ML20147E669
| ML20147E669 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 05/01/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342B416 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-696 NUDOCS 8801210195 | |
| Download: ML20147E669 (46) | |
Text
P
%~;;o.:.S.;.tp,,My m! h.yMec. e;u b
- ,.A y /[ h k. p
'y ? % g.,.
,4.
. y G W' & E M u.. : % (R @h
.-M{l-Q6@.MEMiEWSIil-
[ y 0 -O,
, ' ?:',
-2 7'O Ol n.- :
. r *
'O.- -, ; r:: ?
.. ::' :W, :
<,;:t:7 Q..
' " M 34ys
=.'ly e.
>L,:.
s:::. 4 :.:.w;q...',
- .q: 8. y,r y % ; pg.g
.,Q^nz.!p
> j s.. l ~. -
t g&.e.&-ve,g,._ _,,ig._
~
- ,. rf,%
3,.
f.r. ;;
- t..
- .,x.;,q L MrrEU STATES M,aggW";gi;.
j,, ' u - i ;9;.
p.
.g I
NUCLEAR.ItEDUUh diff-$@5NI55ID
~
t k31';c.g..: par 47t.% --
- .! f. :- % p, Q m ; s-r '
p',..,...
.ig.skp?S g y;;p.-yet.s..
~
,.-..a e.t9
-h:$
.W. c
~'
G
-?~i '.. g --
e.a "M
T.:,n..n
- r. '.
i.
% 5 3 a.0 %.9,& &.? % ):
~ ch
"~
~
~*n -W.,
'k t v.- :~r,,~s!B4...
W-
=":n.e
%~g..et.:.n....,.;%r:.v.
~
- u. +,
L:
~ ' "p~...
o
- y..e 78C IN THE MATIER OFi
~7~,- EC -
- . L.y -
yi.C
'T:(l
'-y m.C).: & M i:pt-Sc
,a.4;sQ..
4tbEU 1,
,e p!.'
TIGAT
" 3:;
.h-,Qw*i..
- . reew'fth 1.1 W-
%7e;r w_v. 0F.-5',:t,
> -Yh.b.%k?Y S o*
"*]"."
z.-
=
J '*-TL*Agg3.5
- - -v a.
r,
. w:
?.
- Y
. k..
..e.....s
- J4'ihilih%x.1C&l,rf.-WM-r ~ 3
$;.y-4w.rp.,Q "a _A du c.'i
~~
)
. P.% v t.tNR;dv1.t.
M'c ')ci3 N.N. [E(h-:. _ ?. -.tt.
- Ya,w. R ts
-- r u
f.5.
l.
g
. g*.~
~
% n g,-
. gartw
, f.
-(.< e v,-.
j
~.
y 2.,..
i.
W..
-@9 g.__.
t l
a-r--
.Q
' ~
i.
N
,N-@
,a
- d~ a.@g. M
'W a- -
'a
~:m ;':
f n.r;::'
s.g Gtrp,.n; m
.g
- f.%
.i E,%,
4- "
b I,h*
.)
"'%C L
,Al-H. R 9,:. '.
j.
, r, M*?
s ns
- L y,' - ~ -
(
k rp _
%+'.
w-
..~.
+.71,3:. 1%..d -.
r
- n..
.yt Ion v.
- N...
F
^
{p.._
.2
. ~~ ' ',, u e,.
.r r v.
..h
.'4 sh mQ-, g? -
C
~ f.
~
.. v..,Q g
.; e we t Mm:W.
z
.&-c;. y..
~
7
,g
- p.
N 47
%,y.%'w..;OB id _
e g< E
~~ qqg ~ ;-
M;s
_gg.
- <s
~ a
}fadh e
~ ~Ytli 4
a
^'..
-j.-' p!!
'. WaihingM Cid000r4A 8801210195 880106
- *F'
".'*:.ta
.~
.y.s PDR FDIA
~
.: m. S87-..
- w... g.r
. P w_.~ W;;.,.n z
~
. Q PDR Wh.wwv1-.
t 'j.
-i nommamucr Arw. g.,,,,.
. u..
n
w. s n a. w w q y m a a g n
=
w
,)
a
-c-
~
?
UMaD ST..ATES N" P K@
'?
' 8'-.
I m :. h,. ? '.
< u.
.y,
?
NUCLEAR REG.UIATOR MOMMISSION s-n.
,,,- % A.c. g 3..:!
.v
.;M N.
- p.,
I4' T
(
k.' f.' A. N
- i y,~r.' 2 -
S
. puy' k.
i' t
g
'4v,# v.ge,
, t2
~
r g-..
~,
^ S.;
,fMS$D $!V.
g
- c... THE MAT.g smOF:
- a..
IIR E
n.
,g.
t...
W api tL vd%dt:
V&~,,
STIGATIVE7 rJ@' 7 E
n.$ M sm;5QE$f.-JOF.^',;.
~
y-p r
k_
? y h m g ' RICHARD:_P.
h?f. ~'
W h-? W Y ha
,ig:g: h..Jg.&5 LLg % -"s%,xy.; : w fs
- r --
- s.2.
i.tl; t -
=
x
- z
% *.:..:c. :... m..
.:....%qms p,
C r,-
w r
--. w r,'
g u :.
4.
.-s.; e;;. -
N
?y5 Wh$h
g:
T i
~
=
-> g f
{~
R f2_
. f'..
..y G
_wc.
=-
.wp-n.
.q k Oigg r-Q,
-(
h h5 L
7.
E.
d 4
=
=
E
. T.
j',
M
~
~ ; : 'F;-
A e
... 'e O.H v
~ t To ecn o
g-is E
- n...$$e. '
w h
.N
.m._,..,.
.x
=_
r, v.
w.+., t
*m es 1 c
RCI*
g N
5/L.. W(
'Q
. - 7Q
~ ~ - '
d E
' t-8801210195 880106
.. Mshir%%!
M0001'"4
~-
xi ' / ";' c,7.'h%d$.
0 %.iSS87 g 19 y
..umma wvmac;p; g..,w
$ru ~
g,..
PDR eA r
r-CR21943.0 1
BRT/dnw-1 UNITED. STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
(
3 OFFICE OF INVESTIGATION 4
S GPUN Headquarters 6
100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 7
8 The Investigative Interview Convened at 10:30 a.m.,
9 Richard A.
Matakas, presiding.
10 PRESENT:
11 RICHARD F. WILSON, Interviewee 12 RICHARD A. MATAKAS, Investigator 13 Region I Nuclear Regulatory Commission Id King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 15 ROBERT G.
LA GRANGE Section Leader I6 EQ Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation 17 18 l
19 20 21 uet -
l 22 t
23 4
24 a.
n :nm anc.
25
,/<
l 22943.9
]
2 i
BRT 1
PROCEEDINGS
~
2 MR. MATAKAS:
The date is May 1,1985 and the 3
time is 19:2d.
4 Present for this in'eerview are myself, Richard A.Matakas, 5
investigator, USNRC, Bob LaGrange, section leader in the 6
in the NRC, EQ branch, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor 7
Regulation, and Mr. Richard F. Wilson, director of 8
Technical Functions Division, GPU.
