ML20147E655
| ML20147E655 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/02/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342B416 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-696 NUDOCS 8801210190 | |
| Download: ML20147E655 (48) | |
Text
-
ORIGINAL.
i UMIED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.e
- -~----. -
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF BRUCE A. BADER Infamiin in tMde;crd wis ddSd
. u r g,u; a.m.r C, h g.-.g.-utn lp. t.r.u :ca
(
inetw u
%ht, tre?$#Mp9m M / C
'FOIA 9 7 % I fd T g
~
^
LOCATION: PARSIPPANY,~NEW JERSEY...,
P. AG.ES: 1
.45
...~.,4
- -. ~<
... g #.
.,3 N*".. h
...xN,h.. '..k; EfN.M*, s.gi E 9Nfi.-
-m
.... r
-2 O
.,D, b f
. '.7... *.$ ri,i/[
,....' 3',;,j_. m p.y;.-<gj.7,-? p p p'. y W" g ;. y..i.-< ;
,;. i
,. ;g.-
0 wi;q.,.:-.. :
. c<gfr M%% xs.m
- ? -
J ' '$,..'.~.ID ATE: n'.. THURSDAY, :MAY. 2 ^:*19 8.5 CM*,g%
[... p-XT w..w.
n... s. w -
w
'.:.. y*W.-: -f' ~..h;.
,b
'l
' i'
.[g p.
c.
.y
.'. i' 4 3.s.i ML,,:_~w/u 'm th..
- .v, n,.Th-b.
7 om
... m.)%,, ;* Lf 7. 4... '.z..;3p;;:g, pQ",.... s
? w.. k 4 ~. ':w-c -,L....
r.:
. *v 'sj.g.
'c-
- a..q p
- .:... ' '.... -
.:,.~.ph. 4,,.
y y,
_. v.;.kg, _,.;:-
p.
.ns 4
'*k..,dh,'<. r g ykk,.%,"..,
~
... -[.[w....._... ;c.,. c.
.i,N b
J
.'i-i.
.. ~!.
.d....
.2.-
- :. u.,. g.c,,%g..a.
+. g,.s 4,y... z
.-..-w
- u. n.
....n 4
+;'.c.l jQ,.
..a
~ ~.
'.b;
' ~.* i;; m,,, %.;*,, 5.r7 ; n.s'r e
4 Wy
,,, c i:
7,.;.w.
- y
=
2-
..,4:.;.... -
C ~;; ~
.h' p n.. ~
,g
... ~ ~. *, ',
h.h h
-,.y..'5'.9 *[..y 1
- c. -Q...':'.ir.~.
~ arw w;.~.$.'. v'.',-
.., p.i ~-.:.:
-.c,,.,T.i..' A
~
- .'.a<,n ;2;n..
c.:~
C: '. ?.* lw,.4 Wn r,.,... z
~
. n. ?r r, m._
s
- M,ti.2($$ (('.$I STY.,
E.
~_
~M,t'LM W'58$ $ $.?s M.
W.
t; a ~~ :
J-l l
~;i cg9'J:pM-cm,ha se d 'M;M N t e :<e w w M.
Y gri j
- r.
- 'o'hti.%
- .'.
~Q
- %.y,
g'g.E. 'e:
- Wg gg m.3(gg.tf J~*d d..f M~.',c..-J,@%. " ?
, i '.
8801210190 000106 M.'
a~-
h i
--[' v:n i
'. 'T iaA g
WE8SSB7-696 PDR
~y
.A
.. - N b ', g / ~ ' f.
/
t' r - = m 7 k w..
.W:i..WTONWdfCOVIIM2.' '& ' -
,~
'CR22966.0 1
'BRT/dnw 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION 4
GPUN Headquarters 5
100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 6
Thursday, May 2, 1985 7
8 The Investigative Interview convened at 9: 02 a.m.,
9 Richard A.
Matakas, presiding.
10 PRESENT:
II BRUCE A.
BADER, Interviewee I2 RICRARD A. MATAKAS, Investigator Region I 13 /
Nuclear Regulatory Commission King of Prussia, Pennsylvania ROBERT G.
LA GRANGE 15 Section Leader EQ Branch 16 l Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation i
17 18 l.
19 20 I 21 23 24
.4
, m pom. inc. y 25 I
r
2296600 2
BRT 1
PROCEEDI NGS 2
MR. MATAKAS:
The date is May 2, 1985, and the 3
time is 9: 52.
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. Bruce A. Bader, corporate QA program development and 7
audit manager.
8 The purpose of this interview is to discuss facts and 9
circumstances leading to GPUN's submittals to the NRC, 19 involving the environmental qualification of electrical 11 equipment at TMI Unit 1.
12 Mr. Bader, do you have any objection to providing this 13 information under oath?
14 THE WITNESS:
No.
15 Whereupon, 16 BRUCE A.
BADER 17 was called as a witness and, *aving been first duly sworn, 18 was examined and testified as follows:
19 EXAMINATION 29 BY MR. MATAKAS:
4 21 Q
Mr. Bader, for the record would you give us your 22 full name, business address and extension that we can 23 reach you at, please?
24 A
Bruce A. Bader; business address is Cherry Hill 25 building 2.
Is that good enough?
i
22966.9 3
BRT
)
l
,Q That's fine.
2 A
And the phone number is area code 291-299-2247.
3 Q
Would you give us a general overview of your 4
education and work history?
5 A
I have a degree in mechanical engineering from 6
Lafayette College.
I wor ked f or Ne wpor t News Shipbuilding 7
and Dry Dock Company as a test and startup engineer for a 8
year.
In 1973 I came to GPU Nuclear, started off as a QA 9
engineer and worked my way up to a QA program development 19 and audit manager.
11 0
During the 1981 through 1984 time periods, what 12 was your position?
13 A
In 1989 I --
14 Q
1981 to --
15 A
Yes.
1981, I started off the year as the QA 16 progran development manager.
I had been transferred from 17 Jersey Central over to GPU Nuclear.
18 Q
Okay.
19 A
At, it was either the end of 1981 or the 20 beginning of -- I don't remember the exact date -- I was l
l 21 given the audit program, also.
So treen I was responsible 22 for both QA program development and auditing within GPU I
23 Nuclear.
24 Q
Mr. Bader, are you familiar with QA audit 81-927 25 A
Yes.
22966.0 4
BRT 1
Q Rather than identify it any further, is this 2
what you know as QA audit 81-927 3
A Yes.
4 Q
I asked for the response, Tech Functions' 5
respoase to that audit was it couldn't be found.
But wh a t 6
I do have is a QA response to the Tech Functions response, 7
which is dated -- the cover memorandum is dated June 25, 8
1981, and the letter number is QA 4186.
