ML20147E600
| ML20147E600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342B416 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-696 NUDOCS 8801210172 | |
| Download: ML20147E600 (42) | |
Text
.
ORIGINAL o~ ,
v U.N11ED STATES i
s NUCLEAR REGULKf0RY COMMISSI6N IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: l l
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW !
. OF PHILIP B. MAGITZ
.{u.-4' s ', s * * -
1 in
.J,1 :~
. *[f f .
h5]yry 2%W . -
/Gn :- t. ' -- ' . '
}pl:- .c:
., e.g J %, . .r t . -
- . 4t's.L
.n ~. . '.
~~-
LOCATION: PARSIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PAGES: 1 - 40 w .v.
w e .-.
. Wyf . , .
5 *&,@,' - : b, , :' .
te.s;L.v . > . :
ht : 1 65g-l' =. ~ ':";p DATE: THURSDAY, MAY 2, 1985
. .' , !.u n .-
l m:.
$1 a
,.nf g..
. . s. .
.X
~
FeT A- &7- H A
\ ]q - '
{3pS' 1
. .:g;) _ -
~
+: -
- - AG-FEDERA1. REPORTERS, LNC.
cVw 4wtm 444 North Capitol Street
,t Washmgton, D.C. 20001 C02) M7 3700 8801210172 000106 PDR NATroNwTDE cos*EPact FOIA /s e
, W E I S S D ',' 6 % PM - f y /'
4 1
C422966.1 I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA BRT/dnw !
j 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION !
3 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION 4 '
GPUN Headquarters !
5 100 Intsr,sce Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey ,
Thursday, May 2, 1985 7
The Investigative Interview convened at 10:58 a.m.,
8 Richard A. Matakas, presiding.
9 10 PRESENT:
II PHILIP B. MAGITZ, Interviewee QA Corporate Audit 12 Supervisor GPUN (f 13 RICHARD A. MATAKAS, Investigator Id Region I l Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania I
16 ROBERT G. LA GRANGE l
Section Leader l 17 EQ Branch l
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 18
! 19
! i 20 '
21 I
23 l
1 2< ;
l u. - amorwn. im. :
l 25 i l
L
t 229'66.1 ,
2 BRT ,
1
{
1 PROCEEDI NGS 2 MR. MATAK AS: The date is May 2, 1985 and the 3 time is 10:58. Present for this interview are myself, 4 Richard A. Matakas, investigator, U.S. NRC, Bob LaGrange, 5 section leader in the NRC EQ branch, of fice of NRR, and 6 Mr. Philip B. Kagita, QA corporate audit supervisor. The 7 purpose of this interview is to discuss facts and 8 circumstances leading to GPUN's submittal to the NRC 9 involving the environmental qualification of electrical 10 equipment at TMI Unit 1.
11 Mr. Magitz, do you have any objection to providing this 12 information under oath?
, 13 THE WITNESS: None.
14 Whereupon, 15 PHILIP B. MAGITZ 16 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 17 was examined and testified as follows:
I
! 18 EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. MATAKAS:
1 20 Q Mr. Magitz, for the record, would you give us :
- 21 your full name, busine s address and telepnone number, I
22 please?
l 23 A Philip B. Magit:, corporate QA audit supervisor, l ('
l 24 General Public Utilities Nuclear, 100 Interpace Parkway, 25 Parsippany, New Jersey, 07054; telephone number is area
. 22966.1 3 BRT
[
l code 201-299-2101.
2 Q And would you give us a general overview of your 3 education and work hist ty?
4 A Okay. Education, I received a bachelor of 5 industrial engineering f rom New York University, 1953.
6 (Basically that's mechanical with the industrial option. I 7 received an MBA f rom Western New England College in 1964.
8 Work experience? I lost tr ac k .
9 Q Just briefly your work history?
10 A Okay. Chronological or reverse?
11 Q Reverse is fine.
- 12 A Okay. I have been with General Public Utilities 13 since 1979, April of '79. I was hired to be the QA f uel t
14 engineer, wnien was being handled by the corporate audit 15 section. Subsequently the corporate section became 16 somewnat more involved in work, as we snifted from a 17 service corporation to an operating organization, and I
(
18 have stayed in tne same organization, primarily doing I 19 similar work, auditing, end I still nave a nuclear fuel 20 responsibility.
21 Prior to that I was with New York State Electric and 22 Gas, at Binghampton, New York, f r om --
23 Q Tne dates aren't important.
i 24 A Okay. New York State Electric and Gas. My 25 function there was supervisor of QA audits and budget. We
. 22966.1 4 BRT 1 were responsible for the audit program of the nuclear
~
2 project and the department budget.
3 Prior to that I was an employee of Holmes & Narver.
4 Their headquarters was in Anaheim, California. They had 5 me functioning on the breeder project at Barns & Roe in 6 Oradel, New Jersey.
7 Prior to that I was -- oh, I was a senior QA engineer, 8 Prior to that I was with Litton Data Systems Division, 9 Van Nuys, California. I was principal engineer of field 10 quality assurance.
11 Prior to that I was with General Dynamics, electronics 12 division, prod uct assurance procurement.
13 Q so you have been around?
14 A Okay.
- 15 Q Mr. Magitz, are are you familiar with GPUN audit 16 -- or just a GPU audit, I take it back, in the March 1981 17 time frame? It was audit 81-02?
18 A Yes.
19 Q I want to be talking about tnat a little bit.
20 The response to that audit cannot be located. What we 21 have is a cover letter dated June 25, 1981; letter number 22 QA 4186, which transmits the QA response to the Tech 23 Functions response to that audit.