9 The purpose of this interview is to discuss facts and 19 circumstances leading to GPUN submittals to the NRC 11 involving the Environmental Qualification of electrical 12 equipment at THI-1.
13 Mr. Wilson, do you have any objection to providing this f
14 information under oath?
15 THE WITNESS:
No.
16 Whereupon, 17 RICHARD F. WILSON 18 was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn, 19 was examined and testified as follows:
29 EXAMINATION 21 3Y MR. MATAFAS:
22 Q
Mr. Wilson, for 'the record would you give me 23 your full name, please?
t 24 A
Richard F. Wilson.
25 0
And your business address?
I
)
22'943.9 3
BRT 1
A 139 Interpace Parkway, Parsippany, New Jer sey.
f 1'
2 Q
What extension can we reach you at?
3
'A On extension 2246.
4 Q
Would you give us a general overview of your 5
education and work history?
6 A
Education is degree in mechanical engineering 7
from the University of California at Berkeley in '51; a 8
aaster's degree in mechanical engineering f rom the
'9 University of Michigan in 1953; a year at the Oak Ridge 19 School of Reactor Technology, getting out in 1954; worked 11 following leaving Oak Ridge for about 17 years with the 12 Atomics International Division of what's now Rockwell 13 International Corporation; about two years at offshore 14 Power Systems in Jacksonville, Florida; and, since 1975, 15 have been with either the GPU Service Corporation or the 16 Nuclear Corporation.
17 Q
When did you start with GPU?
18 A
1975.
19 Q
Okay.
During the years of 1989 to the current 29 time have you been in your current position, that of l
21 director of Technical Functions?
i 22 A
Yes.
23 Q
What I would like to show you, Mr. Wilson, is, i
i
(
i 24 first, GPUN audit 81-92, it has an interof fice memorandum i
25 attached to it.
And the date of that memorand um is June
{
i
2294309 4
BRT 1
25, 1981.
It has a letter number of QA/4161.
2 I would like you to look this over, if you would, 3
please.,
4 A
Yes?
5 Q
I believe attached to it is 11 audit findings.
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Do you recognize that document?
8 A
Yes, that's an old internal audit.
9 Q
From what I understand, I asked for Technical 19 Functions' response to that audit and it couldn't be l
11 located, but what I do have is what has been identified to r
12 me as QA's response to the Technical Functions' response 13 which, in effect, does have your response in it.
If you I
14 would take a look at that, I would like to ask you the 15 same thing, if you recognize it?
16 A
Well, I recognize it for what it is; yes.
17 Q
Just for the record, that has an interoffice 18 memorandum number on it, dated June 25, 1981, letter 19 number QA/4186.
We'll be talking about these documents.
29 Tnat's why I would like to show them to you now before we 21 get started.
22 A
Yes.
i 23 Q
The next doc ument I would like to show you is i
24 dated August 21, 1981.
It has a letter number EP&I, 25 81/9176, and it's the Technical Functions' revised I
l
l 2294309 5
BRT 1
response to QA audit 81-92.
I ask if you recognize that?
2 A
Well, again, I recognize what it ist yes.
3
'O Had you seen the document before?
4 A
I notice I'm on distribution so I must have seen 5
it before; sure.
6 Q
Okay.
And the last document in this group that 7
I want to show you is an April 4, 1984 GPU Nuclear 8
memorandum from R.G. Guimond, to Mr. Stromberg, and it 9
again, references open audit findings for audit 81-92.
19 I would like you to take a look at that document and 11 ask you if you have seen it before?
12 A
Well, I'm not on distribution, but I think I 13 have must have seen it; yes.
14 Q
Okay.
What was the purpose of audit 81-927 15 Were you involved in the request for the audit?
16 A
Well, I noticed in the audit report itself it 17 references request, specifically by me, to have the audit 18 conducted.
And while I don't specifically remember that, 19 I presume that's the case.
And I think at the time -- and 29 I'm going to guess a little bit -- but at the time I had 21 been back f rom TMI for a short period of time; it was a 22 fairly major program that 1 think was starting up, and 23 frequently I asked for audits by the OA department to look i
24 into new programa or look into areas of work which maybe 25 I'm not personally familiar with and need to get, you know,
22943.9 6
BRT l
1 an independent overview.
2 Q
Okay.
I noted en the audit itself, audit 81-92, 3
that it,had 11 audit findings.
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
What is or what was, at that time, Technical 6
Functions' responsibility to correct those audit findings?
7 A
Well, we always have a responsibility to respond 8
to audit findings and either to correct the deficiencies 9
indicated or to correct the finding or in other ways move 19 to take care of the identified problem.
11 Q
Is there a QA procedure or a Tech Functions 12 procedure that covers addressing audit findings or audit 13 deficiencies?
14 A
You are talking about, now, 1981 or today?
15 Q
I'm talking about 1981, the time when this audit 16 was --
17 A
I'm not sure that there were specific Tech 18 Functions procedures in place in 1981.
There may have 19 been.
I just don't factually recall.
I think we have one 29 in place today.
21 Q
Do you know what that procedure number is now?
22 A
I wouldn't know.' I could find out, but I just i
23 don't know.
24 Q
Okay.
Regarding the correction of these audit 25 findings, do yau recall giving any direction or any i
22943.0 7
BRT 1
management activitv regarding -- to get these deficiencies 2
corrected or making any assignments to assure that these i
3 deficiencies were corrected?
4 A
I don't think that I would have sat down and 5
gone through it, finding by finding, and prov!.ded 6
direction as to the correction of any specific audit 7
finding.
My recollection is we sat down with the totality 8
of the audit results and talked about things like adequacy 9
of resources and the need to get the program under better le control and that type of thing.
But I would not sit down 11 and talk about a specific audit finding.
12 Q
- Okay, You say "we sat down."
Who is "we"?
13 A
I probably would have sat down with Don 14 Croneberger, who is the engineering and design man.
15 Q
And what time period do you recall sitting down 16 with Mr. Croneberger and talking about the audit?
17 A
Well, I don't recall the exact time period, but 18 I think it must have been, you know, after the audit, 19 which probably was in the summer of -- I presume the 29 summer of '81.
21 Q
Do you recall any conclusions regarding the 22 adequacy of resources, or 'any decisions that were made?
2.'l A
I think we added some resources to the program, i
- 4 a person or so at that time, or shortly thereafter as a 25 result of those discussions.
That's my recollection.
22943.9 8
BRT
(
1 Q
Can you be more specific on that?
Because my 2
understanding is that during tilis time period, up until 3
sometime in 1984, the program was being directly 4
supervised by Mr. Maus and then you had Mr. Boucher 5
involved with the TMI-l recordkeeping, and Mr. Banua with 6
Oyster Creek recordkeeping.
7 A
Yes.
8 0
was it someone in addition to these individuals?
9 A
No.
I think it was the latter one or two of 19 those individuals.
As I recall the sequence of 11 assignments -- again, this is five years ago --
12 Q
Yes.
13 A
-- but I think Gerry Maus was Kind of assigned 14 as a supervisor for EQ, probably late in '89.