9 Do you recognize that as the QA response?
10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Tne next doc umen t I would like to -- I'll 12 introduce four of them because we'll be talking about four 13 documents -- is Tech Functions' revised response.
It is 14 dated August 21, 1981.
The letter number is EP&I, 81/fl?6.
15 Do you recognize that as Tech Functions' revised 16 response?
I' 17 A
Yes.
18 Q
The last doc ument we'll be talking about right 19 now is GPUN memorandum dated April 4, 1984.
It is f rom 29 Mr. Guinond to Mr. Stromberg and it is referenced "open 21 audit findings for audit 81-92."
Do you recognize that 22 document?
23 A
Yes.
l 24 Q
Does Mr. Stromberg wor k for Mr. Katanas?
25 A
Yes.
I
22966.9 5
BRT I
1 Q
Then who is your immediate supervisor?
2 A
Well, at the time my immediate supervisor was 3
Mr. Stromberg.
4 Q
Who is it now?
5 A
Ray Mar kowski, who has replaced Mr. Stromberg.
6 Q
Mr. Stromberg is now retired?
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
What is your knowledge of how and why audit 9
81-92 was requested and how it was conducted?
19 A
I wasn't around at the time it was performed but 11 what I have read is that Mr. Wilson requested QA go in and 12 audit the files.
13 Q
And the OA team leader is Mr. Guimond?
14 A
Rig h t.
15 Q
What is QA's responsibility to correct 16 deficiencies?
I notice that on 81-92 there are 11 17 deficiencies.
Is there a procedure?
18 A
At the time this was written, the only procedure 19 we had for auditing was the QA procedure.
29 Q
What is that number?
21 A
At the time the number was 7-18-91, I believe.
22 Q
And, does that procedure address how the 23 auditing -- or the audited organization must correct the 24 f ind ing s?
25 A
It talked about the full audit process, from
2296609 6
BRT 1
what QA was supposed to do, to the fact that people were 2
supposed to respond.
3 Q
Are they bound by that proced ur e?
4 A
That was one of the problems with the procedure 5
at the time.
I don't know that it really was binding upon 6
people outside of the QA department.
7 We determined that we needed to have another procedure 8
and we wrote one that was called a response to audit 9
findings, that came out as a corporate procedure.
I can't 10 remember the exact date.
It was probably late '82 or '83, 11 and that one addressed what the person that was audited 12 had to do.
It came out as a corporate level procedure,
13 signed into by all the VPs.
14 The number of that one vauld have been 1999-ADM-12 --
15 12 -- I'm sorry, 7218.91.
16 Q
Could we get copies of both these procedures 17 sometime during the day before we leave today?
18 A
Yes.
This one is an older one.
I don't know --
19 I assume we'll be able to find that.
29 Q
Okay.
And regarding the older procedure, 7-18-91, 21 what were the responsibilities of both QA and, in this 22 case, Tech Functions, to correct those deficiencies and to 23 follow up those deficiencies regarding QA?
24 A
Well, QA's responsibility was in the procedure --
25 was to perform tne audit and to follow up with the
1 i
l 22966.0 7
BRT I
1 responses the other person made.
I can't remember whether 2
it went into detail, what the auditee's responsibilities 3
were to close out audit findings.
I'd have to ',. back to 4
the procedure to verify what it was.
5 Q
What was QA's responsibility to track it?
6 A
We were responsible for assuring that some 7
corrective action had been taken at some time.
8 Q
Was thers -- were there time limits?
9 A
Not in the procedure.
Tne only time limits are 19 when the audit reperc had to be issued and when the 11 initial response had to be back.
After that there was no 12 requirement for when the thing had to be closed out.
In 13 fact, there are findings that have been open, you know, 14 quite a long time because corrective action has taken a 15 while in some cases.
16 Q
Why are recommendations made in an audit report?
17 Recommendations --
18 A
Certain things that aren't requirements and we 19 feel that the program could be enhanced by performing 29 whatever it is we recommend.
Because it is not a 21 requirement, we give it to the person so they can do what 22 they want with it.
23 Q
On this par ticular audit, 81-82, did you
(
24 personally have a review function?
25 A
I had notbing to do with it.
l y
-y-
-,e-
22966.8 BRT 8
1 Q
Did you subsequently discuss it with Mr. Guimond ?
2 A
I discussed it with him after a great deal of 3
time had gone by; sometime in '82, I believe.
4 Q
And what did that discussion entail?
What did 5
he inform you?
6 A
I think r.e 9as concerned about closing out the 7
audit findings and the f act that things were not being 8
done as well or as quickly as he would have wanted them to 9
be done.
10 Q
In 1981 and 1982, how did Mr. Magitz fit into 11 the organization?
Did you work for him or did be work for 12 you?
13 A
In 1981 Magitz was my counterpart over there.
14 He was responsible for corporate auditing and I was 15 responsible for program development.
I believe at was 16 November of 1981, we reorganized and auditing came under 17 me, so Magitz and nis group reported to me.
18 Q
okay.
19 A
I think Guimond tz tnat time reported to Magitz 29 and then he ended up reporting to me.
21 Q
I notice in the revised Tech Functions response, 22 dated August 1981, Mr. Magitt signed for the proposed 23 corrective actions.
Why was that, do you know?
9 24 A
I really don't have any idea.
25 Q
Was it ever brought to your attention?
t e
s
22966.0 BRT 9
1 A
Ray Guimond pointed out I don't remember what 2
the date was, but he did point out that Magitz accepted 3
things that it sounded like he wouldn't have accepted.
4 Q
Sounded like Mr. Guimond would not --
5 A
Sounded like Guinond would not have accepted.
I 6
don't know if I was responsible for auditing at the time.
7 I guess I was.
8 Yes, I believe what we did was we -- well, I'm trying 9
to think if the findings had been closed or not.
If they 19 were closed I think we reopened them.
I don't remember if 11 they had actually been closed out or just accepted by 12 Mr. Guimond.
13 Q
Tne proposed corrective action?
14 A
Right.
15 Q
Why don't we just look.
Let's go off the record 16 for a couple of minutes.
17 (Discussion off the record.)
18 BY MR. KATAKAS:
19 Q
We have reviewed the revised Tech Functions 29 response dated August 21, 1981; or at least the cover memo 21 is dated August 21, 1981.
And, in effect, it shows that 2^
Mr. Magitz had accepted the proposed corrective action, 23 sometime in --
5 24 A
8/25/81.
25 Q
8/25/81, right, he signed most of enem.
Did i
l l
2296609 19 BRT 1
you discuss this fact with Mr. Magitz, at any time?
2 A
I really can't recall.
