ML20147E715
| ML20147E715 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1985 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342B416 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-696 NUDOCS 8801210203 | |
| Download: ML20147E715 (49) | |
Text
- r .: J c t . . . . I BRT /dir '
'J:0 TE7 FTI.TES ST A*b?.2 0A N l
2 l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO?O'ISSION i il 3 OFFICE OF IhTESTIGATION
{
5 GPUN Headquarters
, 100 Interpace Parkway 6 !! Parsippany, New Jersey Il 7
- The Investigative Interview convened at.8
- 50 a.r..,
Richard A. .Ma t a k a s , presiding.
9 !;
I!
10 PRESENT:
F1Y?i3:C J . GUIMOS;, Ir.ter viewst S OA Auditor, GPU 12 ;
RICHAPO A. .'G.T;d'aS , Investigator 13 Region I Nuclear Regulatory Comission
- 14 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 15 .
ROBERT C. LA GRANGE i Section Leader scc EQ Branch Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation IE ti 2C .
f 77
- l3f0Tm3(IO'l In Ih!$ TCCCid YlU ddi'PI in accordar.cc with the F Fim cl Infome;3 23 Act, exem rods _ dW __
F0IA. = -b9b 2)(p AM 8tse's Re:c te's. tN 25 8801210203 880106 A a PDR FOIA F /
WEISS 87-p96 PDR / gy(/ g
??M :.r- ? I L .* :
f 1
_P _R _O _C _E _E _D _I _fi _G _5, 2 MR. MATAKAF: Tne dht e is Apri.; 4, 1985, ar,$ the 3 time is 5:53. Pr es ent for this int ervle. ar t myself, Rich 4 Matakas, investigator with the United States Huclear 5 Regulatory Commission; Bob La Grange, section leader in 6 the NRC's EO branch, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Reg.:latior.-
7 and Mr. Raynond J . Guimond, QA auditor for GPU.
8 The purpose of this interview is to discuss facts and 9 circumstances leading to GPU's submittals to the NRO 10 involving the environmental qualification of electrical 11 equipment at TM1 U ni t 1.
12 Mr. Gui.ond, de you have any objertice to provi;ir.g 13 this infor_ation under oath?
14 THE WITNESS: No.
15 Wh er eupon, 16 RAYMOND J. GUIMOND 17 was called as a witness and, having beer. first duly sworn, 15 was e x amir.ei a..6 t est if ed as fcilews:
19 EXAMINAT!ON 2D BY M?. . MATAMAS:
21 0 Sir, for the record, would you give us your full 22 name, please?
23 A Raymond J. Guimond.
24 o And your business address?
2.: A ; *. . ;r. erpare T h r':wty , Pars;p:sry, New J ers ey, i
2?EC ~ .6 '
LI 1 O And what is your t elephone number we could reach 2 you at here?
3 A 299-2224.
4 0 Generally speaking, what I would like you to do 5 is give me just a little bit of an overview of your 6 education and work hist ory?
7 A Well, education, just a high school graduate.
8 H story, my working hist ory is, worked shipyard, Navy, 9 submarines; worked Aerospace; and then utility.
10 0 Specifically, with GPUN, when did you st a rt , sir?
11 A With GPU, 1975 I was a cont ractor, in the ver. dor j 12 surteillance group.
13 O When did you come aboard with GPU?
f November 1, 1977.
14 A 15 0 And what was your position at that time?
16 A Vendor surveillance.
17 0 When did you get into the auditor program, or IE ach t ing ,rregram?
19 A Oh, I believe it was in 1983, when I transferred 20 ir.t o th e audit section.
21 O And you have been in the audit section ever 22 since?
23 A Yes.
24 O Specifically, during 1980 through 1984 time 25 .t;o,
- wr. : wers yo;r s;pervas:rs ?
2266:.0 4 iM -
1 A Well, we had some changes.
I 2 ! at t Stromberg was the manager cf the sectior,. Tr. e r, ,
3 e es t.: ;a ; ; y wh en we merg ed wi t h J e r s ey Cer.* ra l , Era e Bader 4 became my immediate supervisor.
5 0 I notice on some of the audits that we are going 6 to be talking about that you were list ed as t eam leader.
7 A Yes.
8 0 Is that something that you have to qualify for?
9 A Yes, you have to be certifief for team leader.
10 0 Is there a time period involved also?
11 A Yes. Well, we got to meet the ANSI standard, 12 N45.2.23.
13 C Mr. Guimond, what I would like to de is 14 introduce some documents into the record and have you take 15 some time to look th em ov er , because these are the 16 documents that mainly we'll be talking about today.
17 First, I would like to show you a GPUN int erof fice 16 me :rar.dur da r ed Jur.e 25, 19E;. !! ;.a s a DA num're Of 19 QA41El. It's to Mr. R.F. Wilson, vice-pr es i d ent , Tech 20 Functions; and it 's f rom Mr. M.J. S tr==b e r g , manager of 21 the OA program development and audit.
22 Attached to this memorandum is an audit report number 23 0-TMI-81-02, which we'll refer to as audit 81-02.
24 I would like you to take a look at this and, ignoring 25 s:r < :f :. e s :. s t :..;ng t a r : a r.d t ' . e s;ie, :! ye. re:02r. :e
-2?CL2.' 5
-r- .r .
I the document ? Do yea recognize this document?
2 A Yes.
4 . Whst 6 es a represent to y ;?
4 A That was the audit that was performed on the 5 effort, GPU 's ef fort s in answering IE Bullet.in 79s31B.
6 O Were you the t eam l eader on this audit ?
7 A Yes.
8 0 I've alsc asked for the response from Te:h 9 Functions to this audit, the first response. And it 10 cannot be locat ed . But what I do have and what I have 11 been provided is another interof fice memorandum da ed June
- 2 21, 1981; th e su'r f.e
- t is audit 81-02. This is a OA 13 response to the Te:h Functions response which, fro: what :
14 have been told, reiterat es the initial response of Tech 15 Functions.
16 I would like you to look over that document and tell me 17 if you recognize it?
.- A Yes.
19 0 What does this repres ent ?
20 A That is our answer back to Tech Functions, after 21 our review, that their corrective action was unacceptable 22 to us.
23 0 Okay. And what I would like to show you now is 24 what I have been told is a revised response to the
? .:_.-:- : -a - ; .a* -
us: '.anded you. ?'s dat ed A;:.r-
22BC 2.7 6 Lr-1 21, 1981. It's from Mr. Maus to Mr. Stromberg, and the i n;..rer on it is Er&: 81-0176.
2 De yo; also recogr.;st thir 3 de:; ent ?
4 A l've seen it; yes.
5 O Did you yourself review this revised response?
6 A lio , I did not.
7 O Okay. On the initial audit, 81-02, for the most 8 part, were you responsible for the draf ting of that audit ?
9 A Yes.
~
[
10 0 And on the response to the Tech Functions
', 11 respons e, were you basically respor.sible for --
l i 12 A The kickback.
13 0 --
for the kickback of that response?
/ 14 A Yes.
15 O Now we go to this revised response from Tech
! 16 Functions. Why was this not provided to you as team 17 leader?
18 A : '. ave no idea, sir.
19 O I notico most of these things are either 20 accepted or rejected by Mr. Maglitz?
21 A Magitz.
22 O Magitz?
23 A That's correct.
24 O is he within your section?
Yes. -.e audu s;rer._s:r.
Oi A :-: + ' s ,
s
2 2 6 0 .' . ^ 7 M~
s i l' O Is this unusual, for Mr. Magit z to -review a 2 respons e surh as this and not t he t et- leader?
3 A He would normally ir. erfect wi-h the tea- lesitr
'4 before making a determination.
5 0 Before making the acceptance or --
6 A If it's a rejection.
7 0 In this case, did he interface with you?
8 A No.
9 0 The last document I would like to show you that 10 we'll be talking about is dat ed April 4, 1984. It's a GPU 11 Nuclear memorandum and the subject is "Open Audit Findings" 12 regarding audit 81-02. It's f ro. yo:rself to 13 Mr. Stromberg.
/ 14 I would like you to take a look at this. Let 's go of f 15 the record for one second.
16 (Discussion of f the record.)
