ML20147D604
| ML20147D604 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Three Mile Island, 05000000 |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1985 |
| From: | Christopher R, Hayes B, Matakas R NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION I), NRC OFFICE OF INVESTIGATIONS (OI) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17342B416 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-87-696, RTR-NUREG-0588, RTR-NUREG-588 1-84-021, 1-84-21, IEB-79-01B, IEB-79-1B, IEIN-85-039, IEIN-85-39, NUDOCS 8801200233 | |
| Download: ML20147D604 (46) | |
Text
. - - - - - - - - - _ - _ - - - _ _
s
> Y
/ 5,
- 2 l
g - . . :. ,
e
'(
- g .
n,<.. .
4 ' *
'o * - -%
v
.o Na*tEi'di . ..
' do the r 4 121 Env.ironmen a m y
-4 4 .
a b' Y N
d~?)*3k.km;w
, .~. m s .
1
' 'itQ-'%
s.
+ Q, , y y
. *1 %
. .s
. -) .
h i- *
- SJ ' y .j .*' 1Cg 'N yf . v- [ :."3 -
c s k.' $2, e :p . \ ch L " J *-
- . 4 .<
f,9 R Q'7 . '
{ .
I sp.. .rQt18 9 '.' N .
e . . *'t . . . <. s 4..
hh
): 'N V - ^
g' ,; .
.f [>
W, jMik$3*
, W. .
~
f r2 ,4
^'
~,. h5ftI5$?.._!C'[]C 3.>{,'~'n
~
Q' %,,y ,
- .[4Q - ca fA .4y k$y2[*NgcMt.
,-$d%#'WNhn-L
,& '~ ~5
. . .n.'- &$d NNfh ,
'4
. , 1 +
y ~g,.m.%( :. ~ % ,
}%' t.,, eg. v.
fy - ]dofg t,*
y;p. .
t- .c
_. . sn -
' f'$ kI ,
- g [D T4t W h h _- 3 Q**)*
8801200233 880106 -
7
/ /b i '
...)
- n. ,
WEISS87-696 PDH _,. , , -_
y j. % g,(<3
1 '
Title:
THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 1:
TWO MATERIAL FALSE STATEMENTS RELATING TO THE THI-1 ENVIRONMENT QUALIFICATION PROGRAM Licensee: Case Number: 1-84-021 General Public Utilities Nuclear Report Date: September 26, 1985 100 Interpace Parkway Parsippany, New Jersey 07058 Control Office: 01:RI Docket No.: 50-289 Status: CLOSED Reported By: Reviewed By:
(
Richard A. Matakas, Investigator
{ l(,,.;elu (,),4f.p);y R. Keith Christopher, Dirkctor Office of Investigations -i Office of Investigations Field Office, Region !
Field Office, Region I sp - -
Participating Personnel: Appr e y:
Robert G. LaGrange
- action Leader 1
Equipment Qualification Branch, NRR Bent. Hayer, Dij$ct r i Office of InvesMgat oni W
_ARNING The attached document / report has not been reviewed pursuant to 10 CFR
% 2.790(a) exemptions nor has any exempt material been deleted. Do not disseminate or discuss its contents outside NRC. Treat as "0FFICIAL USE ONLY."
l SYNOPSIS On January 24, 1985, the Executive Director for Operations requested that an investigation be initiated concerning two materia) false statements made by General Public Utilities Nuclear (GPUN) Corporation (Licensee) to the NRC. The statements were made in written correspondence dated May 20, 1983 and February 10, 1984 The subject of both submittals was the environmental qualification (EO) of electrical equipment at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1). The false statements involved GPUN's assertion that the THI-1 electrical equipment important to safety was environmentally qualified in accordance with NRC require-ments (DOR Guidelines) and/or environmental qualification rule (10 CFR 50.49, "Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants"). Subsequent NRC inspections determined that GPUN did not have complete and auditable records documenting the qualification of electrical equipment.
The purpose of this investigation was to establish whether the material '
false statements were willfully made with the intent to deceive the NRC regarding the true status of compliance with D0R guidelines and 10 CFR 50.49.
On January 14, 1980, the NRC issued IE Bulletin (IEB)79-01B, with attached Division of Operating Reactor (00R) Guidelines and NUREG-05BS.
Sut,sequently, on May 23, 1980, Comir.sion Memorandum tnd Order CL1-80-21 was issued and stated that the D0R Guidelines or NUREG-0588 form the requirements that licensees must meet regarding the environmental qualification of safety related electrical equipment. The "final rule,"
10 CFR 50.49, became effective on February 23, 1983. This rule specifies the requirements to be met for demonstrating the environmental qualifi-cation of electrical equipment important to safety located in areas that could be subjected to harsh environments resulting from design basis accidents.
On December 22, 1980, the Vice President of Technical Functions, GPUN, requested an internal Quality Assurance (QA) audit of his EQ Section to determine if the requirements of IEB 79-01B were being met. The sub-sequent audit, corducted between March 26 and April 1, 1981, resulted in (11) audit nonconformances. The audit involved a file review for (10) components and the majority of the individual findings related to either the lack of documentation to support qualification or the lack of file auditability. The audit identified related programatic findings noting that the EQ program lacked procedures which assigned specific program responsibilities to assure that the requirements of the bulletin were being met and the program lacked guidance to assure that complete and auditable records were maintained and updated as required at a central location.
The NRC audits of GPUN EQ files in 1984 identified that GPUN did not have complete and auditable files in that they lacked documentation to demonstrate the equipment was environmentally qualified in accordance with NRC's requirements. Testimony and documentary evidence indicates that GPUN Case No. 1-84-021 1
Technical Functions Management, from the level of Director of Engineering /
Design and belew did not take appropriate managerial action to resolve the programmatic nonconformances and recomendations documented by QA in their Technical Functions EQ audit. Testimony by QA personnel document continued unsuccessful attempts over a three year period (1981-1984) to get Technical Function Hanagers/ Supervisors to satisfactorily address the recommendations and programatic deficiencies documented in QA's 1981 audit.
By letter dated December 10, 1982, the NRC transmitted to GPUN a Safet Evaluation Report (SER) augmented by a Franklin Research Center (FRC) y Technical Evaluation Report (TER) for the EQ of safety related electrical equipment at THI-1. The TER identified numerous deficiencies relating to (among other things) the lack of documentation to support qualification of components.
On February 18, 1983, the GPUN Corporate QA Review Comittee (C-QARC) met to address "EQ program problems." As a result of C-QARC deliberations, the problems of "lack of a complete file of auditable records" and lack of procedures "that clearly define (EQ program) responsibilities" were escalated to the level of Director, QA, GPUN.
By letter dated March 1, 1983, GPUN (Technical Functions and ticensing) requested a meeting with the NRC and FRC to discuss "misunderstandings" that they had noted in t.- TER. The licensee further advised the NRC that until the misunderstandings were resolved, a schedule for corrective action could not be developed.
