ML20147E726

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Partially Deleted Transcript of 850508 Investigative Interview of Mj Stromberg in Parsippany,Nj.Pp 1-23
ML20147E726
Person / Time
Site: 05000000
Issue date: 05/08/1985
From:
NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
To:
Shared Package
ML17342B416 List:
References
FOIA-87-696 NUDOCS 8801210205
Download: ML20147E726 (25)
v • d • e


Text

~ '

E ORl3hAL **r UNfTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO:

INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OF MATTHIAS J. STROMBERG LOCATION

  • PAR 3IPPANY, NEW JERSEY PAGES: 1 - 23 DATE: WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 1985

-n-I im2'ia ,r IM3,cc- <, jg i'i 2cccidana y,.ih toe F:;. . ..:c. ; :;;;ycg g ,

l:t, CAcanti'; n (p__f.1 C

( FOIh

$1 L [of(o_I b [~~

Acs-FEDERAL REPORTERS, LNC.

Ofhttal Rtzortm 444 Nonh Caritoi Sceat 8801210205 880106 pCR F01A PDP WasWon D.C. 20001 WEISSB7-696 (202)317 3700 l$g , ) // ,

., , ; , ;y

1 .

SueTrcylor 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA f 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3

_________------------------X 4 In the matter of  :

5 INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW  ;

6 of l

7 MATTHIAS J. STROMBERG  :

X 8

9 10 11 ; GPU Nuclear Corporation 100 Interpace Parkway 12 Room 308 Parsippany, New Jersc. '31054 13 Wednesday, May 8, 1985 14 15 The Investigative Interview of MATTE! AS J.

15 i'.'ROMBERG commenced at 1: 00 p.m. before Richard A. Ma t ak as .

17 l Investigator, Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

18 19 ON BEHALF OF THE NRC:

20 f Richard A. Matakas 1 .

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 ' Region I 631 Park Avenue 22 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 I

t I

23 I

i 24 l

% M oorwrs,Inc.

25 i I i

r

l l

l 2 l 1 P3gg((pgNGS f 2U MR. MATAKAS: Okay. The date is May 8, 1985, 3' and the time is 1300. Present for this interview are my-4' self, Richard A. Matakas, Investigator, NRC; and, Mr.

5 Matthias J. S trombe rg, former Manager of Audit Program Departh 6 ment, GPUN.

7 The purpose of this interview is to discuss facts 8y and circumstances leading to GPUN's submittals to the NRC 4

9 involving the environmental qualification of electrical d

10 equipment at TMI Unit 1.

11 N Mr. Stromberg, do you have any objection to pr:vid-12 I ing this information under oath?

13 MR. STROMBERG : I don't.

i*

14 (The witness, Mr. Stromberg, is sworn by Mr.

15 Matakas.)

16 Whereupon, P

17 ' MATTHI AS J. STROMBERG, i

18 is called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, g

8 19 testifies as follows:

i-20 EXAMINATION BY:

21 ,, MR. MATAKAS:

i a l 22 Q For the record, could you give us a business ad-l l 23 I dress that we could reach you at now, and a telephone l 24 [ number?

l *

  • n owwn. ine. "

25 ', A My telephone number is 2142. And the address is 1

d l !i l

l

3 i

1 the same address here.

! 2 O Oh, 100 Interpace Parkway?

3 A All mail would be forwarded; we would have it. We 4 have three buildings.

5 0 Okay.

6 A This building, and then there is two across the 7 street.

8 0 Righ t. Okay. I understand you are now retired; 9 is that correct?

10 A I am officially retired. I'm under contract 11 working for Nick Kazanas.

12 Q And I also understand that you were the Manager 13 , of Audit and Program -- of the Audit Program Department up Id until July of 19E4?

15 : A That is correct.

i 16- Q Okay. And when did you begin in that position?

17 App roxima tely .

18 A APProximately -- oh, it must have been 1977 I 19 would say approximately.

, I.

20 ' O Okay. What I would like to do is introduce some

! 21 documents that we will be talking about. I will give you i .

22 some time to look them over, and I will ask you if you have 23 reviewed these documents or have ever seen the documents?