17 BY MR. MATAKAS:
18 O Mr. Gui.Or.d, de yo; re:ogr.;:e t'.is April 4 19 document?
20 A Yes.
21 O Why is it that af t er t:wo years between the last 22 response from Tech Functions that you now got back into a 23 review of your original audit ,81-027 Would you explain 24 that, please?
2 ~- A ';e'.,
. _ __;e
- had s ated, I warr't ori gi..s ; ' y Or
E 22862.0 a
1 the accept ance portion of the thing and :t was -- I can't i
2 possibly re enber wher. I did find out tha- this hed 3 1 r L .'. t ,r i r e i .
4 0 When you say "this transpired," what do you mean?
, 5 A That the audit supervisor had accept ed the 6 proposed correct ive actions. I brought it to the 7 at tent ion of the manager of the section --
8 O That's Mr. Stromberg?
9 A -- Mr. Stromberg, that the corrective action --
10 proposed corrective action did not address the concerns.
11 I tried to, et the time, back in 'E2, kickback the 12 findings 00 Tech Functions, but for sone reason my 13 supervisers did not acknowledge the memes and issue them.
14 C Mr. Magit: and Mr. Stromberg?
15 A Mr. Bader and Mr. Stromberg.
16 0 How many memos did you write, back in 19827 17 A There were two memos at that time. One was the 16 re/;ee cf EP: 21, and the kickback of -he audit f;r.d;r.gs.
19 O EPO 31?
20 A That was their proposed correr-ive actior.,
21 answer finding number 1, Tech Functions procedure.
22 O This was back in 1982 that you did that?
23 A That's correct.
- 24 0 ' iou wrot e these memos to Mr. Stromberg?
- ~-
- : . the were a : ; t .' '. ) Edi:essed :: 2. : .-
N
1 22862.0 9 BPT ;
(g 1 Cronenberger, dire.ctor of engineering.
/
I t 2 O Is it Cronenberger?
5 A T..a t is correc+.
I 4 Q And these memos were kicked back to you or --
5 A They were given to my immediate supervisor, 6 which then never was issued.
7 O Meaning you don't know what happened to them or 8 you were told they were never issued?
9 A They were never issued.
10 0 That's Mr. Bader?
11 A Mr. Bader.
12 O Unat did he say was the reason for not issui..;
13 thes e things?
14 A I could not answer. I could not get a definite 15 answer on it. You 'd have to ask Mr. Bader.
16 O So your original audit of June 25 -- or, I 17 believe it was in March, March 26 through April 1, 1981:
IE yr '.ad 11 audit findings?
19 A That's correct.
20 0 And on the response, on the original response, 21 none of their corrective actions were acceptable?
22 A That is correct.
23 O To include audit number 1 -- I mean audit 24 finding number 17 I A T ' . r. did r. - i..r'.d+
. f i r. ii r : . .- : (r .. ^.r
22862.0 2 '.
Ei; 1 only addressed 2 through 11 at that time.
s 2 O Auditi finding number 1 wss "No ee-dence of 3 nu.3 9 enent direct ion t o corre;a' e the effer s of 4 intersectional ef fort in establishing the master list and 5 qualification documentation file," is that correct?
6 A That's right.
7 O Did you ever attempt to find out why they did 8 not address audit finding number 1?
9 A At that time, no. They were saying that was 10 something they still had to look at.
11 O And who was that , that was saying that ?
12 A Don Cronenberger in Tech Tunctions.
- ~. ,-
13 O I see his answer for the corrective act icr. was ,
14 would this be "Emergency Procedure-031 is s cheduled to be 15 issued on 9/1/1981"?
16 A That would be "engineering procedure."
17 O Engineering procedure. And that was signed off IE ty ':r . Magi : as a :ept ed?
19 A Yes.
20 0 Have you ever reviewed engineering procedure 031?
21 A Yes.
22 O Does it satisfy the audit finding?
23 A No , sir.
24 0 I notice in your April 4, 1984 memorandue, that y h i bW e se g b e I b e eso e * *e b e bb e4 *b, ** '
22E6: .0 Il L*:
1 I was wondering about that, how all of a sudden it was I
2 accept ed and you re ect ed it again it. April of 19E*.
1 W:m t went o:. be weer, you ? Thcre .a s t have beer -- y:;
4 must have teon catching some flak, and I'd like to know 5 what happened?
6 A Well, lik e I say, Phil, apparently, acc ept ed i-7 based on they had finally agreed to writ e a procedure.
B 0 Phil?
9 A Phil Magitz. But the only probl em with the 10 procedure was Tech Functions only wrote how they were 11 going to mak e a submit tal t o th e NR' O. Th ey did r. ' t a s s ig t.
12 responsibilities of all the disciplines involved t: cake 13 the program work, and that's what I was trying to tell 14 people, was that it was inadequate. It wasn't assigr.in-15 responsibilities. It wasn't saying who, what. cod why, 16 and when. And that's why it was inadequate to EPO-31 to 17 stand by itself to beco=e a prograr in EO.
15 0 : want :: alk a little ti ab:ut audi 19 procedures. And I don't want to forget this -- I want ?:
20 go off the record.
21 (Discussion off the record.)
22 BY MR. KATAKAS:
23 0 What is your knowledge of how and why the 24 original audit, I'm talking about the audit that was
- ::...: ei ut .
. r. :tr:h. Ma r :i *d ~.rcagh Apr ' 11
. , '. :- E .
22802.*.
PTT 12 1 why, and by whom, was that audit request ed?
2 A By Mr. Wilson.
3 O Mr. R. W i l t e r. , vice-preside..- of Tech Ta.:-i nr.r ?
4 A Tech Functions -- that is correct.
5 o What was the purpose of the audit?
6 A He had, apparently, reques*ed from Mr. Stromberg 7
that we verify that the ef fort was following procedures.
8 Then it was given te me to look at, and I had talked to 9 Mr. Stromberg about it, and then made the recommendation 10 that we include all the requirements of the bulletin, not 11 or.l y -J.e subr.i t t a l , the i r.i t i a l subr: tal.
12 O Are you talking about the bull etin DDR 13 guidelines and 10 CFR 50.497
/ 14 A At the time it was just the bulletin and NURE3 15 0588.
16 O And DOR guidelines?
17 A The DOR guidelines is part of the bulletin; yet.
18 :'m s rry. A-tachment 4.
19 Q What are both 'OA and in this case Tech 23 Function's responsibilities for the corrective action 21 regarding the audit findings? In other words, what is the 22 responsibility to include time limits -- the audits are 23 written on certain individuals -- what is their 24 respons bility to respond and what is 3A's responsibility O! :: trs:%7 k
2?U.200 13 h:- -
1 A Well, Tech Functions - well, any individual i
2 with an audit fit.n ng against them should be writ:r.;
, 3 correct 2ve act20:. at socr. as possible, and irr.l e e; - ing 4 that corrective action Ln the shortest time frame possible 5 that they could.
6 OA is to track open audit findings and to assure that 7 prSposals or corrective ac ions are being addressed in the 8 verification of the closeouts.
9 O Audit findings number 1, number 3, and nember 11, 10 you wrote against Mr. Cronenberger, or wrote on 11 M. Cronenberger, and the remaining you wrote on y.r. Maus.
12 A Well, it var just the* Mr. Maus, i t. the er. : -
13 meeting, had jort acknowledged that he had signed fer i 14 those findings t h ems el v e s . Apparently finding 1, 3. and 15 11, was going to take nore of a decision oy upper 16 management, and I believe -- my personal belief was that's 17 the reason why Mr. Cronenberger signed for it.
0%Ey. trge- da e-16 2 7.r.d -.e..
give you a 19 A That 's corr ect .
20 0 Ohry. Ehr: happens when that target dat e is not 21 met?
22 A Well, it 's up to the audit section to send out 23 notifications that they have missed a target date and 24 notify ths.m that th ey ar e ov erd u e .
e-25 ; Y ; i e r t : r.e d bs :',; 'r a f er e thet ye; .h d . r:-
~. .
22862.0 ;4 Et~
l -two memoranda i r. '82 to Mr. Cronenberger. Was that for p s 2 f o l l ow- u,t or. t h e r e it ent?
