goldberg stated that in
late May 1981, HL&P senior management personnel met to determine whether B&R
could successfully complete the South Texas Project.
He stated it was
realized by HL&P management during these meetings, that the Quadrex Report
provided another dimension to the difficulties with the project and it was
decided at that time to look at other options.
Mr. Goldberg stated that the
fact that the Quadrex Report existed was not a secret.
He stated that in
May 1981, he had briefed Sells regarding the Quadrex Report and subsequent to
,
,
e
v
.
.
.
-
_
_
_-
---
_A
'
'
.
.
6
that time never gave any instruction to HL&P or B&R personnel to withhold the.
report from NRC.
He stated his only statement regarding that matter was that
the report would not be filed with NRC, but some HL&P personnel may have
apparently interpreted this statement to mean they should withhold the. report.
He stated this interpretation could possibly have resulted in Messrs. Richard
Herr and Shannon Phillips having difficulty obtaining the report in August
1981.
Mr. Goldberg went on to state that in mid-April 1981, he had told
Sells that HL&P was conducting the Quadrex review and offered to brief the
NRR technical staff concerning it.
He stated that if it had not been for
meeting with Sells during the ASLB hearings he would have met with the NRR
staff in Bethesda, Maryland, for that briefing.
He also stated that it
was his perception that the IE area of interest was concentrated in
construction-related matters and the NRR area of interest was in the
technical design problems; therefore, he did not feel it was necessary to
notify IE of the report since NRR had been notified.
Mr. Goldberg
provided a certified statement regarding this matter.
Interview of NRR Project Manager
On February 8,1982, Mr. Donald E. Sells, NRR Project Manager for the
South Texas Project, was interviewed.
Mr. Sells stated that in about
January or February 1981,.during either a meeting or a telephone conver-
sation, Jerry Goldberg had told him that HL&P was contracting with an
outside consulting firm to conduct an audit of the B&R design at STP.
Mr.
Sells stated that he believed Mr. Goldberg had said the effort would take
approximately 3 months to complete.
Mr. Sells stated that on April 21,
1981, during a telephone conversation with Mr. Goldberg, he was told that
the Quadrex Report would be completed in early May 1981.
He stated that
Mr. Goldberg had told him that some 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportable items were
expected to result from the report.
He stated Mr. Goldberg had also
raised the question as to the best method for him (Goldberg) to present
these results to the NPR staff and Region IV.
Mr. Sells stated he had
indicated he would give some thought to the matter and discuss it upon
receipt of the report.
He stated Mr. Goldberg had told him that he
(Sells) could review the report once it had been received.
Mr. Sells
stated he understood this to mean he would be allowed to review the report
in Houston or in Bay City, Texas, at a later date.
Mr. Sells stated that
near the end of April 1981, he had casually mentioned to Mr. Ramon Hall,
of the Region IV staff, his conversation regarding the Quadrex Report with
Jerry Goldberg.
Mr. Sells stated he did not recall hearing any response
from Mr. Hall regarding this matter.
Mr. Sells stated that during the
week of May 11, 1981, at the ASLB Hearings in Bay City, Texas, he met
with Mr. Goldberg at the Holiday Inn to be briefed concerning the Quadrex
_
_
-
.
-
.
,
.
7
Report.
He stated Mr. Goldberg had advised him that three potential
10 CFR 50.55(e) items had been identified in the report and had been
reported to NRC Region IV.
Mr. ' Sells explained that Mr. Goldberg said one
of these items was identified by B&R during their review of the report and
that the other two had been identified by HL&P during their respective
4
review of the report.
He stated that Mr. Goldberg had also explained the
,
various areas reviewed by Quadrax and had identified the categories into
which the issues in the report had been placed.
He stated that
'
- Mr. Goldberg had also indicated a fairly large number of items identified
in the report contained conclusions not based on an in-depth review.
Mr. Sells stated he had gotten the impression Mr. Goldberg was r.ot pleased
with the report.
He also stated that Mr. Goldberg indicated HL&P intended
to take an in-depth look at all issues identified in the report and take
l'
whatever corrective action might be necessary.
Mr.' Sells recalled this
meeting lasted about 15 to 20 minutes.
He did not recall Mr. Goldberg's
having any notes or papers with him at the time.
