ML20138J028
| ML20138J028 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | South Texas  |
| Issue date: | 08/08/1985 |
| From: | Madsen G NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION IV) |
| To: | Oprea G HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO. |
| References | |
| OL-S-140, NUDOCS 8510290221 | |
| Download: ML20138J028 (15) | |
See also: IR 05000498/1982002
Text
.
jl)-$[ Y ? ? 0l--. h hh
. ..
. .
fffd'
%t O;E : :EGL.270:4 C O M t.* l S s . C !,
_
- . DOCKETEL,
4
- Q,' .
- E SCt. :\ US?dC
,
"-
/ -
$11 RY AN PLAZA DRIVE. SUITE 1000
ARLINGTON. TEXAS 76011
-- '85 00T 17 A9:39
June 3, 1982
In Reply Refer To:
Docket: 50-498/82-02 aucun aMia,r,,o,. , , _ m mst.wommise t
' ' ~
50-499/82-02
,
i.ei.i we wW-4W-c'orn$Uil6/ w. sin, m.f"4N & /w
ta the matter of
Staff # JOINTIFitD V
Houston Lignting and Power , , p ,;, , ,, ,,,,,,,, 7
ATTN: e. W. Ocrea, Jr.,
Executive Vice Presicent istunnu ntJacito
coars on,
P. O. Scx 1700
Houston, Texas 77001 c.atract., narr s'-9-P5
Oth.r witiss:
Gentiemen: ,,,,g,, -f g
This refers to the investigation conducted by Messrs. D. D. Driskill and
J. E. Gagliarco of our staff during the period February 5, 8-12, 23, March 11
anc 19, 1982 of activities authorized by NRC Construction Permit CPPR 12S and
129 for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2.
Areas examinea curing the investigation and our findings are discussec in :ne
encicsed retort. Witnin these areas, the invest 1gaticn censistec of selective
examination of records and interviews with persorinel.
During tne investigation, it was detennined that two potential deficiencies
had not been reported to the NRC within 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of their identification.
The failure to meet the 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> reporting time requirements of 10 CFR Part
50.55(e) is a violation of NRC requirements, and will be the subject of a
Notice of Violation which will be sent to you under separate cover.
In accorcance with 10 CFR 2.790(a), a copy of this letter and the enclosure
will be placed in the NRC Public Document Room. We understand that you will
conduct an excedited review of this investigation anc will notify us by
ele:ncne wnen we will be acie to release :nis re;;;r: : :ne NRC Dut:ii c
Cocur:ent Rccm anc the ASLE.
Should you have any questions concerning this investigation, we will be
pleased to ciscuss them with you.
Sincerely,
..
G510290221 850808
PDR ADOCK 05000498 e
G [//
- Ay-G. L. Macsen, Chje#
sea: :- -::ec: :-s :
,
l
u .
E :':s n :
-::e : - ~: :rves:ics-t:r. :,e::r:
.
l
5:- .2 22-C2; 20 409/55-02 ggM U6
i
,
. _
_ __
.
.
U. 5. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
REGION IV
Investigation Report No. 82-02
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: sed '-1 M 2_
q D. D. DrisKill, Investigator Date
. ,
Inspector: ~JLj / { Nf, w by Y k'Oliv
y.r E. Gagliardo, Acting Director, Division of Date
Resident, Reacto'r Project and Engineering
Programs
Reviewed by: 7- ^^
-
- If
E. H. Jonnson, Director, Investigative and Date
Enforcement Staff
Approved by: M: 6 .b ;.u - : --
J./ i. Collins , Regional Administrator Date-
Summary
Investigation conducted February 5, 8-12, 23, March 11 and 19, 1982 (Report No.
50-498/82-02; 50-499/82-02).
..
l
l
i
,
. _ _ _ _ _ __ _
_ _ __
. _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ .
..
.
'
. -
Area Investicatec:
On Decemoer 16, 1981, Mr. Lanny Sinkin, Pro Se Counsel, Citi: ens Concerned
Aeout 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
concucting its lawful regulatory duties."
.