24 The first document is an internal GPUN audit, u o meconm. inc.

25 Number 0-TMI-81-02 and was transmitted through Tech Functions li

4 I with a memorandum, dated June 25th,1981, letter number 2

QA/ 41-61 and it was under your signature.

3 We cannot locate the response, the Tech Functions 4 response, to that. But what we do have is GPUN letter, 5 Number QA/41-86, dated June 25th,1981, which is a QA response 6 to Tech Functions' initial response to the audit.

7 And the third document is Tech Functions' revised 8 response to the QA response, and it's dated August 21st, 9

1981 and has a letter number EP&I 81/0176.

10  !

i Next, we have a GPUN memorandum from Mr. G Lnond 11 to yourself, dated April 4, 1984, the subject of which s 12 Open Audit Findings Concerning Audit 81-02.

13 Would you take a look at those documents?

14 (The witness is looking at the documents.)

13 A The method of operation, of course, at the period 16 i of time all the contents of this, I can 't exactly f ully 17 describe it.

18 But in sequence of an audit, we issued a nctifica-Ic tion to Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson requested that an audit be 1

20 : performed. Okay. And this was our system of auditing, where 21 there would be a write-up, as you see, within this audit 22 il report, the first document that you handed me --

l l

23 ' I Q That's Audit 81 --

t 24 ' A 81-02, okay. Then, you have attached to this u w m.oormet ine. '

25 ',

r audit finding sheets where they have a post-audit exit where I

l 1

5 1

various participants are there of importance, and they sign i 2 into these findings to acknowledge the findings, which is 3 representative of -- these sheets are representative of the 4 audit findings. The signature is down here --

I

$ Q Under proposed corrective action? l 6 A Ye ah . Then, finally the proposed correction action.

7 And we used the technique as done by procedure of Mr.

8 Magitz sign-of f here for close-ou't of various findings , the 9 things of that nature.

1C O So, the first section of the document, you have 11 some from Tech Functions signing for audit findings. And 12 then we have someone from QA acknowledging the proposed 13 corrective action, and then finally at the bottom of the 14 i

page we have a third section which acknowledges the close-out 15 by a member of QA?

16 A Exactly. You see, in this audit report that you l

17 [ have bere, there are signatures by Mr. Croneberger, Mr.

18 Maus and so forth on the line.

19 Q That's one of the questions I had. I notice on 20 ! Items 1 and 3 specifically which appear to be programmatic

?

21 type findings --

l 22 A Programmatic.

l 23 0 -- Mr. Croneberger signed ins tead of Mr. Maus.

9 24 A Because he is the Director of the Engineering.

A es hooorters.Inc 25 I And that program is under his direction. And Mr. Maus would l

l l

6 1 sign into the other details related to the work that he f was performing.

2 3 0 I notice Mr. Croneberger also signed for 11, 4 Audit Finding Number 11, which appears to be -- well, I 5 guess it appears to be both programmatic and individual 6 items.

7 A It's really programmatic, various things th a t --

8 (The witness is again looking at the document.)

9 But he considered that important for hi= to take 10 action.

11 Q Okay. In the initial response -- well, fi rs t 12 of all, are you f amiliar with all of the documents that I 13 ' have provided you with?

14 A Just let me glance at this here.

15 ' 0 okay.

16 l (The witness is again looking at the doe monts.)

f I A Yes, I am f amiliar with these.

, 17 is Q Would it be f air to say that the program --

l' excuse me, that the audit was critical of the documentation 20 3 needed to support qualification of components withis the 21 environmental qualification program?

22 I'm sorry, the lack of documentation.

23 A This audit was based, to the best of my recol-24 i

= .an o m n.iac.

lection, on a note from Mr. Wilson where one of his engineers ,

25 George Braulke , attended a seminar.

And within this , there

7 I was some identification in two given areas related to docu-2 mentation. I think what Mr. Wilson asked was how were the 3 files being accomplished at this stage of the game. And 4 that's why this audit was done at this time , to support thes e 5 kind of conclusions, where were we at this given time.