I don't 15 recall Lne exact date but it must have been the fall of
'89, 16 or something like that.
17 I think he picked up work which was fragmented, which 18 used to be -- was beirg done by Jersey Central, because, 19 again, it was in early '89 when the Nuclear Corporation --
29 when the Nuclear Corporation was formed, which pulled in 21 Jersey Central Engineering from Morristown, pulled in the 22 old Service company, the NHI group engineering -- this is 23 in the time period when we were trying to get organized 24 and put the whole thing together.
25 So, I think it was in the fall.
I guess that -- I 4
22943.9 9
BRT
/
1 would guess that Gerry was t,asigned the supervisor's job 2
and that was probably part of my motivation for asking for 3
an audit coming into the year, is to start to see what's 4
going on.
And I think -- again, I'm guessing -- it was 5
in '81 when we got other people -- I think Boucher was one 6
of them, I don't recall hhe other fellow -- specifically 7
assigned to EQ to help out Gerry.
8 Q
Were you aware that some of the deficiencies 9
that were identified in audit 81-92 remained open in 1982?
19 A
Not specifically; no.
Not to my recollection.
11 Q
How about 1983?
12 A
I, periodically, talked to the supervision 13 during those two years or three years or so; generally it 14 wss indicated to me that we were moving along and we were 15 going to be in compliance with what ultimately ended up to 16 be the date of compliance, which was March, I guess, of 17 this year.
18 So, I was generally led, as I can recall, to believe 19 that we were making procress; that, while there Were 29 difficulties, while we were wrestling with things like the 21 Franklin report and so f or th, that we were making progress 22 and getting there.
i 23 Q
You say you "talked to supervision."
Who would t
24 that have been?
25 A
Well, again, that's mainly through Don 1
22943.9 le BRT 1
Croneberger.
t 2
Q Did you attend any meetings with QA concerning 3
the audit findings?
4 A
I don't specifically recall whether I would --
5 whether I did or didn't.
I just wouldn't krow back in 6
this time frame.
7 Q
I'm talking about from 1989 to 19847 8
A I don't -- well, in early 1984, then I started 9
getting back into it in more specificity; and particularly 19 after the initial one or two NRC inspections which were, 11 what, March?
I don't know, February or March --
12 Q
March
'80.
13 A
March of
'84.
Then I started getting back into 14 it and talked to a lot of people; yes.
So, at that time,'
15 clearly, I think I did.
16 Between '81 and the beginning of '84 I don't really 17 think I was back with QA.
That's my recollection.
18 Q
So in 1984 -- can you be more specific, what 19 eparks your meuory is the NRC audit which actually took 29 place March 20 and 21st, 10847 21 A
Well, as I recall we had a whole series of NRC 22 inspections at that time.
Thaia was the initial 23 inspection here, which -- a lot of things came out of and, i
I 24 as a result of that, internally, after that inspection, i
25 again, some indications that we were going to be taking l
l l
l
-e-
22943.9 11 BRT 1
care of the inspection findings.
2 Then I think fairly soon after that there was a second 3
kind of inspection.
Again, I don' t recall the timing, but 4
it must have been a month or six weeks later or something 5
that way -- maybe it was April, I don't know; which is 6
kind of the same, you know, same kind of thing came out of 7
that inspection.
And I think, then, probably that second 8
inspection then triggered probably a lot of activity and a 9
lot of looking in detail at the program, ineluding, you le know, going in and looking at the files and an awful lot 11 of things.
12 Q
You mentioned during this time, though, that you 13 started having meetings with QA?
14 A
Yes.
I'm -- I surely must have been at meetings.
15 Although I can't specifically remember, think I must have i
16 be e n.'
17 Q
Co you recall attendees on the QA side?
18 A
Well, by firsthand, factual knowledge I can't 19 remember by name.
29 0
Okay.
21 A
I would presume it's Ray, and Matt Stromberg.
I 22 presume that because of the auditing.
23 Q
War Mr Guimond the QA audit who was following 24 that throughout the years, more or less assigned?
25 A
Apparently that's the case, but I have no idea I
22943.0 12 BRT 1
what his intermediate assignments were, whether he was 2
supposed to follow it or not.
3 0
What was the gist, or what waa the impression 4
they were leaving you with regarding the EQ program, 5
during these meetings?
6 A
In '84?
7 Q
Yes.
8 A
I think it developed very rapidly, in '84, that 9
the EQ program was in a substantial amount of difficulty, 19 both -- f rom both a programmatic point of view and what I 11 would call a quality point of view, if you want to use 12 that kind of terminology.
And, when I started digging 13 into the files and looking at the specifics of what was 14 there and the basis for it and so on, you know, it was 15 something which I think I characterized to other people as 16 not being a very quality job.
17 I think I referred to it to other people as "sloppy."
18 Q
Okay.
Concerning the EQ program 19 responsibilities, what responsibilities did 29 Mr. Croneberger have?
21 A
Well, Gerry Maus worked within the engineering 22 and design department.
His immediate supervisor was 23 Mr. Chisholm, who had the electrical instrumentation
\\
24 section.
And Dick Chisholm worked for Don Croneberger.
25 So it was through the engineering and design department
1 22943.9 13 BRT 1
that the environmental program, EQ program was beinn 2
managed and presumably the work being done.
3 Q
What I'm trying to get a feel for is, as you as 4
the overall director of the Technical Functions, is what 5
you would have expected to have been the managerial 6
responsibil,ities of Mr. Croneberger, Mr. Chisholm, and 7
Mr. Maus, as it relates directly to the EQ program.
8 I realize that Mr. Maus had the EQ program, 9
Mr. Chisholm had more than the EQ program.
19 A
Right.
11 Q
And Mr. Croneberger had yet other 12 responsibilities?
13 A
I think the only responsibilities he had is to 14 oversee the program and to, from a management point of 15 view, see that it is adequately pursued and comes to a
\\
16 logical conclusion.
17 Q
I noticed on the original audit finding, 81-92, 18 that Mr. Croneberger signed for audit findings 1, 3, and 19 11.
Why don't we just take a couple of minutes and I want 20 you to lock over those.
We'll go off the record for a 21 couple of minutes.
22 (Discussion off the record.)
23 THE WITNESS:
Yes?
k 24 BY MR. MATAKAS:
25 Q
Specifically on findings 1 and 3, they seem to l
22943.9 14 BRT
(
l be. programmatic finding s.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but 2
essentially finding on audit nonconformance number 1, the 3
finding is "No evidence of management direction to 4
correlate the efforts of intersectional effort in 5
establishing the master list and qualification 6
documentation file."
7 A
Yes.
8 Q
And, number 3:
"Existing GPU procedures 9
(engineering standards and engineering procedures) do not is provide appropriate guidance, nor is there a program 11 initiated to meet the above requirements."
12 What I'm wondering ist Do you know why 13 Mr. Croneberger, in particular, signed for these findings 14 where Mr. Maus signed for the remaining?
Was it because 15 these are more of a management type generic type problems 16 that were identified?
17 A
I don't really know why it would be a dif f erent 18 signature.