3 A t wtr. 'ptreinlly. It wes t : s :. a r. a p r ( e < r -
\4 that was reached in a meeting between Mr. Cronenberger,
\;5 with Mr. Stromberg, Bader, and Magitz.
l6 O That --
7 A I was not present at that meet ing , bu' I was 8 informed that the request was made that I review EPO 31
,' 9 and document, what I saw wrong with that procedure, where 10 it was lacking.
11 O Okay. That's what you did do?
12 A That's what I did do. And I also drafted a mer:
13 kicking back the proposed corrective actions.
14 O Thos e are the two memos we are talking about?
, 15 A Yes.
1 16 O Do you have numbers for those memos?
17 A They were never issued, sir. Th er e wa s t. ' t a 15 r.: m b e r . r.:f t : : : a ' ' y : r. e of
. . t'..e: dLi ge- a .~.u-:: e r 19 assigned, and that's how I can pinpoint it, to it. It was
. 20 that I needed a number for ref erence or, one of the menos 21 referencing the other. So the secretary did assign a 22 number to it, which never was issued as an official number i 23 to it. And by her log, I can pinpoint it to the day, 24 supposedly, thet number was issued. ,
25 : :: y: . M r. e :::;es cf th:st -errs!
d 2 2 8 6 2 . '>
IL u~ .
1 A Yes. _In my files.
f= I would Jihe t o ge copier of those twe. ecos.
2 O
.3 : would like t o t L1h a ;; : e. t i* . trout- your 4 recommendations as a result of audit 81-02. They show up
.< 5 on page 10 of 10.
6 Recommendation number 1, : quot e: "Document ed '
7 direction be generat ed in order to assure meeting the 8 requirement s of the bulletin
- include organizations, 9 departments, sections, and individuals (headquarters and
- 10 ' site personnel). This should include int erf ace 11 responsibilit ies and defir.e the corporate position or. the 12 bulletin."
13 Did this directly relate se audit finding number 17 14 A Yes.
15 o What responsibilities would, in this case Tech 16 Functions, have in responding to your recommendations or 17 in taking your recommendatior.s. if any?
15 A A: tht: time?
1.
19 0 Yes, sir.
20 A A recommenda-ior. d:dm't have, basically, no 21 weight. They didn't have to address it.
22 O okay. To your knowledge, was anything dene on 23 your recommendation?
] ,
24 A over time; yes.
j 25
- ~r. s r y c; s r.,
. '.~er;ne.' tr: we i t ; . i r.;. '?i4:
i i
4 g - - - - , - - ,
7
22862 0 16 91:! -
p
/- 1 A Yes. Yes, sir.
1
[ 2 O T .e second r e c om.m end a t i or. st a t es . s r. d :'11 quot t
.i t
- A cor;d e: t r s c i e.- she;1d be t aker, t o a srur e tha- th(
, 4 qualification documentation is con.plete to support I
5 adequacy of the equipment. "
6 Was anything done regarding that partie lar f
- 7 recommendatien, to your knowledge?
8 A Well, things have transpired over the years.
9 0 since 19847 10 A Certain documentation has been added as such, 11 but it still did not address the findings.
12 O Ar.d r e com.r e r.d a t i or. n;mb e r 3, and : quot e: "Te:h 13 Functions take the lead in establishing a training prograr i
14 for corporat e and site personnel on the requirement s of 15 the bull etin.
- 16 To your kr.owledge, was any action taken on that 17 r ecom=endatien?
15 A T. y pers:..E' kr.rv' edge,
. . r.:..e ty Te:r Ter.:-ir.;
19 0 Wr.en you talked to -- who was responsible for 20 the prograr during the time of the audit u,: until 1984? ;
21 I'm talking about physically, hands-on responsibilitf?
22 A Physically? See, my personal opinion was that 23 it was Tech Functions 's responsibility to take the lead.
24 O Starting wit.h R.F. Wilson?
O! A Tu- - . e ., r t'.a ::.f;; rt ;rr ::r:::.
22662.0 17 BP7 1 requirement s of the plan and they would have to be the 2 l ea d organiza t ior. berouse t .*.h
- vss the requirement s .
1 C Bu* whs- I'r g et t i r.; a, when you actual'y C;; .
4 the audit did you actually talk to the people that were 5 actually implementing the program? That were, you know, 6 put t ing the pieces of paper in the file; that wer e tryir.g 7 to con?orm to the bulletin?
8 A Yes. Yes. At the time --
9 O And who were those individuals?
10 A Well, it was, at the tice i t was the engineers 11 that was assigned to the ef f ort a r.d to -- Don Cronenoerger, 12 who was the director of er.gineering.
13 0 Who were the engineers that were responsible?
14 A Well, the initial begir.r.ing, it was George 15 Braulke and Irv Feinberg, were the two engineers assigned 16 to the initial effort for the first submittal.
17 Not too far after that, Gerry Maus was finally assigned li as tr.ager. The. did i:rr, s uppos ed' y,
. . a s e rt ; Or., I ".
19 sectier., with Gerry Maus, a r.d appointed the manager.
20 0 Who worked for Mr. Maus, handling EO -- or 21 environmental qualificatior., at Three Mile Island Unit 17
- < 2 A Paul Boucher.
23 0 When you made the recommendation that a training 24 prograr be established to comply with the requirement s cf 25 -~.i i . . . e t . r. , d;i f: .:
'.t v s -.ese .: :nd;v.d;a's . 1.- ...i-
2260'.0 )E LF-
,/ *
' 1 A They, being in charge of it , would have to come 2 up with the r eq.:: r ement s ; yes, and wNid have : np ut int o 3- it.
- 4 Q I guess what I'm getting at is, did they impress 5 you as needing such training?
i 6 A Yes.
7 O Wher. -- I take i' you did have conversa* ion with ,
6 them during the audit?
9 A Yes.
10 0 Did they appear to know the require ent s of the 11 bulletin?
12 A My personal opinion: No.
13 O Just for the record, in your memorand;.- dated 14 April 4, 1964, the oper.ing paragraph stat es: *The 15 verification of the proposed corrective action in 16 re.'erence number 2, F.G. Maus to P.B. Magitz, dated 17 February 5, 1982 (latest proposed corrective action to
- I aud;t f r
- r T e r'.- F ;n: ::r.s re s ;1t ed ::. th e c1: s e r ;- :f 19 findin- 7B only. Findings 1, 3, S A, 6A, 10, 11.2, 11.8, 22 and 11.14 are still considered open.
21 Those were your findings when you reviewed everything 22 that had been done regarding audit C1-02; is that correct?
23 A That is correct.
24 0 I know I got you on the spot with your company.
. a :. :. ; 2 : .. - -
et. i;; .
- ce
- : w t .c . t a' t.- r -.s .c t
22BC 2.! ;-
1 it is. I don't think it's of any fault of'ycur own. I t'r.:nc your actiens ha.*e oeer. corrert 1.' what you'.e dor.c.
- i .- waai I waa;; .
- he t o K r. :. .- is, co .e righ* out t .; s c ,.
4 it -- us vou know why no action was taken between 1902, 5 Februar s .982 and April 4, 1984, on this corrective actior.?
6 A I ha .'e a sk ed mys el f that over and over aga .
7 O There is no -- no one has come out and told you 6 that, h ey , w e d on ' t think this program is that i mpo r t a r.t .
9 or TMI is no' going to s' art up anyhow -- has anybody in a 10 responsible position given y7e ar.y reason? I don't k#
11 what it could be.
12 A It has r.e"er beer, said the- way.
13 0 Hai it beer, said ar.y other ways 14 A Well, the ac-ions speak f or the .selves -- lark 15 of.
16 0 You ref er to the inactions speak for ti.ense' ves? . ,
17 A The lack of actions speak f or the.m.< el ves .
- E
- '. r. y e ; r rrr es rs at ;; r.s wii' ci-her ".r. Ms.s.
19 Mr. 30ucher -- did they ever indicate to you that the i 2* r.ee d ed h elp ir.p l eme r- i r.g the progr tr ?
21 A No.
22 0 Did you fee; that they needed help?
23 A Oh, Jefinitely.
24 0 Othtz than ycur audit findings that you have a:.: t: ::. . ;.. ;..