6 Q Okay. -The basis for the program at this time was 7 IE Bulletin 7901-B with attachmente-8 A Righ t.

9 Q But, again, would it be f air to say that the audit 10 findings were critical of the documentation that was contained 11 in the files to support qualification of the individual con-12 ponents?

13 A I can't answer you that.

14 Q Okay. Why not?

15 A Well, there were other meetings , a program by the 16 l: NRC in which people attended these sessions. And there were I

17 still problems , you know, as 7901-B got superseded by 18 ,

10 CFR 50.49 and so forth.

19 Q Particularly in the area of documentation --

20 A Well documentation, this was a clue of where ther 21 were in this given time to identify problem areas where they i

2? might have to tighten their belt, so to speak.

23 Okay.

Q And would it be f air to say that one of 24 .

the areas was documentation?

, 4, e m. con.n. inc.  ;

25 i A I would have to say yes, because there were i

8 1 problems with documentation.

[ 2 Q And would another area -- would it be f air to 3 say that a second area was lack of management direction as i 4 far as responsibilities? Who was responsible for what area.

5 -

A That's a difficult one, because we really, you 6 know, can only surmise when we write this report to saying 7 how much direction by pointing out to respective people, 8

which we did, and this report was submitted to Mr. Wilson, 9 how much direction we were incognizant of at that given time.

10 Okay.

11 0 Well, at least in the opinion of the author of 12 the audit the program lacked --

13 ,

A In the summary, we may have put tha t statement in,

  • 14 ,! yes.

1.

15 ; O Do you know why Audit Finding Number 1 was not i

16 responded to immediately?

6 17 Was there any discussion as to tna:, that it would 18 be discussed at a later time or responded to at a later time?

19 And that's the one regarding lack of management 20 direction?

21 A (Pause.)

22 The best I can tell you, I would sur=dse that Mr.

23 Croneberger was thinking the problem out, how best to 24 correlate and get a better action process going within his u v. m.oon.n. inc. I.

group.

25

9 i Q Do you have any specific recollection as to 2 why?

3 A No, I do not.

4 Q During the 1981 time period following this audi ,

I 5 and the 1982 and 1983 time period, who followed the EQ 6 program within QA?

7 Was there a specific person?

8 A Mr. Guirond was assigned that task , and he re-9 ported in the chain of command to Support Audits via Mr.

10 Magitz and Mr. Bader. Mr. Bader is the Corporate Audit 11 Supe rvisor.

12 Q Okay. During this 1981, 1982 and 1983 time 13 period, was it brought to your attention that this continuef 14 to be a problem, and that is a lack of documentation and a 15 ; lack of management direction, continued to be a probler 16 i within the EQ program?

17 1 Was that brought to your attention?

18 A Not forceably, with the exception that during that 19 , period of time I was on other special assignments that were i

20 down at TMI.

I 21' To the best of my recollection, I think it was 22 during 1981 I was probably down there four months on other 23- problems, with rad con and the cheating scandel with ASLB, i

i 24 and things of that nature.

4,

-w n.conm. ine. :

I 1 O Okay. But was that at least brought to your 25 l-

10 1 attention during those time periods?

f 2 A I'm trying to estimate the dates. During that 3 time, they did have a session down at TMI. I forget whether 4 it was in ' 82 or ' 83 where they had one of the auditors Aic 5 was in a problem related I think in the warehousing which 1 6 was under Gerry Maus to correlate something like an assess-7 msnt report, the status, with all the people involved in 8 the spare parts with the environmental qualification.

9 That's the best th at I can re_e_mbe r.

10 Q okay. Are you f amiliar -- or, were you f amiliar 11 back in 1983 of the Corporate Quality Asstrance Review 12 Committee?

13 A Yes.

Id Q And what was their purpose?

15 A Their purpose was to review asy particular 16 .

problems that they could flag to the Director, Mr. Kazanas ,

17 with any particular probiems that he should be -- should 18l know of where corrective actions at a higher plane might have to be taken.