It could be that.
Maybe he felt obligated to 19 do that.
Or -- and the dates on these others are obscured --
29 I assume them all to be the same.
I don't know that to be 21 a fact.
22 As a matter of fact, I notice the dates on these are 23 quite a bit different.
So maybe he signed into them later 24 after some discussion.
I don't know.
I notice, for 25 example, the signing on finding 1 was May 12, '81 and the
22943.9 15 BRT
(
l signing on finding 3 was -- I think 3rd, May 3, '81.
And 2
I can't read when Gerry Haus signed in the rest of the 3
findings, but -- I just don't know.
It could be a 4
different date or it could be an indication of the 5
managemen'c or the programmatic aspects of it.
6 Q
I noticed on April 4th document, the GPU Nuclear 7
memorandum from Mr. Guimond to Mr. Stromberg, that audit 8
findings 1 and 3 and parts of 11 still remain open as of 9
April 4, 1984.
19 A
Well, in part that seems to be the case; yes.
11 Q
Do you know why they remained open for so long?
12 Three years?
13 A
No.
I do not.
14 Q
Did you talk -- did you have conversation with 15 anyone, why these things remained open for so long?
16 A
I don't think I would have discussed with people, 17 specific audit findings over the period, you know, after 18 the initial audit up through '84.
19 Q
uell, subsequent to, then, 19847 29 A
Well, clearly in
'84, then, when the number of 21 audit inspections started showing up, then we did get back 22 into this thing and, as a matter of fact, we did find that,
23 in fact, some of these things were still open because, you 24 know, it hadn't been accomplished properly -- like the 25 master list which, I think was audit 1, finding 1.
22943.0 16 BRT 1
Q What was, really, the major deficiency that had 2
been pointed out to you, both in your understanding of 3
81-92 and following subsequent audits and inspections in 4
1984?
What is your understanding of the major problem 5
with the program?
Or what was the major problem with the 6
program?
7 A
Well, clearly I think in '84, as we got into it, 8
there were a number of problems in the program.
I would 9
categorize them as:
one, the program wasn't well defined, 19 organized and directed; I would categorize that the work 11 that had been done was technically, I think I used the 12 words "not of a quality which should be there," and 13 therefore the conclusions that were drawn were not 14 adequately substantiated by the work that was performed.
15 So, I would say those two things clearly were there.
16 And, clearly, we had not yet moved to the point of 17 getting the programmatic follow-on activities in place 18 which would have to go on to assure maintenance of 19 qualification once it was initially established.
29 Q
Would it be f air to say that both the 81-92 21 audit, and subsequent audits in 1984, identified 22 documentation for qualification of the individual
(,
23 components as one of the major problems?
24 A
Oh, I think clearly the quality of that 25 documentation was a problem; yes.
l l
l
22943.9 17 BRT 1
Q Would it also be fair to say that both 81-92 2
audit and subsequent audits were somewhat critical of 3
management direction as far as having procedures in place 4
on who was supposed to be doing what in the program?
5 A
I wouldn't characterize it as being critical of 6
having procedures in place.
I would say it was critical 7
in terms of maybe not having certain procedures and 8
guidance in place.
9 Q
I'm sorry.
I may have misstated that, but le that's what I meant.
11 A
Yes.
12 Q
I noticed in audit 81-92, page 19 of 19, they 13 have certain recommendations.
14 Recommendation number 1 is:
"a documented direction be 15 generated in order to assure the. meeting the requirements 16 of the bulletin, to include organizations, departments, 17 sections, and individuals, (headquarters and site 18 personnel).
This should include interface 19 responsibilities and define the corporate position on the 29 bulletin."
21 Recommendation number 2 is:
"A complete review should 22 be taken to assure that the qualification documentation is 23 complete to support adequacy of the equipment."
24 And, recommendation number 3:
"Technical functions 25 take the lead in establishing a training program for
22943.5 18 BRT l
[
corporate and site personnel on the requirements of the 2
bulletin."
3 Okay.
Regarding these recommendations I think, sort of 4
what we have just been talking about is management 5
direction and documentation.
Back in the 1981 time period, 6
did Tech Functions have any responsibility -- or what were 7
their responsibilities in responding to QA recommendations 8
and audits such as 81-92?
9 A
Well, as I said before, we had a responsibility le to respond and I think at the time we thought we weres 11 which subsequently did not prove to be fully the case.
12 We thought we had, in item 1, in terms of departments 13 and sections and individuals and things that were supposed i
14 to be taking the lead on this, we thought we had them 15 identified.
We thought we had an ongoing review of the 16 qualification docuet.6ation, which turned out to be,
17 again -- in '84 turned out to be what I called not very 18 much of a quality job.
And, clearly, we tried to provide 19 training to at least the corporate personnel -- I don' t 29 think we would train the site personnel at this time, but l
21 we thought we were doing that; not by a formal training 22 program, internally, but by really having tne people that
{
23 were working on the program participate pretty much to the
(
24 full extent to all of the industry work going on.
25 You know, there were owners' groups on qualification,
22943.8 19 BRT 1
the,re were EPRI programs, I think, on qualification.
2 There were seminars on qualification.
I think even the 3
NRC had, as I recall, region meetings where they would, 4
- you know, kind of go through a lot of it and the people 5
working on the programs, I think, attended -- participated 6
in most of those things.
7 Q
Were you aware that audit finding number 1 was 8
not immediately responded to by -- in the initial response 9
to audit 81-92, Tech Functions did not respond to audit 19 finding number l?
Were you aware of that?
11 A
I just don't rechil, frankly.
It may have been 12 or it 'ay not have been.
I got a copy of the, what you m
13 ref erred to befose as the June 25th --
14 Q
Tech Functions response to --
15 A
Well, this was apparently the auditing response 16 to the Tech Functions response, I think.'
17 Q
Right.
And number 1 is not addressed.
18 A
Yes.
I noticed the first one on here is number 19 2.
29 Q
Right.
I have discussed this with Mr. Guimond, 21 and number 1 was not addressed.
What I'm trying to get at 22 is:
Were you aware of that and do you know why?
\\,
23 A
No, I don't, really, understand why that was the 1
24 case.
25 Q
What I would like to show you now is a document
\\
l 1
22943.9 29 BRT I
that was originally to be sent to Mr. Croneberger by 2
Mr. Guimono.
Again, it is in reference to audit 81-92.
3 And, basically, it is similar to the 1984, April 4th, 1984 4
letter, only this was authored back in 1982 and 5
essentially it states audit findings 1, 3, 5-A, 6-A, 19, 6
11.4, ll.8, and 11.14 remained open.
7 I would like you to take a look at the document and I 8
ask you if you recognize it?
9 A
I see it -- I don't recall it specifically, but 19 I could have.
I just don't know.
11 Q
Do you know why this memo was not sent?
12 A
I don't know that it was not sent.
13 Q
Well, it wasn't sent.
14 A
Oh.
15 Q
According to the source whesa I got the memo it 16 was not sent.
17 A
No.
I don't know.