(
24 A Yes. Okay.
25 Q And then we have a revised Tecn Functions I
22966.1 5 BRT 1 response dated August 21, 1981.
2 A Gkay.
3 Q And we have a memo from Mr. Guimond to 4
Mr. Stromberg, addressing open audit items dated April 4, 5 1984.
6 A Okay.
7 Q Are you familiar with all those documents?
8 A I have seen them. I couldn't quote them, though.
9 Q I'll tell you what, why don't we just take a 10 couple of minutes off the record, I'll show you the 11 documents.
12 A I should have them right here. I should.
13 Q Why don't you familiarize yourself with them.
i 14 We'll take a couple of minutes because that's what we are 15 going to be talking about.
16 A Well, wny can ' t I refer to them as we talk?
17 Q okay. If you like.
18 A I really can't quote them verbatim and I have to 19 refresh my memory, and I did have some activity in closing 20 out some of these findings but at that point I still had 21 to talk to the individual that went out and looked and 22 verified the corrective action, to get the assurance that 23 I could legitimately close tnem out.
[
(
24 Q Okay. During the 1981-1982 time period, did 25 Mr. Guimond work for you?
22966.1 6 BRT 1 .A Yes.
2 0 Wno was your supervisor?
3 A Mr. Stromberg.
4 Q Where did Mr. Bader fit into this?
5 A At that point he was a parallel position. Let's 6 see, I forget exactly when we absorbed Jersey Central.
7 Mr. Bader was the assistant QA manager of Jersey Central 8 and eventually we absorbed their QA department c.3d na was 9 the program and development functionary. I forgot the le title he had.
11 Q Okay. So sometime in 1982; does that sound 12 right?
13 A Roughly, yes.
't' 14 Q At that time did you report to Mr. Bader?
15 A Eventually, yes.
16 Q What is your knowledge of how and why audit 17 81-92 was initiated?
18 A on, boy. Tnis was as a result of conversations, 19 primarily between Mr. Stromberg and Mr. Croneberger, that 20 there was this responsibility tnat nad been assigned to 21 Tech Functions and the realization or understanding that 22 it would be a proper step for us to audit the 23 implementation of that program, verify that they had a
(
24 program, tnat tney were properly implementing it. It was 25 a prudent step.
22966.1 7 BRT
/ 1 'Q Okay. And the audit team leader was Mr. Guimond;
(
2 is that correct?
3 A Guimond, yes.
4 Q And Mr. Guimond eventually wrote or drafted '
5 audit 81-92; is that correct?
6 A The report, you mean? '
7 Q Yes.
8 A Yes.
9 Q Then Tech Functions responded within 30 days to le that?
11 A I don't believe they really fully responded 12 within 30 days. But, yes, they eventually responded.
13 Q Okay. And that's the report snat cannot be >
14 located. Do you have a copy of that response? Their 15 first response?
16 A We nad several telephone conversations and 17 meeting -- this is the finding -- verbal indication tnat
. 18 what's proposed was or wasn't acceptable.
19 Interesting, it should have been rignt after that. l 29 Here's the answer -- but I should have the transmittal 1
21 right in front of it.
22 Tne first documented answer enat I find in the record 23 is dated June 25, '81.
24 Q Is that letter number QA 4186?
25 A Yes.
- [
4 l
2296601 8 BRT l ,Q And that's the QA response to the Tech Functions
[
2 corrective action?
3 A Wait a minute. I thinl: you are right. This is 4 the response to the letter. Yes, this is the response.
5 Thank you. Quite correct.
6 There was a response prior to that.
7 Q By Tech Functions?
8 A Yes. I wonder if it has been filed -- I don't 9 think so.
10 Q I tried to locate it through the legal 11 department. They didn't have it either?
12 A I don't know wny they would have it.
13 Q They went to different individuals who should 14 have it. Tney couldn't rind it?
15 A It snould be in here.
16 0 It's not?
17 A Tnat's Mr. Guimond's responsibility to ensure 18 tnat it's in here. Of course I have tne ultimate 19 responsibility.
29 0 I nave no problem with enat. Tne QA response 21 reiterates the Tech Functions' corrective action?
22 A Tnat's right.
23 Q And the initial response by QA rejected the Tech ,
t 24 Functions' corrective action; is that correct?
25 A Pretty mucn, yes.
4
22966.1 9 BRT
[ l j) Do you know why audit finding 1 was not 2 addressed? You say you had some discussions during that 3 time period?
4 A Finding 1 is a finding that we haven't 5 established a program and they committed to write part of 6 931. Okay?
7 There was a lack of agreement at that point, as to 8 whether 031 would or would not cover the management active 9 or -- management directives required to fully implement an 10 EQ program that would involve all of the organizations 11 tnat should be involved.
12 Tne Tech Functions has the responsibility, the charter,
, 13 to define the configuration of a plant, and plant 14 engineering and maintenance and construction -- has the ,
15 responsibility to ensure that the configuration as defined 16 is properly maintained and tnat replacement parts are 17 properly purchased and warehousing has the responsibility 18 for assuring wnat the issue is -- et cetera.
19 Tne first response to that was that, by Tech Functions, 20 was that they would issue EP-031, which would describe all 21 of the activities.
22 Tnere was a lack of agreement within QA as to whether 23 Tech Functions, in issuing 031, could effectively describe
(
24 all of the responsibilities for everybody required.