Prior to the holding of the requested meeting, and in response to 10 CFR 50.49(g), GPUN submitted a letter dated May 20, 1983, wherein they identified components within the scope of 50.49 and concluded that the conponents listed were "qualified in accordance with 00R Guidelines dated November, 1979." However, the letter again requested a meeting to resolve apparent equipment discrepancies. The letter was signed by the Director of THI-1 after being prepared by a Senior Licensing Engineer based on alleged verbal input from the Tech'tical Function EQ Section, and various other GPUN personnel. Both Licensing and the EQ Section are physically located at GPUN Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey.
Testimony established that the submittal was handled very informally by Licensing in that there was no record of acknowledgement of tha content, of the submittal by the EQ Supervisor allegedly responsible for the "DOR Guideline" statement. Additionally, neither the EQ Supervisor nor three other individuals identified by Licensing as having various other input into the submittal, could recall having either input or a review function over the document. Testimony does indicate that the EQ Supervisor was contacted abcut the submittal prior to May 20, 1983, and although he does not specifically accept responsibility for the statement, he stated that based on his understanding of the EQ requirements in May 1983, he felt the THI-1 EQ program was in compliance with 00R guidelines.
Case No. 1-84-021 2
On October 5, 1983, a GPUN Senior Licensing Engineer, the TM!-1 EQ Supervisor: and EQ Engineer met with members of the NRC's EQ Section to discuss the resolution of TER deficiencies identified in the hRC's December 10, 1982, SER. The NRC's THI-1 EQ reviewer said it became apparent to him during the meeting, that GPUN did not have the deficien-cies resolved and were not ready for the meeting. A review of the GPUN EQ Supervisor's notes of that meeting indicate a prior lack of under-standing by GPUN in the areas of documentation and testing needed to support qualification. As a result of the meeting, GPUN comitted to
' providing the NRC with a written resolution to each TER deficiency. This was the basis for the February 10, 1984 submittal INFRA.
During a period from December 27, 1983 to February 1,1984, a GPUN QA assessment was perfcrmed of the EQ files. The purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the qualification documentation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49 and identify equipment for which qualification documentation was either adequate or deficient. The files for (16) components were reviewed in death and (15) were found to have deficiengies. The assessment (as did tie 1981 internal cadit) identified the lack of approved written procedures and/or instructions that assigned responsibilities in the establishment of a qualification documentation file and noted many individual deficiencies relating to the lack of documentation to support component qualificatinn. The final written assessment was not provided to Technical Function until May 16, 1984; however, prior to its issuance, information about the findings was related to the GPUN EQ Supervisor by the QA/EQ Coordinator who conducted the audit.
By letter dated February 10, 1984, GPUN provided a resolution to each TER deficiency and concluded that they were "currently in compliance with the Environmental Qualification Rule 10 CFR 50.49 as applicable to TM! 1."
The letter was signed by the TMI-1 Operations and Maintenance Director, prepared by a Senior Licensing Engineer based on discussions and input from both the E0 Supervisor and EQ Engineer. The EQ Supervisor admittedly informed Licensing that his E0 program for THI-1 was in compliance with the rule and he believed it to be a true statement at the time. As with the May 20, 1983, submittal, the February 10 letter was reviewed a'.d approved by Technical Functions and Licensing in Parsippany, New Jersey, prior to beine sent to TMI-1 for review and finsi signature. The EQ filesweremaintainedandcontrolledatGPUNHradt.iartersinParsippany and were not readily available for a thorough review by site personnel.
Testimony from both the EQ Supervisor and TMI-1 EQ Engineer indicates that prior to February 10, 1984, a complete plant walkdown was never conducted so that components within the scope of the rule could be properly identified. Additionally, both individuals indicated that a 100% file review was never conducted to assure "compliance" despite the written recomendation by GPUN QA in their 1981 EQ audit which stated, "A complete review should be taken to assure that the qualification dorumentation is comp 1cte to support adequacy of the equipment."
Case No. 1-84-021 3
i On March 9, 1984, the GPUN Director of Audits and QA, and members of his staff, met with the GPUN Vice President of Nuclear Assurance and informed him of EQ problems which QA had identified to Technical Functions between 1981 and 1984 The OA Director testified that QA was unable to get the problems (lack of a corplete file of auditable records and lack of procedures which address organizational EQ program responsibilities) corrected through his organization's interface with Technical Functions.
He saio the purpose of escalating the problem to the Vice President of Nuclear Assurance was to give him a "heads up" and let him know that the "problem was real" so that he would pursue it with the Vice President of Technical Functions. The Vice President of Nuclear Assurance testified that his QA staff informed him (at the meeting) of an upcoming NRC inspection of the EQ of the THI-1 Emergency Feedwater System (EFWS) and that a recent QA assessment of the EQ program had determined that the plant had not been walked down to determine how or where the system components were installed and that approximately three cuarters of the System Component Evaluation Worksheets (SCEW) were "inacequately backed up by documantation." He said he informed the Vice President of Technical functions of the concerns within days of his meeting with his QA staff.
On March 20 and 21, 1954, the NRC staff and a consultant audited eight THI-1 environmental qualification flics. All of the files had noted deficiencies relating D the lack cf documentation to support qualifica-l tion. The audit findings were formally transmitted to the licensee by letter dated April 25, 1984. The enclosure to that letter contained recomendations and cited specific deficiencies, comparable to those previously cited in the GPUN internal audit, assessment and the FRC review.
The NRC staff subsequer,tly concluded that based on findings identified in the March 1984 and subsequent NRC audits, the licensee's affirmations of compliance in their May 1983 and February 1984 submittals constituted material false statements.
Testimony from both the licensee and NRC officials relate that the EQ Superviser identified as being directly responsible for the false state-ments in the submittals, did not deliberately lie. The consensus is that he simply did not understand the EQ program requirements (and is further supported by documentary evidence). This was complicated by the lack of Technical Function management involvement and the E0 Su ervisor's refusal to acce t recomendations and o inions.
This investigation established that GPUN's submittals of May 20, 1983, and February 10, 1984, were admittedly fc'.se and were a result of a lack of EQ program definition, organization and direction, as well as a failure on the part of Corporate QA, Technical Functions, and Licensing to identify and resolve internal disputes regarding the EQ program status. It was also pointed out in this investigation by both the licensee end the NRC staff, that the Environmental Qualification Program has proven to be a more difficult and extensive project than originally perceivedandotherutilities(toalesserdegree)hadandhavebeen iaving problems regarding the establishment o, complete documentation to support qualification for components within the scope of 10 CFR 50.49.
Case No. 1-84-021
& ,9$ ps W e
i ACC0bNTABILITY The following portions of this ROI (Case No. 1-84-021) will not be included in the material placed in the PDR. They consist of pages 5 through 43 .