18 Q
The revised response, the proposed corrective 19 actions to the revised response in August 1981, they 29 were -- the revised responses were acknowledged and 21 accepted by Mr. Magitz.
22 Later on, Mr. Guimond, who initially did audit 81-02, 23 reviewed the acceptance of these responses dated in i
24 memorandum August 21, 1981, and after looking them over 25 felt that these particular items, 1, 3, 5-A -- the ones I
22943.5 21.
BRT I
have named -- in his mind still remained open and wrote 2
this memo and the memo was not sent.
3 What I'm getting at ist Do you know of any 4
conversation that took place between QA and Tech Functions, 5
or any conversation at all, why this memorandum was not 6
sent?
7 A
I am not' aware of any; no.
8 Q
Do you know why the lead auditor did not review 9
the revised response,.and Mr. Magitz revicwed it in his 19 place?
11 A
I don't know.
I would speculate that Magitz 12 might have been his direct supervisor, although I am not 13 sure of that.
He currently is the supervisor of auditing, 14 so --
15 Q
Okay.
To your knowledge is that unusual, that a 16 lead auditor would not review responses and that a 17 supervisor would review them?
Particularly a supervisor 18 who is not on the audit team?
19 A
I would normally think that both of those 29 individuals would review audit responses.
It's kind of a 21 generic thing, I would think.
22 Q
Did you review the December 1982 NRC SER/TER?
23 A
I would not normally review specific technical i
24 d ocume n ts.
25 Q
Were you brief ed on the SER/TER?
)
l 1
e
--r-
,,-,r
-e
22943.0 22 BRT 1
A I don't specifically recall this.
Is this the 2
Franklin -- so-called Franklin Institute report?
3 Q
Right.
The TER was originally prepared by the 4
Franklin Institute and it was an attachment to the SER 5
dated December 19, 19827 6
A I think it was discussed in general terms over, 7
you know -- I'm sure it was discussed in general terms 8
between whenever we got it in '82, and I know it was 9
discussed again early in '84 as we got into the 19 inspections that we've tal4ed about already.
11 In terms of, you know, where we might have stood 12 against things that were -- and I think probably the 13 particular issues raised in the Franklin report itself --
/
14 I'm not sure I ever discussed the SER, per se, which think 15 was the Staff -- well, no, was it the Staff?
The SER in 16 this case was the Franklin report?
17 MR. LA GRANGE:
There was an SER, essentially as 18 a transmittal of the enclosed TER.
19 THE WITNESS:
But the real bulk of the 29 information was in fact the Franklin report itself?
21 MR. LA GRANGE:
Was the TER; right.
22 BY MR. MATAKAS:
23 Q
What is your understanding of the TER findings?
t 24 Were they against components?
Were they against 25 documentation of the qualification of the components?
9
22943.5 23 BRT 1
,A My underr'anding is that the bulk of the 2
findings were, really, discussions of the qualification 3
status and back-up documentation for a large number of 4
items.
5 Q
In other words, the problem lay where?
With the 6
components or with the documentation?
Or with something 7
else?
8 A
Well, I think in some cases it was some of each.
9 Q
What action did you take -- or did you take any 19 action to assure that the TER deficiencies were corrected 11 or addressed?
12 A
Well, again, I think there were discussions 13 internally about the need to address them and to get off a
14 and have them addressed.
I think the conclusion of those 15 discussions was, in fact, they were being addressed.
16 Q
Again, who attended these discussions?
17 A
Well, I'm sure all of these discussions would be 18 with the E&D people, Croneberger and his people.
19 Q
Down to Gerry Maus?
29 A
Down to Gerry Maus.
Gerry Maus would be 21 fundamentally the source of the "factual information,"
4 i
22 quote, unquote.
i j
23 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
i 24 Q
Was that prior to the first meeting with the NRC l
25 Staff on, about sometime in October of '837 4
f I
t'
22943.0 24 BRT I
1
'A I don't recall Staff meetings.
The only real Staff meetings I recall were the ones that started, I J
think, in '84, which I got more and more involved in.
So 4
I don't know what happened in '83.
I just don't recall.
5 Well, I think -- I guess I have seen correspondence or ti internal memos talking about meetings with the Staff and 7
the Franklin report.
I have seen that.
But I wouldn't it have necessarily interacted on things that were in there.
9 BY !!R. MATAKAS:
10 Q
okay.
Subs equ ent to the TER, was it ever 11 indicated to you that the environmental qualification 12 people were having problems understanding the program?
/
13 A
I think there were always conversations that 14 the -- that there was dif ficulty.
When you say I P.
"understanding the program," I'm not sure what you mean, 16 so I'll define it for you.
I think, in understanding what 37 constituted a satisfactory program to the Staff.
And I 30 think, my own vi ew, is that the program did, in fact.
i 10 become more defined and more things either brought into it, 20 or at least maybe they were thought to have been there all 21 the time, but maybe they were thought to be more visible 22 in terms of requirement as the program developed from its i
23 earliest inception to what it is now known to be.
I think 24 there was a continuing increase in insight.
25 o
was it ever request ed or indicated to you that
22943.0 25 BRT
{
1 the EQ section needed help?
Bodies?
Resources?
2 A
Well, sure.
In '81 I think that was a 3
conclusion of looking at this.
And I can't remember 4
specific discussions after that time to -- until early '84, 5
particularly.
6 Q
okay.
That's specifically what I'm getting at, 7
is:
other than what we have already talked about, 8
regarding in the area of resources, and what had happened 9
as a result of the NRC audits in between that period, had 10 eit.her Mr. Croneberger or Mr. Chisholm or Mr. Maus 11 specifically requested assistance in meeting the 12 r equirements?
13 A
Well, I think we did bring in cor.t ractor support.
14 Again, I can't -- a lot of it start ed in the spring of '84.
15 But I think we had contract.or support well before then.
16 Q
During the '82 '83 time period?
17 A
Well, I can't remember exactly.
But I thought 18 EDS Nuclear was doing some work of some kind in that time 19 period.
We, obviously, did fund work through owners' 20 groups, and participate, you know, in things of that 21 nature.
22 So, there was activity going on in a number of arenas, 23 which I would call a resource of one sort or another.
24 Q
When and by whom was it decided that GPUN would 25 get help in the area of EQ, I'm talking about major l
,m,-
22943.0 26 BRT I
1 assignments to outside contractors in the area of EQ, 2
specifically IMPELL, I believe?,
3 A
Now you are back in '847 4
Q
'84.
5 A
I think that, again, as a result of the Staff
(
6 inspections and our own internal looking very closely, 7
that, meeting with Don Croneberger, I think I told him to 8
go get help.
9 0
Yhat was --
10 A
And I think that was his own conclusion, too.
I 11 don't think I told him anything that he didn't recognize.
12 And that was early in '84.
13 Q
Okay.
14 MR. MATAKAS:
Okay.
I'm going to take a break 15 in just a little bit.
While we are still on the subject 16 of the audits and resources, do you want to follow-up in 17 that area?
18 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
19 Q
Do you recall any discussions' prior to the first 20 NRC audit in March of
'84, of discussions about possibly 21 hiring consultants or getting help in the EQ area?