25 Since that procedure is signed only, or only has to be
2296601 le BRT
[ l signed by the director of Tech Functions, there is no 2 automatic mechanism within that procedure to assure that 3 plant operations, maintenance, construction, would have to 4 abide, mandatory living to those requirements that Tech 5 Functions !)elled out.
6 But, yet, within their procedures they can identify 7 what other organizations have to do or what requirements 8 they should be meeting. So, I believe that there was a 9 legitimacy to the answer, where they do say that they 10 could have issued a procedure, EP-031, that would lay out 11 the EQ program. But, yes, there's also legitimacy to the 12 fact that, just because they write it, there's no 13 guarantee everybody is going to live to it.
I 14 Q Do you know why it was not initially addressed?
15 A We did have an answer and it was rejected.
16 Q You mean Tech Functions had an answer and QA 17 rejected it?
18 A Yes. Yes.
19 0 Okay.
20 A On tne basis tnat EP-031 wouldn't cover all of 21 the responses. There was more telephone communication on 22 that tnan letters written, 23 0 Okay.
24 A And meetings with the particular individual 25 involved, wno physically or personally was preparing that.
2296601 11 BRT
[
1 0' Was that Gerry Maus?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Okay. I notice that on the revised response you 4 signed for the proposed corrective actions?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Why was that? Why did not the audit team leader 7 sign for those?
8 A Well, he did not believe that the corrective 9 action would be mandatory all the way across the board and 10 at tne point in time prior to the issue of the procedure, 11 and recognizing tne fact that the charter and tne only 12 charter that Tech Functions has is to define the 13 configuration of the plant, I couldn't say that it 14 wouldn't work. So, rather than go round robin on 15 proposals and counterproposals and not get anywhere, I 16 thought it was best: Accept the answer, let's see wnat 17 they do. We don't have to close out the finding until 18 they issue the procedure.
19 Now, if the procedure won't work they can always take 20 t'hatever actions they have to within their charter to come 21 up with a workable and liveable solution.
22 O You cigned for all 11 proposed corrective 23 actions; is that correct?
l 24 A I don't remember if I signed all, but I signed 25 those where they did propose wnat at that time did appear L
22966.1 12 BRT-1 to be a reasonable solution, s
2 Q I believe on the August 21, 1981 revised 3 response that you signed for all of the proposed 4 corrective actions? ,
5 A Okay. It mignt be.
6 Q Did you --
7 A Yes. Yes, yes -- okay. Okay.
8 Q Did you conf er with Mr. Guimond before you 9 signed for all these?
10 A Before I physically signed these?
11 Q Yes.
12 A I don't remember.
13 Q Is it unusual for you to sign for the proposed 14 corrective actions rather than the audit team leader or a 15 member of the audit team?
16 A It is not normal, no.
4 17 0 Was there any particular reason this time? Were 18 you directed to by your supervisors or --
19 A No.
20 Q Do you recall any particelar reason wny you 21 would have done that? '
22 A I believe tnat --
23 0 You answered for audit finding 1, but I was just 24 wondering --
25 A Yes. I enAnk it's pretty similar. In other l
l
2296601 13 BRT
[ 1 words, there were solutions proposed. I can't say that 2 they were no good. I can't close out a finding until the 3 corrective -- the proposed corrective action has been 4 implemented and we verify that it has and has been 5 effective.
6 Q Okay. Back during this time period, 1981-1982 --
- / A Right.
8 Q -- what responsibility did Tech Functions have 9 to respond to your audit findings?
10 A Tne audit procedure and the QA program required 11 them to respond within 30 days.
12 Q Okay. They did that. That's just the proposed 13 corrective action.
)
14 A Yes.
15 Q What I'm interested in finding out is during 16 tnat time per iod , what were QA's responsibilities in 17 tracking the open items --
18 A Okay. Yes.
19 Q -- and what was Tecn Functions ' responsibilities 20 in following through with their proposed corrective 21 actions?
22 A Okay. The proposed corrective action was 23 supposed to be proposed within 30 days of the finding. It
(
24 was the auditing function's responsibility to review the l 25 proposed corrective action, and, with some judgment pass
22966.1 14 BRT
( l to,its acceptability.
2 If it was acceptable we would then accept the response 3 and then it was our responsibilit: to verify when that 4 proposedost corrective action was scheduled to be 5 completed to verify that it had been implemented. So it 6 was Tech Functions' responsibility to respond and 7 impleme.it the proposed corrective action.
8 Q Are there any time limits involved? Or is there -
9 any meenanism where you can escalate the open item? In 10 otner words --
11 A Yes. Now, procedurally we did not have a method 12 in that time frame. We did not have a procedure for
/
13 escalating. We did have a statement in our QA program 14 that stated escalation per -- I forget exactly the 15 verbiage -- but we did have an escalation provision in our 16 QA program.
17 Q Was this based on a judgment type thing?
18 A Yes.
19 Q The new procedure came in effect, 100 AM -- I 20 forget wnat the numbers are.
21 A 1000-ADM-0218.
22 Q When did that come in?
23 A Within the past two years.
L 24 Q okay. The audit was conducted in --
25 A 1981.
22966.1 15 '
BRT
[ 1 ,
Q Under different QA procedure?
2 A Yes.
3 Q When the new QA procedure came out, did that 4 then take control? Were the responsibilities that were 5 stated and the new procedure, did that take control over 6 the old audit? Or was the old audit to be tracked under 7 the old QA procedure?