<.-: . r. l . : e < :. zar.tgersr.- -- - z i r. . :. ;
225.*2.'.*
... 2- <
I 1 when I say "management " I'm talking about Mr, Wilsor., ;
i
- Mr. Cron(.icrger, or Mr. C..:shoir --
- d. d: '- yL; ever
- - i..d i r s t
- .- c. h y r .; ( C - :. c -; eviti he ;. ~ ::
4 direction, othar than the audit findings that speak for
. 5 themselves that you have writ t en down?
I 6 A : do not reme.-ber speakir.g t o thos e individuLis.
7 Q Would you have indicat ed this to Mr. Strorberg?
6 A Yes.
9 Q Did he ever relate to you that he passed this 10 ir.f ormation or. t o his level of supervisicr. ir. the rech 11 Functions side?
12 A :: had come cut i r. i.e e t : r.g s , ir C A, y0; k r.ow ,
13 s ectior. meet ings , sta ! meetings.
14 0 Be*weer. QA a.d Tech Functicr.2?
15 A OA itself.
16 Q Within QA? ,
17 A Yes.
he hai :asrei -.s
. Ir. :- .er vi.-fr. -.t-19 infcrmatien on?
2? A That was dis:;rsed.
21 O Well, I'm not clear on this: "hat he was going 22 to pass it on or he had --
23 . Well, there was no indication that way. If you 24 are sayir.; to pass it or. *o his boss?
I
, .. ; - s '...r; --
- s .-
- : : r. i Tt:
I
, e I - ,_ - , _ . - _ , . . _ - _ , _ _ _ - - . . , , . . -- -
i 333C.
t 1 Functions side?
2 :. ::: .
. D 's ._ t h : :.- -
. .: : g r c .- .c be s t. *
. r *. t ; t r .: .,
4 environment al qualification program 7 i l
5 A It is going in the right direction, but it l 6 hasn't beer. tu rned a rour.d .
7 O Can you give ne a point where somet hing happer.ed ,
8 a turr.ing point in the pr: gram, that at least got this 9 thing going in the right direction?
10 A Well, when Tech Tunt:tions finally issued the:r 11 10 0 ~.- procedure, where EPO-U., they revamped it, ar.d d 5 12 start addressir.; r esp ..s ;::'. iti cs of di f f er er.t d i v i s i : r. s 13 ar.d what the:r respor.s bilities wo;16 be.
. 14 O And wh er. wa s this ? Just approximate time per: il 15 A W el l , ti'is was ir. the process at the end of '83 16 or so, it was in a revie. cycle th I know of. When the 17 pro:edure final y got re :: t t er. -
19 5 23 21 22 23 2% i
. Mr. --.,;. :: s
- r+.::- t- t '. . . ! .:: ;.:-
(
DP .. E -_ _
b 22M O.!
2 .'
)
1 April of 19847 I'm still a lit t le hary on that .
i 2 1 ean, yea ev: dent ly re, t e. ei Te : Fanttions'
. re: :.cr E l -:.1 :.r.2 y ,; dr s f ed y:;r Apr. . 196.; .e,:.
4 How was it that you came to relook at this program?
5 A In April?
6 : April 4, 1984 is when your r.eno is drafted.
(~ ~7 A Yes, okay. That was to -- well, right along I 8 was actusily holding, supposedly, the tit.le of the EQ
, i 9 coordinator for the OA department. S: I was following the
\
10 EO progra- right along. I terhnically never lef t it.
11 0 Was t.h e r e a time yoa becare a little 12 d:sen:hanted or less than enthusiasti: regarding your i
13 t le?
i 14 A Yes.
15 Q Other than the memos that you mentioned, was 16 there any other action that was taken that actually i
17 thwart ed what you were trying to do?
IE A We,
.. en:ngs vere t ah .n; ,:;t:e with d:f f er en-19 individuals, different sections, site. as such, to try to 20 br:.ng it t: their at tention what the:r resprnsibilities 21 would be.
22 O You were having meetings at the sit e?
23 A Gerry Maus and myself were having meetings with 24 the engineering gro :ps, the maintenan:e gro.:ps, the OA 1- g :.;t.
i I
' 2;&f 2 9 2 :-
11-1 O At the site?
2 A At the t.*e.
2 . *.5 wh: v;;<- -- gt ahe2d.
4 A Well, we were pushing to try to get something 5 done, hoping that th e sit e would see the concerns.
6 ; But the ultimat e responsibility was here in 7 Parsippany, wasn't it, with Tech Fun:tions?
8 A That 's r.y personal opinior.: yes.
9 0 iTnat was the purpose of trying to go to the site?
10 Just because you couldn't get any action at this le.el 11 here?
12 A Wel; , 1: was t o t ry to br:r.; them up t o s, +e$,
13 of what their responsibilities were. My contenti - vas, 14 under that basis, is that if you were talking to 15 maintenance and you brought maintenance what the c:ncerns 16 of EQ were and what impact it had on them, they might take 17 some action on their own.
1E Eu- d:.d t.ey have Er, wr:- er g .2 i d t . . : e -
l 19 this poir.t there was no written guidance for them, was 2 ;- there?
l 21 A Not that I know of.
22 O It was just a matter of hoping that t. hey would 23 tak e action.
7 24 Did you ever meet with Mr. Toole er Mr. Hukill?
s.--
'2?*L2.' '4 t
1:~
1 0 Did anybody else?
2 A 2 ' r. not sure, but I be:: eve Gerry migh- h6ve.
3 G s . r *; Naas.
4 MR. KATAKAS: Why don't we take a couple of 5 minutes break.
6 (Recess.)
7 BY MR. MATAKAS:
8 C I would like to backtrack a lit tle bit about 9 oper audit findings. Were these things, in ef f ect , closed 10 ;- based on Magits' sign-offs? Or did they st ill r er.a i r.
11 cp e r.? Or --
12 :
.. Wha * : bel; eve, right r.ow t'.ere's only vo o,:er 13 f ar. dings left, right now.
14 . Okay. Right now, 1964. 1;t I 'm talkir.; about 15 the revised response that 's dated August 21, 1984. I Y
16 would like to talk about that -- dated August 21, 19 8,/.
17 Let 's take a couple of minutes break and look over the 1E t. .- f;r.d ngs a r.d s e e wh e r. -h ey we r e :10 red c; .
19 (Discus sion cf f the record. )
2 .- my MR. MATARAS:
21 O In looking these over, audit findings 1 through 22 11, they all show that they were accepted by Magitz in 23 August 1981. So, did that, in ef f ect , close thia audit?
24 A !!c , sir. That's where, you see, my other s: . e: : e r. i e i . ,:
~
.i .s..i -- .: . :; ..; -.t- -.;s d;i t.e ,.t:e
-s-(...
... ,e I a memo was issued, kicking them back and ret air.ing the-2 op e r. , as far as ; whs concerned.
2 '. Eigi . Lu- w': . L
- I 'r talk::.; abLut :s. t' .;t e 4 were never issued, so as far as Tech Functions were 5 concerned, th ey -- wer e th ey clos ed ?
i 6 A Under car syst er you r.ight accept the prop; sed 7 correct ive actior., bu* until they are verified and 8 actually closed cut here (Indicating), they are still 9 considered oper..
10 0 In other words at the bot t or, of the page I 11 notice number 11 of 11 is not closed out until June 19B4:
12 10 of 11 is still not closed out : 9 of 11 was :1: sed o;*
13 by yourself in January 1952 --
14 A Yes.
15 0 -- 8 of 11 was closed out by yourself in January 16 '82: 7 of 11 was closed out by yourself in April '82: 6 of l 17 11 is still not closed out ; 5 of 11 was closed ou' in June
. E ;954 r; 'ugit:: f:;r ef 11 was 01: sed out by y:arst'! :: .
19 Jar.uary 1952: 2 cf 11 was closed out by Magit: in June 2 '. 1954: 2 cf 11 was closed out by yours elf in Jar.utry 'E2:
21 and 1 of 11 was closed out by Magitz in June ' 64 .
22 Are you satisfied with these closecuts that we wer.?
23 over?