19 l:

20 I Q okay. Did you sometimes attend these meetings?

21 A occasionally I did, yes. When I was in town.

22 O And did you sometimes -- well, did you always 23 get a copy of the meetings, the minutes of the meetings?

24 A I don't know. I can ' t answer ycu that.

& ve n.conm. inc.

25 i Q okay. What I have is a March 19 83 memorandum, 3

4 E

l

11

'I letter number PDA/83-056. And it relates to the second 2 meeting of the QARC, dated February 18, 1983.

3 And under the first agenda item, Item Number 1, 4 which states: Lack of control of procurement / installation 5 of Class lE electrical equipment requiring environmental 6 qualification. And the subject was Environmental Qualifica-7 tion Program Problems.

8 The results of the Committee deliberations were, l

9 and I will quote Number 3, "The lack of a complete file of 10 auditable records should be escalated to the Director of I 11 l Quality Assurance.

12 "Number 4: All organizations that have responsi-13  ! bility in the environmental qualification program do not 4

14 have procedures that clearly define these responsibilities."

15 ' And it goes on to give examples , and it says 16 Items 3 and 4 preceding are considered escalated by virtue 17 of this communication.

18 ,

Do you recall resiewing this? If you would, 19 ignore the notes and scribblings , they are mine. But, do 20 ' you recall these specific notes?

21._ (The witness is looking at the document. )

t 22 A I don' t recall this. I was down at TMI.

23 Q During February of '83?

24 I. A During this period of time, right. And I j us t u w neoorm nne}

25 can't remember all the details because I was in so many ~

I i

l t

12 1

1 things. But I don't recall this comnunication.

2  !! owe ve r , the bottom, Ite: 2 is not related to 3 the environmental. Here I notice they --

4 0 I've already found that out.  !

5 A Have you found that out? ' That's a dif ferent j 6 audi t.

7 Q I have.

8 A It was a lot of internal communication during 9 this period of time.

10 Essentially, aren' t they saying the same program-C 11 matic problems th at --

12 A Yes.

13 Q And it's now being escalated to the level of Id Mr. Kaz anas ?

15 ' A At that period of time, yes.

16 Q Okay. Prior to this period of time , had you attempted to resolve these issues?

17 'I 18 A There we re conversations , yes , with Mr.

19 Croneberger and Mr. Guimond, Mr. Bader.

20 ! O Okay. Who else on the Tech Functions' side?

i 21 l A Mr. Maus.

I 22 Q And did you relate to them the problems that were 23 being identified; that is, the problem of documentation and 2d the lack of management direction?

4 rw man.n w ,:

25 d A That's right.

i

13 1 0 You related those problems to them?

i 2 A Yes. We did, by another letter that you don't 3 have here, which I countersigned for Mr. Guimond and went 4 to Mr. Croneberger. ,

5 -1 Q okay. I do have a letter here for Mr. Croneberger, 6 and it's in reference to the proposed correction action to 7 Audit 81-02. And in effect it states essentially the same 8 thing as the April ' 84 letter, in that it says : A verifi-9 cation of proposed correction actions in Reference 1 --

10 that's a letter from Maus to Magitz, dated February 5, 11 1982 -- resulted in closed audit finding 7-B only. Findings 12 1, 3, 5- 8, 6- 8, 10, 11-4,11-8 and 11-14 are still considered 13 open. Listed below are our comments and proposed corrective 14 actions by finding numbers.

15 i~ And according to Mr. Guimond, this letter was 16 draf ted in August of 1982. He gave it to Mr. Bader, and the letter was not sent, 17j:

l 18 Do you know anything about that?

19 A I don't know anything about that.

20 0 You had never seen it before? The subject was l

l 21 not brought to your attention?

i j 22 A That's right.

I 23 0 Okay. A letter that was drafted along with that 24 particular letter there, or in the same time period, August l

4r o noonm. inc. I 25 of 1982, a letter to Mr. Croneberger again draf ted by Mr.

l l

" * = Mw - '-7-7 +7 -T MN

14 1

Guimond which was not sent; the subject is Engineering

{ 2 P ro ce du re-0 31. It says, "Per our agreement, I am forwarding 3

to you our comments on EP-031 for your disposition and cor-4 rective action."

k 5 Do you recall that, either the reference to the 6 conversation or that particular letter?