Mr. Sells also. stated
,
that Mr. Goldberg did not have a copy of the report with him at the
meeting.
He stated that during this meeting he was not offered an
opportunity to _ review the report nor was this matter discussed.
He also
stated that he did not recall Mr. Goldberg's mentioning any intention to
i
discuss the Quadrex Report with Mr. Shannon Phillips or NRC Region.IV.
Mr. Sells stated that, subsequent to the meeting, he had advised
Mr. Shannon Phillips of the existence of the report and mentioned that
,
three 10 CFR 50.55(e) items were identified by the report.
Mr. Sells
'
stated that near the end of August 1981, Shannon Phillips had called him
and advised that he had seen the Quadrex Report during a Region IV
investigation and he (Phillips) expressed some concerns relating to the
report.
Mr. Sells stated Mr. Phillips related he had expressed these
concerns to Region IV, and they were going to have someone further examine
'
the Quadrex Report.
Mr. Sells stated he had, at that time, informed his
supervisor of Mr. Phillips' concerns and requested permission to go to
Texas, in September 1981, to review the report himself.
Mr. Sells stated
that in early September 1981, during the ASLB hearings in Houston, Texas,
he was given all three volumes of the Quadrex Report.
He stated he had
reviewed Volume 1, which was the Executive Summary, and prepared a chart
showing the categories (Severity Levels) of the eight areas covered in the
report.
He stated he had subsequently discussed his findings with Mr. Ed
Reis and advised him the ASLB should see the report.
He stated Mr. Reis
had agreed and apparently later obtained a copy of the Quadrex Report.
Mr. Sells stated that,it was his opinion that Mr. Goldberg and HL&P did
,
not notify Region IV of the Quadrex findings because they did not know how
I
to handle the findings and associated conclusions.
He stated that based
on the fact he had been notified, he did _not believe HL&P willfully
r
4
l
.
,
1
-
..
,
8
withheld the Quadrex Report from NRC.
Mr. Sells provided a certified
statement regarding this matter.
Interview of Former HL&P QA Manager
On February 9, 1982, Mr. Richard A. Frazar, Manager, Engineering Assurance
Department, HL&P, was interviewed.
Mr. Frazar stated he was the Manager,
HL&P QA Department, from April 1, 1977, to February 1, 1982, and worked as
QA Manager at the STP site from June 1980 until June 1981.
Mr. Frazar
stated he had no direct association with the Quadrex Report although he
had heard the study was being conducted.
He stated that at the time of
the Quadrex review he was aware of Brown and Root having engineering
problems; however, he was not involved in that part of the project.
He
stated that he did not attend any meetings concerning the Quadrex study
nor was he involved in the preparation of any corrective action plans.
Mr. Frazar stated that in August 1981, Mr. Richard Herr and Mr. Shannon
Phillips had, during the course of an NRC investigation, asked him for a
copy of the Quadrex Report.
He stated he had attempted to contact Jerry-
Goldberg to obtain a copy of it; however, Mr. Goldberg was not present on
that day. He stated on the following day he had contacted Mr. Goldberg who
had provi4d him with a copy of the Quadrex Report and told him to allow
Mr. Herr and Mr. Phillips to review the report in the office.
Mr. Frazar
stated he had no further association with the Quadrex Report.
Interview of HL&P Nuclear Services Department Manager
On February 9-10, 1982, Mr. Jim Sumpter, Manager, Nuclear Services
Department, HL&P, was interviewed.
Mr. Sumpter stated that in about early
December 1980, Mr. Jerry Goldberg expressed a desire to have an
independent evaluation of the B&R engineering at STP conducted.
He stated
that during the next several weeks he and Mr. Goldberg discussed, on
several occasions, some specific areas he wanted to be included in the
evaluation.
Mr. Sumpter stated that on-January 2,1981, he contacted
Loren Stanley of Quadrex Corporation and explained what assistance HL&P
needed from his company.
Mr. Sumpter stated that on January 16, 1981, he
met with Quadrex representatives in their California office and discussed
the approach to be used during the review.
He stated it was decided that
a series of questions would be presented to--B&R engineering and their
answers would be usad to evaluate the adequacy of their engineering
effort.
Mr. Sumpter stated that he and Arnold Granger, the STP Project
Engineering Manager for HL&P, had gone to San Jose, California, on
January 29-30, 1981, to discuss with Quadrex the questions they would ask.