~
I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page SYNOPSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................... 5 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 GPUN ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Purpose of Investigation ............ 13 Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 13 Interview with Robert E. LAGRANGE, NRC 1NI-1 EQ Reviewer. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Internal GPUN Audit 0-TMI-81-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 NRC Safety Evaluation Report (SER)/ Franklin Research Center (FRC) Technical Evaluation Report (TER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Escalation of 81-02 Audit Findings. . . . . . . . . . . 20 May 20, 1983 GPUN Submittal to the NRC in Response to 10 CFR 50.49(g). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 October 5, 1983 GPUN Meeting with the NRC to Discuss TER Deficiencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 December 27, 1983 to February 1, 1984, Internal QA Assessment of EQ Files. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 February 10, 1984, GPUN Submittals to the NRC Which the Licensee Committed to on October 5, 1983. . . . . 24 Further Escalation of 81-02 Audit Findings. . . . . . . 25 March 20-21, 1984, NRC Audit of GPUN EQ Files . . . . . To GPUN Management and QA/EQ Sections' Testimony Concerniag the GPUN EQ Program. . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Willfulnes./
Agent's Conclusion Intent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
.................. 40 LIST OF EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 l
l l
t l
Case No. 1-84-021 5
L.-
I i
l l
i l
l Case No. 1-84-021 l 6 l
1
i APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Allegation No. 1 and 2: Material False Statements:
.10 CFR 50.49: "Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipraent Important.to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants," Sections (a), (g), (j),
and (k).
l l
L l
l l
Case No. 1-84-021 7
L
)
i I
(
Case No. 1 94,ggy
~
5
'A s V ij 2 s 4 1 L _
- ! :g_li 3g1 5 I
- E=I p3'5 iin I!.
I l*5*
I- !I
< .e sE= w!!w3-,{=I
~
m I o Es Igg ssg= a u
E3 g s == s t
,i a I_ j a gs w gg=ls_d s 3 Ea
- ==
z 2 5 5
5 5-
! SI !!!
E8 gl-l= 3
-gu
- ,i f ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 i i, (([;
i l i..!.]. ...
Is I, s a I g- -
s rg l i8 R H EE r I:
j$1 E E s i -l l . I t_________a i is I_;;,3
. ,. a E ,I_ a s=_=gE _*
) E E5!!sS5
.j j 4
4 4 :
\ as s! a s R5 E
gj I"ul! -
3 3i ~ ~
9 5l8 E
g 5lsl.
z 85$d!E "sc:
25 g E....m yI.I 4
N' ,
Y Y a m a m g E=e w
4 q II w aW E
N < E=5 a!*iv!vXHa v i .iii i 4
Case No. 1-84-021 9
Q
.f*
a
~
sn
- fg ees g.q-
.-. m o=o X.f.wi!ia
_ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ s . vr a INN ilf.eeseaC As
.h IusstIspes$
se e
O)
Jb e
0o O K. I'4 wt h "f'A- s*
(HMtCIUM i886448i164006 &
lit $46as S300 SI All PNG Wlasl AllWt MA4NilNAfst.t Abit14 ANI _ lit fl0MLAR SUrl'tilll S Sufa S Jute g g, ag , d 4C [ // /A IIUU k'h 88 M3 SnNe t. lune
$J' 00 M Aas4sJ N i AasALill A I AI*0 N M AN Aa.e N MANAi. tit M AspAa.a N M Aasas.t N Asa ea hsAs *. e ses.ss a e en MsAt M AasA&t N 44iL1HalAs ruW1N ~
I aN.sNs a haaM. MtLHAteN,At estLleAssN A8 NAaM A*il&
I Am esN4 AAsA4 Tisi 18st.4 ass
- Netsgi IIIIIIIII AE E tces1Mutet esI AIaues R$le.16Afeell$ $Y$llWS CuMrtaast8sl$ $1514 e85
's 64as S 870 SM hSW S J/06 6368 hJte 6380 e Ma sl essas e List MM At
- ANAS & $4frFI e 48ll' 11BWill e Mil.h A8 sal thl1 e FN6MANT & hti.sagg a get t H l.itMright ml$ e WA5f t as s a ss alNassi FNtN a Nst i OrtN [84 M e INilM At.** N A$Naff e LIVII,h thsN luMAt RIANV rl Ahl llutts $rt0S a M Assat.a Ma sal
- BAhtNil AbsAtt".ai e WAllM Llet Mi$lNT B RfWNsHAI ClelM e *,.ta.ll M t ugglassN l IN,N SY58t M5 ArrtNALNNs e hast elselN.AINels SI-I L 80$$N 8444$ e rI AN8 rMelt.itusM4 e f allet8 Mil staasse S e gewAC e PiltlielM Alse t $ till M*i e WA34NINEAIMINI 183hA00A411 M Wit W AN Al tit *4 e $1Ni tittlit[IltN8 lWASIIAlluss e rM ai.a. tees.
G NI. 245000$ e MA4AllipsA80s,i e 20 All heA4 5 e INMaMa Nats e WA%Ia W41eN WAliR Clet M ltApsul ases. 540FrilN O ING A1Me as1 IH8 A 6 Ma es1 I est. e MilA48UltGICAS A Ag e rl AfsI FINtLtBMNst e rl A80I l' Nest t tNitti e rl ANI rNINS MVetW e Ft AN8 rNsN 48 tutti 50 NVICl$ M Vil W N4 VltW he WM W e ist10 Se hwsCE $
e A4At TIsCAI rmN luuht 5 l e rl Aast FNaCl(Nsest NgyetW e lossN PiAssiSurrsNel Hev.12 Pa*tsu II U
i TECHNICAL FUNCTION DEPARTMENT QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPARTMENT LINE ORGANIZ1 TION LIME ORGANIZATION i
RICHARD F. WILSON ROBERT L. LONG Vice President Vice President Technical Functions Nuclear Assurance i
DON K. CRONEBERGER NICHOLAS C. KAZANAS Director Director Engineering & Design QA i
RICHARD J. CHISHOLM MATTHIAS J. STROMBERG l Manager of Electrical Manager, OA Program Power & Instru ,entation Development & Audit F. G. MAJS BRUCE A. BADER Supervisor QA Audit Manager EQ Section j PAUL E. BOUC.-ER PHILIP B. MAGITZ TMI-1 EQ Se: tion QA Audit Supervisor RAYMOND J. GUIMOND Auditors Casejo. 1-84-021
1 l
l I
i l
l l
I Case No. 1 84-021 12
I DETAILS OF INVESTIGATION prposeofInvestigation The purpose of this investigation was to establish whether the material false statements made by GPUN were made with the intent to deceive the NRC regarding the true status of conpliance with D0R guidelines and 10 CFR 50.49.
Background
This investigation will discuss both material false statements together by setting forth details of pertinent events in a historical sequence.
Both statements relate to the environmental qualification of equipment at THI-1. In a May 20, 1983, letter (Exhibit 2), GPUN advised the NRC that certain safety-related electrical equipment required to be qualified, was "qualified in accordance with D0R guidelines dated November 1979." In a February 10, 1984, letter (Exhibit 3), GPUN informed the NRC that: "It is GPUN's position that TMI-l is currently in compliance with the environ-cental qualification rule 10 CFR 50.49 as applicable to TMI-1."