I know I have talked to l
3 him before about accepting findings that I myself would 4
not have accepted or closed out, but I don't remember if 5
we talked about this one in particular.
6 Q
When Mr. Guimond brought this to your attention --
7 I believe you said in 1981, sometime?
8 A
I know we discussed it at one point but I don't 9
remember if it had been resolved and the findings, you 19 know, had been discussed or what.
I really don't recall 11 the details.
12 Q
You mentioned something about he said -- some of 13 the findings reopened?
Or this is only accepted proposed 14 corrective action?
i 15 A
I didn't know if they had been closed and if r
16 they had been closed out then we reopened them, but since 17 they weren't closed out we just went back and discussed 18 what it was we needed for corrective action.
19 Q
Okay.
Would it be f air to say that this audit, 29 81-92, that the findings were critical of the EQ-filed 21 documentation for the individual components?
22 A
Yes, it would be f air to state that.
23 Q
Would it also be fair to say that the audit 24 findings and recommendations were critical of management i
25 direction in the audit?
Specifically, audit finding l
22966.0 BRT 11 4
1 number 1, and recommendation number 1 and 37 f
2 A
You are talking about the fact that the auditor 3
felt there wasn't a clearly defined program?
4 Q
Right.
5 A
Yes, I would agree with that.
6 Q
Do you know why audit finding number 1, which 7
addressed management direction, was not responded to in 8
the initial response?
9 A
I have no idea.
le Q
Have you ever talked to anyone about that?
11 A
No.
12 Q
Had anybody ever brought that to your attention?
13 A
No.
I guess, as you said, I don't know where a
14 the original response ever was.
I noted, when going 15 through the files, that I didn't see it either.
16 Q
But the revised response only addresses 2 17 through 11 -- not the revised, I'm sorry, the QA response.
18 QA response to the initial Tech Functions responses only 19 addresses 2 through 117 28 A
I never noticed that.
21 Q
The April 4th memorandum from Mr Guimond to 22 Mr. Stromberg addresses open items that remain in audit 23 81-92.
i 1
'\\
24 A
Yes.
25 0
Did you have any input into enat or did you talt
22966.8 BRT 12 1
to Mr. Guimond about that particular memo?
2 A
Well, Ray pointed out to me that he had written 3
a memo in 1982, August of
'82, and I had forgotten about 4
it.
When he pointed it out to me I resembered that we had 5
had some meetings around that time with Tech Functions, 6
trying to get them to close out these audit findings.
And 7
we had asked him to write what he felt was outstanding on 8
all the open audit findings.
9 Q
In August of '827 10 A
Yes.
11 Q
Did you see snat memo?
12 A
I saw the memo and the only reason I think of 13 the August date is that he said that was the date it was
,14 written.
I have no idea when it was, other than his --
15 Q
Did you notice at tne top of tne documents he 16 showed you it had 8/82 on it?
17 A
Yes.
Tnat's the only reason I know it was 18 August.
19 Q
on the most -- were they addressed to 29 Mr. Croneberger?
Did he show you more than one?
21 A
Two.
One addressing EP-31 and the other 22 addressing the open audit findings.
23 Q
Are these the two documents we are talking about, 24 copies of them?
4 25 A
Yes.
22966.9 BRT 13 1
Q What's your knowledge of these two documents?
2 The first document, addressing engineering procedures 931, 3
is to Mr. Croneberger and the subject is "Engineering 4
Procedure 931."
And it says:
"Per our agreement I am 5
forwarding to you our commitments on engineering procedure 6
for your disposition and corrective action."
7 And, under "General Comments" on page 2 it says:
'The 8
procedure does not address nor reference all of the 9
implementing procedures needed to assure that all of the 19 requirements of the bulletin is being met."
Then it goes 11 on.
12 What was your knowledge of this particular memo?
wny 13 was it written?
14 A
We had a meeting with Don Croneberger.
I 15 believe it was Mr. Magit z, Mr. Stromberg and myself went 16 down and talked to him.
We were trying to get n1m to 17 address the audit findings.
18 In our meeting we discussed the fact that proced ur e 19 EP-31 didn't address everything that needed to be 29 addressed in an EQ program.
And he said:
Well, why don't 21 you tell ne where you feel it is deficient.
And we said 22 okay, we'd get that bac k to him.
And we did.
23 Q
Did this ever go to Mr. Croneberger?
1 24 A
I can't tell you that.
I don't recall.
25 Q
Was it
22966.9 14 BRT 1
A I really dor't remember if it was ever given to 2
him or not.
I guess, according to Ray, it was never 3
formally issued.
I know we couldn't find a copy in the 4
file.
5 Q
According to Mr. Guimond, it was given to you, 6
thoug h?
7 A
Yes.
That's what he said.
I guess I don't 8
remember that.
9 Q
Okay.
The second memo here addresses -- it's le very similar to the April 4th memo.
11 A
Right.
12 0
April 4, 1984 memo.
It addresses what 13 Mr. Guimond feels are the same open audit findings.
Do 14 you recall this memo?
15 A
Yes.
16 0
What is your knowledge of this memo?
17 A
This one, we wrote down what we felt were the 18 deficient items in the audit findings and, again, I guess 19 that one was never issued until April 4,1984.
29 Q
Do you know why?
21 A
We had a lot of meetings to discuss where we 22 stood with the open audit findings and the EQ program.
23 And, in those meetings we discussed these things.
I don't t
24 know that we ever escalated them to Mr. Croneberger.
I 25
- hink we har,'
let me get the dates right.
22966.0 15 BRT 1
,If these were written in August of ' 82, as Ray's note 2
says, I know we discussed them in a QA corporate review 3
committee for escalation.
At the time we had had -- we 4
formed a corporate QA review committee and they were 5
supposed to review long outstanding problems and recommend
'6 escalation.
7 Q
Who was on that review committee?
8 I'd have to go back into the review committee 9
notes at the time.
le Q
Is there official notes of a meeting on these 11 open audit findings?
12 A
Yes.
I probably have a copy ir. my file I can 13 find for you.
14 Q
Are you in this building?
15 A
No.
I probably have it in my briefcase here.
16 MR. MATAKAS:
Why don't we just take a couple of 17 minutes' br(tk.
18 (Discussion off the record.)
19 BY MR. KATAKAS:
29 Q
Mr. Bader, you stated that back in the 1982 time 21 period you had what was a review committee.
22 A
Right.
23 Q
Tnat would address open audit findings that were 24 of a --
25 A
Long outstanding problems, not specifically
2296600 16 BRT 1
audit findings but any problems that we had.
2 Q
Okay.
I notice that you have a memorandum dated 3
March 2, 1984, of a meeting that took place concerning 4
this committee.