He stated that Mr. Granger had discussed the status of the project, the B&R
_
___________
_.
..
~
.
,
'
i
9
engineering procedures, and some of the nonengineering problems; e.g.,
computer code verification and HVAC design rereview, etc.
Mr. Sumpter
stated that on several occasions in February 1981, he and the Quadrex
technical representatives had met with B&R technical staff members to
present the Quadrex questions and discuss them for clarification.
He
stated that during February 1981, Quadrex requested and received a
significant amount of technical information from B&R; e.g., drawings,
specifications, design description, etc.
He stated that between March 2
and March 31, 1981, Quadrex conducted their on-site review effort in the
'
B&R offices, Houston, Texas.
He stated that during this time he served as
the HL&P coordinator for the Quadrex review.
He stated that he had helped
coordinate the schedules and interviews and had assisted Quadrex in
obtaining whatever information they needed.
Mr. Sumpter stated that on
March 18, 1981, he and Loren Stanley met with Jerry Goldberg for
approximately one and one-half hours and discussed the status of the
review and provided him with an overview of both the positive and
negative preliminary findings to that point.
He stated that examples of.
positive findings were that the civil / structural design appeared to be
very conservative, and that the geotechnical area was adequate.
He stated
potential problem areas discussed included computer code verification and
some calculational inaccuracies in mechanical and civil / structural design.
Mr. Sumpter stated he had gone to the Quadrex offices on April 8-10, 1981,
to review preliminary drafts of Section 4 of the report (containing
assessments of.the B&R responses to the original questions presented to
them).
He stated he had attempted to ascertain the basis for each Quadrex
assessment to assure that the facts Quadrex used were accurate, and assure
that the words in the report accurately reflected _the Quadrex technical
representative's thoughts.
He stated he had returned to Houston on April
,
10, with the Section 4 portion of the report containing preliminary
Quadrex assessments for review by HL&P engineers in their respective dis-
,
i
ciplines.
He stated these engineers were instructed to review the Section
'
4 portion of the report to ensure Quadrex was utilizing accurate
information in their assessment and if there was sufficient information
i
available for that assessment.
Mr. Sumpter stated that on April 13, 1981,
Loren Stanley and other representatives of Quadrex met with Jerry
Goldberg, various HL&P representatives, and himself in order that Quadrex
could present their preliminary findings.
He stated that the only
(
significant areas discussed related to the verification of computer codes.
Mr. Sumpter stated that he returned to Quadrex on April 15-16, 1981, to review
their latest drafts of their report.
He stated that on April 30, 1981,
Loren Stanley and Larry Wray, Vice President, Engineering, Quadrex
Corporation, returned to HL&P and verbally presented their final report.
Mr. Sumpter stated actual copies of the report were not provided to HL&P
l
.
.
.
.;
_
10
at that time.
He stated that HL&P attendees were Jerry Goldberg, Cloin
Robertson, Ed Turner, Don Betterton, John Blau, and himself.
Mr. Sumpter
stated that on May 1, 1981, Loren Stanley met with B&R and verbally
presented the report to their representatives.
He stated that on May 6,
1981, Jerry Goldberg sent a letter to B&R engineering apprising them that
the formal Quadrex report would be presented on May 7, 1981, and that B&R
should thereupon immediately review the report to identify 10 CFR 50.55(e)
reportable items.
He stated that this letter also instructed B&R to prepare
a " plan of action" for each finding.
Mr. Sumpter stated that subsequent to
Quadrex presenting the report on May 7, 1981, B&R conducted their review of
the report and identified one potentially reportable 50.55(e) item
(deficiencies in HVAC system).
He stated that on May 8, 1981, Jerry Goldberg,
Cloin Robertson, and he reviewed the B&R response to the report and ultimately
identified two additional 10 CFR 50.55(e) items (computer code verification and
classification of shielding calculations).
He stated that these three items
were reported to NRC Region IV that afternoon as potential 10 CFR 50.55(e)
items.
Mr. Sumpter stated that he was aware that Jerry Goldberg discussed
the results of the Quadrex assessment with Don Sells at Bay City, Texas,
during the ASLB hearings held the week of May 11, 1981.