24 A No, sir.
1.2 . irc.. : . - .ei d: /;. :::.s . : s : st... :;t 3er. der
2 2H 2.' 2(
L. .
I the ones that we have stat ed are open?
2 A 1, as :t stands right now, could be el ss ed o;-
5 .: *he issunr.:t cf a proce .re of ass gn:ng
,f 4 responsibilities as such. But 3 would be -- would stay
[ 5 open for the implementation of it.
6 : That has to do with doeuter.tation; is that 7 : rrect ?
6 A The documentation and the program that would be 9 needed to retain the qualification at the sites. It's, 10 like I told r.y boss when ! came ba:K, it 's either one or 11 the other. If you want to close out 3, then 1 stays oper.-
12 cles e out 1, th er. 3 would st ay cper..
13 0 okay, b'her, he a ccept s -- wh en th es e things wer e 14 a::epted as, you know, the proposed corrective ac-ion ht:- '
15 in 1981, how were they followed af ter that time? You say ,
16 you followed them?
17 A Well, that was -- he had accept ed this prop sed 15 :::. e ::: . e a::::r. --
19 0 We are looking at audit fir. ding number 1 righ*
20 r.:w? (
i
, 21 A That's right. That is correct.
22 I knew nothing about this until. I don't know for some 23 reason I went back int o the fil es . I can't remember wher.
t 24 the date was, and I had noticed that this had been
.; t :: =;: 3. , ..t. ,
- :;. : s e . :::; :: _ ci a::::., a- .t3 .e
2?: 0.7 27 P:
I first time when I had noticed it that I brought it *o the 2 at t ent ier. of his boss and my boss, that this .65
- s t r u t. spi r ed c:.5 t he r e was a r.ist ak e being r.s d e here.
4 Q And that's when you wrote the menos that we are 5 talking about?
6 A T r. L t is correct.
7 O Had you had any adverse action taken against you 8 regarding those memos? Or your act ior.s at all, regarding 9 this envircr.r ent al qualificat ion program?
10 A N.
11 O Are there any requirements? You wrot e the r.emos 12 and you atter.pt ed to f ollow up on thes e findings. Are 13 there any requirement s that were violated regarding the 14 f ollow-up, or the accepted propos ed c rrective action?
15 In other words, it seems that there should be something 16 in place, that these things should have been corrected l before, so te speak, "the shit hit the f an*?
17 1~ A T r. t - tr corre:t.
^
19 And was there anything in place?
20 A Syst er-wis e? Yes.
21 O And what 12 that?
22 A It was the escalation; the program does have I
that mechanisr in there that , if you can't get the proys.'
23 24 corrective action then these things should have been
- i es:L.L s a; y e r n.s .s g er e t. .
? ? ? ~ ." . ' 26 g .-
l ^
.f
> 1 O And that was the purpose of the memo?
/
2 A With the .menos; yes. Arad t he r ee* i r.g s .
1 '. Hoe is: did th;r -h::.g ge ? Ne gtt t o t ..e ; eve; --
4 well, is Mr. Wilson aware of your thwarted efforts?
5 Mr. R.F. Wilson?
l 6 A I cannot say personally.
I 7 O What about Mr. Cronenberger?
8 A Yes.
9 0 How was he aware?
10 A Of having sit-down meetings and bringing it-te 11 h:s at t ent ion that correct ive act ion was needed for thes e 12 open findings.
13 0 Were these document ed meetings 2 14 A I'd say -- I ca nr.ot say if they ever were 15 documented. The ones that I was involved in, I dor.'t i '
! 16 remember being documented.
17 0 What time period are we talking about thes e mee :r.gs
~
- 5 1 19 A Fro.- the time of the issuance of this audit 2; fir. ding through '84.
21 O In other words, there were continual meetings on 22 the findings that you stat ed in 81-02?
23 A That 's correct-.
24 O Do you think you got a response from Tech
= -- -- <--
..: :.: rar.=;s:s: . :<;;:: r.; .:.: i . :. C . . . ; '
w
22M.2.?
20 .
u: .
1 A No. '
2 C At thett r.eet 2 ng s , war Mr. Etier, Mr.- Strombcrg !
} r. n :.: * ; r . ". L - i t : ,t : ( t et.t ? At sor.e of ?:.t:s r e t * ; t.g s ? f
( 4 A Yes. :
5 MR. MATAKAS: Do you have anything else in this 6 aret, Est. before we leave this area? Any quest ions? k?.y 7 don't you go ahead.
8 BY MR. LA GRANGE: i 9 0 Ray, you had made a stat ement , I think, that the 10 EO prograr was gcing in the right dire:: ion but had not f 11 turr.ed arrand? ,
t 12 A Yes, that was a st at ement the wts made te me.
13 Things ha. e progressed since day 1. That 's what I was j 14 trying :: say. But all the vital, I'd say, ry personal 15 opinion -- all the vital requirements that 's needed for 16 the program to make it function is still not in place. .
17 0 Are you talking procedure-wise or technically, ,
< 15 as far as -Jn t d::unenta :en?
l i
19 A Well, I can't talk documentation any longer !
2 be:Euse I haven't been involved since the IMPE'.' e .ergency .
! 21 feed water situation: I haven't been involved in that to 22 look at that portion. I'm talking procedure-wise -- sit e 23 programs, maintenance, warehousing still, training.
t 24 MR. LA GRANGE: Okay. (
P P
, .._ _ _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ . . = . _ _ _ , . . . . _ _
i
??H 2.0
1;- i 1 O At what poin- -- when I asked you has the 2 program tur..el arcar.d. what I was t ry:.ng t o get at ;s a-
- s
- . .s po: r.t 3 7 ; 1.i r e:1 c e r.su l t a r.t s a r. 0 , yo; hr.ow, o; 1;ds 4 individuals to come in and look at this environmental L 5 qualification progran.
6 Knat poi r.? -- what happened -- are you aware of wr.er.
7 this happened and why it happened? You may not be.
8 A W e 1, it was mentioned just prior t o the N?.
9 coming in to look at the emergency f eed wat er, th e Ur.i or.
10 of Concerned Scientists per it ion.
11 O Ir. other wcrd s , as a result of the U0s pet:t or
- i 12 A Yes. The co pany was geing to hire an o; s: de 13 consultant to verify the documentetion files.
14 0 okay. Now, what I*m getting at is: vna* .e.e:
15 of management are we talking about? ,
16 A This was mentioned in a meeting. And it was t 17 managers level. It was Dick Chishol. who made the !
- 6
. s
- a t e" t r.* 1r * '.
" e T* t e * : r. g .
l
)9 BY MR. la GRM;3E : :
23 0 Was this discussed before the first NRO aud .
21 the hiring of consultants?
, 4
- 22 A Yes . Before they first came in; yes. Jus
- 23 before they carne in. It was talk about bringing someone i
24 i r. .
l i
.. u. . . . . .. .-c
's\
T I
i
2.' .F 0-2 . 0
.. ?;
w.
1 Q What was the reason for that ? or was there a 2 reason?
5 A You'd have *o asi, the .
4 Q I thought -- at the meeting they didn't state a J
,' 5 reason?
i 6 A 1;o . They didn 't st at e the reason.
i 7 O To your knowledge, at any these meetings up 8 until the time period we are talking about right now, was 9 anybody at the level of Mr. Clark or Mr. Dick Wilson --
10 was anybody at any of these meetings that would have been 11 made aware of these problems in the area of envirer ental 12 qualification?
13 A Not in the .eetings that I at t ended.
14 C or any other meeting?
15 A I couldn't say for other meetings. I didn't 16 attend all of them.
17 O So, it was stromberg and below and Croner.berger
- 5 a r.d 'r e l ew
- T r. h t level : f me r.a g e. er t ?
- 19 A Well, y es . It was Ma- 's bos s , director of OA, i
2- and Don Croner.berger, at their l evels, directors' levels.
21 Q When you say "Mat t 's"?
22 A Katanas.
23 0 He's Mr. Stromberg's boss?
24 A Tnat's right. He's the director of quality
- ! a s s . r e ..: e .
i e l
~,3
- z
2 ? 8 6 2 . '. 1.*
i LP-1 O And he was at some of these neetings?
I, 2 A Yes.
i S . How d:. yca spell tr.e r,a ,e ?