On January 14, 1980, the NRC issued IE Bulletin (IEB)79-01B, with attached Division of Operating Reactor (DOR) Guidelines and NUREG-0588.
Subsequently, on May 23, 1980, Comission Memorandum and Order CLI-80-21 was issued and stated that the D0R Guidelines or NUREG-0588 form the requirements that licensees must meet regarding the environmental qualification of safety related electrical equipment. A "final rule,"
10 CFR 50.49, "Environmental Qualification of Electric Equipment Important to Safety for Nuclear Power Plants," became effective en February 23, 1983. This rule specifies the requirements to be met for demonst.ating the environmental qualification of electrical equipment important to safety located in areas that could be subjected to harsh environments resulting from design basis accidents.
On January 24, 1985, the Executive Director for Operations requested that an investigation be initiated concerning two material false statements made by 4 . seal Public Utilities Nuclear (GPUN) Corporation (Licensee) to the NKC. The statements were made in written correspondence dated May 20, 1983 and February 10, 1984. The subject of both submittals was the eavironmental qualification (EQ) of electrical equipment at the Three bile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (THI-1). The false statements involved GPUN's assertion that the TMI-l electrical equipment important to safety was environmentally qualified in accordance with NRC require-ments (DOR Guidelines) and/or environmental qualification rule (10 CFR 50.49). Subsequent NRC inspections determined that GPUN did not have complete and auditable records documenting the qualification of electrical equipment.
l l
l t
i Case No. 1-84-021 13 l _
i Interview with Robert G. LAGRANGE, NRC THI-l E Reviewer LAGRANGE was interviewed on February 6, 1985, and a Report of Interview prepared (Exhibit 4). He provided a chronolcgical description of his interaction with the TMI-1 EQ program. In general, LAGRANGE commented that during the first several contacts with F. Gerald MAUS, the GPUN EQ Supervisor, in late 1983 and early 1984, it was apparent to him that MAUS did not know what he was doing, was not capable of handling the job, ai,d the program was receiving little or no management involvement. He opined that the THI-l EQ program was too big of a ':b for the existing GPUN THI-l EQ Section which consisted of MAUS and Paul BOUCHER, THI-l EQ Engineer. LAGRANGE said his March 20-21, 1984, audit of the THI-1 EQ files determined that GPUN did not have "complete and auditable" records to support their qualification / compliance statements made in their May 20, 1983 and February 10, 1984 submittals to the NRC. In a previous Report of Interview (Exhibit 4A, p. 3), LAGRJ3GE said he thought he could find similar invalid statements made by c:her licensees based on the actual condition of their files. However, he emphasized that GPUN THI-1 EQ files were "exceptionally bad," ever. considering the subjective interpretation of "complete" and "auditable" files. A copy of the March 20-21, 1984, NRC Audit results is Exhibit 4B. The GPUN response is Exhibit 4C.
In preparation for the February 6,1984, interview with LAGRANGE, he was telephonically contacted by the reporting investigator. During the course of the conversation, LAGRANGE comented that he had heard that GPUN had conducted an internal audit of their T'MI-l EQ files (prior to the March 20-21, 1984, audit) and had found sidlar deficiencies to those noted in the March 1984 audit. Accordingly, on February 2,1985, the reperting investigator requested all GPUN intermal audits involving the THI-l EQ program. Pertinent to this investication was Audit 0-TMI-81-02 (Exhibit 5) which was received by the reporting investigator on February 11, 1985. Details of this audit are discussed INFRA.
Internal GPUN Audit 0-TMI-81-02 (Exhibit 5)
On December 22, 1980, Richard W. WILSON, Vice President, Technical Functions, GPUN, requested an internal Quality Assurance Audit of his EQ program for THI-1. The audit (81-02) was conducted between March 26 and April 1, 1981. WILSON testified that he recalled the EQ program starting out as a "fairly major program" and he frequently requested such internal l audits for new programs to get an "independent overview." WILSON advised l that it was the responsibility of Technical Functions to correct or l otherwise resolve the deficiencies identified in the Audit. WILSON l recal.ed discussing "the totality of the audit results" with, he believes, i Donald CRONEBERGER, Director, Engineering and Cesign. He recalled discussing things like "adequacy of resources' and "the need to get the program under better control, etc." WILSON stated that during the following two or three years, he periodically t.alked to CRONEBERGER about the EQ program and was led to believe it was raing progress, overcoming I
difficulties, and would meet the NRC complia*ce date. WILSON did not recall attending specific meetings with QA c:ncerning the EQ program Case No. 1-84-021 14
i during this two or three year time period (WILSON, pp. 5-10). WILSON said he expected CRONEBERGER to "oversee the program and to, from a fianagement point of view, see that it is [was] adequately pursued and comes [came] to a logical conclusion." (WILSON, Exhibit 6, p.13)
The stated purpose of GPUN internal audit 0-THI-81-02 (Exhibit 5) was to assess the THI-1 EQ program to verify that procedures were being followed and the requirements set forth in IEB 79-01B were being met. The audit involved a file review for (10) components and resulted in the issuance of (11) findings. The audit concluded that management direction to correlate the efforts needed to meet the requirement of the bulletin was lacking (Audit, Exhibit 5, p. 3, Finding No. 1).
The majority of the documented audit deficiencies related to either the lack of documentation to support qualification or the lack of file auditability. The audit identified a related programnatic finding documenting that the EQ program lacked guidance to assure that complete and auditable records were maintained and updated as required at a central location (Audit, Exhibit 5, Finding No. 3).
(INVESTIGATCP'S NOTE: This and the previously mentioned finding (Finding No.1) are significant because they were not closed out until June 1984 and are related to the problems identified in the 1984 NRC inspections.)
Raymond GUIMOND, GPUN QA Auditor /EQ Coordinator, was the Team Leader for Audit 0-TMI-81-02. GUIMOND said he was the EQ Coordinator for the QA Department and "was following the EQ program right along." (GUIMOND, Exhibit 16, p. 22) He acknowledged rejecting the initial Technical Function proposed corrective action for audit findings 2-11 and added that Technical Functions did not initially respond te finding ho,1, because they needed more time to prepare a response. 0A's documented rejection to Technical Functions audit response is Exhibit SA.
(INVESTIGATOR'S NOTE: Technical Functions original response could not be located. However, Exhibit SA does document the initial response.)