Mr. Sumpter stated
that although he had not seen Mr. Goldberg take a copy of the report to the
meeting, he believed a copy of it had been shown to Mr. Sells.
Mr. Sumpter
stated that after that meeting Mr. Goldberg told him that Don Sells wanted
to see a copy of the report and had been told that a copy of it would be
made available for him to review.
Mr. Sumpter stated that his primary
involvement with the Quadrex Report, subsequent to that time, was his inter-
action with B&R during their development of a corrective action plan which
was ultisately presented to HL&P on July 16, 1981.
He stated that the
Quadrex Report was maintained as a confidential document within the HL&P or
B&R offices and that numerous copies of the report had been available in
both places.
He stated that he was aware of no instructions being given
which would limit access to the report or which would preclude NRC's having
access to the report. When queried concerning the 10 CFR 50.55(e) items
identified in the Quadrex Report, Mr. Sumpter stated that he was not
surprised that those particular items were identified as the computer code
verification problem had been identified during a November 1980 B&R audit
and that the HVAC problems were previously recognized by E&R and were being
studied.
Mr. Sumpter provided a certified statement regarding these matters.
Interview of HL&P Nuclear Licensing Manaaer
On February 9-10, 1981, Mr. Cloin G. Robertson, Manager, Nuclear Licensing
Department, HL&P, was interviewed.
Mr. Robertson stated he was employed
by HL&P on March 20, 1981.
He stated he was apprised that the Quadrex
review was underway and related to an assessment of the B&R engineering
design efforts for the South Texas Project about that time.
He stated his
..
_
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
.
.
,
,
.
-
.
11.
first direct association with the assessment was in about mid-April 1981,
when the Quadrex staff presented an outline overview of their findings.
He stated that during this session they were seeking direction concerning
the format of their report. He stated their discussion of problem areas,
which they had identified, were not detailed.
He stated that soon there-
after, during a discussion between he and Jerry Goldberg, the topic of
10 CFR 50.55(e) reportability was discussed and it was decided that a
timely review of the Quadrex Report would have to be performed upon its
receipt to meet NRC requirements concerning such reportability. He stated
that on about May 6,1981, Mr. Goldberg sent a letter to B&R directing
that they, upon receipt of the Quadrex Report, assess the findings with
respect to 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportability and provide HL&P with the results
of their assessments prior to noon May 8,1981. Mr. Robertson stated that
he did not attend the May 7,1981, meeting during which Quadrex presented
their report to HL&P and B&R. He stated he did attend a May 7, 1981,
meeting with B&R where their various engineering disciplines presented
their assessments and conclusions relative to reportability of the e items
identified as being mest serious. He stated that they concluded that
the HVAC design was the only area they would consider raportable. He
stated they transmitted this assessment to Mr. Goldberg about noon May 8,
1981. Mr. Robertson stated that on May 8,19El, he, Jerry Goldberg, and
Jim Sumpter reviewed the most serious items in the Quadrex Report to make
their own determination regarding reportability. He stated they had
identified two additional areas that they considered met the reportability
criteria. He stated that on the afternoon of May 8, 1981, these items
were reported to NRC Region IV. Mr. Robertson stated that he was present-
at a time he believed was subsequent to the mid-April Quadrex briefings,
when Jerry Goldberg telephonically contacted Don Sells and informed him
HL&P had contracted a review of B&R engineering and that a report was
expected soon. He stated Mr. Goldberg told Sells that there was a good
possibility that some 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportable items would be reported
to NRC as a result of the Quadrex Report. Mr. Robertson stated he
believed Sells asked if HL&P intended to send a copy of the report to him
and Mr. Goldberg responded saying(he did not intend to distribute the
report outside HL&P; however, he or NRC) would be welcome to review the
report at HL&P. Mr. Robertson stated that subsequent to HL&P receipt of
the Quadrex Report, he and Jerry Goldberg bri fly discussed the
e
advisability of dissemination of the report outside HL&P. He stated it
was concluded that the report language and characterization could be
easily misinterpreted. He stated that it was decided, due to these
considerations, that our interest would be best served if the report were
provided to NRC and eventually became a public document, especially prior
to a more complete assessment of the findings. He stated there was no
discussion regarding providing the report to ASLB. Mr. Robertson stated
Mr. Goldberg related his intention to brief Don Sells regarding the
Quadrex Report, and there was no distinction made between notifying Sells
or in notifying NRC Region IV. Mr. Robertson stated that with regard to
.