5 Would you explain what this meeting was all about?
6 A
Well, the corporate QA review committee was a 7
committee set up to review long outstanding problems, 8
evaluate the problems, and make recommendations to the 9
director of quality assurance as to whetner these problems le needed to be escalated or not.
11 And we had a meeting on February 18, 1983.
I was not a 12 member of the corporate QA review committee at the time.
13 I'was in there because Ray Guimond was trying to get 1
14 escalated a couple of environmental qualification problems 15 tnat ne felt needed to be escala ted.
16 During the meeting I know discussion was held on 17 problems with the environmental qualification program and 18 we determined, or the review committee determined that the 19 problems tnat Ray nad pointed out may not have been as 29 significant as he felt they were.
And, thus, the 21 committee -- my recollection was the committee determined 22 that we didn't need to escalate all the problems that he I
23 nad.
I 24 I nave gone back and reviewed this and it said 25 apparently there were a few problems that we felt needed
)
i
22966.0 17 BRT i
1 to,be addressed.
2 Q
What were those problems?
3 A
The lack of a complete file of auditable records.
4 lt said it should be escalated to the director of QA.
And 5
that all programs that have responsibilities in the 6
environmental qualification program do not have procedures 7
that clearly define these responsibilities and the 8
examples that he pointed out included preventative 9
maintenance and replacement, control of installation of 19 unqualified items, and updating maintenance schedules 11 based on experience.
12 Q
Those would be audit findings 1 and 2; is that 13 correct?
Programmatic audit findings?
One, of management 14 direction and two, of documentation?
15 A
Well, it says here that the problem that Ray 16 pointed out was that there was no central file for the EQ 17 files, and that was the one on the lack of an auditable 18 file.
19 Tne other item, there's no evidence that equipment 20 procured for modifications were commercial grade, and does 21 not appear to be submitted in accordance with the EQ test 22 report.
And according to the report here, tht meeting 23 minutes, it was finding number 3 and not finding number 1.
i 24 Q
Okay.
And this goes to Mr. Kazanas?
25 A
Right.
2296600 BRT 18 1
Q Were these conc?rns ever given to Tech Functions?
2 A
I know I hand-carried a copy of this memo down 3
and gave it to Tech Functions.
4 Q
Are you talking about the April 4, 1984 memo?
5 A
Yes.
6 Q
Yes.
But I'm talking about prior to -- in the 7
'82-83 time period?
8 A
Well, this was done in
'83.
9 Q
March --
le A
Right.
The meeting was in February of '83.
And 11 I know that we discussed in this meeting, and subsequently, 12 what we were going to do with the findings, you know?
- And, 4
13 obviously, we discussed it in the meeting.
14 Q
But there's no one from Tech Functions that 15 attended this meeting?
16 A
No.
The QA review committee is just QA people 17 that discuss these things.
18 Q
All right.
19 A
I don't know if we ever went down and talked to 29 Tech Functions.
I know things did happen Af ter that.
I 21 know precedure EP-931 was revised, so obviously we must 22 have gotten some communications to them but I don't have 23 any meeting minutes or any memos that we gave to them, i
24 Q
Do you recall, during the '82-83 time period, 25 attending any meetings between QA and Tecn Functions
22966.9 19 BRT 1
regarding the audit findings?
2 A
I know in '82 I sat down with Mr. Croneberger, 3
as I said, and what came out of it was taese menos.
And I 4
believe what happened was, when we went to send these 5
memos, we determined af ter talking to Nick Kazanas. we 6
ought to evaluate it in the review committee and see if 7
they needed to be sent.
And wnat the review committee 8
came out with was that we had some problems but as to what 9
came out, whetner things were actually sent after tnat, I le really don't remember.
11 Q
Was tnere any problem on who s:ould sign these 12 two particular memos that Mr. Guimond wrote in 1982?
13 A
Ray told me that there was.
I really didn't 14 recall who -- wnat the problem was.
I guess I remember 15 some discussion on who should sign them, wnetner it snould 16 be me, Matakas Stromberg, or Nick Kazanas.
17 Q
So Mr. Stromberg and Mr. Kazanas had seen these 18 menos?
19 A
I believe tney had.
I really -- you'd have to 29 ask them.
21 Q
Well, you know, tne memos went to you.
If they 22 went to Mr. Kazanas and Mr. Stromberg they would have went 23 tnrougn you and that's why I an asking you.
i 24 A
I don't know that they would have gone only to 25 me.
I think they may have gone to all t:ree of us but I
22966.0 i
79 l
-BRT I
1 don't reca13. the details.
2 Q
Why do you say they may have gone to all three 3
of you?
4 A
At the time a lot of people were involved in --
5 at the time people were involved with closing out audit 6
findings.
EQ was an area that we were trying to resolve 7
problems in.
And I know I was involved at some time; 8
Mr. Stromberg was involved at,see time.
9 Q
You said you met uith Mr. Stromberg regarding le engineering procedure 9317 11 A
I met with Mr. Croneberger.
12 Q
Mr. Croneberger.
I'm sorry.
13 A
Yes.
14 Q
And you told him at tnat time that that 15 procedure as it stood at that time was not acceptable f or 16 closing out ene audit findings?
17 A
That's what we said, yes.
18 Q
Why wouldn't -- I don't see why tnis memo would 19 not have gone to Mr. Croneberger?
29 A
7 really don't remember.
21 See, things were changed in the procedure and they were 22 changed along the lines of what was in here.
So, although 23 I can't find that we officially transmitted it to him, I'm 24 just -- I just assume snat he got the information.
We may 25 have given him a draft copy of tne memo and asked him to, i
l
22966.9 21 BRT 1
you know, work on at.
2 There's nothing that says that we have to give him a 3
formal memo to revise procedure.
4 Q
Well, no.
But if one is written, you know, why 5
not?
6 A
I really don't knew.
7 Q
And the same with this other memo.
It was 8
allowed, essentially -- the same meno in 1984.
And why 9
was it not sent in 19827 19 A
I think what it was was we determined the 11 problems may not have been as bad as Ray had pointed them 12 out in 1982.
13 I know when we evaluated it in that meeting we felt 14 that they weren't as significant problems as he felt.
The I
15 rest of the review committee felt that.
I can't say I 16 agreed with everything in there.
I know I was arguing, 17 f rom Ray's point of view, that we ougnt to di certain 18 th i ng s.
19 0
In 1984, the meno did go?
29 A
Right.
L 21 Q
Was it considered -- was there a reconsideration t
22 given on his concerns?
Were his concerns considered more 23 valid in 1984 than 1982?
24 A
I guess they were because we issued the memo.
25 o
Who did the meno go through this time, in 19847 l
2296600 22 BRT 1
A Who did it go through?
I 2
Q In other words, did you see the memo before it 3
went to Mr. Stromberg?