Technical Functions revised response (Exhibit SB) is dated August 21, 1981, and was from F. G. MAUS, EQ Supervisor, to Matthias STROMBERG, Manager ;f Audit and Program Department. Technical Functions proposed corrective actions for findings 1-11 were accepted by Philip MAGITZ, QA Audit Supervisor, with no initial input or review by GUIMOND. (GUIMOND, Exhibit 16, pp. 5-6) MAGITZ provided GPUN Procedure No. 7-18-01 for Quality Assurance Audits (Exhibit SC) which he identified as being applicable to Audit 81-02. Section 8.8, Audit Responses, 2), states, "Corrective action responses shall be evaluated by a Lead Auditor. If the response is acceptable, follow-up action shall Fe scheduled and conducted by the Lead. Auditor." MAGITZ indicated that he accepted Technical Functions revised responses in order to give Technical Functions an opportunity to show their solutions were workable. (MAGITZ, Exhibit 15, pp. 11-13) Although MAGITZ does qualify as a Lead Auditor, testimony Case No. 1-84-021 15
s indicates that as a matter of routine practice, the 1.ead Auditor w W t, at least, be consulted prior te the proposed corrective actions beirg accepted for a specific QA audit. (MAGITZ, Exhibit 15, p.12; GUIMCC, Exhibit 16, p. 7; KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, pp. 12-13)
Although no intentional or deliberate acts of wrongdoing were uncovered in this area of the investigation, it does appear that QA was lax in implementing their own program. In rejecting Technical Functions original response (Exhibit SA), GUIMOND noted that Technical Functions (in response to each QA audit finding) failed to address either the cause for the deficiency or the extent of the problem. QA Procedure 7-18-01 (Exhibit SC), Section 8.8, Audit Responses, 8), states:
Audit responses should provide the corrective action including the cause, action taken to prevent racurrence and the effective date of implementa-tion. If the effective date of implementation exceeds thirty calendar days, the interim corrective action taken to assure that the QA program is not compromised should also be identified.
A review of Exhibits SA and 5B determined that the proposed corrective actions were accepted by MAGITZ contrary to the above procedure.
In August 1982, GUIMOND was recuested to review Technical Functions Engineering Procedure 031 (EF-C31) and document its deficiencies.
Techr.ical Functions was atterpting to use EP-031 to close out 0-TMl-El-02 audit findings number (1) anc (3). In written correspondence addressed to Technical Functions (CRONEBERGER), GUIMOND documented what he felt were the deficiencies in EP-031 and wrote a second memorandum to Technical Functions (CRONEBERGER) verifying that 0-THI-81-02 audit findings (1),
(3), (5a), (6a), (10), (11.4), (11.8), and (11.14) were still conside-ed cpen and the proposed corrective actions were unacceptable. This action by GUIMOND appears to have beer. in accordance with QA Procedure 7-18-01, Section 8.8 SUPRA and Sectier S.9, Audit Follow-up Activity and Docu-mentation (Exhibit SC). GUlFOND gave the memoranda to Bruce BADER, QA Program Development and Audit Manager, for review and signature. GU L*t0ND was informed by BADER that he would talk to STROMBERG (BADER's Super-visor) about the memoranda te determine who would sign them. GUIMCND said the memoranda were never sent and he never received a satisfactcry reason as to why they were not sent. (GUIMOND, Exhibit 16, pp. 8-11,14, 25-27, 35-36) He provided copies of both the aforementioned memoranda.
The subject of the first memorandum (Exhibit 5D) is EP-031, Equipment Environmental Qualification, and the subject of the second memorandum (Exhibit SE) is Proposed Corrective Action to Audit 0-TMI-81-02. Botin memoranda were addressed to CRONEBERGER.
Donald K. CRONEBERGER, Director of Engineering and Design, was inter-viewed (Exhibit 7) and appeared to have a very vague recollection of events surrounding audit 81-02. He stated that it was his impression that when EP-031 was issued on October 2,1981, the 81-02 audit firdirngs that pertained were closed out. He denied all knowledge of GUIMONC's August 1982 memoranda. (CR0hEBERGER, Exhibit 7, pp. 19-20 and 33-35)
A review of Technical Functions file concerning EP-031 by the reporti ig investigator and CRONEBERGER determined that there was nothing in the Case No. 1-84-021 16
i file to indicate that EP-031 satisfied (or closed out) the 81-02 audit findings. (CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, pp. 39-40) CRONEBERGER said that subsequent to the 81-02 audit in 1981, he did not specifically recall attending any meetings with QA concerning the open audit findings until the 1984 time period. (CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, p. 8) However, he said he was made aware of problems between QA and the EQ Sgetion by STROMBERG, but the nature of the problems was not clear to him.THis conversations with STROMBERG were mainly about personality roblems between MAUS and GUIMOND. (CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, pp. 23-24 Bruce A. BADER, QA Program Development and Audit Manager, testified that sometime in 1982, GUIMOND related that he was concerned about the closing out of the findings regarding Audit 0-TMI-81-02. He recalled GUIMOND's memoranda (Exhibits SD and SE) addressed to CRONEBERGER concerning "EP-031" and "81-02 open audit findings." Regarding the memorandum addressing EP-031 (Exhibit 50), BADER recalled attending a meeting with CRONEBERGER, MAGITZ and STROMBERG in order to try and get CRONEBERGER to address the 81-02 audit findings. He said that during the meeting they discussed the fact that EP-031 did not satisfactorily resolve the problems with the EQ program that were identified in Audit 0-THI-81-02.
He said that CRONEBERGER requested to know in what manner EP-031 was deficient and GUIMOND's memorandum was the result of CRONEBERGER's request. He said GUIMOND's second memorandum (Exhibit SE) addressing 81-02 open audit findings was also a result of the 1982 meeting with CRONEBERGER. BADER believes that the memoranda were not sent because after talking to the Directer of QA (Nick KAZANAS), it was decided that the problems identified in the memoranda should be further evaluated.
BADER believes that both KAZANAS and STROMBERG had seen GUIMOND's draft memoranda. He said that although he could not determine if the EP-031 memoranda was transmitted to CRONEBERGER, he assumed CRONEBERGER got the information in the form of a draft copy or some other informal manner.
BADER said the open audit findings noted in Exhibit SE were formally transmitted to Technical Functions in a similar letter from GUIMOND to STROMBERG dated April 4, 1984. (Exhibit SF) During the interview, BADER took exception to what he called "the inference" that nothing was done by QA to get Technical Functions to close out the open 81-02 audit findings, despite the fact that GUIMOND's 1982 memoranda were not sent. He indicated that the concerns identified by GUIMOND were discussed with both CRONEBERGER and MAUS during 1982-1983, but the discussions were more informal than formal. He said he personally did not recall any specific conversations with Technical Functions after August 1982. (BADER, Exhibit 14, pp. 8, 12-15, 18-24)
MAGITZ (Exhibit 15) testified that he recalled both memoranda drafted by GUIMOND (Exhibits 50 and SE) and he did not know why they were not sent.
\ He recalled some discussion as to who from QA should sign the memorandum discussing the "Proposed Corrective Action to Audit 81-02." He testified that the contents of both memoranda were discussed with both CRONEBERGER (primarily) and the EQ Supervisor, Gerald MAUS, "continuously" to about August 1982, and less frequently after August 1982, through 1983. He Case No. 1-84-021 17
t said the mecranda were the result of conversation between CRONEBERGER and the QA Cepartment concerning audit 81-02. (MAGIT2, Exhibit 15 at pp.
16-22) MAG:TZ said that he recalled attending meetings in the 1983 time period where it was indicated to both CRONEBERGER and MAUS that the EQ files were not in accordance with either DOR Guidelines or 10 CFR 50.49.