7 (The witness is looking at the document. )

8 A I don' t recall this letter. There is no date on 9 this.

10 0 This is a copy of -- there was a handwritten date 11 of 8/82.

12 A 8/82. See, there were a lot of points under 13 discussion direct with Mr. Croneberger on this whole subject 14 that the other arms who handle the modification of the 15 procedures, in Tech Functions, is a fellow by the name of 16 Flynn (phonetic) , and that section doesn' t report direct te Mr. Croneberger but they support.

17 18 i t

But I don' t recall this here. But I'm sure that i

19 someplace along the line discussions were held. Th a t 's the 20 best I can tell you.

21 0 Okay. You mentioned that there was a lot of li 22 I conversation during this time,1982, with Mr. Croneberger?

23 A Yes.

A, 24  ;

Q Okay. And was that regarding audit findings?

e neoo,wn. iac. i i

25 A Yes.

I

15 1 Q And the EQ program in general?

2 A In general, yes.

3 Q What would be the purpose of the QARC escalating 4

this to the level of Mr. Kazanas?

5 A well, as I remember, I think the QARC was only l 6 established in 1983. And I think the QARC originated f rom 7

the TMI-1 or among the various supervisors that would get 8 together maybe so of ten, every so of ten.

9 And then we branched out to having a QARC at the 10 request of Mr. Kazanas, at the corporate level. An d i t 's a 11 process to identify certain reviews to indicate that where 12 there udght be particular problems that should be further 13 i escalated.

14 , Q Okay. Did you attend a meeting in March of 1984 15 i

with Mr. Kazanas and Mr. Bader and Mr. Guimond, a meeting 16 h with Dr. Long, to address problems in the area of environ-b 17 1 mental qualification at TMI-l?

l 18 A I do not remember at that period of time.

19 Q Do you remember discussing those type of problems 20 in the area of environmental qualification with Dr. Long ?

21 A It could be . Yes, sir.

22 Q You don ' t specifically --

23 A I don' t recall.

24 Q Under what circumstances would QA gc to Dr. Long Ae o neoo,wn, inc.

25 with problems , wi th QA problems? .

i I l 1

e L_ -_ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. ____. _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ . _. ~

16 i A I think the first method, which you have to f 2 understand in the line of reporting, they do create at the 3 sites, what they call a significant event report. I think 4 it's on a weekly basis. It might be two a week. But that 5 goe s to Kaz anas . And from Kazanas, it goes to Dr. Long.

6 And from there it could emanate into our top management.

7 Q Problem areas?

8 A Yes, problem areas. They also have at the varicar 9 sites monthly reports that the Manager of QA might put out 10 l related to where are we in the sites to some of the probletz 11 l and things of that nature. They call it the Vice President's 12 Repo r t.

13 Q Okay. Between 1981 and 1984, was OA continually 14 identifying the problems they found in the area of environ-i 15 mental qualification with Tech Functions , the Tech Functiots' 161: side?

b 17 ' A I can't answer directly on the problems , but I 18 would say there was an interf ace etntinuously with the QA related 19 end of various attributes of the environmental qualificatior..

20 l 0 Okay. Do you feel that the audit findings la 21 [! 81-02 were handled in a responsible manner by Quality As-22 surance?

23 A I would say so, y..s.

24 Q Why do you say that? You know , we are talking ,

an uneomn.w.;

25 some of these are not closed out now if vou look at the 1

i

,re---- -n w

17 1 revised response, l 2 A I think there is two that are s till open.

3 Q Correct.

4 A In some of the things that you accomplish, you 5 don ' t ge t a res ult in -- an d I don ' t me an the w ay i t s oun ds ,

6 but the unfortunate thing is that some of the things you 7 don' t get a result overnight but it takes time to develop 8 and get a good methodical approach to resolving it.

9 But during this period of time, there were some 10 of these findings signed of f by Mr. Guimo::.d, like this 12 8- E2 11 and some of the individual items. Perhaps we got too many 12 findings in here. Maybe we should have had just one parti-13 cular finding.