4 A
Yes.
I know I have seen it afterwards.
I 5
hand-carried the meno down and gave it to -- what's his 6
name --
7 Q
Maus?
8 A
No.
A fellow that works for Croneberger.
9 MR. LA GRANGE:
Chisholm?
19 THE WITNESS:
No.
I can't remember his name.
11 He sits outside of Croneberger's office.
Oh, Bob Cutler.
12 He's like -- I think he's an administrative technical guy 13 tnat helps him on certain tnings.
And I sat down and 14 discussed the memo with him and said that we have been 15 trying to close out these findings for a wnile and here's 16 a memo that we nave written to close tnem out.
17 I guess one of the concerns I have that the inference 18 is there was nothing done to try to close out enese 19 findings by the fact the menos weren't sent, but I know we 29 did nave a number of discussions with Tech Functions to 21 get these things closed out.
We pointed out that the 22 procedures needed to be changed and actually, EP-831 was 23 revised to incorporate more things in it and make it more 24 of a corporate p;ocedure.
25 BY MR. KATAKAS :
22966.9 23 BRT
[
l Q
Back -- yes, into the 1984 time period?
2 A
I believe change 1 were being worked on in '83.
3 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
4 Q
Did the final issuance of this memo on April 4, 5
1984, have anything to do with the results of the first 6
NRC audit?
7 A
I don't remember when the first NRC audit was.
8 I thought it was after that.
9 BY MR. MATAKAS:
10 0
The first NRC audit was March 20 and 21; the 11 second was April 25th.
This falls in between?
12 A
Okay.
I really don't recall whether that was a 13 motivating factor or not.
I know that we --
1A Q
Okay.
You just mentior.ed there that you nad 15 expressed these concerns, and "tnese concerns" meaning the 16 concerns shown in the April 4, 19 84 memorandum to Tecn 17 Functions?
18 A
Yes.
19 Q
Tnat 's what I had previously asked you.
During 20 the 1982 and 1983 time period, did you meet with Tech 21 Functions?
22 A
We discussed it with enem.
I can't tell you 23 every time that we discussed it because I don' t have any i
24 meeting notes or anything to snow wnen the meetings were 25 or when discussions were held.
But when we have open
-r-
22966.9 BRT 24 1
audit findings we want to close them out because we don't 2
want to have too many open audit f ind i ng s.
3 Now, EQ ones, to me, were no different than anything 4
else.
EQ problems, to me, were no different than any 5
other problem in the company.
And when we find there's a 6
problem we go down and discuss it with the people, we 7
write memos wnen we have to.
And a number of discussions 8
were held.
9 My point is, I guess the discussions tnat were held 19 were more inf ormal than formal.
11 Q
Okay.
Who were tnose discussions -- who would 12 they have been held with?
13 A
They probably were with Maus.
Some of them were 14 probably with Croneberger.
But I don't have any r.ntes to 15 show you exactly what was discussed or when.
16 Q
But do you recall, in fact, discussing the 17 contents of these two memos with Mr. Croneberger and 18 Mr. Maus?
19 A
I can't no, I don't remember ever discussing 29 them personally with them at any time after 1982 -- after 21 August of
'82.
22 Q
How did Mr. Maus accept this type of criticism 23 or recommendations or suggestions, whatever you want to i
24 call them?
25 A
I think he felt that his program was adequate
22966.9 25 BRT I
1 and satisfactory to meet the requirements.
2 Q
Did you feel that you were getting the response 3
necessary from Mr. Maus to close out these findings?
4 A
Well, I don't know that he addressed the 5
concerns that Ray Guimond had, which is why Ray sent back 6
the response memos that he sent back.
7 Q
What memos are we talking about now?
8 A
This one here, the one to say that the original 9
responses to the findings weren't adequate to close them 10 out.
And --
11 0
This is QA 4186?
12 A
Right.
And I guess the one there --
13 Q
April 4, 1984.
14 a
Right.
And the original draft of it.
15 Q
That was sent -- or that was drafted in August 16 1982?
17 A
Right.
But I think that Maus truly believed 18 that the program that he had was adequate to meet the 19 requirements.
You know, he was defending his program.
20 And I believe that Ray Guimond felt that the program did 21 not meet all the requirements and was trying to get what 22 he felt were the problems resolved.
23 Q
Could you tell me why these audit findings 24 remained open so long, between 1981 and -- some of them 25 are still open.
But, is there a reason, looking back?
Is e
4 22966.9 26 BRT 1
there something that happened, why these should have 2
stayed open so long?
3 A
My cwn perception of ths problem is that Ray 4
Guimond felt that the full corrective action to the 5
problem was never taken, and that was that we did not 6
close every possible door to cause a problem to never 7
happen again.
Where we may have addressed, in an audit 8
finding, e specific problem of a piece of hardware may not 9
have had the right number on it, he would not close out le the finding until we had a full program to assure that we 11 could never have the same thing Suppen.
I?
O The programmatic approach?
13 A
Right.
And even now we are having discussions 14 on the findings that are still open.
The specific problem 15 tnat was pc.nted out has been closed but tne programmatic 16 issue of, you know, can it never happen again, is a 17 concern of his; thus, these findings nave remained open.
18 We in OA have discussed these things quite of ten.
He 19 still feels they snould not be closed and we feel that 20 they probably can be, because of the problem that he 21 pointed out nas been corrected.
l 22 Q
Okay.
There's dif ferent degrees to the problem, 23 though?
(
24 A
Absolutely.
25 0'
And you are talking about the problems as they
22906.9 27 BRT i.
1 exist now and the differences of opinion.
But I'm talking 2
a bou t, there must have been a much wider gap in 3
differences of opinion, and what was actually out there 4
back in --
5 A
At the time he wrote the findings there was no 6
procedure, from a corporate point of view, to address the 7
environmental qualification program.
Okay?
8 As, and I don't remember the date of it, the corporate 9
procedure case out, it did address more aspects of the 19 program.
It came out on a corporate basis and did address 11 some of the concerns.
12 We have been slowly revising tnat procedure to update 13 it to make it more consistent with being a corporate 14 procaiure to address everything.
It still may not address 15 every single point of view and it still may not address 16 every single problem that could happen.
But it's a lot 17 better procedure than it was.
Ano the whole time tnat we 18 were working on closing out findings, things were 19 happening all along.
29 Tech Functions was updating their files.
Tney were 21 getting the files into better shape than when Ray looked 22 at them originally.
They were revising the procedures.
23 And my own point of view, I guess, you know, time -- a i
l 24 lot of time elapsed between letters and between things 25 nappening.
But I think I personally saw corrective action 1
22966.0 28 BRT 1
happening as time went on.