He said both CRONEBERGER and MAUS indicated they were "working on it; that they w:uld get it in condition." (MAGITZ, Exhibit 15, pp. 25, 33-34)
Matthias J. STROMBERG, (retired) former Manager of GPUN Audit Program Department, testified that prior to February 1983, he had conversations with CRONEBERGER, MAUS, GUIMOND and BADER concerning the lack of EQ program procedures and the lack of complete and auditable EQ files.
However, he said he did not recall the memoranda drafted by GUIMOND in August 1982 (Exhibits 50 and SE). (STROMBERG, Exhibit 13, pp. 11-15)
Nicholas KAZANAS, QA Director, had no recollection of the 1982 memoranda drafted by G' IMOND.
J (KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, pp. 42-43)
F. Gerald MUS, former EQ Section Supervisor, testified that GUIMOND expressed dissatisfaction with the EQ documentation throughout the time he (MAUS) was EQ Supervisor. He indicated that GUIMOND's audit recommendations were not followed in instances where he (MAUS) "didn't believe they were correct." (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 26-27, 29, 40-41)
Richard J. CHISHOLM, Manager of Electrical Power and Instrumentation, testified that he was MAUS' imediate supervisor beginning when MAUS took over as EQ Supervisor. However, he testified that he was not "closely involved in the details of what was going on" concerning the EQ progran.
He describe: his program responsibilities as "administrative" up until the NRC inspection in 1984, at which time he became *more active." He did not specifically recall internal audit 81-02. He did recall some "general" c:nversation with CRONEBERGER concerning CA's dissatisfaction with Techni:a1 Function's audit response. He said be did not personally recall beir; involved in any meeting with QA concerning EQ. (CHISHOLM, Exhibit 8, pp. 5-9)
GUIMOND testified that from 1981 up through 1984, he continually informed CRONEBERGER of the corrective action that was needed to address the open 81-02 audit findings. He said that his supervisors (STROMBERG, BADER, and MAGITZ) were also present at some of these meetings. GUIMOND opined that neither Technical Function nor QA were responsive to his 81-02 audit findings. (GUIMOND, Exhibit 16, pp. 27-29) MAGITZ testified that he did not feel that the 81-02 audit findings were handled in a responsible manner by Technical Functions. (MAGITZ, Exhibit 15, p. 28) BADER's testimony indicates that he felt both Technical Functions and QA handled 81-02 audit findings in a responsible manner. However, he pointed out that it was not clear to him what the formal corporate position was concerning who was "absolutely and positively" responsible for EQ, and the 81-02 audit findings may have stayed open as lorg as they did because a procedure could not be written until one person was identified as being responsible for the overall program. He further stated that QA "probably should have done more to get them (81-02 audit findings) closed out Case No. 1-84-021 18
i sooner." Overall, BADER opined that EQ was not the highest priority problem in the company and it fell victim to other priorities. (BADER, Exhibit 14, pp. 32-34)
NRC Safety Evaluat' ion Report (SER)/ Franklin Research Center (FRC)
Technical Evaluation Report (ILR)
By letter dated December 10, 1982, the NRC transmitted to GPUN a SER augmented by a TER for the E0 of safety related electrical equipment at TMI-1. The TER identified numerous deficiencies relating to (among other things) the lack of documentation to support qualification of equipment.
A copy of the December 10 letter, the SER, and Sections 1 through 5 of the TER is Exhibit 26.
CRONEBERGER testified that he did not review the TER 'in detail." He said he was just informed of "bits and pieces" of the TER. His understanding of the deficiencies was that the deficiencies involved documentation. CRONEBERGER's testimony indicates that he did not take any action to correct the deficiencies identified in the TER.
(CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, pp. 22-23) He alluded to the creation of an EQ subsection within the Electrical Power and Instrumentation Branch as a result of the TER; however, the referred to subsection, headed by MAUS, was set up in April 1981. (MAUS, Exhibit 9, p. 4; CH!SHOLM, Exhibit 8, pp. 3-4)
Testimony from R. WILSON, Vice President, Technical Functions, indicates that he had a general awareness of the TER, but was not involved in any action to address or correct the identified deficiencies. (WILSON, Exhibit 6, pp. 21-24)
CHISHOLM testified that he was not "actively" involved in retsending to the deficiencies noted in the TER. Concerning the TER, CHISHOLM recalled that the E0 Section did not receive "a lot of supervision" from him or anyone else in the Technical Function's organization. (CHISHOLM, Exhibit 8, p. 18)
Paul E. BOUCHER, THI-1 EQ Engineer, was interviewed and described his responsibilities as establishing the EQ equipment list and qualification documentation. His former supervisor was MAUS. (BOUCHER, Exhibit 10, pp. 3-5) BOUCHER admittedly never conducted a complete EQ file review.
When discussing certain specific deficiencies identified in both the 1982 TER and March 1984 NRC inspection, he could not identify what, if any, licensee action was taken to correct the deficiencies between the time of the two reviews. (BOUCHER, Exhibit 10, pp. 20-40)
During the interview with BOUCHER, both the reporting investigator and LAGRANGE discussed those files which were inspected by the NRC on March 20-21, 1984, and were subject to FRC review as identified in their TER transmitted to the licensee on December 10, 1982. LAGRANGE pointed out that the FRC reviewed only those documents provided to them by the i
licensee. Their review was for technical adequacy of documentation and l
they did not review actual files. He further advised that the NRC
! inspection pointed out deficiencies in documentation, but did not copy or j record, in every instance, what documentation the licensee actually had l
Case No. 1-84-021 19
\ - .
t in their files. For example, even though both the FRC review and the fE audit identified the same documentation deficiency for a particular pie:e of equipment, it does not necessarily mean that nothing was added to the file in an attempt to establish qualification. LAGRANGE could not identify a specific instance or file where the licensee made no attempt to add documentation to support qualification; however, he opined that 'n some cases the effort was so minimal it amounted to nothing.
MAUS testified that when the TER was received, he did not understand the deficiencies well enough to take corrective actions and he requested a meeting with the NRC "to get additional information on exactly what was meant on these [TER) deficiencies." He indicated that the meeting with the NRC was not held until October 5, 1983, at which time the TER deficiencies were reviewed and his questions answered. MAUS admittedly did not go over each component file to assure that the TER deficiencies were corrected and indicated he assigned that responsibility to BOUCHER.
(MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 14-19)
Leroy W. HARDING, Senior Licensing Engineer, provided a sworn statement (Exhibit 21) wherein he related that after GPUN received the FRC TER both MAUS and BOUCHER indicated to him that they had resolutions or could correct misunderstandings which they felt existed in the TER. He said both MAUS and BOUCHER indicated te him that they had not submitted certain documentation to support qualification to the FRC because it ha:
not been requested. As a result, HARDING telephonically contacted the NRC to resolve the misunderstandings. He said the NRC advised him to r quest a meeting with the NRC to discuss the concerns and he did so in a letter dated March 1, 1983. The letter (Exhibit 27) advised the NRC tht:
until the misunderstandings were resolved, a schedule for corrective action could not be developed.