Or did 22 it all occur af ter the audits?
23 A
Well, I think we had some people working prior 24 to '84.
Again, that 's by memory and it 's a few years old, 25 but I think there was work by EDS Nuclear which
l 22943.0 27 BRT 4
f s
1 subsequently became -- I think they became IMPCLL.
I 2
think that's the same outfit.
3 Q
Yes.
4 A
So I t.hink there was some work early on by those 5
people.
6 How, again, that's by memory, so --
7 Q
I know they were helping during the time that 8
the bulletin response was being put together; okay?
When 9
they were EDS.
But there was no real discussion prior to 10 the first NRC audit in '84 of hiring the people, you know, 11 that had been working on this thing for the last year 12 that kind of help?
13 A
Oh, I think there was no discussion or, to my 14 knowledge even a recognition, that the program demands, as 15 the program evident ly became -- you know, the requirements 16 became visible in '84, that we needed the kinds of 17 resources we brought on board in the spring of '84, 18 I think we brought on board -- and, again, I'm-guessing --
19 but there must have been 20 people working, or something 20 like that.
I just don't recall.
It was a large group of 21 p eopl e.
22 No discussion of resources of that magnitude that I can 23 recall 24 BY MR. ftATAKAS:
25 Q
You say as requirements were brought ferth in
'84.
22943.0 28 BRT 1
'A Sure.
2 Q
What requirements are we talking about?
3 A
Well, I think the, as we said before, that the 4
awareness of what the program demands were.
You can call 5
them new requirements or you can call them maybe just 6
recognition of what people thought was there all the time, 7
but, clearly, there was a developing perspective about the 8
depth, breadth of Nureg Guide-71 issues, I think somewhere 9
along t.he line we got into associated circuits and that 10 sort of thing, and maybe the people --
11 maybe the Staff understood they were there back in '81.
I 12 don't think we did.
13 so, you know, I would charact erize that as a 14 development of the program.
15 As I say, I don't want to classify 1,t necessarily as 16 new requirements by the Staff.
But it sure was an 17 awareness increase on our part, with time, as to what the 18 program was.
19 Q
The major areas that we have already talked 20 about -- I don't want to oversimplify them -- but the 21 major areas of management direction and documentation for 22 the qualification of the components, weren't they, in fact,
(
23 though, identified as problems in the 81-02 audit?
24 A
Well, sure.
I think the management was 25 identified.
And I think documentation requirements were
22943.0 29 BRT 1
id enti fied.
2 But I think the understanding of the level of 3
documentation requirements needed was not the same in '81, 4
either by ourselves or our auditors, maybe even you 5
folks -- I don't know -- as they are now understood to be 6
r equirements for documentation of the program, which grew 7
out of the -- I think all of the discussions and
(
8 interaction that took place in the spring of
'84.
9 Q
Were you aware that some of the same, exact same 10 deficiencies that showed up in the TER showed up in the 11 NRC inspection over a year later, in March 19847 12 A
I can't say that I specifically went back and 13 crosschecked the same.
But given the scope and magnitude 14 of the problems ir. '84, I would be amazed if there were 15 not issues in there that were not, you know, not in the 16 Franklin report.
17 MR. KATAKAS:
Bob, anything else before we take 18 a break?
19 (Discussion off the record.)
20 MR. LA G RANGE :
Let me ask a few more questions, 21 then.,
22 BY MR. LA' GRANGE:
I 23 o
Was serious discussion about hiring consultants, 4
4 24 did that take place af ter the first audit on March 20 and 25 21?
or was it more af ter the second audit when you
22943.0 30 BRT 1
realized things still weren't being corrected?
2 A
Well, again, I can't rer.smber the timing between 3
the twoFaudits.
But if you are talking about the flarch or 4
April --
5 MR. MATAKAS:
March 20th, 21st, and the 25th,
-(
6 are the dates.
7 THE WITNESS:
I think the discussion took place 8
after the March audit in terms of improving the program.
9 But I think the real understanding of what I'll call the 10 quality problem in the effort probably didn't really, you 11 know hit hard until the second audit.
12 (Liscussion off the record.)
13 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
14 O
After the first audit in March 20-21,
'84, did 15 anyone characterize to you that it appeared that the 16 findings made by the NRC Staff could be handled with the 17 current resources?
18 A
I don't recall any discussions of that nature; 19 and I would be surprised if anybody would have said that.
20 And i would -- well, I just don't factually recall, but I 21 would think Don Croneberger and I would have been 22 discussing additional resources at that time, but not in i
23 the same vein as we were in April.
24 O
Was there any feedback to you from the october --
25 I believe it was October 8, 1983 meeting in Bethesda, with i
i 2294300 31 BRT 1
Gerry fiaus; Roy !!arding was there, I believe; Boucher was 2
there -- did you receive any feedback af ter that meeting?
3 A
I just don't recall.
4 MR. MATAKAS:
Just for the record, I think that 5
was October 5th,
'83.
6 MR. LA GRANGE:
Right.
October 5th.
7 THE WITNESS:
I just don't recall.
8 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
9 O
Did you receive any feedback as a resu2 t of the 10 March 8, 1984 meeting in Bothesda?
11 A
Well, again, my recollection is in this period 12 of the spring of '84, it kind of all went pretty fast.
So, 13 what I discussed, generally, is kind of an increasing 14 awareness starting in March, which might have been, via 15 that meeting, the surveillance J-inspections here, all 16 that took place over a period of six or eight weeks.
And 17 I think, you know, the awareness went from something at a 18 fairly low level of the problem, to something of a very 19 high level of the problem.
20 So, it's hard to differentiate, exactly, each meeting 21 or each statement somebody made.
22 MR. LA GRANGE:
I don't have any more questions.
i 23 BY MR. MATAKAS:
24 O
Have you ever talk ed about EQ program with 25 Dr. Long?
22943.0 CRT 32 s
1 A
Clearly I know I've talked to him in '84 about 2
it.
I don't recall talking to him prior to that time.
3 0
Did he mention a meeting that he may have had 4
with the QA department?
5 A
I don't really remember.
I had discussions with 6
Dr. Long, l'n terms of getting QA surveillanc.e on all the 7
documentation packages, and the need for those people to 8
perform those reviews, to have them performed rapidly, and 9
to increase their resources to get that done.
I remember 10 these kinds of discussions.
I don't know about a meeting 11 he had with his department on it.
12 O
How would --
I trying to understand how this 13 aould have been brought to the level of Dr. Long.
Were 14 you curious about that?
You know,' Dr. Long -- did he come 15 to you with this suggestion?
or how did that come about?
16 A
Well, I'm not sure what you mean "that came 17 about."
Because I don't know what "that" is.
18 0
I'm talking about the meetings that you had with 19 Dr. Long?
20 A
Well, we ha6 two or three of them and they came 21 about maybe, maybe on his part, but also on our part:
We 22 wanted QA surveillance of all of the documentation 23 packages, you know, an independent review of all of the 1
24 documentation packages.