.
.
.
,
.
12
-
dissemination of the Quadrex Report, his next involvement came during
August 1981, when he received a telephone call from Dave Barker who
advised that Shannon Phillips had requested a copy of the report from
someone in the HL&P QA Department.
Mr. Robertson stated he advised Mr.
Barker to make a copy of the report available to Mr. Phillips, at the
site, with the understanding that the copy would be returned.
Mr.
Robertson stated that based on his review of the Quadrex Report he has
identified no other items than those previously reported, which he
believes meet the NRC criteria for reportability.
He stated that with
regard to those which were reported, he has seen a letter to B&R (dated in
1980) from John Blau (HL&P) that discussed the HVAC problem, which in
his mind would have triggered 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportability considerations.
He stated he assumed this matter was not reported to NRC because the personnel
involved were not thinking reportability,.but concerned with getting the
design right.
Mr. Robertson stated he was aware that Mr. Goldberg had-
briefed Don Sells regarding the Quadrex Report in mid-May 1981, but does
not know if Sells was allowed to review the report at that time.
Mr.
Robertson provided a certified statement regarding these matters.
Interview of Quadrex Representative
On February 23, 1982, Mr. Loren_ Stanley, Group Manager, Consulting
Engineering Department, Quadrex Corporation, was interviewed.
He stated
that he was originally contacted on January 2,1981, by Mr. Jim Sumpter of
HL&P, and asked to submit a proposal for conducting an engineering design
review of the South Texas Project.
He stated Mr. Sumpter had identified
nine engineering disciplines which he wanted the review to concentrate on.
Mr. Stanley stated that the Quadrex Corporation's proposal was submitted
to HL&P on January 5, 1981, and several days later Mr. Sumpter notified
him that their proposal had been accepted and that work on the review
would begin on January 19, 1981.
Mr. Stanley stated that on January 16,
1981, Mr. Sumpter visited his office and met with Quadrex management
personnel.
He stated that Mr. Sumpter also provided Quadrex with
background information relating to HL&P's perception of problem areas-in
l
B&R engineering.
Mr. Stanley stated that on January 28, 1981, Quadrex
sent to HL&P the recommended questions in each technical discipline to be-
,
answered by B&R.
He stated that on January 29-30, 1981, Mr. Sumpter and
Arnold Granger came to his office to review the questions and select the
,
participants in the review.
He stated that Granger also provided a
i
background briefing on the status of the project and discussed some
.
technical problems.
Mr. Stanley stated that on February 13, 1981, he met
'
with HL&P and B&R to discuss the manner in which the review would be
conducted.
He stated.that between February 17 and February _24, meetings
were held with B&R to clarify the questions and-identify the documents to
be reviewed.
Mr. Stanley stated that between March 5 and March 31,
, .
.
.
.
- .
r
.
- .
-
.
.
.
<
-
13
Quadrex technical reviewers conducted the meetings regarding the
disciplines being reviewed.
He stated that on March-18, 1981, Dr. Key,
Mr. Sumpter, and Jerry Goldberg met to review his (Stanley's) initial
impressions of areas that had been reviewed up to that time.
Mr. Stanley
stated that during this meeting he expressed to Mr. Goldberg that he was
" aghast" at their preliminary observations, and the HL&P representatives
.
indicated that they were not surprised.
Mr. Stanley stated that on
April 8-10, 1981, Dr. Sumpter was in their offices where they jointly
reviewed our preliminary assessments of the B&R responses to the
questions. He stated that on April 13, 1981, he and Larry Wray had
briefed HL&P on the findings in each of the technical disciplines.
He
stated that during this meeting a number of the findings were discussed.
Mr. Stanley stated that on April 29, 1981, he sent Volumes 2 and 3 of the
report to Mr. Sumpter for him to review.
He stated that on April 30 he
went to HL&P to present the highlights of the Quadrex findings to HL&P.
He stated that on May 1, 1981, he made a similar presentation to the B&R
engineering staff.
Mr. Stanley stated that on May 7,1981, he presented
the final report to HL&P and B&R.
He stated they provided them with
approximately 15 copies of the report.