4 A K-a-Z-a-n-a-s.
5 0 Now we are at the stage of prior to the U s 6 pe :t ior, has co.e out, pric: to t h e ::R audit, and :.
7 between that period -- this would be early 1984 --
8 believe the UCS petition came out ir, January 1984. We 1
9 have Mr. Chisholm mentioning, you know, hiring of Out side 4
10 consultants.
i 11 hnat progressed from there, rega rd:ng thes e cor.s ul a r. s l 12 co.:ng ir.?
i 13 A Well, this is where I ca.. net help you i 14 1
l i
15 0 1
1 16 A l 1
{
i 17 O The NRO inspect ior. took pla ce in March, March 2 7 - ~-
15 a r.f 21st, '9'4.
. A r. f t'.. e r. y : . e :rar.fa- da ed A ;l ".
- 19 1964, f ell ow ed .
4 i I
2; so that 's basically your last cor.t a :t within the I
21 program?
22 A Yes . -
i I
l N, 23 0 '4h a t was the talk or what was the result of the 24 NRC findings for the April -- or t.he March meeting? ,
i 3 .. Er:- -~.s ir.'- .r- : .t: ;s :.r.; vts - .1 - -'t.
P l
236(2o9 p r'- 23 1
were basically agreeing with my audit. finding and the 2 s s s e s s m eri* wt had drr.e 27 Leeember ar.d *he beg:..::,g cf .
- -.s y e r. r
- 'hr- '.*e f:: e> w<rs it.Lh aaL*( t o r ;- - .r
- t ...
4 submittal.
5 Q In other words, that NRC findings were the same 6 as your findings in audit 81-027 7 A Right.
6 MR. KATAKAS: Alto, for the record, st now 9
Mr. Guimond has turned over to me two documents that I'll .
10 make part of his transcript.
11 BY MR. MATAKAS: i 12 O Number 1 is da* ed -- that 's 8/62?
13 A That ir my handwriting to say -- it :uld have 14 been 8/5/82 was the date that that was typed. ,
15 Q Okay. The subject is "Engineering Procedure-031 16 equipment environmental qualification, to:
17 Mr. Cronenberger . "
2 I? : 's a thr+e ,h e d o:; e r. .
19 And the second docume. ? has a handwrit t en r.otation at 22 the top --
21 A T'n a t ' s the same dat.e: 8/82.
i 4
22 0 8/8/82?
23 A August '82, I was trying to say.
24 O And the sub3ect was "Proposed corrective actior l
! :: 1. L - : -T:::-E ' . * : , ' tr. .- :s t't:. :
- r . ' :: r s : ir s:
i A
22&( * .*
.Ei- 34 k
1 This is a two-page document ?
l^
A Tht* is correct .
1 l'R . M1.!AF.1.5: Fer the record, I'!! ;uct put .~. y 4 initials, date and time on them.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
6 MR. FATAL *AS: Befcre we letve the area of audi*
7 inspection reports, is there anyt hing else you have, Bot ?
E MR. LA GRANGE: I don't know if we covered this, 9
but the two memos that were never issued, that were just 10 introduced into the record here.
11 BY MR. LA GRAS 3E:
12 Q Did Cronenberger see them? i 11 A To the best of my knowledge, I can't answer. I 14 can't r em er.o e r . That was a re=uest made by Don for me ::
15' tell them what was wrong, that I was telling them it was a
16 inadequate right along. <
17 o But you can't say for certain that he actually 1* sr. it?
i 19 A I can't say tha*.
20 BY MR. MATAKAS:
i 21 Q In other words, you have seen the proposed 22 corrective action that was signed off by Magitz. 2
. 23 Mr. Cronenberger asked you to write a memo, documentine 24 what you thought was wrong? i
- i k ~. h ; . . a.:,r L : c ' .' ; --
sss. u u s ;. - L- .,
. .r e . :. . <
4
l l
22?02.? 35 )
it! l 1 The request was made to Mr. St romberg, Mr. Bader, and 2 Mr. Megit: :r t heir meet ing wit h Dor., th6t he had made the
.- req.es ht- ; r e'/ cw hi t. pr rac ed a r t e.. s;l hi- exae ly 4 what was wrong with it, where it was lacking.
5 O That 's EP-0 317 6 A Trat 's correct . And I was :1d this when they 7 came back fro.i this meeting, to revie. it and draft the 8 memo.
9 O What precipit at ed the other memo? The one that 10 was es s entia' . ly the same as your April 4th?
11 A Right. That was the same, ny philosophy of --
12 that the proposed correct ive actior.s were r. adequate ar.d 13 was trying te get it off the OA books, that they had 14 answered our audit findings, and was trying to put it b a :'.
15 into their ball park; that it was inadequate.
16 0 were you requested to write that memo?
17 A NO. That was just the normal scheme of things .
15 ; T r.e resper.si:111ty that y:. felt ye; had as a 19 result of the original audit ?
21 A They had made a submittal : us.
21 O okay. Who has seen those memos, to your 22 knowledge?
23 A The only one I can truthfully say would be 24 Mr. Bader.
'I ; ...L;, ... .s s.. i:. ..- - .: s s . s. .: s -- ..
i
22:-(2.*- 5-I. :
I he give you a reason for the return of the memos?
I 2 A Wr. e r. I w ou l d a s k h e wa t say;r.g he was gt:.; r
, a ic1h::.g t Mr. S t r omb e r g t.: .,;- -
- 17. :. t h ey v s.: s. g:::.;
4 to decide who was going to sign them.
5 o And the issue was eventually just dropped?
6 A Tr.a t is correct.
7 0 Then was there -- there was no other follow-up 8 until your April memo regarding audit 81-02, except verbal 9 meetings that you had with --
10 A To the best of my knowledge, that 's correct .
11 Q At these meetings that t oo'r. place 2 throughou-12 1982-1951, y02 mentioned Mr. Cror.enterger was at so.e :f 13 them. Who was below Cronenberger ir. T ech Funct ior.s ?
14 A At that time, it would have beer. Dick Chish:1 .
15 0 And then Maus works for Chisholm?
16 A Right.
17 Q And th er., in your chain of command, it would IE ha'/c beer. Mr. Seder, Mr. Mag::: ir.d Mr. Stromber?.
19 Essentially were you stating the same thing that yr; 2;t stat ed in the menos in the meetings?
21 A Y r.s .
22 O So, essentially those individuals were aware of f 23 the contents of those memos, even though it wasn't 24 officially put in writing?
Y. A -
- . s
- way; yes. r. t - a ::rre: .
f
> :; r. . . .i 1 MR. MATAKAS: Anything else? l 2 EY !:T'. . LA GRANC,E:
3 ; Y : a r.a nt l or.e d c :r.t a r.g a:. . - y: heard .er e 4 was some discussion about hiring conssitants as a result 5 of -- was it as a result of the UCS 2.236 petitior, or did 6 -
it jur! '.appen t o coincide with the f eet that it w t. s 7 discussed about the same time?
8 A 1 like to think it was my ass essment , but I 9 can't truthfully answer that.
10 0 You can't say for sure --
11 A Knat was the reason.
12 0 -- that the r ea sor. was the 705 pet itior.?
13 A Yes. I couldn't say that.
14 0 But it was sometime af ter the petitior. had beer.
15 submitted to the Commission?
16 A It was in that time frame. See, that's the only 17 thir.g -- using -- me leaving the compt .y there fer a wh.le, 1* :, - .st t :. L - t :. . . s frame : r e s .'r s r s a i t :.r.g 1 r. a . s + ; r.g .
19 We were discussing some letter that was going to g: back 2; to the :;7.0 f or TDF.'s conc erns or. the sub . tta * . . Ar.i ve 21 had a meeting on this, on the letter that was going to go 22 back to the NRO. And that 's where this came up, that 23 th er e wa s going to be a consultant -- was going to be 24 hired to do an independent verification of the files.
.. :. : . . . ......:...: 1 I
~
. .s u r. .~ . - .-
1 O Was this TDR concerning Limit orque valvet ?
2 A 1 ca r, ' t really-re ember. I'd hav( t o l o; <. .
S cally, pr:Lably, a* the . r.ates o: ::.a t mectar,s. : :L:
- 4 really say truthfully what piece of equipment we were 5 talking of. All I remember is we were talking about the 6 test cha:ter. That : do remember; about wire cor:r.; o;-
7 of a t est ch amb er , and the pot t ing compound.