2 Q
In the area of documentation?
3 A
Well, just look at the procedure that was 4
originally issued.
EP-331 was updated and came out,as a 5
corporate procedure.
The files themselves were being 6
updated.
7 Q
That's what I'm ge.tting at.
Did you yourself go 8
and look at those files?
9 A
Yes.
I went down and looked at the files, in 19 March of
'84, with Ray Guimond.
11 Ray had -- Ray was reviewing files and doing reviews of 12 the overall program, pointing out problems as he saw them 13 during the wnole time.
In fact his position at the time 14 was, he was our EQ coordinator for QA.
We h'ad a procedure 1
15 that said he was supposed to be doing certain things.
16 He did an assessment, as part of a group of people that 17 got together in 1983, I think.
I don't know exactly when 18 the group got together and said they should to an 19 assessment of the files.
But they got together, they did 29 an assessment of the files in December of
'83, and had 21 some problems.
22 We had a meeting in Maren of '83 -- March of
'84, to 23 discuss the problems that he found and he and I want down
(
24 and I personally reviewed the files with him to see if 25 they were as bad as he said.
My recollection was that, 9
22966.9 29 BRT i
1 you know, they were okay f rom an auditing point of view.
2 Now, I'm not as knowledgeable in the EQ area as Ray is 3
or as other people are.
But f rom an aaditing point of 4
view, it looked like I could find most of the pieces of 5
paper.
Although they were very hard to find, I could find 6
the pieces of paper that were needed.
7 Q
Okay.
You could find most of the pieces of 8
paper.
Were there some that you could not find?
9 A
I believe there were and I believe they were 19 pointed out in Ray's assessment.
11 Q
Was that a written assessment?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Is that doc umented?
14 A
It was issued on May 16, 1984.
15 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
16 Q
You 6.
not get into the adequacy of the paper 17 you found?
18 A
No.
19 Q
You are talking about, if they happened to 29 reference certain documents you wanted to make sure you 21 could find those documents in the files?
22 A
Yes.
Ray's assessment was sspposed to bei Can 23 we say we have qualified equipment by taving paper in the 24 file?
The actual adequacy of the paper was Gerry Maus' 25 group's responsibility and I felt enat eney were the
22966o9 39 BRT t
1 specialists in that area.
But in most cases the paper was 2
there.
3 There were a few things that were referenced on the 4
SCEW sheets like RNL --
i 5
Q ORNL?
6 A
ORNL, had issued some sort of report, and we had 7
referenced that on some of our SCEW sheets and I wasn' t 8
able to find it very easily but it was somewhere in the 9
company.
le Those were some of the things that Ray said, if they 11 weren't in the file for a specific piece of equipment, 12 then the piece of equipment wasn't qualified.
13 We were able to find most of these things somewhere.
14 wnen I went through the files, I found snat the SCEW 15 sheets appeared to have enough information on them and the 16 records in the file appeared to say tnose pieces of f
17 equipment were qualified, which was what Gerry Maus was 18 maintaining all along.
19 It later turns out that I guess the technical adequacy 29 of some of the pieces of paper may not have been, you know, 21 the best from a tecnnical point of view.
But the records 22 appeared to be there.
23 0
I think, if you look at the files now -- I don ' t I (
l 24 know if you have looked at them recently?
25 A
Yes, I have.
Tney are a lot be t t e r.
l i
I<
l 1
22966.9 31 BRT r
1 Q
Tnere's been a drastic change?
2 A
Absolutely.
One of the problems I had at the 3
time was the regulations never clearly said to me what 4
happened to be in the file.
All they said was you will 5
have auditable records that will show that a piece of 6
equipment is qualified.
And --
7 Q
Well, someone knowledgeable in environmental 8
qualification would knew what should be in there.
9 A
Okay.
I wasn't knowledgeable.
But when I went 10 and looked I saw that there were files set up for all the 11 pieces of equipment and I was able to find whatever was on 12 the SCEW sheet.
I was able to find, in most cases, at 13 least one piece of paper that would show that that piece 14 of equipment was qualified.
15 BY MR. MATAKAS:
16 Q
I notice on the revised audit finding, in other 17 words Tech Functions' revised response, that there's a 18 little asterisk in ene area of "corrective action."
It 19 says:
"Original corrective action was accepted in error."
29 Do you know wnat that represents or wny tnat was made?
21 A
No.
I didn't know it was there until you 22 pointed it out to me.
23 I assume that tnat means Magitz accepted it when he l
t 24 shouldn't have, wnich was the problem pointed out before.
25 Q
Do you feel that audit 81-92, tne audit findings u-,
-~ -
e-
--..,.n
22966.9 32 BRT 1
1 and the audit recommendations were handled in a 2
responsible manner by Tech Functions?
3 A
Yes.
4 Q
Why do you say that?
5 A
I think that Gerry Maus believed that his 6
program met the requirements and he answered it to the 7
best of his abilities, believing that his program met the 8
requirements.
I think there was a very big difference on 9
what tne requirements of the program were, between him and 10 Ray Guimond.
And to the rest of us that were in the 11 middle, litte Mr. Stromberg, myself, Mr. Kazanas, we 12 weren't absolutely sure who was right from a management 13 point of view.
We saw that Maus was taking a position, ne 14 had a group, he seemed to have certain things going, he 15 was revising files and updating things as they went.
He 16 was revising the procedure and he was taking some action.
17 As to the fact tha t they stayed open as long as they 18 did, that wasn't the best way to close out an audit 19 finding but there are some things that take a long time to 29 get resolved.
21 Q
There are some things that take a long time to 22 get resolved?
23 A
Yes.
24 Q
On these particular instances, can you tell me 25 specific reasons why they took so long to be resolved?
--m-
22966.9 33 BRT l
1 And I'm talking about the ones that are open as of -- or 2
were open as of April 4, 1984.
Can you give me a reason 3
why they should have stayed open for so long?
4 A
Most of them had to do with the programmatic 5
aspects of the procedures being rewritten to address all C
of the responsibilities for EQ and the company.
7 I don' t know that the corporation ever formally took a l
8 position as to who was absolutely and positively l
9 responsible for environmental qualification.
And, because 16 of that, I think they stayed open because you couldn't 11 write a procedure until you knew one person was centrally 12 r epons ible for the overall program.
13 Q
Do you feel audit 81-92, the audit findings were 14 handled in a responsible manner by OA?
15 A
I believe we did what we had to do.
We wrote 16 letters back to them when we felt that there were problems.
i 17 we evaluated the problems and, I guess, now history is 18 showing that we probably snould nave done more to get them 19 closed out sooner, if we could.
But I believe we did hold 20 ene meetings, wrote the memos that needed to be written.