8 A We continued tracking it under the old QA 9 procedure and we looked at it in the status of open audit IJ findings, as a generaliza . ion, whenever we perform the 11 correctivt action audit, which is every six months.
12 No, we did not really take a look at that audit in 13 relation to the new procedure, now. It had been raised at --
14 in other mechanisms, but we did not, no.
15 0 Why are recommendations placed in an audit 16 report during the 1981-82 time period?
17 A As far as I ever remember, our audit findings 18 are indications or statements of a departure from a 19 written procedure or a documented requirement.
20 Anything that we cannot describe as a measurable 21 departure from a written requirement usually ends up as a 22 recommendation, wnich means it is something that we feel --
23 if you continue, you are going to be in trouble sometime
( 24 in the future or it could be something that we feel could 25 be improved.
s 6
2296601 BRT 16 j 1 ,
Q Is there any responsibility to follow these 2 recommendations according to the old procedures, or the 3 procedures in effect in 1981?
4 A No. s 5 Q Would it be f air to say that the audit findings 6
and recommendations in 81-02 were critical of the EQ-filed 7 documentation?
8 A It was critical of the whole program. I'd go as 9 far as to say it couldn't criticize the program because 10 they didn't have a program.
11 Q During the time period 1982 and 1983, did you 12 meet with Tech Functions?
13 A Yes.
i 14 Q Were there official meetings or were these just 15 unof ficial meetings, gatherings, or how would you describe 16 them?
17 A I believe would really describe them as unof ficial 18 meetings, yes. '
19 Q And what level of individuals did you meet with 20 in the Tech Functions program?
21 A Usually Don Croneberger was there, the director 22 of engineering and design.
23 Q Was Mr. Maus usually there?
24 A Frequently if not always.
25 Q And wnat about Mr. Chisholm? Mr. Chisholm? '
1
22966.1 BRT 17
[ l ,A Mr. Chisholm? I don't recall him being there 2 too often. I can think of one meeting that he was at, I 3 think.
f 4 As a matter of fact, no. My memory doesn't recall.
5 Q That's all right. What about Mr. Wilson?
6 A Ho. Not in the early meetings.
7 Q In the later meetings are you talking about 19847 8 A Yes. i I
9 Q Okay. During this 1982-83 time period, was it '
10 reiterated to Tech Functions that they still had a problem 11 with their documentation?
12 A Yes.
13 Q Was it reiterated that they lacked management i
14 direction regarding tne programmati.c approach to the 15 environmental qualification program?
16 A You mean as it affects maintenance and 17 construction -- other divisions?
1 18 Q Rig ht .
19 A Yes.
20 And, Q ,
stated in -- as stated in recommendation l 21 number 1, and in audit finding number l?
22 A Yes. Affirmative.
23 And when the EP-031 was issued, Ray Guimond did review 24 tnat and his comments on the procedure included statements ;
25 like tnat.
I 4
22966.1 18 BRT 1 ,
Q Was he asked to review engineering procedure tJ31?
2 A Yes.
3 Q By whom?
4 A It was either myself or Matt -- Matt Stromberg.
5 Q Was this a result of a request from Tech 6 Functions?
7 A It was a request on our part to Tech Functions 8 that we review it.
9 Q Okay.
19 A And Mr. Guimond, most assuredly, was very 11 instrumental in that. It was his finding.
12 Q Was he more or less the QA auditor who was 13 following the EQ program throughout its existence?
't 14 A All the way througn or at any point in time?
15 0 Well, at what point was he? And during what 16 point in time was he, mignt be easier.
17 A Okay. I don't recall that he was really 18 involved. But he did have a permanent interest in tne EQ 19 program, at least after tne audit.
29 Now, prior to that he was in a different organization 21 and he had functioned on the task force for the !
22 qualification of the Rosemount transmitters. So he did
! 23 have a good background f or perf orming tnat type of
(
24 inspection -- and I used the term "inspection."
25 Q I have two GPU Nuclear memoranda that I got from
22966.1 BRT 19 l 1 Mr,. Guimond. The subject of one is "Engineering Procedure 2 931." It is addressed to Mr. Croneberger. And tne second 3 is "Proposed Corrective Action to Audit 81-92," and it's 4 also to Mr. Croneberger.
5 I understand these were not ever sent. I would like 6 you to take a look at these documents.
7 A Holy mackerel, they weren't?
8 Do you know, I have forgotten who this was written for 9 signature of. We didn't believe that I had organizational 10 stature enough --
11 Q Right now we are talking about the memorandum, 12 the subject of which is "Proposed Corrective Action to
, 13 Audit 81-92" to Mr. Croneberger.
14 A Yes. Affirmative.
15 Q I believe Mr. Guimond said this was in ene 10 August '82 time period?
17 A sounds about right, yes. Yes.
18 Q It lists --
19 A He did write that memo.
20 Q It lists --
- 21 A And I reviewed it.
22 Q Okay. Do you know who else reviewed this in the 23 QA organization?
( 24 A No. '
i 25 Q Wny did it not get sent, do you know? '
i
22966.1 20 BRT 1 A I really don't know. This was discussed with 2 them before we ever sent it, also.
3 Q You mean the open audit items?
4 A What we were going to say in the memo.
5 Q It talks about open audit findings, findings 1,
-t 6 3, 5-A, 6-A, 19, and three subfindings under audit finding 7 11.
8 A Okay. Yes.
9 Q And the second document, addressing engineering le procedure --
11 A 931.
12 Q --
931; do you recall that document?