8 O The what compound?
9 A The pottir.; compound, where you bring the wires 10 out of the t est chamber.
11 (Discussion of f the record. )
12 MR. LA GRAN3E: That's "potting."
13 BY MR. Lt. GRANGE:
14 O This discusslor about hiring consultants. vo;;d 15 that have been January of '047 16 A It was in that time span. I can't specifically 17 say without going back and trying -- ar.5 looking a Cr.e 1E t;r.;ter of -hat m e e ti r.g . : be'ieve
. -:.ere were m;r.. +2 :!
19 that meeting.
23 0 There was a mee-ing and n;r.;;es were taker ?
21 A I believe so.
22 O You don't recall whether the meeting was in 23 January?
24 A No. I cannot recall exactly.
1 2L 'R. c'.A!;.K. .i :
=1's a ',. e a :: a,. . e ci ..;r.. ei 4
a an.- c.c< e-- - - - - , - - e ,_ +
??9f 2.* 19 c.
i 1 break.
2 (Discussior. Of f the record. )
EY Mh. WC;E. A S :
4 Q This meeting we are talking about, where 5 Mr. Chisholm made the statement about the possibility of 6 h:r i r.g cor.s al t an? s , exact ly how was the si Et erer. werde0?
7 That they were going to hire consultant s? That they 8 needed help, so let 's hire some consultant s? Or we should 9 look into hiring consultant s?
, 10 A 1 c a r.' t truthf ully remember what the drif t was, 11 what brought it up. But as far as QA was concerned, the 12 re: rds r.ever could support --
w p way M ad. concern that 13 the re:ords couldn't support the. submittal, and that migh-14 have been the thing that came up.
15 Q You are talking about the February 10 submittal?
16 A Saying -- no.
17 C You are talking about, af t er the f act I'm saying?
1E A F.i ght .
19 0 Ir. oth er wor ds , you don't ur.derstand how they 2; c o.:I d ever say that -h ey we r e it, esm,:'ia.re . with 5:.49 21 based or. what you had seen all along?
t 22 A What was in those files; yes, sir.
23 BY MR. LA GRANGE:
24 O I think the submittal you are ref erring to here i .. .
- s . : . : * :. . : .
.. a t .s e...c . ..
- .
- s .:.:
i r
1 4
gy_ v a--,, -w - - - - -
...=. - - . . . ,,
~ >
. . t l
r 1 submittals?
2 A Yet.
3 BY f% . M TA);AS: .-
4 Q And submittals in the '82 time period?
5 A Yes. The '80 -- '81, th e ' 81 cubmit t a l . Well,
& the '60 sube.ittal. The first submittal that vis requ: red >
7 De:enber 1st. The files just d i f.n ' t suppor* f*.
8 0 What I would like to show you now :s two GPU!;
3 9 subrittels. The first one is dated tiay 20, 19E,f. the r 10 lett er, GPU nurber ir 52-11-92-157 Specif t:t;;y our 11 con:ern is with se:tior.1, the second -- firs
- parecraph, s e::r.d s er.t enee states:
12 13 "The addit ior.a1 ir.f ormat ior, we subrir t ed 1.. ocr let ers l 14 dated May 3, 1952, and May 16, 1983, support o.: r 15 conclusions that t.he components '.isted are qualified ir.
15 accordance with DDR guidelines dated hovember 1979."
17 Basically what wo.:1d like you to de is :us take a 1E lo:% at the doerer.t and see :. ! you r e:og r.:.: e :: : l 19 A Well, I couldn't really say I recogr.ize i, but ;
}
20 it , robably cross ed my desk.
21 0 Prior to it going out? -
J 22 A No. No. After the issuance. l 23 o okay. "he se:or.3 doeutent I would like to shov 24 you is dated February 10, 1984. And the lett er number is ;
l 25 5 :: . . - 5 4 - 2 5 3 6 . :: s ad:.ressed to tne ;;h . :: : :. .ar-I i
_. .J + a n/ e r .
, g . y g,} l -
.T 1-
.r'..., ,
,w u.._.-
y - * . . .I a'
J J )
. l' sent ence -- lt ' s a one-page let t er -- the last sent ence f / ; t ,
"It i s 01~ '.b ' E p o s i t ; :,,d t ha t 'TMI-I is currer.tly 2 st at es: it. .
- .::, . : a r.: # 4w::: e r.v . : o nr. e :. c. . q u i. ; i : : a. t i t,:. r;;e l', cr .
5; ..
'i 4 as applicable to TMI-1."
5 I would like to ask you to take a look at that letter 6 and sav if you have ever seen as?
7 A Rehes ly: y es .
1 6 0 You didn't see it bef 6re it w e r.t out?
^
y \ )
A No, sir. f
(
- ^ O What I would like to ask you is
- Based cr. your 11 a u d .n'f'Nor inspect 1.or.s between 1980 and 1984, and *vo;r f
12 knowledge of f th e T. -1 envi ro nter.t a l qualifica:ior progra.,
f 13 g i.; r e t h e r -
ue statements?
s< 3 s
/ ?'
' '14 ' h A My personal belief is this is not a true
, ,?
' O$ st3tement.
I 16 O And now you are talking about the February 10, 17 1984 lett er that states "It is GPU's positior that TM:-1 1:- is :;rre tiy ir ::::1;Er.:s -- ,
19 .A In com.liance. Yes, sir. OA assessner.: of the 20 files ir De:et'rer Of 'El ar.d th e begi r.r.ing of ' 54 w:uld 21 not support this statement.
22 O May 20, 1983?
23 A The May 20th letter.
24 0 Is basically the reason for this the lack of
- i ;;;;. e r.t a
- ::. . : ..: :..es:
- ~
???t2.^ 4?
- r. -
t > '
- f 1 A That 's one of the reasons.
2 1 *:. 5 : else?
3 A ::.hicque c documcr. s. 1- t; a ;a rd of, t r. d 4 appropriate -- there was a lot of reasons.
5 0 I would like to know what they are.
6 A well, I'r just trying to thirl. back.
7 At
- hat time there was still no evidence that our 8 engineering group had reviewed that documer.tation and had 9 bles s ed it ou r s el v e s , outside of just being in the files.
10 There were a lot of summary reports withcut the backup 11 document test dat a t o support thos e sunmary report s .
12 There were letters in the files that were being 13 ref erenced as the backup documentatior.. The let t er it self 14 iust saying: My equipment is qualified.
15 0 Again we are talking about, ba s i ca lly ,
16 documentation?
17 A Documentation; yes, the c rrelation wasn't li there, ir a irt cf :ases.
19 O- I guess what we are really get ting dowr. to in 22 this area is that, based on t estimony that we havc co far.
21 tha t the input for those stat ements cane fram Mr. Maus and i
22 Mr. Boucher.
23 What I would like to ack you is if you have any 24 information or insight which would indicate that either of l h -.-15 to. .:.....;.:.a .
. r. = r : : : r.a ' c;
. ..eu ;r :: : r.a v e i
I t
i
3 ..
3 ; ..
- c. .. , . ._
.L:-
1 any information or insight or mit igating information the-i' 2 would i r.dicat e th e opposit e : that, y0; know, they d;dr.'-
2 _ ' . . ,: c. c. -
, :.e wsre icar.;" cr what are your thoug: s ::
4 this area, why this would have been submitted to the NRC?
5 A Af ter all these years my personal feeling is, ;
6 d efir.; t e' y beli ev e t ha t they believed what. they were dcing 7 was correct. But t ney had no inkling, really, what they 8 were supposed to be doing.
9 O Their supervicors. Chisholt, Cronenberger, were 20 at the neetings where you were telling them the opposit e-11 is that correct ? That they were not in compliance?
12 A That the finding; vere not ir. -- would not 13 support th e compa ny .
14 0 Ir. your original audit Mr. Cronenberger si g r.e d 15 for -- I think we talked about this a little earlier --
16 signed for audit findings 1, 3, and 11, which, in your 17 April l ett er , yoc found to be still open.