Results:
The allegation that HL&P deliberately withheld the Quadrex Resort from the
l 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
flRR Droject Manager reviewed the report (or any portion thereof) during a May
1951 briefing concerning the report. Investigation disclosec it was the
opinion of HL&? management that the prompt notification of 1: CFR 50.55(e)
reportaole items cid not become effective until they hac recieved tne final
report from Quadrex. Interviews disclosed that HL&P was cognizant of
infor=ation 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 i.V 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.
l
!
..
k
.
.
. .
DETAILS
1. Persons Contacted
Licensee Employees
Mr. G. Oprea, Executive Vice President
Mr. J. Goldberg, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering and Construction
Mr. J. Sumoter, Manager, Nuclear Services Decartment
Mr. C. Re ertson, 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. Investication of Allecations
Allecaticn No. 1
Houston Lighting and Power management personnel celiberately withneld the .
results of the Quadrex Report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
which 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 submittec to NRC containing engineering
overtones. He statec that wnen Mr. Jerry Goicterg joinec HL&P, in
fall 1980, he (Goldberg) expressed tne neec to have an engineering
assessment, by a thiro party, of the Brown & Root engineering effort.
Mr. Oprea stated that the Quadrex Corporation was chosen to conduct tne
engineering assessment. Mr. Oprea stated that during the perico that the
assessment was being conducted (February 1981 to May 1981), Mr. Goldberg
had briefed him periodically regarding its progress. Mr. Oprea statec 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 concucted whicn
resultec in three 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportable items being reported to NRC
Region IV on May 8, 1981. Mr. Oorea statec that in May 1981. "r. Golcter;
nac rectestec :na Br:wr & Rect recare a ::r ect've action :'an 'or
-
- co e : 'ce.:i"s: '. tre :uac ex Re:c-: '
-e 3:atec .na: ELR a:
- ~
3 Cri::E *-.5
.. : 2 # # e C *. ~. . e 5 0 ~. # ~ :.an t .i; ~~ :.. l "-i l .
'**
-
C**Si StatEC *ni! #~ "ay 1.0E1. Je**y
. 30 ' ::e"; ic " e #ic I:- Eei
c0CCera# g *.ne Gacee) O e : O r *. # * 3aj Ci *;. , 'sy a s . -
-e -*.a:a: t r a *.
-. . _ ._. - __ _ - ._- - - - - - - . - -
- _ - - ..
.
.
although he had not attencec this briefing, he (new 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 Quacrex 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 the
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, Ricnard Frazar
had informed him that Richard Herr, Senior Investigator, Region IV, NRC,
and Shannon Phillips, Resicent Reactor Inspector, STP, were looking at STP
i
QA activities and wanted to see the Quadrex Report. Mr. Oprea stated he
i 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 Encineerina and Construction
Cn February 5, 1982, Jerome Goldberg, Vice President, Nuclear Engineering
and Construction, was interviewed. Mr. Golcberg stated,that upon joining
HL&P, in October 1980, he had reviewec 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,
l he explainec to Mr. Loren Stanley, of Quadrex. that he wanted a timely
and ocjective assessment of STP in areas sucn as cesign ve-ification,
'
single failure criteria, consecuences of pipe break, and other areas
wnere comcanies are known to have proolems. He stated that Quadrex
began their review in January 1981, and completed it near the end of
4 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
I
regardi' rig their assessments. Mr. Goldberg stated that in April 1981, he
had contacted Don Sells of NRR, told him about the Quacrex review, and
apprised him that he suspected some 10 CFR 50.55(e) reuorts woulc be
issued as a result of the report. .Yr. Goldberg statec he asKec Seils if
it wouic ce useful to ghe NRC an e3e:utive Oriefing egarcing tne "na',
assess:e . : *rd:n 3es ag esc. -s statec Ses ic sug;ertec ,e;.
i
. _ , ... -..- . _ ,-. - _ - _ . . .