13 A Yes. This should have been signed. Doesn't 14 even have a signature block now.
15 Yes, I do remember this.
16 Q Did you approve this, both of enese documents?
17 A I did not initial but I did see tnem and, yes, I 18 did concur tnat tney snould be sent.
19 Q Okay. And you don't know if they were or were 20 not sent?
21 A No, I don't.
22 Q Was there any discussion of not sending tnem by 23 anyone that you recall?
(
24 A There was discussion about not sending tnem or 25 revising them.
22$66.1 21 BRT 1 .
Q Do you remember for what reasons?
2 A Whether -- some of the statements, somebody felt, 3 was too strong. Somebody. Somebody. '
4 I don't remember exactly who.
5 Q Someone in the QA program?
6 A Yes. And they thought that perhaps if we stated 7 our comments with more indication of precisely what we 8 wanted them to do, it might be more helpful.
9 Q But, in any event, the contents of both these 19 mcmos were discussed with Tech Functions?
11 A Yes. Yes.
12 Q Whom in Tech Functions?
13 A Croneberger, primarily; and Gerry Maus.
14 Q You were present during these?
15 A At some of them, yes.
16 Q At what time period were they discussed, do you 17 recall?
18 A Pretty much continuously from the time of the 19 audit right up througn.
29 Q Tnrough what time period? i 21 A Oh, boy. Abo ut the time of the memos, whien 22 would have been, I guess, around August or thereabouts, of 23 '82; including our --
(
24 Q What about after 1982, August 19827 25 A Less frequently. We started getting a little lax, 9
22966.1 22 BRT 1 I think, on the follow-up, relying primarily on the 2 corrective action audits to keep tabs on what was 3 happening. And we did raise it at one quality assurance 4 review committee meeting, to make other organizations 5 within QA aware of the situation and what the status was.
6 Q Would that meeting have been in approximately 7 19837 8 A Probably.
9 Q What I nave is another memorandum, interoffice le memorandum, GPUN dated March 2, 1983, and the subject is 11 "Corporate Quality Assurance Review Committee, Second 12 Meeting, February 8, 1983." One of the iteas of 13 discussion is "Environmental Qualification meeting." Is 14 this the memo you were talking about?
15 A Yes. And we had Ray there to make the 16 presentation, because he was the most knowledgeable of the 17 problem", we were encountering.
18 Q This is just an internal QA-type meeting.
9 19 A Yes.
20 Q What was the resolution from this meeting? How 21 was this going to be transmitted to Tech Functions?
22 A We did not have a formal mechanism for 23 transferring this to Tech Functions. If you note on the
(
24 distribution, only tne QA organization gets copies of this.
25 But we did carry it on the -- our open item listing for l
22966.1 23 BRT i
1 the QARC, the quality assurance review committee, which 2 Mr. Kazanas had asked us to investigate and try to come to 3 some conclusions of major quality assurance problems. So 4 we really never came to a very firm conclusion on that, so 5 we carried it as an open item.
6 Q It says February 25, 1983. One of the subjects 7 is "Lack of Indoctrination and Training of Technical 8 Functions Personnel." ,
9 A Right.
l 10 Q Reference finding? ;
11 A That's OTMI, 80-something dash 10.
12 At that point in time we had an open audit finding on '
the documentation of the indoctrination and training of t
13 14 all of the Tech Functions people in these Tech Functions !
15 procedures that they should be working on. The 16 responsibility was each supervisor -- manager, was 17 supposed to identify what his people should be 18 indoctrinated and trained in, we have a form, and as they I 19 read the procedures tney initial it and verify that they i
20 have read it and understood. I 21 Q I notice that is an item for audit 80-10. I 22 A Rig ht . '
23 Q It was also an idea in audit 81-02; is that I
(
24 right?
(
25 A I believe so, i I'
. r i r 1
d 22966.1 24 BRT 1 ,Q It was a recommendation?
2 A Yes. Because we had already covered it in that 3 finding.
4 Q Okay. I notice it says "party, R.F. Wilson."
5 Does that mean --
6 A He's the responsible person to -- he's the 7 responsible director.
8 Q Was that ever completed, to your knowledge?
9 A Yes, that finding has been closed.
10 0 When was tnat closed?
11 A On, boy. I don't remember.
12 0 Was it 1984?
13 A I would think it was '83.
/
~
14 Q And how was that closed?
15 A By verification that tne I&T records were in the 16 training coordinator's files.
17 Q Would that be the site training coordinator?
18 A No, that would be here in Tecn Functions, 19 engineering services.
W 29 In other words, if sne supervisor had a complete I&T 21 d ocum ent , that wasn't good enough. That's fine. And we 22 nave assurance or some indication that your people have 23 been trained, or at least recognized the existence of ,
t 24 these procedures, but tne procedure also required that 25 they be in a central location, which the engineering
22966.1 25 BRT l services group maintains. Tnat had to be there in that
[
2 central location. And we verified the existence of these s 3 IET records where they were supposed to be.
4 Q During the 1983 time period, do you recall 5 specifically advising Tech Functions, either Mr. Maus or <
6 Mr. Croneberger or both, that the files, the documentation 7 in the files was not in accordance with the DOR guidelines 8 or in accordance with the 50.497 9 A Yes. Ray Guimond had been very active on that.
10 I would say he had -- I would believe so.
11 Q Well --
i 12 A I can't quote what was said.
13 Q Okay. During the '83 time period, do you recall i
14 ottending meetings when this was at least indicated? -
15 A on, yes.
16 0 to Mr. Croneberger and Mr. Maus?
