ML20138H656
| ML20138H656 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 07/16/1985 |
| From: | Driskill D, Gagliardo J, Goldberg J HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO., NRC |
| To: | |
| References | |
| OL-I-CCANP-087, OL-I-CCANP-87, NUDOCS 8510290114 | |
| Download: ML20138H656 (5) | |
Text
g. a r/v n ou a - e e a w-g i a,-
e 7 mj'75 STATEMENT 00N EL Pla ce :
Houston, Texas 85 ET 10 A9:31 Date:
February 9, 1982 I, Jerome Goldberg, hereby:w aG.. e 'fo'lrowing voluntary statement to cake th ty r s-Mr. D. D. Driskill, who has ide'.St.i'fied himself to me as an investigator and Mr. J. E. Gagliardo, Director, Division of Reactor Projects and Engineering Programs, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I make this statement freely with no threats or promises of reward having been made to me.
I am currently the Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Construction, Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P), and have been employed in this capacity since October 1980.
N rmewed Upon joining HL&P, I : Ed:d the history of the South Texas Project (STP), the NRC Show Cause Order, and the information prepared for the May 1981 Atomic Safety Licensing Board ( ASLB) hearings. After reviewing the STP engineering program, I felt there was a need to have a third party assessment conducted regarding the desien and engineering programs of Brown o rde r tha t I%. ' d c. n W s rem.xl te o m' 'ge>h 4@& Root, Inc. (E &R) i n wu. M 'te_ a rncly s cr,_::
as regarding the statu; of these activities at STP.
HL&P management authorized me to contract with Quadrex, Inc.,
to provide us a quick assessment of STP, primarily in the engineering and nuclear design areas.
In late Noyember or early December 1980, I a n:A mdk d
h t-M t d Loren Stanley of Quadrex W :...:
ad I wanted an objective, but quick, assessment of STP in areas such as design verification, single failure criteria, consequences of pipe break, and
.other areas companies are known to have problems with.
Quadrex began their review in January 1981 and completed it near the end of March 1981.
During the review Jim Sum;'ter was the HL&P coordinator for the assessment by Quadrcx.
In mid-April, Quadrex gave us an interim report which consisted of a series of questions and assessments utilizing viewgraphs.
During this briefing, Quadrex did not answer some of our specific questions.
At that time I contacted Don Sells of NRR and told him we were conduc+i g a review cv.Q ic and believed we would have some 50.55(e)s to report.
I M4 Sells ^it w uld be m 2 pag agogp g c g) g g 4 7
o 7
G
t 1
i l
l i
i I
l l
e v.
t 4
'e#'.f.s s
,s p
.s e $l rf
+
~'
$ 'I f)?
L p *#
0 f 4, M
+W 4
O p $s i
l s
f#
a j
t g4 4
9?,7 s
Statement 6 vMl
& to give f4RC an executive briefing and Sells agreed.
Sells said the hearings would begin on May 11, 1981 and he would be in Bay City, Texas, at which time we could have the briefing.
On about May 6,1981, I sent a letter to Gene Salterelli of B&R asking him to 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 I
reportable items or items indicating a need to issue a Stop' Work Order.
Salterelli was also asked to provide HL&P a plan of corrective action relating to the Quadrex findings, i
On May 7,1981, a meeting was held at B&R during which Quadrex passed out the report and discussed their findings, using viewgraphs.
B&R, during this meeting, expressed concern that the depth of the review was no_t;;ufficient to resolve A m..~ av %W cNhs4 A Mer WJ i
- m. w *hd. <gb.is s ues. -bd -I tcl,-
of the Quadrex findings;k v.aar a r mb,.c arraved i some of t 4
wen as m
- c
=d ;cd. plate that af ternoon, and through that night, B&R reviewed the report i
and presented me with a list of their findings, only one of which was reportable under 50.55(e), en May 8,1981 J. Sumpter, C. Robertson, and I reviewed the i
B&R findings and identified two additional 50.55(e) reportable items.