21 Q
I asked you some questions about Tech Functions.
22 Things have sort of rolled downhill to an area of 23 Mr. Guimond and Mr. Maus, that they were more or less at
(
24 an impass.
Snould not some action have been taken above 25 them to resolve enis impass if it was recognized at the l
22966.9 34 BRT' i
1 time?
2 A
I think there was action taken.
We did have 3
discussions with Mr. Croneberger to get these things 4
resolved.
5 Q
In 1982?
6 A
Right.
And I believe he was pushing Mr. Maus to 7
work on it.
But I guess at the time EQ was not, you know, 8
the highest priority problem within the company and it 9
fell vietim to priorities.
10 Q
Is that true?
I don't know.
11 A
That's what I'm saying.
I believe that was what 12 happened.
Tnere were a lot of things going oc in that 13 time frame.
There was steam generator work, and there o
14 were a lot of things going on.
From a management point of 15 view, if you feel there is something moving -- and it 16 seemed to me that the EQ program was moving along, I 17 assume Don Croneberger would have f elt the same way or he 18 would have taken more drastic action at the time --
19 certain things f all victim to other things.
20 Q
Did anyone ever indicate to you, in early --
21 f rom early '84 back to the 1982 time period, did anyone 22 ever indicate to you that the Tech Functions group wno was 23 handling EQ needed help?
(
24 A
Ray Guimond may have said that.
25 Q
I'm talking of Tech Functions people themselves, l
22966.0 35 BRT 1
did they ever?
2 A
No.
I don't believe anybody ever said that to 3
me.
4 Q
Do you recall attending a meeting in early 1984 5
where Mr. Chisholm had made a statement, something to the 6
effect of the possibility of contracting EQ?
7 A
Yes.
We had a meeting on that and he brought up 8
the contract he was going to issue.
And we reviewed it 9
and discussed the contract.
le Q
When was that time period?
13 Q
Okay.
This was af ter the NRC audits?
14 A
Yes.
I think that's wnen it was.
I don't know 15 that anybody had discussed it, that I was awara of, before 16 that.
17 Q
Was this notes -- were notes of this meeting 18 taken by Mr. Alatary?
19 A
I had on my calendar that I was at a meeting.
I 23 believe it was May 15 or 16, and Alatary was there and Bob l
21 Wayne was there, and I believe tne discussion was tne 22 contract -- to get a contractor in to help the work.
I 23 don't know if anybody took meeting minutes.
I don't have 24 any in my file.
25 Q
Did you attend a meeting, the subject of whien
)7b)
22966.9 36 BRT 1
was EQ, with Dr. Long?
2 A
Yes.
3 Q
When did that take place and vnat was the reason 4
for that?
5 A
That was March 1984.
It was to discuss Ray 6
Guimond's assessment
- of the EQ program.
We had a meeting 7
to go over what he found when he did his assessment and he 8
was starting -- I guess he discussed the draf t of the 9
report that he had written.
That was wten he and I looked le back at the files, because I wanted to verify for myself 11 that the problems were as significant as he poi nted out.
12 And going through the filos, I didn't feel that they were 13 as significant as he felt tnat they were and I asked him 14 to go back and recheck some of the things that he pointed 15 out.
Because where he had said certain pieces of paper 16 could not be found, he and I went into the files and found 17 them.
18 So, for the next two months he went back and 19 r eevaluated what he had done and the report was fin'lly a
20 issued in May of 1984.
21 Q
wnat was the purpose of going to Dr. Long witn 22 these concerns?
23 A
I think it was just to give his heads up on what
\\
24 it was we were doing in the EQ area.
25 Q
Does Mr. Kazanas report directly to Dr. Long?
22966.9 37 BRT 1
A Yes.
2 Q
Was this meeting requested by Dr. Long or was it 3
requested by --
4 A
I don't recall who requested it.
5 Q
Are you familiar with May 29, 1983 and February 6
19, 1984 submittals from GPUN to NRR at the NRC?
7 A
I have read them, I guess.
8 Q
Did you have any review of these documents?
9 A
No.
None whatsoever.
le Q
Based on the QA audit findings, subsequent to 11 these dccuments being submitted to the NRC and af ter 12 reviewing the files as you have reviewed thum now, do you 13 feel that the statements that were made f.n those documents 14 to the effect tnat they were in compliance with DOR 15 guidelines and, in the later case, 10 CFR 50.49, that 16 those were accurate statements?
17 A
At the time I felt they were.
18 Q
You mean in the May 29th time frame?
19 A
When I read the menos, whenever it was.
Looking 29 at the files as they were wnen I looked at them, I felt 21 that they met the requirements as I understood them.
22 Tnere were files there for each piece of equipment and l
23 eney were auditable.
24 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
25 Q
You are talking about auditsbility versus
~
(
22966.9 38 BRT 3
1 tec.hnical adequacy of what's in the file?
2 A
Right.
I don't know from a technical point of 3
view ways responsible, such as yourself.
4 Q
How could you say the statements were accurate 5
based solely on auditability versus technical adequacy?
6 A
Looking at it from a QA point.of view, the only 7
thing I saw in there was the files bad to be auditable and 8
retrievable.
9 Q
From a QA point of view, but given the le conclusions were technical conclusions?
11 A
Right.
I can't say from a technical point of 12 view that that was an accurate statement.
I would have no 13 idea on that.
14 BY MR. MATAKAS:
15 0
Well, on the documentation itself that was 16 required for individual areas, tnat documentation was 17 required for, did you feel that there was documentation in 18 there for each of the requirements?
19 A
On the ones enat I looked at, yes.
29 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
l 21 Q
Was a consultant hired in '84 to assist QA?
22 A
Yes.
I guess when the NRC came in and pointed l
l 23 out that our files were not as good as Gerry Maus and 24 others of us felt that they were, we determined in OA that 25 we were going to get involved witn the process and review
22966.0 39 l
BRT 1
the. files and assure that they were the best files that we 2
could possibly get.
3 Q
Did your consultant give you any written reports?
4 A
It wasn't a consultant to me and I never saw a 5
written report.
He reported to Bruce Alatary.
6 Q
You never -- did you have any discussions with 7
him about the --
8 A
I never discussed anything with him.
All I 9
heard was the outcome, in Staff meetings that we and QA had, le that the files were not very good.
11 Q
That was based on the review done by the 12 consultant?
13 A
Right.
14 BY MR. MATA KAS :
15 Q
other than Mr. Maus, who, at tne superv:sory 16 level in Tech Functions, to your knowledge, actively got 17 involved in the EQ program?
18 A
Tne only one that I am aware of was Don 19 Croneberger.
When you say "actively," I don't know that 20 ne actively got involved.