17 A Yes.
18 0 What was the response to that?
19 A That they were working on it; that tney would 29 get it in condition. Tney were accumulating information, 21 they were accumulating data. Tney had proposed corrective 22 action. Tney would eventur.lly have it complete.
23 Q I notice, in the April 4, 1984 memorandum
. 24 Mr. Guimond again states essentially the same thing that 25 ne stated in the previous memo regarding outstunding audit '
b
{
2'.),966.1 26 BitT 1 items.
2 A Yes.
3 Q Do you know why it took so long? Well, as far 4 as April 4, 1984, some of these still remain open and some 5 still remain open today?
6 A. Yes. That's correct.
7 Q Do you know why it has taken so long?
8 A ro, I really woaldn't.
9 Q On i;udit finding number 3, if wa look at the le revised response, ir has to do with auditable records.
11 A Yes.
12 Q And down at the bottom there's a little asterisk, 13 it says "original corrective action was accepted in error."
14 A Accepted in error, yen.
15 Q Do you know what that represents or why that was 16 tnere?
17 A Yes. I had accepted that on the same basis that i
18 I had accepted the other. This was questioned.
19 Mr. Kazanas indicated his concurrence, that it should 20 not have been accepted. I listened to tne arguments and I 21 said: Ve r y well , that makes sense.
22 Q Was this based in the 1982 time period when 23 Mr. Guimond reviewed procedure C31?
(
24 A No. Before that.
25 Q Before he reviewed it? '
9 .
22966.1 27 t
BRT
( 1 A Yes. And then it was withdrawn on the basis of 2 the reconsideration.
3 Q Okay.
4 A It was not direction by anybody.
5 Q In other words, you weren't directed to?
6 A That is correct.
7 Q You felt it was the right thing to do?
8 A Well, I didn't feel it was the wrong thing to do.
9 But there was less validity to their proposed corrective 10 action. I tnink sney were basically nanging their nat on 11 931, and it really, probably, wouldn't have been in enere.
12 So, on reflection, there was less possibility that i
13 their proposed corrective action would hold any water.
14 Tnat is correct.
15 I think I was too liberal in my original acceptance.
16 And, regardless, the corrective action wouldn't nave been 17 satisfactory to close the finding out anyway, so, it was 18 just which way ne wanted to handle tne situation.
19 Q Did they come back with a new proposed 20 corrective action?
21 A Eventually, yes.
d 22 Q When you say eventually --
23 A Oh, I don't remember exactly wnen.
I 24 0 I notice it's closed out in June 19847 l
25 A '84. Tney issued tne procedure on records.
j a
4
r l
22966.1 28 BRT l
( l .
Q You closed that out?
2 A Yes. On the basis that the procedure that tells 3 them how rec,rds are going to be maintained was issued.
4 Q That's a corporate procedure binding on all 5 parties; is that correct?
6 A Tnat is -- tnat's a corporate procedure, yes. '
7 Q So that would be binding on all of the dif f erent 8 divisions that were mentioned?
9 A Yes. They have to prepare their own procedures le that would live up to tnis.
11 Q Do you feel that the audit findings in audit 12 81-02 were handled in a responsible manner by Tech 13 Functions?
4 14 A I don't think so, no.
- 15 0 Where was the stumbling block? wnat were tne 16 problems? !
17 A Well, to some degree there was, I believe, a 18 communication mismaten. We were trying to snow these as 1
19 examples that give us tne symptoms of a lack of program, 29 lack of program definition, lack of assignment of 21 responsibilities; and our perceptions -- it was only a 22 guess, we really couldn't say this -- lack of direction, 23 meaningful direction tnat everybody had to follow to come
' l (
24 up with a complete program. ;
25 And my personal perception was tnat many of these were n .--
22966.1 29 BRT j 1 taken as the problem as opposed to the symptom. We'll 2 correct that and we are in fine shape.
3 Possibly, we didn't phrase our verbiage sufficiently to 4 temphasize the core problem as opposed to the symptoms. I 5 really don't believe that but I think it can be construed.
6 Q Was there any action on the part of management 7 to quash or to stifle what, for instance, Mr. Guimond was 8 trying to address in his review of the Tech Functions 9 program, to your knowledge?
10 A I don't believe that "quash" is an appropriate 11 term.
12 Q Whatever. What term would you use?
13 A There was discussions as to the phraseology that i
14 would be used to try to assure that Tech Functions 15 understands that we have a program problem. This is an 16 audit, not an inspection.
17 Q But what I'm saying is, was there any -- did you 18 perceive any attempt by management, either in Tech 19 Functions management or QA management, or other management, 20 to ignore or to make go away, in any manner, the problems 21 or the considerations or tne concerns tnat --
22 A Are you addressing management precsure?
23 O Tnat's right.
I 24 A Okay. ho.
25 Now, where there was a disagreement as to whether tne
22966.1 30 BRT
( 1 proposed corrective action was acceptable, rather t h t.n 2 pressure Mr. Guimond into accepting the answer, I ticcepted 3 the answer.
4 Q That's what I'm saying.
5 A Yes.
6 Q But that's a proposed corrective action?
7 A Affirmative.
8 Q You have explained that and I understand that.
9 But I'm talking about the concerns as a whole as they were le being identified. These concerns were being brought to 11 lignt for over a couple of year time period.