.- - .- . - . - -
5
.
meet the week of May 11, 1981, curing the ASL3 hearings in Bay
City, Texas, for the oriefing 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 curing this meeting B&R expressed concern that the cecth of
the review was not sufficient to resolve some of the issues. He also
stated that HL&P challenged a numcer 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
1 reported to Mr. Bill Crossman, NRC Region IV, on May 8, 1981. Mr. Gold-
terg 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 Recort findings. He stated that at that time he had eitrer one
volume or all three volumes of the Quadrex Report in his possession. He
stated he briefed Sells regarcing 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.
Goldberg 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 askec to discuss the Quadrex Recort at that time ne would have done so.
Mr. Goicterg statec tnat the Quacrex Report hac not teen sent te ASL5 cecause
they were only looking at construction activities. Mr. Goldberg stated that
between May anc July 1981, B&R developec a corrective action plan in response
to his earlier request. He stated this corrective action plan includea the
hiring of several consultant and engineering firms to assist in resolving
the problems identified by the Quadrex Report. Mr. Goldberg statec that in
late May 1981, HL&P senior management personnel met to determine wnether 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 l
provided'another dimension to the difficulties with the project and it was
decided at that time to look at other options. Mr. Golcberg stated that the '
l fact that the Quadrex Report existed was not a secret. He statec that in !
l May 1981, he had briefec Sells regarding the Quacrex Recort anc s=secuent to l
!
!
.
.
i
that time never gave any instruction to HL&P or E&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 curing the ASL3 hearings he would have met with the NRR
staff in Bethesca, Maryland, for that briefing. He also stated that it
was his perception that tne 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 Manaaer
On February 8,1982, Mr. Dcnald E. Sells, NRR Project Manager for the
South Texas Project, was interviewed. Mr. Sells stated that in about
January or Feoruary 1981, during either a meeting or a telephone conver-
sation, Jerry Goldberg nad toic him that HL&P was contracting witn an
outsice consuiting firm to concuct an audit of the B&R cesign 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 NRR 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) c:uld review the report once it had been received. Mr. Sells
statec he uncerstoco this to mean he would ce allowea to review tr,e report
in Houston or in Bay City, Texas, at a later date. Mr. Seils statec that
near the end of April 1981, he had casually mentionec to Mr. Ramon Hall,
of tne Region IV staff, his conversation regarding the Quadrex Recort with
Jerry Golcberg. 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
..
. _ _
.
.
.
Report. He stated Mr. Goicberg had aavised 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
review of the report. He stated that Mr. Goldberg had also explained the
various areas reviewed by Quadrex 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 basec on an in-depth review.
Mr. Sells stated he had gotten the impression Mr. Goldberg was not 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
wnatever 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
discuss the Quadrex Report with Mr. Shannon Phillips or NRC Region IV.
Mr. Selis stated that, subsecuent to the meeting, he had advised
Mr. Shannon Phillics of tne existence of the report anc 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 Houstor, Texas,
he was given all three volumes of the Quadrex Report. He stated he had
reviewed Volume 1, which was the Executive Summary, and preparea a chart
snowing tne categories (Severity Levels) of tne eignt areas coverec in the
report. He stated he had subsequently discussed his fincings with Mr. Ed
Reis anc advised him the ASL3 snould see the report. He stated Mr. Reis
had agreec and apparently later obtained a copy of the Quadrex Reoort.
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
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
..
, ,_ ,
._
.
P
.
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
l had heard the study was being conducted. He stated that at the time of
tne Quadrex review he was aware of Brown anc Root having engineering
i problems; however, he was not involvec in that part of the project. He
! stated that he did not attend any meetings concerning the Quacrex 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
Goicberg to obtain a copy of it; however, Mr. Goldberg was not present on
tnat day. He stated on the following day he had contacted Mr. Goldberg who
had provided him with a copy of the Quadrex Report and told him to allow
'
Mr. Herr and Mr. Phillips to review tne report in the office. Mr. Frazar
stated he had no further association with the Quacrex Recort.
Interview of HL&P Nuclear Services Deoartment 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
needec from his company. Mr. Sumoter statec that on January 16, 1981, he
4 et with Quacrex representatives in their California office anc ciscussec
ne approach to be usec during the review. He statec it was decicec that
'
a series of cuestions would be cresented to B&R engineering and their
answers would be used 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
..