I think he felt that thing s 21 were going along fairly well, maybe not as quickly as 22 everybody wanted tnen to, but that was the only person I 23 know.
i 24 Q
Did QA have a review function of the December 10, 25 1982 SER/TER, f rom the NRC?
, - - - - - ~ - - - - _,
- - - - ~ - -
22966.9 49 BRT 1
.A I don't have any idea.
2 Q
Are you f amiliar with TER, the FRC TER?
3 A
Well, if you have a copy of it 4
Q It's Franklin Research Center.
Their review of 5
the documentation?
6 A
Is that where they wrote a letter back saying' 7
'We have some problems with the documentation"?
They had 8
a big long table of problems versus categories of problems.
9 Q
And they addressed eact. individual component?
le A
I recall seeing that.
11 Q
Did QA have any function in correcting those 12 individua] deficiencies?
13 A
QA was not responsible for correcting those.
14 Q
Did they have any function in assuring that they 15 were corrected?
Any review responsibilities or did they 16 take any review action?
17 A
I don't recall.
18 Q
You can correct me if I'm wrong, it appears that 19 during the early days that problems were being identified 20 from the trenches, so to speak, Mr. Guimond and the 21 interaction that was taking place was between Mr. Maus, l
22 Mr. Guimond, and going up to the management level.
23 It appears at some point in time, management started 24 giving direction on this environmental qualification 25 program.
22966.9 41 BRT i
1
.At what point was this and what actually turned it 2
around, if I could use those words?
Or use wnatever words 3
you want.
But, when was the big push put onto 4
enviro,nmental qualification?
5 A
I can't tell you exactly or tell you why.
I 6
assume it was in 1984, in the beginning of '84.
And if 7
you tell ne the NRC came in in March of ' 8 4 -- I thought 8
it was later -- I assume that was our reaction to the 9
concerns that were expressed by the NRC.
10 Q
Kere there also discussions concerning the UCS 11 petition?
12 A
I resen.ber reading it.
I don't recall wnether 13 the company was -- we, GPU Nuclear, maybe everybody except 14
. Ray Guimond, felt that everytning we were doing was 15 adequate and satisfactory to meet the requirements as we 16 understood them.
I think when the NRC came in and did 17 their first r ev ie w, I think we understood that maybe what 18 ve were doing was not meeting what they felt we should be 19 meeting.
But, you know, I think it was a degree -- the 20 degree of implementation.
Wnen I review the requirements 21 and regulations and DOR guidelines, I would say that the 22 things that we were doing were adequate and satasfactory.
23 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
24 Q
Subsequent reviews have determined equipment had 25 to be replaced, modified --
6
22966.9 42
)
BRT 1
A Yes.
Well, I'm not a technical expert in that 2
area for sure.
3 BY MR. MATAKAS:
4 Q
One thing that concerns me, and it is going to 5
be of concern is the memos written back in 1982, that were 6
written and forgotten about or whatever, there seems to be 7
no explanation as to why they weren't sent or who had 8
actually seen them.
You can't add anything or shed any 9
light on that topic?
19 A
Just that we evaluated them and we didn't feel 11 the problems were as significant as Ray may have pointed 12 them out.
But as to why we didn' t send a memo back to get 13 a problem resolved, I really don't recall the answer to e
j 14 that.
15 Q
You don't recall any specific conversations or 16 conversation with Mr. Croneberger?
17 A
No.
18 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
19 Q
You mentioned earlier about, around December
'83, 29 QA Tech Punctions audit of the EQ files?
21 A
Ray Guimond was on committees to evaluate the i
22 EQ program.
I don't remember when he first got on the i
23 committee but I know ne was working all along to help
!t l
24 resolve the problems.
{
25 QA was involved in writing an EQ policy.
QA was l
l
\\
b2966.g 43 BRT 1
involved in committees to get the EQ program going.
All 2
the things that they were doing were helping to have the 3
company and Tech Functions close out the audit findings 4
that had been issued.
5 Sometime in 1983, the end of the year, the committee 6
was tasked -- and I don't recall who was on the committee, 7
I know Guimond was one of them -- the CoPEittee was tasked 8
with doing a complete review of the files to evaluate them, 9
to see if they were good or bad.
le Q
Could that have been the summer of '83?
11 A
I don't remember when the committee felt that 12 they should go back and do that but I do know that they 13 did do the work in December a.nd January of
'83.
14 BY MR. KATAKAS:
15 Q
January
'84, December '83?
16 A
Yes, December '83 --
17 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
18
-Q were the findings positive?
Did everything look 19 great?
20 A
Ray's initial report that we discussed in May of l
21
'84 said that there were problems and they were similar to i
~
22 what we saw in the TER that you were talking about.
Tnere l
23 was some paper missing.
l
(
l 24 I went bac k, talked to Ray and we went through the
'5 files and we did find a number of pieces of paper.
And 2
I l
2'2966.0 BRT 44
[
l that was looking at it from a OA auditing point of view, 2
not f rom a technical point of view as to whether the 3
detailed report contained something.
But things were 4
happening all along.
I mean there were committees that 5
were working on resolving procedural and programmatic 6
pr3blems.
7 There was a policy that QA had draf ted on the EQ program 8
to establish responsibilities within the company.
We 9
didn't issue the memos but we were working with Tecn 19 Functions to resolve the problems.
11 MR. MATAKAS:
Any other questions?
12 MR. LA GRANGE:
No.
13 BY MR. MATA KAS :
o 14 Q
Mr. Bader, did you appear here today voluntarily?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Bave any promises been made to you?
17 A
No.
18 Q
Have any threats been made?
19 A
No.
l 29 Q
Is enere anytning else you would like to say, 21 any statement you would like to make or anything you would 22 like to say at all?
23 A
I guess not.
(
l 24 MR. MATAKAS :
Okay.
The time is 19:04.
This 25 will conclude the interview.
i i
22966.0 45 BRT 1
(Whereupon, at 10:04 a.m.,
the interview was 2
concluded.)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
l CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to cdrtify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the j
matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF:
BRUCE A.
BADER DOCKET NO.:
PLACE:
Parsippany, New Jersey DATE:
Thursday, May 2, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the or:ginal transcript thereof for the file of the United States N: clear Regulatory Commission.
l t
,e.
/
- de l#A fsiot)
',/
(TYPE i
I oel Breitner Official Reporter Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Reporter's Affiliation
\\
i CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER
/
This is to certify that the attached giroceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROM.EDING:
IINESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF:
BRUCE A. BADER DOCKET NO.:
PLACE:
Parsippany, New Jersey DATE:
Thursday, May 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.
J V
s (siqt) vW[*.4 (TYPEP[/
/.'
[oel Breitner Official Reporter Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Reporter's Affiliation i
1
.__