14 Bowever, as I review these reperts here it seems 15 methodically they have bet.n signed of f in a period of time.

16 1. Some have been signed also by Mr. Magitz, who is quite a I

l .yo j Q Do you feel that the audit findings were handled 21 l in a responsible manner by Tech Functions?

l 22 A Without reviewing all the details I would have to 23 , tell you I can' t answer that.

24 Q Did anyone ever indicate to you that Tech Functions u we m.mnm. inc. .

25 " needed help in the area of environmental qualification?

h (o,7e,pmfuu) ..

l 18

l. >

I A Officially, no.

1 2 Q What about unof ficially?

3 A Unof ficially you hear backroom scattering which 4 is meaningless unless you get the facts before you.

5 Q Did anyone in a position to know, in other words, 6 any of your people that were auditing the program or anyone 7 within the chain of command of Mr. Boucher to Mr. Croneberger, 8 did ,any of those individuals relate to you that EQ needed 9 help?

10 A None of those individuals indicated that to ne .

11 They might have indicated that to Croneberger. That, I don' t 12 know.

13 Q Did Tech Functions ever indicate to you they 8

14 needed help?

15 A Not directly, no. We a,1. ways directed our prchiers 16 4 with the findings to Mr. Croneberger.

r 17 Q Okay. Did you ever offer first-line assistance , l a

13 . 3 in other words, hands-on assistance, with your QA people to 1 1 19 , assist Tech Functions, you know, in getting their files, l

I 20 their documentation, basically straightened around?

21 A I think that particular problem fell under Mr.

22 Kazanas with Mr. Wilson. I'm sure Mr. Kazanas could answer 23 that better than I could.

I 24 ! Q Were you present when any assistance was of fered?

4 n.co,ws inc. h 25 A No, I was not present.

e

- ~ ~ . _ . . )

\' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

l

i '

19 ,

1 Q Did you have any first-line, or hands-on, knowledge l 2 of the EQ program?

3 Did you review files?

4 A I didn't review the actual data files produced by 5 EDS or IMPELL, as they now call it. Those were all being 1

6 maintained by Mr. Gu; mond.

7 But in recognition while I was down therc , I can 8 explain to you but I can' t remember the date, I did know 9 of possible problems that might be related to the site. And 10 that's wnen I had Mr Garriaon (phor. etic) who was an auditor 11 at that time -- that's documented someplace -- get all the 12 People together through Mr. Maus to incure that we had the 13 strength of the equipment that might be in the warehouse.

14 [ Q Warehausing and replacement?

15 A B'Jplacement equipment, which would indicate ,

16 l you know, the strength that you have in tr ? environmental f

17 j program. Yes.

18 But I can ' t remember the dates .

b.

19 , Q Okay.

t l

20 j h That was back in '82 as I remember, Lhough.

L 21 Q These problems that we are talking about v? 'h the

. _ ronmental qualification program, to your knowledge during

-r 19 81,19 82 and 19 83 and early ' 84 time period, we re they

o. ver dircussed with fir. Hukill and Mr. Toole?

3

. n==n .. x.

25 A Well, I think the only time that we got in a l

l

~-- sp

20 1 discussion on the environmental -- there might be on others --

2 there might be or others that I discussed it. And I don't 3 know that.

4 But I do know thct the audit that we performed, ,

f I think in ' 84 at the corporate of fice done by Dan Corbett 5

6 (phonetic) on the environmental program -- Mr. Hukill was e

7 notified to that extent. He was nt thu exit which I was at,'

3 too, at TMI. That was done in ' 84 on the spare parts.

9 Q Okay. Spare parts?

10 A And mainten ance.

11 Q But isn't that cowards the middle of ' 84?

12 A I think it was.

13 Q What I would like to show you is two GPUN letters ,

14 that were sent to NRR, the subject of which was Envirenmental i

15 Qualitication of Electrical Equipment at TMI-1.

16 The first one is dated May 20th,19 83, letter I.:

17' number 5211-83-157. The second one is dated February 10, 18 1984, letter number 5211-84-2038.