$
f
- . , - - . - g- ,----.--.,,a -
-_.------.-,___r.- , _ , - , - . . , . - _ _- , . _ , - , - - . . - . . . - , - . . -e, _ . , , _ - , . g-
. - . _
.
b
engineering crocedures, anc 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 Q9adrex
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
coorcinate the schecules 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 tne 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. Sumater stated he had gone to the Quadrex offices on April 8-10, 1981,
,
to review preliminary drafts of Section 4 of the recort (containing
'
assessments of the B&R resconses to the original cuestions presented to
them). He stated he had attempted to ascertain tne casis 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-
ciplines. He stated these engineers were instructed to review the Section
4 portion of the report to eneure Quadrex was utilizing accurate
information in their assessment and if there was sufficient information
available for that assessment. Mr. Sumpter statec that on April 13, 1981,
Loren Stanley and other reoresentatives of Quadrex met with Jerry
Gcicterg, various HL&P recresentatives, anc nimsei' in orcer tnat Quacrex
couic present their preliminary findings. He statec tnat the only
significant areas discussec relatec to the verification of comcuter coces.
Mr. Sumater statec that he returned to Quadrex on April 15-16, 1981, to review
their latest drafts of their re ort. He stated that on April 30, 1981,
Loren Stanley and Larry Wray, Vice President, Engineering, Quacrex
Corporation, returned to HL&P and versally presentec their final report.
Mr. Sumpter stated actual cooies of the report were not provided to HL&P
..
1
____ _ _ -. _ _ , . . . _ , .
- _ ._ - - - - .-_ _ - .
.
at that time. He statec that HL&P attendees were Jerry Goldberg, Cloin
Robertson, Ed Turner, Don Setterton, 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 conductec their review of
tne report and identified one potentially reportable 50.55(e) item
(ceficiencies in HVAC system). He stated that on May 8, 1981, Jerry Goldberg, *
Cloin Rooertson, anc he reviewed the B&R response to the recort and ultimately
icentified two acditional 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 celieved a copy of it had been shown to Mr. Sells. Mr. Sumpter
stated that after that meeting Mr. Goldberg told nim that Don Sells wanted
to see a cooy of the report and had been toic that a copy of it would be
mace availaole for him to review. Mr. Sumpter stated that nis 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 ultimately presented to HL&P on July 16, 1981. He stated that the
Quadrax 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 tne computer code
verification problem had been identified during a Novemoer 1980 B&R audit
anc trat tne nVAC proclems aere previously recognizec by Si? anc were ceing
stucied. Mr. Sumoter provided a certifiec statement regarcing tnese matters.
Interview of HL&P Nuclear Licensing Manager
On Feoruary 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 *6fforts for the South Texas Project about that time. He stated his
!
- - - _ _ _- -. --- -__ .
7
.
..
first cirect association with the assessment was in about mid-April 1981,
when the Quacrex staf f 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 reouirements concerning such reportability. He stated
that en a: cut May 6,1981, Mr. Goldberg sent a letter to B&R directing
- na they, uten receipt of tne Quadrex Report, assess the findings with
respect to 10 CFR 50.55(e) repor: ability and previce HL&P witn the results
of their assessments prior to ncon May 8,1981. Mr. Robertson stated that
he cic not attenc the May 7,1981, meeting during whicn Quadrex presented
- neir recor to HL&P and B&R. He stated he did attend a May 7, 1981,
meeting witn B&R where their various engineering disciplines presented
their assessments anc conclusions relative to repertability of these items
icenti.fiec as being most serious. He stated that they concluced that
ne HVAC design was the only area they would consicer reportable. He
stated they transmitted this assessment to Mr. Goicberg about noon May 8,
1981. Mr. Rocertson stated that on May 8, 1981, he, Jerry Golcberg, and
Ji- Sum::er reviewec :ne mes sericus items in :ne Ouacrex Repor: to make
- neir cwn :e:erminatien regarcing recor: ability. He stated tney had
identifiec two accitional areas tna they considerec 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 Golcberg 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 tne report to him
and Mr. Gcicberg resconcec saying he did not intenc to distribute the
re::r: Outs"ce MLiP, n0 wever, ne (cr MRC) wcuic :e weicere to review :ne