15 :ez 'r.
. Cr: r.e r.h tr g er ha . e a re sp:r.s ib:_ :- o res: r.i 19 tc those findings? Or can he delegate the responsibility?
23 A Sc. He delega ei the resp:r.sibility.
21 O In other words, anyone could sign for those 22 particular findings?
23 A Yes. As long as management, responsible persor.,
24 could acknowledge the finding; yes. It would be the 1; ;;;, . :: :. s . p . s .:... t..: =ss t r. : :: .: t r;.s .
~~
1 O At any time between 1980 and the curren* time, 2 h a v <. yo; had ar.y conversat ior. wit h Mr. Clark regar;;ng the a c r.v ; r : :. .s : L ; c;a li fi ca t ion pr ogra.i.?
4 A No, sir.
5 O Mr. R.F. Wilson?
6 A 5., sir.
7 C Anyone in the management level above Mr. Clark 8 or Mr. Wilson?
9 A Y es .
10 C k~ho would that be?
11 A Mr. Long, th e vice-pr esid er. , nuclear ass;rance.
12 O What's Mr. Long's first nare? : have t a'ked to 13 hir before --
I think it 's Robert ?
14 A Sob -- Robert -- Bob Long; yes.
15 0 When did you have conversation w-ith him?
16 A It was a little af ter our assessnent of the 17 files, ir. the be:inr.ing cf '84. So --
is ; Af: e: A,tril of '647 19 A It was in that time span, Marrh, Apr:1 ef '84.
2: I w ;1d have to look at my records :: give you ar. exar:
21 date. I could give you the exact date --
22 0 It was af ter the February 10th submittal?
23 A I couldn't say "yes" or "no." I *i have to look 24 at my calendar to see when the meeting too's. place.
- i ...a- w e. s
- .= :,; ry . i : :: tht: . 2. s
. . .._3 1
- - _ _ l
, ...n....
. I meet ing or just a cafe'eria *ype thing?
2 A- Wel l , the meetir.; .as t o b r i ng ou r cor.: e r r.1 o 3 car .anagement people that -he document at ion files si:11 ,
4 weren't supporting the submittals; that we still had 5 problems with documentation and the assessment was proving 6 that cut .
7 C What was Mr. L e r.; ' s response?
8 A He had taker notes. That 's all I can say. He 9 had t ak er. not es .
!! ; Ur c se wir et -.e e e t i r.g ?
11 A Mr. Fanar.as -- I can't remember exactly 12 eterybody that was t'.e r e . wou l d r. ' ' be sare, : e r- i o r.
13 r.im e s .
14 C Okay. That's f i r.e . Was Mr. Lor.g's se:retary 15 there?
16 A No.
17 0 Knere was the :r.eeting at ?
1E A 1r. Dr. L:r.g's ::..f er enc e r o: -- 1 ra his eff:ce.
1 l
l 19 '. ' m n o r ry . It was ir hi s Of fice.
l l
l 21 O K..y would y:_ g . a p e r s or, c f t h e p;s i t i:c. O f 1
l 21 Mr. Lono.? Was it the OA section going to Mr. Lono.?
I 22 A Wel l, my personal f eeling was trying to get thu 1
22 prob l e-- erealet ed 'O Mr. Olt rk 's level or M.r. Wilser.'r 24 level.
1 "
25 ., 50 Mr. Ka:A r. E I , s that th e r ei s c r. f: r n ;: e ; r.;
? 2 L L : . '. AC I at the meeting?
2 A We: 1, ne's the dirert or of o;r ce,.ar*me.- .
1 'O . MI.7/.F. t. 5 :
. A r.y t h i ng else : :. t h c.
- a r e t '.
4 MR. LA GRANGE: No. Could we go c':r the record 5 for a second?
6 (Discuss;0r. off the record.)
7 BY MR. KATAKAS:
8 0 We've talked about the meet ing with Or. Long.
9 Getting back to the meeting that we were talking about 10 ea rli er , where Mr. Chisholm made the stat ement about 11 hirir.g consultants, or a s tat ement to that effect, could 12 you tell us who may have taken the minutes for that 13 meeting?
14 A : believe it was Eruce Alatary, th e OA d e s i g r.
15 and procurement manager.
16 O And you never have seen any minutes of the 17 meeting with Dr. Long?
t li A ::: . l' p;s;iive there were n: mir.;t e s t ak er a 19 that meeting. We were Just, preliminary, talking about 2: cur a s s e s s n er.? that we had just com.c ' et ed . .
j 21 O Would that have been t.he April assessment?
l 22 A Assessmente yes.
23 O So then va are talxing about rif:.t after ..pril, 24 just before you took sick leave?
l 1
.: .. . = . . :=r. =. .
l t
l f
I
n
.. n :. c. ,. . .. ,-
1 ? In your observation, up unt il the April '84 time i
2 period, what a : a v e pa rt i cipa t d or. did M r . Cni sh .
1.- t ai.e i r.
. -he E2 ptsgri.n, r. y o.:: 0:.s erva t i or.?
4 A Gerry Maus seemed to be running the show.. ,
5 O Regarding Mr. Chisholm, Mr. Cronenberger, 6 Mr. Wilser., within that chain of cor.and, goi ng u.: the 7 ladder, you observed no active participation?
8 A Oh, I didr.'t mean to say he didn't because I did 9 have interface with hin: when I didn't get somethir.g done 10 or didn't see eye to eye with Gerry, I would g: te Dick.
11 0 Dick Chisholm? "
12 A Dick Chis'.c1r; yes. But Gerry, for al'.
13 practical purposes, was the man in charge.
14 MR. MATtfAS: Anyth.ing else at all on any 15 subject, Bobi 16 BY MR. LA G5tANGE:
17 0 In the man.ing with Dr. Long, do you know that
- E he pr.s s ed -ht-
- . r.f c =.2 -
- c .- or. :: a..yb o d3 17 T c i- 7,: r. - i o r.s :-
19 A I could no; say. I have no idea.
2: C Was there anybody fro T ech ' un~ ' ions a- - 1. ' - ,
21 meet i mg?
22 A No 23 MR. U. GPANGE: I don't have anything else.
24 BY MR. MATAKAS:
- i ; "
- . 3
. .r ::.L , :. > -.ere n r. .. . . r. - e' s 6
. .si y0; l
i l
2 2 Ei. ) . C 4; H-I waa;d like to st at e bef ore we close the t ranscript ?
2 A ::c , sir.
3 'O . ?'J.! AR AS : I wou;d like to :..y I very .;ch 4 appreciate your candor and your cooperation that you have 5 given us today. I would like to ask you a few que. ons --
6 BY MR. MATA1;AS:
7 : Have any promises or threat s been made, promiser 8 made to you or threats extended against you about this 9 int ervi ew today?
10 A !;o , sir.
11 C Have you provided ir.fermatier. freely and 12 vel;..tarily?
13 A Yes, sir.
14 MR. PGTAKAS : Th e time is 1C:45. This will 15 conclude the interview.
16 (Whereupon, at 10 : 4 5 a . m . , the interview was 17 cor.-; u d ed . ) '
19 2:
, 21
!. 22 i
23 l 24
- r o~
l l-l s
t I
e
- - v, a*-.-. - ,, _ . . - - .--. -- - , . - ,
CFFT:FICATr. Or orrICI AL REI'ORTER f '-
This is tc c e r t ; ,' - tha'. 'he a'tto:hed p recee i --- - ; .; ,e t.<,
the. U;;ITE:s ' S': A I.5 NUCLEA.; REGU17. TORY CO O:2 552 2:: 1 r. tne matter of:
i NAME OF PROCEEDING: INVESTIGATIVE INTERVIEW OT RAYMO:;L GUI!O:!D D OCI. C S;.:
PLACE: .; _ .R5 I T I A::'. , ::Eh' JERFEY
- DATE: hT D:;ISDAi , APRIL 24, 19EE' were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for Regulatory Comission.
the file of the United States Nuclear s,
/
// h (sictb [4/ L2,fts 4 ws /,Vf f
(TY?ED[ /
JOEL BREITNER Official Reporte-ACE-FEDERAL REP :- ~ ~ .5 , 150.
Reporter's Af fih. sr.
b -