On fiay 8, 1981, Mike Powell, of HL&P, telephonically notified Mr. Bill Crossman, Region IV, liRC, of these three 50.55(e). reportable items.
On about May 13, 1980, during the week of the ASLB hearings in Bay City, Texas,
~
j I met with Don Sells to give him an overview of the Quadrex report findings.
At that time, I had either one volume or all three volumes of the Quadrex report.
I briefed him regarding the general areas of concern for about 15 to 20 minutes, 5
during which time. Sells perused the report.
Sells asked me what nappens if B&R can't fix the problem.
I said, "If they can't I'll find someone who can."
Sells then asked if I was going to send him a copy of the report, and I told nia no but it was. on file at HL&P and he would be welcome to review it there.
During my testimony in the heerings that week, i'RC attorney Ed Reis asked me "Were you satisfied with B&R design activities?"
I said, "tio" and he asked "What problems do you see?"
I identified two of the problems, which we had previously reported on 50.55(e)s. He then questioned me regarding my use of I
kg :
Statement.
the word veracity.
Subsequently, he changed the line of questioning to the construction area.
If I had been asked, I would have discussed the Quadrex report at that time.
I never thought the Quadrex report should be sent to the ASLB because they were looking at only construction activities.
Between May and July,1981, B&R developed a corrective action plan, in response i
to my earlier request. As a result of this plan, B&R hired a consultant firm j
from Idaho, contracted with Westinghouse, and hired other engineering firms to j
resolve problems identified by the Quadrex report.
i
+
In late May 1981, HL&P senior management met to determine whether B&R could successfully complete the project. HL&P management was aware of problems in B&R's QA and construction activities, but realized during these meetings that i
the Quadrex report provided another dimertfion to the difficulties with the project.
u.a u d 4gae e in nw w+a rc. rt n....bs. 4 c.d i t B&R did not fully understand the business the M. +e ck,<.C.e sesw
- hea cWu b. um rt M rnve c%
the character of their company.
It was theng=ec:- :-f;h at HL&P look at other d th j
chad options.
i The fact that the Quadrex report existed was not a secret. HL&P and B&R personnel were involved with the Quadrex reviewers durinL the Quadrex assessment and during progress meetings during January to April 1981 When B&R was criticized during that time frame for not having completed engineering studies / designs, their cc... A % g>
a excuse was their personnel had been tied up with the Quadrex people. Mey copies j
of the Quadrex report existed at B&R and HL&P.
In May 1981, I briefed Sells regarding the Quadrex report and subsequent to that time never gave any i ctions to HL&P or B&R personnel to withhold the report from NRC.
I w u n e +e,m tl
.h n o r m at t
Mr. Herr and Mr. Phillips were told they could not, in August 1981, take the report to their motel room for review. My only state was that we would not file the report with f RC, but some HL&P people % w-*aapparen ly interpreted my
(
j statement to mean we.should withhold the report.
i j
In mid-April,1981, I told Sells we were conducting this review and offered to brief the NRR technical. staff and if it had not been for the hearing, where I met with Sells, I would have met with the NRR staff in Bethas,qa, Maryland.
It c.<. bwfgy r.iu i.ww was my perception that the ISE area of interest wasmin construction ^and the NRR area of interest was in technical design problems; therefore, I did not feel i
_ ~ ~. _, - -.. _ _ _ _,,. _. _.,. _. _ _ _ -.... - - -
sy,%*,
Statement it was necessary to notify 1&E of the report since I had notified NRR.
I have read over and understand the foregoing 4 pages.
I certify under penalty of purjury that this statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
Executed on February
, 1982 1
Jc/Em Jerome'Goldberg Executed before me on February 9,1982 at Houston, Texas Signatur
.X_ O Q
{
D.
/iskill, Investigator,NRC Witness:
r
'T h
) ^'
d.h. Gaglibrdo, Director, Division of Reactor Projects and Engineering Programs.
l