re:or; a: -lip. Mr. Rccertson statec tna; subsecuen to HL&P receipt of
tne Quacrex Re:crt, he anc Jerry Geldberg briefly discussed the
acvisa ili y of cissemination of :ne report outsice HL&P. He statec it
was conclucec that the report language anc characterization could be
easily misinterpreted. He statec that it was deciced, due to these
consicerations, tna: our interest would be best served if the report were
pr0videc to NRC and eventually became a public document, especially prior
to a more complete assessment of the findings. He stated there was no
discussien regarding providing the report to ASLB. Mr. Robertson stated
Mr. Goldberg related his intention to brief Don Sells regarding the
Guadrex Recert, and there was ne distinction made between notifying Sells
or in nc:1 ying NRC Regicn !V. Mr. R0certson sta ec that witn regard to
V
t
i
12
dissemination of the Quadrex Report, his next involvement came during
August 1981, when he received a telephone call from Dave Barker who
advised tnat 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 eriteria for reportability. He stated that with
regarc to those which were reported, he has seen a letter to B&R (dated in r
1980) from John Blau (HL&P) that discussed the HVAC problem, which in
his minc .ould have triggered 10 CFR 50.55(e) reportacility consideraticns.
He statec he assumed this matter was not reported to NRC because the personnel
involvec were not thinking reportability, but concerned with getting the
design rignt. Mr. Robertson stated he was aware that Mr. Goldberg had
briefed Don Sells regarding tne 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 Recresentative *
l
Cn Feoruary 23, 1982, Mr. Loren Stanley, Group Manager, Consulting i
Engineeri g Decartment, Quacrex Corporation, was interviewed. He stated
tnat ne .as originally contacted on January 2, 1981, by Mr. Jim Sumpter of
HL&P, and askec to sucmit a preposal 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
B&R engineering. Mr. Stanley stated that on January 28, 1981, Quadrex
sent to m.&P :ne recommencec ouestions in eacn tecnnical ciscipline to be
answerec ey B&R. He stated tnat on January 29-30, 1981, Mr. Sumoter and
Arnoic Granger came to his office to review the cuestions and select the
participants in the review. He stated that Granger also provided a
background briefing on the status of the project and ciscussed some
tecnnical proolems. 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,
.
f
.
4
,
'. 2
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. Goleberg 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
- uestions . 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
statec that during this meeting a number of the findings were discussed.
Mr. Stanley stated tnat on April 29, 1981, he sent Volumes 2 and 3 of tne
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 assumotion of his, not based on anytning HL&P had said, that tne
report -ould be proviced to NRC soon after it hac been given to HL&P. He
stated tnis 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
providec 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
nim if a copy of the recort would be provided to him and he had recliec
tnat a cocy would be mace availacle at the HL&P offices for his review.
Reinterview of Donald Se* j
On March 19, 1982, Mr. Donald E. Sells was reinterviewed concerning nis
previous statement wnich indicated that he had not reviewed the Quadrex
Reoort curing 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 cio
he recall being offered the opportunity to review the report. He stated
Mr. Goldberg had opened the briefing by stating that he was not pleasec
with the results of the report due to the numerous conclusions contained
i
r
,
l
, la
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 statec 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 icentified, 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
statec no regulation exists wnicn would require HL&P to have prov cec the 4
Quadrex Report to NRC. He stateo 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
wnich they are not required to provide to NRC unless it is recuestec
during the course of an NRC inspection effort (as required per
10 CFR Part 50.70). 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 snort of a full review (of the report) by HL&P ar.c ,
5echtel can cetermine the valicity of Ouadrex's "incications of I
Octentially weax areas.
l
,
-. .. , - - , - . . - - . - - - - - - - - - - - , . .--n. - - --y,,-.,---
.
, - _ - - , , .-n,,, , , , , , , - - . , , , - - - - - , - _ , . , , , , , , , , , - . , . - - , , - - - - - , , - - , , - , - , , - - - - . , _ -