I 19 I would like to ask you to taxe a look nt them 20 and ask if you have ever seen them beforel 21 (The witness is looking at the documents.)

( <

l 22 A I had not seen these letters at that given time, j 43 no.

I 24 l Q Okay. And you have -- you had no review fumetion l .w a m mwwn. w.  ;

I 25 on either letter?

l l

I p . -

r __

21 1 A That's correct, yes, sir.

I 2 o When was the first tina you've seen this?

3 -A The first time?

4 Q Yes.

5 A In the last several days.

6 Q Other than Mr. Maus, who to your knowledge 7 actively got involved in the Tech Punctions' activity re-8 garding environmental qualification?

9 A Mr. Boucher I believe, Paul Boucher. And the 10 structural setup, others that part cipated at TMI I can't 11 answe r you. I don' t know.

12 o Was there any coint in time where -- first of all, 13 do you feel at any point in time when you were working for Id GPUN or even now that the enviror.nentkl qualification pro-15 gra: turned around?

l 16 1. A I don ' t understand what you mean by that.

i 17 1 0 Problens started to getting resolved, problemt 18 : as those identified in 81-02.

I 1$ ' A Well, fran the time of issuance of 81-02 the 20 problens were always being addressed and getting resolved l

! 21 i over a period of time.

l 22 There were problo ns . which eve:tybody knows about, 23 ! but --

l  !

! 24 i Q Well, the problens were escalated to dif ferent 4 . m.conm. n '

25 levels --

i 22 1 A Different levels, yes, sir.

I 2 Q -- because they weren' t getting done; is that 3 correct?

4 A I would say that, yes.

i 5 0 ok ay . And was there a point in time when things '

6 started getting done? Was it when they were escalated to a 7 certain level?

8 A I would say that a more thorough review would 9 have been done around the first part of '84.

10 0 okay. Is there a certain event or ar.fthing that 11 you assoc 3 ted with it?

12 A Well, I guess at that time , Mr. Croneberger 13 brought in a manager to report to him, to oversee the work Id , being done by Mr. Maus and Boucher and whoever else it was.

15 I think it was a Mr. Mane t ti (phonetic) who was part of 16 IMPELL.

l 17 Q okay. Is there anything else that you would like 18 to say? Are there any statements t) ct you woul?. like to 19 make?

20 A ha, there is nothing else thet I can honestly say i

21 except that action has b en taken to correct this conditior..

22 That's the be e t r can tell yo : from my pe rspective.

23' O okay. Did you appear here today voluntarily?

24 A Yes.

A ,, mmyn, inc.

25 ; Q Has any promises or threats been made' i

l - - . .

u

23 I A No.

f- 2 MR. MATAKAS: Okay. The time is 1335. And this 3 will complete the interview.

4 okay. Thanks a lot, Mr . S t rombe rg .

5 (Whereupon, the interview is concluded at l 6 1 : 35 p.m. , this s ame day. )

7 8

9 10 j 11 f 12 13 14 i

15 16 !

i 17 l 1e

  • 9, i

i 20 j 21 22 23 24 '

e o me n . int I

25 Y,,

6 L_. .

A

_~

~

. g .;* ,. e ..

l , , . . . . . . = . , =. .= , = 3 3 ....7,.

1 1

g i -

3 l This is :o cert.fy tha: the at:schod proces::i. I hefore the  ;

8 i I

, .... R w,.

w . . u. . m s . w .4 *

i. .

I i

, In the mat er of: Investigative Interview of M.J.

S t rombe rgl*

, Date of Pr ceeding: May 8, 1985 l,

., Place of Pr:osedi.g: Parsippany, New Jersey l

, were held as herein appears, and that thiss is the original

, transcript f o r the file of the Cor-..ission.

to

,, Myrtle H. Traylor i of ficial Repor er - Typed ,

12

'3 - ,.

V

.P,.r .C., '

.'.e~.. -

i.

,, of f t:iad Repor:er - Signature 15 1

16 '

if '

t. I

. s

$h 20 T .

l l 22 , I.

l s

e 23 I I

t I

, I l

24 * .

t s

l i ,

l i I

I

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20147E726&oldid=2851603"