12 A Oh, yes. Yes.
13 Q Did you perceive any management pr essure or any 14 management action in order to, you know, make these 15 concerns go away? Not resolve them. That's what I was 16 talking about.
17 A No.
18 Q That's what I was trying to get at.
19 A I didn't perceive them.
20 Q Did anybody else perceive them? Did anybody 21 else indicate to you that that was going on?
22 A Not that I'm aware of. If they did, it was so 23 subtle or I'm so stupid --
k 24 Tnat you missed it.
Q 25 A No. I couldn't identify that, no.
e
22966.1 31 BRT l 1 ,Q Did anyone in the environmental qualification 2 program indicate to you thec they needed help, resources 3 in the area of environmental qualification?
4 A No. We offered to help them.
5 Q And who was that, in particular?
6 A Gerry Maus and Don Croneberger.
7 O And what was their response?
8 A When we need it we'll accept your help.
9 Q And who was that? Both Mr. Maus and 10 Mr. Croneberger?
11 A Primarily Mr. Croneberger.
12 Q Do you recall attending a meeting where 13 M. Chisholm mentioned the subject of getting contract i,
14 help in the area of the EQ program?
15 A I don' t believe I was at that meeting.
16 Q Do you know the meeting I'm talking about?
17 A No.
18 Q Did you attend a meeting on the subject of 19 environmental qualification with Mr. Long?
20 A Dr. Long?
21 Q Yes. Dr. Long and Mr. Kazanas?
22 A I do not remember that meeting.
23 MR. MATAK AS : Let's take a couple of minutes
(
24 break.
25 (Discussion off the record.)
-- - - . - - . --w
22966.1 32 CRT 1 BY MR. MATAKAS:
2 O Wnat I would like to show you is two GPUN letters, 3 one dated May 20, 1983, 5211-03-153; the second is dated 4 February 10, 1984, letter number 5211-84-2038. Tnese are 5 from Mr. Hukill, and -- Mr. Hukill, to NRR.
6 I would like you to look over these letters and ask you 7 if you nave ever seen them before.
8 A I think I've seen tnis letter.
9 0 You are talking about the May 20th --
10 A Tne May '83 letter. I just noticed that it nad 11 been issued. I didn't do anytning about it.
12 0 No review on it at all before it was issued?
13 A No.
14 Q How about the February letter?
15 A Okay. On, these letters from Hukill, I rarely --
16 rarely? I nave never reviewed one prior to nis sending it 17 out that I am aware of.
18 About the only letters tnat ne would send out would be --
19 that I had anytning to do with -- would be the response to 20 IE Bulletins that affect tne program. I'll give you an 21 e x ample , there was an IE Bulletins regarding the NUREG 22 guide 1.144, which incorporar.es the ASME-3 requirements in 23 the audit program, and I indicated that our program
(
24 already covers it. We don't have to enange our comestment.
25 That's the t y pe o f --
" 22966.1 33 BRT
[ 1 .
Q It would be sent to you for review? Actually 2 sent to you before it went out?
3 A No. I just input it to licensing.
4 Q Okay. ,
5 A Holy rackerel, I do not remember this.
6 Q Okay. Essentially what I'm getting at, the 7 earlier letter, the May letter states, in effect, tnat the 8 EQ program is in compliance with DOR guidelines. And then 9 the later letter, February 10, '84, states that: " TM I is 10 currently in compliance with EQ rule 10 CFR 50.49, 11 applicable to TMI-1."
12 A Okay.
13 Q As you probably know, both the DOR guidelines 14 and 50.49 state that you must have auditable records and 15 documentation to support the qualification.
16 A Yes. Yes.
17 Q Based on your knowledge and your reviews and 18 audits and inspections of the EQ program, are those 19 statements valid?
20 A I don't know. According to our audit, when we 21 performed the audit, they weren't. But that was in 1981.
22 '83 and '84 --
23 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
i' 24 0 I thought you had mentioned previously about a 25 meeting with Croneberger and Maus in '83 --
1 I
. i
~
22966.1 34 BRT I
/ 1 A Yes. !
l 2 Q -- and the -- discussing what kind of 3 documentation they were putting together?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q That would have been af ter the May 20, 1983 6 letter?
7 A I don' t know.
8 BY MR. MATAKAS:
9 0 Wasn't that meeting, again, a review of the 10 files to get ready for an NRC inspection?
11 A Not the meeting that I Ottended, no.
12 O I'm talking about the review in 1983. Review of 13 the file --
14 A The review in '83 that I attended was on the 15 audit findings and wnat they nad to do, which included our 16 symptoms, that tells us that the files were not complete.
17 Q And you don't know wnat time period that was in '837 18 A I couldn't quote it, no.
19 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
20 Q But, based on the meeting you nad, at whatever 21 time during '83 it occurred --
22 A My feeling is that this wasn't accurate. I 23 would -- my personal opinion is tnat it wasn't accurate.
( 24 BY MR. MATAKAS:
25 0 Rave you conducted audits, personally conducteo
22966.1 35 BRT 1 audits or inspections in 1984 on the EQ program?
2 A On the internal EQ program?
r 3 Q Yes.
4 A No, I have not.
5 Q Okay. Based on outstanding audit findings that 6 were noted by Mr. Guimond in the April 4, 1984 --
7 A Okay. That was at the site.
8 Q Remember. The document we looked at, April 4, 9 1984, where he listed open audit findings 1, 3, 5-A, --
10 A Okay. The letter.
11 Q 1, 3, 5-A, 6-A --
12 A Yes.
13 0 -- based on tnat, could it have been possible to I
14 make these s t a teinen t s ?