25 0
Was it ever brought to your attention by anyone i
l 1
22943.0 33 BRT f
1 1
that QA had made recommendations in the past, or given I
2 direction in the past, to people in the Environmental 3
Qualification program and those recommendations or 4
directions were not followed?
or they were having a 5
problem getting across to the EQ people, recommendations 6
and problems?
7 A
With regard to EQ interaction --
8 Q
Right.
9 A
or just problems in general?
10 Q
Problems with the EC program and problems in 11 general of trying to get the EQ people to act on the 12 recommendations of QA?
f 13 A
In the '82 or '83 time frame, I just don't 14 recall.
I think in the '84 time frame the level of 15 surveillance that we asked for from QA aid cause a lot 16 of -- not a lot, but did cause some interaction problems 17 between QA and the engineering folks, at very low levels 18 of detail which QA looked at the packages and, clearly, 19 there were on occasion some technical dif f erences as to 20 what people thought constitut ed qualification or not.
21 Q
Was it ever related to you, though, that, in 22 1984, that in 1982 and 1983 that QA was trying to tell the 1
l l
23 EQ people about the problems they were having and they i
24 were not getting any action?
QA was not getting any 25 action from the EQ people?
22943.0 34 BET f
1
'A I don't specifically recall those discussions.
2 O
Did you ever question why, you know, audit 3
findings, and problems that were identified back in '81, 4
had not been corrected in 1984?
Had you ever talked to 5
anybody about that?
6 A
Well, I think we, when we got into the problem 7
in '84, and recognized the extent of it and then, you know, 8
did become aware that things hadn't been done, I think 9
clearly that indicated a problem in the program which we 10 subsequently tried to solve by increasing the management 11 capability on the program.
12 MR. MATAKAS:
Okay.
Bob, unless you have 13 something, we'll take about a five-minute break.
14 MR. LA GRANGE:
That's fine.
~
15 (Recess.)
16 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
17 O
Do you recall any audit that occurred the summer 18 approximately of
'83, that would have been a combined 19 OA/ Tech Functions audit of the EQ files that occurred 20 about the summer of '83?
Does that ring a bell?
21 A
I don't recall it right of fhand.
22 BY MR. MATAKAS:
23 0
What this revolves around is, on March 8,
- 1984, 24 right before the audit,' there was a transcribed meeting 25 between the NRC and GPUN EO, and Mr. Maus made the
22943.0 BRT 35 1
statement to the ef f ect thats GPUN quality assurance had 2
conducted some type of review of the files recently --
3 "recently" meaning recent to that time -- and we are 4
trying to determine if anything was writt.en down, if there 5
was an official audit or exactly what it entails?
6 A
I just don't remember, but I would not 7
n0cessarily have gotten a copy of any.
I may have, but 8
then again I might not have.
9 O
What I would like to chow you, Mr. Wilson, is 10 two documents:
GPUN letters to NRR.
One is dated May 20, 11 1983, letter nember 5211-83-157i and the second letter is 12 dated February 10, 1984, 5211-84-2038.
r
, 13 I would like you to look.at thos e letters and I ask you 14 if you recognize them?
15 A'
Well, I don't recognize it per se.
I may or may 16 not have gotten copies of the letters at the time.
I just 17 don't know.
I know what th ey a re.
18 O
Do you notice what the May 20th letter is in 19 response to?
20 A
By reading the letter it appears to be some 21 additional correspondence regarding the Franklin report.
22 Is that what that is?
23 Q
Well, basically the first paragraph, the 24 requirement is set forth in 10 CFR 50.49, that all the 25' utilities have to respond to the NRC by that particular l
i
r 22943.0 36 BRT
(
1 date, May 20, 1983.
2 And then, on the February 10, 1984 letter, it refers to 3
a meeting that occurred on october 5,1983, where this 4
particular response was requested.
I'm talking about the S
February 10th response.
6 Other than reading the letters, do you recall the 7
requiremerts behind both of these letters specifically?
8 A
I don't specifically recall.
9 Q
Did you have a review of these particular 10 documents prior to their going out?
11 A
Well, all our licensing correspondence to the 12 Commission requires sign off by somebody from engineering, 13 Tech Functionn engineering, licensing, and the plant.
And 14 I would presume there was that kind of a review.
15 Whether there was a broader review I, just don't know.
16 The licensing files should show that.
Well, here's the 17 buck slip.
18 0
on project accountability check sheet, th er e 's 19 two of them for the May 20, 1983 letter.
The first one is 20 signed by --
21 A
Well, it looks like Courtney Smyt h, who is in 22 licensing.
The second one is the engineering, which is I
23 Jim Langenback, and it says "per telecon" --
24 O
That looks like Smyth -- in other words, Smyth 25 ca ll ed.
And presumably the draf t letter responses were
22943.0 37 BRT I
1 looked at by these people here.
2 O
Chisholm, Harding, and Broughton?
3 A
Chisholm, Harding and Droughton.
4 Q
And the second accountability check sheet shows 5
that Mr. Croneberger approved the final letter; is that 6
correct?
3 7
A That's what it shows; right.
8 Q
But you yourself did not see this May 20th 9
letter before it went out, to your knowledge?
10 A
No.
11 Q
What about th e Febru a ry 10 letter?
You don't 12 recall seeing that before it went out?
13 A
No.
14 O
Then, I take it, you didn't have input into 15 either letter?
16 A
Normally I would not have input in the letter 17 unless it's something invalving policy, something which 18 is -- which I personally injected myself into; or it 19 subsequently got to be a significant problem.
20 0
What th e letrers state and why we are here today 21 is, on the May 20 letter, it states:
"The additional 22 information we submitted in our letters dat ed May 3rd and i
23 May 16, 1983, support our conclusion that the components 24 li sted are que lified in accordance with DOR guidelines 25 dated November 1979. "
And the components listed, what
22943.0 38 BRT l
1 they are referring to is the SCEW sheets that were
)
2 attached to the August 28, 1981 letter, two volumes of 3
them, identifying all the components important to safety --
1 4
electrical components.
l 5
Then the February 10, 1984 letter states "It is GPUN's 6
position that the TMI-1 is currently in compliance with 7
the environmental qualification rule 10 CFR 50.49 as 8
applicable to TMI-1."
9 Both CFR 50.49 and DOR guidelines state that in order 10 for components to be guidelines, they must have complete 1) and auditable files.
And why this was referred to the 12 office of Investigations is that NRR disagreed with those i
13 statements that GPUN did not have complete and auditable 14 files, and subsequent audits and inspections were 15 conducted on the EO program.
16 With your knowledge of those audits and those 17 inspections that followed these two submittals, do you i
18 feel that those responses were accurate when they were l
19 made to the NRC7 20 A
I think the people thought they were accurate 21 when they made their response..
I think the understanding 22 of the completeness', adequacy, technical level of the 23 information in the files that developed, you know, since 24 these responses is not the same as the people thought they 25 were at the time of making the response.
I think that's
22943.0 39' BRT 1
clear.
2 O
Okay.
Have you had any conversation with 3
Mr. Maus regarding these particular responses?
4 A
Not any specific conversations with regard to S
these responses per se; no.
6 Q
H'ow about Mr. Croneberger?