Mr. Stanley stated that on that
day meetings were initiated by B&R to review the report for
10 CFR 50.55(e) reportable items.
He stated no one discussed their
thoughts regarding the reportability of any items with him.
He stated it
was an assumption of his, not based on anything HL&P had said, that the
report would be provided to NRC soon after it had been given to HL&P.
He
stated this topic was never discussed in his presence.
Mr. Stanley
provided a certified statement regarding this matter.
Reinterview of Jerome Goldberg
On March 12, 1982, Mr. Jerome Goldberg was reinterviewed concerning his
providing the reports to Mr. Don Sells for review during the week of
May 11, 1981.
Mr. Goldberg stated he was certain that Mr. Sells had been
provided with a copy of the report to review during the course of the
briefing at that time.
Mr. Goldberg also stated that Mr. Sells had asked
him if a copy of the report would be provided to him and he had replied
that a copy would be made available at the HL&P offices for his review.
Reinterview of Donald Sells
On March 19, 1982, Mr. Donald E. Sells was reinterviewed concerning his
previous statement which indicated that he had not reviewed the Quadrex
Report during the week of May 11, 1981.
Mr. Sells stated he did not
recall Mr. Goldberg's having the report with him on that occasion nor did
he recall being offered the opportunity to review the report.
He stated
Mr. Goldberg had opened the briefing by stating that he was not pleased
with the results of the report due to the numerous conclusions contained
.
.-
-... ...- -
. .
b
.
_. .
..
__ -
___-__
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
'
.
'
14
.
in it.
Mr. Sells' stated that he had not asked for a copy of the report
due to his impression that HL&P wanted more time to review the report.
Mr. Sells stated he positively did not review either one volume or all'
three volumes of the report at that time.
Interviews of NRC Region IV Personnel
On April 2, 1982, Mr. R. E. Hall was interviewed regarding his previous
knowledge concerning the Quadrex Report.
When queried concerning Mr. D. E.
.
Sells statement that he (Sells) had mentioned the Quadrex Report to-
Mr. Hall, while in Washington, D. C. in April 1981, Mr. Hall stated he
did not recall any such conversation.
Mr. Hall stated, to the best of
his knowledge, the first time he became aware of the Quadrex Report was
in August 1981.
On May 6, 1982, Mr. C. R. Oberg, Reactor Inspector, Reactor Projects
Branch was interviewed concerning the current status of evaluation of the
Quadrex Report.
Mr. Oberg stated Region IV has been assigned the
responsibility for conducting a complete technical evaluation of the Quadrex
Report and that technical assistance in this evaluation is being provided
by NRR. Mr. Oberg stated he is currently reviewing each item in the
Quadrex Report for potential 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) reportability.
He
stated that no potentially reportable items have been identified, based solely
on data contained in the report, in addition to the three items previously-
-
reported to Region IV by HL&P on May 8, 1981.
Mr. Oberg stated the NRC
evaluation is scheduled to be completed in September 1982, at which time-
a report concerning this matter will be issued.
On May 6, 1982, Mr. W. A. Crossman, Section Chief, Projects Section B,
Reactor Projects Branch 1, Region IV, was interviewed.
Mr. Crossman
stated that on May 8,1981, Mr. Mike Powell of HL&P telephonically
notified him of three potential 10 CFR Part 50.55(e) items. Mr. Crossman
stated he learned of the Quadrex Report in August 1981, and the fact that
these reportable items were submitted based on the findings of that
report. When questioned concerning the Quadrex Report, Mr. Crossman
stated no regulation exists which would require HL&P to have provided the
Quadrex Report to NRC.
He stated the only regulation requiring a
licensee to report information to NRC is 10 CFR Part 50.55(e).
,
Mr. Crossman described the Quadrex Report as a normal review / evaluation
!
function of a licensee's quality assurance / quality control programs
i
which they are not required to provide to NRC unless it is requested
during the course of an NRC inspection effort (as required per
He stated the Quadrex Report was given to NRC upon
request in August 1981.
Mr. Crossman stated the Quadrex team utilized a
sampling approach to provide indications of potentially weak areas in the
engineering design of the STP plant.
He stated the Quadrex Report
contained no basis for concluding the STP fundamental design was flawed
and that nothing short of a full review (of the report) by HL&P and
Bechtel can determine the validity of Quadrex's " indications of
potentially weak areas."
,
- -__--
>