15 A You are talking April of '84?
16 Q Right. Wnien was subsequent to either of these.
17 A Yes.
18 MR. MATAKAS: Let's take a couple of minute 19 break.
20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 BY MR. MATAKAS:
22 Q Go ahead and answer tnat, please.
23 A I don't know the answer to that because I can 4
24 only tell you wnen we looked and wnen we verified wnat we 25 saw. It's possible that it was don'e before we looked --
~ 22966.1 36 BRT it had to be done before we looked at it.
e
/ 1 But I don't
{
2 know how much before. And the only documentation I got l i
3 was when our QA engineer did verify that the component had 4 been changed and that the component that is in there now 5 does have adequate backup documentation.
6 Q What we'd have to do is look at the backup 7 documentation package and see when it's dated?
8 A Yes. And that was the basis of my closing out 9 tnat finding.
10 Q okay. And that will be documented.
11 Tnat will be documented in your audit, the March audit.
12 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
13 Q Are you aware of any audit that took place where 14 QA and Tecn Functions people looked at the files somewhere 15 in '83?
16 A Where Tech Functions personnel supported the 17 audit?
. 18 Q It sounded like a combined Tecn Functions /QA 19 '
look at the file, sometime during 83.
20 BY MR. MATAKAS:
21 Q A file review or sometning to that effect, not 22 an official audit.
23 I believe Mr. Guimond wrote sometning on it in May,
(
24 finally wrote something on it in May 1984.
25 A As a formal review?
22966.1 37 BRT
( l
~
Q Yes. As a formal review.
i.
2 A Oh. I'm unaware of any formal review.
3 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
4 Q Are you aware of any informal?
5 A Yes. Ray had been going into the files with 6 Gerry, pointing out his comments, looking over those with 7 him.
8 Q Did Ray indicate to you that the file still 9 didn't look good? Or did he talk to you at all about --
10 A Not really.
11 BY MR. MATAKAS:
12 Q In fact, what I have here is a GPUN memorandum 13 dated May 16, 198 4 f rora Mr. Guimond to Mr . Chisholm ,
14 recommending an assessment of tne environmental 15 qualification files during December 27, 1983 to February 1, 16 '84.
17 A Okay.
18 Q Were you aware of that?
l 19 A I knew they were doing that assessment, yes.
20 Q You weren't involved in any of that?
21 A No. That was not an audit.
22 Q Were you at any meetings where this assessment 23 was discus ea7 24 A Somenow or another, I believe I had to be. I 25 don't recall that I did, no.
22966.1 BRT 38 1 MR. MA TAKAS : Let's go off the record for a 2 second.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
4 BY MR. MATAKAS:
5 Q Did you review the December 10, 1982 TER 6 deficiencies that were noted by the Franklin Research 7 Center?
8 A No.
9 0 Were you aware tnat tney did such a review?
10 A Yes. Just from conversations with Ray. I 11 believe he was aware of it.
12 MR. MATAKAS: Bob, is there anything else that 13 you would like to ask?
f 14 BY MR. MATAKAS:
15 Q Do you think the environmental qualification 16 program nas turned around?
17 A Yes.
18 Q Hnat do you base that on?
19 A Well, first off I believe that they nave really 20 done an intelligent --
well, I shouldn't say intelligent.
21 That's a judgment.
22 I tnink enat tne formation of the EQ section that has 23 sole responsibility for EQ was a meaningful step and that 24 assigning these individuals tnat responsibility and no 25 other responsibilities gives tnem the flexibility and the
22966.1 39 BRT I
e 1 time to apply themselves to getting this program into the i k.'
2 logical order and workable configuration.
1 3 MR. MATAKAS: Do you have any other questions, 4 Bob?
5 MR. LA GRANGE: Yes.
6 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
7 Q I understand that QA nited a consultant sometime 8 in '84, to assist?
9 A That was quality assurance, that was design and 10 procurement -- quality assurance.
11 0 Were you involved in discussions with that 12 consultant at all? Do you know what he found when he was 13 brougnt in?
14 A The orely discussions I had witn him was he came 15 and asked me about access to my audit files. And I 16 pointed to nim, and said: Tney are yours. Just sign them 17 out.
18 Q He never discussed with you his findings?
19 A We discussed one item only, and that was the 20 validity of tne audit that I performed at B&W regarding 21 the backup documentation tnat supported the summary report 22 enat was issued by B&W for the owners' group.
23 Q So be did not relay to you any of his findings?
(
24 A No. Nor did I question him about them.
25 BY MR. MATAKAS:
' 22966.1 '
40 BRT
[ l Q Sir, is there anything t.n a t you would like to 2 state? Or any statements you would like to anake or 3 anything you would like to ask?
4 A I can't think of anything.
5 Q Have you appeared here today voluntarily?
6 A Yes.
7 0 Have any promises been made?
8 A None.
9 Q Have any threats been made?
10 A None.
11 MR. MATAKAS: The time is 12:07. Tnis will 12 conclude the interview.
13 (Wnereupon, at 12:07 p.m., the interview was 14 concluded.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 e
24 25
r CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING: INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF:
t PHILIP B. MAGITZ DOCKET NO.:
PLACE: PARSIPPANY, NEW JERSEY
[ '
DATE: Thursday, $ay 2, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
,Qf} y ~.
(stqt)' Mll 4k (TYPED) '.
A' Joel Breitner Official Reporter RhorkehiukfhS$$ak$of1' s