7 A
Not to my knowledge, in terms of talking about 8
these letters specifically.
We've had the general 9
conversations about the program, the deficiencies in the 10 program, the need for more management attention, the 11 obvious awareness of what I described before as the 12 quality of the engineering effort, you know, that was 13 going on~during this period of time.
14 Q
I just want to make one thing clear.
You didn't 15 tell,me that these statements were true at the time.
You 16 are stating that you feel that the individuals responsible 17 for the transmittal of these statements thought that they 18 were true?
19 A
I believe that would be the case; yes.
20 0
What do you bane that on?
Why do you say that?
21 A
Well, our general policy here is to require 22 review of all submittals.
We make about, I think, 400
(
23 letters a year per plant.
This goes just to the 24 Commission.
25 our policy is to have them signed off by a number of 9
~
22943.0 40' BRT 1
people and to try and make sure that they are accurate and 2
they reflect, you know, the points of view of various 3
parts of the organization and that they are complete.
4 That's our policy.
5 0
okay.
Who is now signing documer.ts regarding 6
the environmental qualification program going to NRR?
7 A
I started to sign them, some of the later 8
submittals, which must have been -- well, I forget when 9
they were.
They must have been --
10 Q
I notice in April 1984 you signed --
11 A
Yes.
And I have signed two or three since that 12 time.
And the reason for that is, normally our policy is 13 for the plant director to sign all correspondence.
In 14 some cases, though, when the bulk of the activity now 15 starps to get out beyond the realm of the plant for 16 example, really all the file and all the qualification 17 work is done here, it is not really done at the site.
And 18 where the plant. -- and where the submittals become 19 voluminous or become major issues, or it's basically a 20 very large technical submittal without that much plant 21 input, then sometimes, you know, I sign those.
And this 22 was a case, now, wher e I think in view of the perspective
(
23 of the program that d evelop ed, in April or May, when I l
24 personally got involved, you know, in conjunction with Hank, 25 agreed that I would sign those.
k_
\\
22943.0 41 BRT
{
1 O
That's what I'm getting at.
Is this a decision 2
that was made in conjunction with yourself and Mr. Hukill?
3 A
Yes.
I think as we started to see the problems 4
and so forth, as a matter of fact that most of the work 5
was going on up here, that it was thought to be 6
appro3riate that I sign the major submittals on EQ after 7
that.
And I have signed a number for THI, and I think I 8
have signed some for Oyster Creek, as a matter of fact.
9 0
Was Mr. Maus relieved from his responsibilities 10 in EQ?
11 A
Yes.
12 O
And basically what were those reasons and who 13 was responsible for that?
14 A
Well, the reasons were, I think we, again, 15 developed an understanding of the difficulties in the 16 spring of
'84.
There were substantial management problems 17 in the conduct of the program.
We came to the conclusion 18 that a lot of the program deficiencies -- and I think the 19 quality of what was done in the information that was f ed 20 up on the status of the program prior to that time -- l ed 21 us to a conclusion that it was inappropriate for him to 22 continue the job.
23 Q
Did you have personal discussions with Mr. Maus 24 regarding what he f elt was the progression or the progress 25 of the environmental qualification and the deficiencies
22943.0 42 BRT 1
th'at were being noted against the program in 1904?
2 A
Well, clearly I was at meetings in which he 3
was -- he was at.
I think, though, the kinds of 4
discussions you are referring to probably took place 5
between Don Croneberger, Chisholm, and Gerry Maus.
I 6
generally would have the discussions with Don Croneberger.
7 And I think we concluded fairly early that we needed more --
8 more capable management attention to the program; and, as 9
a matter of fact, moved to bring in a person from outside 10 to provide that.
11 O
Was there a feeling, or was it related to you 12 that there was a feeling, that Mr. Maus -- well, what 13 feeling was related to you regarding Mr. Maus' 14 capabilities of handling that particular job, if any?
15 A
Well, I think both related to me and then as a 16 result of my own looking into the files and looking back l
17 and talking to people, it was related to me by Croneberger, l
i 18 that he was very -- now very uncomfortable that Gerry Maus I
19 could really pull the program together.
20 My own conclusion, looking at things, was that he could 21 not.
22 O
During this period of time was Mr. Maus relating 23 to supervision -- I'm talking about Mr. Cronoberger, 24 yourself, and Mr. Chisholm, that he felt that he was 25 handling the job or could handle the job?
1 2294300 43 BRT l
1 A
My impression of what he thought was that he did 2
not, and I think to this day does not, understand the depth 3
of deficiencies, what I would characterize, was in the 4
program.
I think he just -- my personal view is that he 5
accepts -- accepted, maybe, specific comments about a 6
number or something missing, but really didn't understand 7
the whole -- maybe he understood but didn't accept th e 8
whole -- I think the breadth of what I would characterize 9
as the quality of the work.
7g?
10 That's my own personal view.
I can't 11 Q
Has anyone indicated to you, up ntil this day, 12 that they were aware that the May 20, 1983, or the j
13 February 10, 1984 letters to the NRC, from GPUN, cont ain ed 14 false statements?
15 A
I don't think anybody has indicated to me they 16 contained f alse statements.
I think people have indicated 17 to me that those kinds of letters and that background are 18 the basis for you being here, for OI being here.
And I'm 19 aware of the general information that was -- that went 20 from the technical branch of the NRC to the project branch --
21 Q
No, what I'm getting at, Mr. Wilson --
22 A
and so forth.
(
23 0
-- hr.s anybody indicated to you that I'm 24 going to give you an example, that:
Yes, I saw those 25 let t ers when they went out and I knew they were false
22943.0 BRT 44 1
statements.
Maybe I should have said something.
Or 2
something like that?
3 A
No.
4 Q
Mr. Wilson, have you appeared here today of your 5
own free will?
6 A
Yes, I have.
7 Q
Have any promises made to you?
8 A
No.
9 O
Have any threats been directed at you?
10 A
No.
11 O
Is ther e anything that you would like to say or 12 any questions that you would like to ask?
13 A
No.
Other than I would like a copy of the 14 transcript.
i 15 MR. MATAKAS:
Okay.
And, for the record, when I 16 get all these transcripts and get a chance to copy them 17 I'll probably send them out in one package -- no, I can't l
18 do that.
I'll send them out to each individual person, 19 based on the address that I have been given.
20 THE WITNESS:
All right.
21 MR. MATAKAS:
Okay.
The time is 11:50.
That l
l 22 will conclude the interview.
Thank you very much, 23 Mr. Wilson.
l 24 (Whereupon, at 11 :50 a.m., the interview was 25 congluded.)
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
8 NAME OF PROCEEDING: INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF:
RICHARD F. WILSON DOCKET NO.:
PLACE:
PARSIPPANY, NEW JERSEY DATE:
WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 1985 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original j
transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear l
Regulatory Commission.
l l
,? 'C t
j, mat ~4-/W (sigt) t e I
l
( TYPED.) '
Joel Breitner l
Off cial Reporter Ace-Federal Reporters Inc.
Reporter's Affiliation,
4 l
t
.