Escalation of 81-02 Audit Findings On February 18, 1963, the GPUN Corporate QA Review Comittee (C-QARC) mit to address "EQ program problems." As a result of C-QARC deliberations, the problems of "lack of a complete file of auditable records" and lack of procedures "that clearly define [EQ program] responsibilities" were escalated to the level of Director, QA, GPUN. A copy of the C-QARC meeting minutes is Exhibit 28.
KAZANAS, QA Director, identified the purpose of the C-QARC as an advisory group for the QA Director. He said the C-QARC is composed of senior personnel who evaluate "some difficult scenarios" and, when appropriate, escalate various C-QARC findings to get more imediate action. KAZANAS said he met with and wrote the C-QARC (Exhibit 28A) about the above identified EQ problems to assure that they had exhausted the normal meats of getting the problems resolved before he (KAZANAS) escalated the problem to the "Director /Vice President" level. KAZANAS a6mitted that the EQ problems identified by the C-QARC were not corrected and in Marct 1984, he personally escalated the problems to Dr. Robert LONG, Vice President, Nuclear Assurance (discussed INFRA). KAZANAS indicated that between March 1983 and March 1984, he talked to CRONEBERGER about the E' problems "a number of times." (KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, pp. 27-35, 43-44)
Case No. 1-84-02i 20
Under "Environmental Qualification Program Problems" in the L/W minutes (Exhibit 28), it is noted that "Technical Functions tox the]
position that EP-031 covers the EQ program. It was pointed out te D.
CRONEBERGER the inadequacy of this procedure to constitute on its own the EQ program."
KAZANAS testified that between approximately March 1983 and March 1984, QA had informed Technical Functions, to include CRONEBERGER, of the inadequacies in EP-031 as it related to the lack of documentatien and program responsibilities. He scid the problem was not corrected and this was one of the things which he informed his supervisor (LONG, Vice President of Nuclear Assurance) of in March 1984. KAZANAS said he wanted
" to make sure LONG was aware of the problem and would discuss it with his counterpart in Technical Functions (Richard WILSON, Vice President, Technical Functions). (KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, pp. 30-33)
May 20, 1983 GPUN Submittal to the h3C in Response to 10 CFR 50.49(g)
Prior to having their requested meeting with the NRC (Exhibit 27) to discuss misunderstandings that GPUN had with the Franklin Research Center TER, the licensee was required by May 20, 1983, to identify the electric equipment important to safety within the scope of 50.49 already qualified and submit a schedule for either the qualification to the provisicms of 50.49 or for the replacement of the remaining electric equipment important to safety within the scope of 50.49. In a letter dated May 20,1953, the licensee identified compenents within the scope of 50.49 and cercluded that the components were ' qualified in accordance with DOR guidelir.es dated November 1579." (Exhibit 2) However, the submittal agair requested a meetir0 to resolve apparent equipment discrepancies. The May 20th submittal was signed by Henry D. HUKILL, Jr., Director of TMI-1, after being prepared by Lercy HARDING, Senior Cc porate Licensirg Engineer, based en alleged verbal input from F. G. MAUS, EQ Supervisor, Paul E. BOUCHER, TM1-1 EQ Section Engineer, and various other GFUN personnel. Both Licensir.g and the EQ Section are physically located at GPUN Headquarters in Parsippany, New Jersey.
Leroy W. HARDING testified that he is responsible for all correspcmdence going to the NRC's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) concerning TMI-1. He said that GPUN Licensing Procedure LP-002 (Exhibit 2A) addressed the procedures to be followed relating to the licensee's May 20, 1983, submittal to the NRC. HARDING advised that he drafted tme May 20th letter based on input from Technical Functions and Operatiens personnel. Exhibit 2B centains all of Licensing's pertinent file documentation relating to the May 20, 1983 submittal. The Correspondence Project Accountability Check Sheets contained in Exhibit 2B indicate that besides MAU$ and BOUCHER, Richard J. CHISHOLM, Manager of Electrical Power and Instrumentation, Thomas G. BROUGHTON, Systems Engineering Director, and Jack S. WETMORE, Manager of Plant Analysis, had irput into the May 20, 1983, licensee submittal. HARDING stated that CHISh0LM's input involved Section 2 of the document, BROUGHTON's input invcived Section 3 of the document, and WETMORE was listed because he was (at the time) HARDING's Supervisor, and had a review function over the Fay 20th letter. HARDING indicated that none of the aforementioned indivicuals (CHISHOLM, BROUGHTON, M TMORE) had anything to do with Section 1 c' the Case No. 1-84-021 21
submittal, which centains the statement that electrical equipment within the scope of 50.49 was "qualified in accordance with CCR guidelines dated November 1979." HARDING said he drafted this statement based on verbal information from both MAUS and BOUCHER. Concerning submittals such as the May 20, 1983 letter, HARDING said that certain individuals give him what he would call "great input," but he would not categorize input from the Environmental Cualification Branch relating to different licensing requirements in this category of people. HARDING said that at the time he drafted the May 20th letter, he was working on approximately 10 to 15 projects and relied heavily on MAUS' input for the draft letter. He said that he did not realize the magnitude of the whole Environmental Qualification program at the time and was not intimately familiar with the actual technical information needed to qualify a certain com>onent.
HARDING concluded that he did not know that the May 20, 1983, su)mittal contained false information when he drafted and submitted it to the NRC.
He said that he felt both MAUS and b0UCHER were sure of themselves regarding their conclusions that the components listed on the appropriate System Component Evaluation Worksheets (SCEW) were qualified in accordance with D0R guidelines. (HARDING, Exhibit 21)
Interviews of Henry HUKILL (Exhibit 18), Ronald G. TOOLE (Exhibit 19),
Operations and Maintenance Director at THI-1, and Courtny SMYTH (Exhibit 22), TMI-1 Licensir,g Manager, indicate that the submittal was handled properly by site personnel and HUKILL did not have kncwledge that the submittal contained false information when he signed the document.
Philip R. CLARK, Sr., GPUN President, explained that in the past, the Plant Director (or his designee) signed all correspondence going to and from the NRC so as to have an awareness of everything going on that affected his plant. CLARK said he did not deem this type of action appropriate anyn:re and in cases where the subject of a letter is entirely or almost entirely within the area of responsibility of someone other than the Plant Director, GPUN is now having that person sign the correspondence. (CLARK, Exhibit 25, pp. 15-17)
Testimony indicates that the submittal was handled very informally by Licensing in that there was no record of acknowledgement of the contents of the submittal by either MAUS or BOUCHER from whom HARDING attributes the information for the "DOR guideline" statement in the submittal. The Correspondence Project Accountability Check Sheets contained in Exhibit 2B, shows that HARDING received input for the May 20 submittal from MAUS, BOUCHER, SMYTH, WETMORE, CHISHOLM, and BROUGHTON. HARDING advised that these names were placed on the accountability check sheet by either he or SMYTH and are not original signatures. (HARDING, Exhibit 21, p. 4)
MAUS testified that he did not recognize the May 20, 1983 submittal, was not aware of providing any input for the document, and did not recall ever reviewing the document. However, MAUS indicated that he would have concurred with the compliance statement made in the May 20 submittal.
(MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 8-14, 39-40)
BOUCHER testified that he did not recall either providing input to or reviewing the May 20, 1983 GPUN submittal. (BOUCHER, Exhibit 10, pp.
5-6, 8, 15-16)
Case No. 1-84-021 22
)
Jack S. WETMORE, Manager of Plant Analysis (former Licensing Manager and hARCING's Supervisor), testified that he recalled attending a meeting sometime prior to May 20, 1983, with Courtny SMYTH, Dick CHISH0LM, and Gerry MAUS in Dick CHISH0LM's office. He said it was several weeks prior to the May 20 submittal and the subject of the meeting was a discussion of where GPUN stood on the EQ issue and how they could go about putting a letter together to comply with 50.49. WETMORE indicated that based on past contacts he had with MAUS, MAUS left him with the impression that the EQ program was in compliance with the rule. WETMORE was not sure if MAUS left him with that impression at the aforementioned meeting or if his impression was gained through subsequent contacts with MAUS. Neither could WETMORE epecifically recall discussing the May 20 submittal with HARDING. (WETMORE, Exhibit 24, pp. 4-14)
CHISHOLM was interviewed and indicated that he did not recall having input inte the document, he did not recall the dccument, nor did he have any specific recollection of talking about the document. (CHISHOLM, Exhibit 8, pp. 19-21)
CRONEBERGER testified that he reviewed the May 20, 1983, submittal, but cid not have any input into the document. He was not aware that the document contained a false statement when he signed the Final Letter Approvals block on the Correspendence Project Accountability check Sheet (Exnibit 2B). He believes that he talked to either CHISHOLM or MAUS and RARDING before signing specific conversation (the Approvals CRONEBERGER, block, Exhibit but 27-30).
7, pp. he could not recall any E. ROUGHTON testified that he did not recall having either input or a review function concerning the May 20, 1983, submittal. (BROUGHTON, Exhibit 23, pp. 4-7)
Ccteber 5, 1983 GPUN Meetino with the NRC to Discuss TER Deficiencies On October 5,1983, HARDING, MAUS, and BOUCHER met with NRC EQ Represen-tatives in Bethesda, Maryland, to discuss GPUN's proposed resolution of the qualification deficiencies identified in the FRC TER. LAGRANGE said that the individual TER deficiencies were discussed and it was apparent to him that the GPUN Representatives did not have the deficiencies resolved and were not ready for the meeting. As a result of the meeting, GPUN corimitted to providing the NRC with a written resolution to each TER deficiency. This was the basis for the February 10, 1984, submittal (Exhibit 3) discussed INFRA. (LAGRANGE, Exhibit 4)
HARDING provided the reporting investigator with copies of both his and MAUS' annotated recollection of the October 5, 1983, meeting. (Exhibit
- 40) MAUS' notes indicate that GPUN requested the meeting because they could not understand "what responses were required to the deficiencies cited in the SER, dated December 10, 1982.' They further state that,
, "Based upon the meeting, we now know how to respond to close out the l
deficiencies. These deficiencies are in regard to documentation and testing and should not result in any equiprent changes." MAUS' notes of the meeting indicate a prior lack of understanding by GPUN in the areas of documentation and testing needed to support qualification.
Case No. 1-84-021 23
f December 27, 1983 to February 1, 1984, Ir.ternal QA Assessment of EQ Files During a period from December 27, 1983, to February 1, 1984, a GPUN QA assessment was conducted by GUIMOND and two other Auditors on the EQ files. The memorandum transmitting the assessment to Technical Functions is dated May 16, 1984. A copy of the memorandum and attached assessment, is Exhibit SG. As indicated by both the nemorandum and a telephone conversation (Exhibit 34) between the rep'orting investigator and GUIMOND on May 7, 1985, the information contained in the assessment was 3rovided to MAUS by GUIMOND both during the assessment and during the wee (s of March 5 and 12, 1984. The stated purpose of the assessment was to evaluate the qualification documentation in accordance with 10 CFR 50.49 and identify equipmerc. tor which qualification documentation was either adequate or deficient. The assessment included an in-depth review of files for 16 components and 15 components were found to have some type of deficiency. The assessment (as did the 1981 internal audit) identified the lack of approved written procedures anc/or instructions that assigned responsibilities in the establishment of a qualification documentation file and noted many individual deficiencies relating to the lack of documentation to support component qualification.
MAUS' testimony indicates that he disagreed with GUIMOND's assessment of the EQ program. MAUS acknowledged that GUIMOND felt the files were inadequate concerning documentation, but stated that:
You can always improve upon documentation, you can always make it better. The question is: When is it sufficient? That's the question you have to answer. And that is strictly subjective. Your opinion is different than mine, which is different than Mr. GUIMOND's.
And its strictly opinion. (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 70-73)
MAUS acknowledged that throughout the time he was EQ Supervisor, GUIMOND hac continually advised him that he was ret satisfied with the EQ documentation. (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 40-41)
February 10, 1984, GPUN Submittal to the hRC Which the Licensee Comitted te cn October 5,1983 As a result of an October 5, 1983, meeting between the NRC and GPUN, the licensee comitted to providing the NRC with a written resolution to each TER deficiency. By letter dated February 10, 1984 (Exhibit 3), GPUN provided a written resolution for each TER deficiency identified in the December 10, 1982, FRC TER. The letter was signed by Ronald J. TOOLE, THI-1 Operations and Maintenance Director, in the absence of Henry D.
HUKILL, Jr., THI-1 Director. .The letter was prepared by Leroy HARDING, Senior Licensing Engineer, based on discussions and input from both F. G.
MAUS, EQ Supervisor, and Paul BOUCHER, TMI-1 EQ Engineer. HARDING provided Exhibit 2C which contains all of Licensing's pertinent file documentation relating to the February 10, 1984, submittal. The Corres-pondence Project Accountability Check Sheet indicates that MAUS signed the Final Letter Approval block and was listed by HARDING as the individual providing input into the letter, Case No. 1-84-021 24
i HARDING testified that he specifically recalled asking MAUS if the System Component Evaluation korksheets (SCEW) reflected qualification with no outstanding items, and that MAUS responded, "Yes." HARDING stated that he "honestly" felt that the February 10, 1984, submittal was accurate when he drafted and submitted the document. (Exhibit 21)
MAUS testified that he had both ir.put and a review function over the February 10, 1984, submittal. MAUS said that he provided input to HARDING indicating that, "As far as EQ Engineering was concerned," GPUN was in "compliance" with 10 CFR 50.49. (MtVS, Exhibit 9, pp. 9-11) MAUS stated that he never intentionally allowed false information to be submitted to the NRC. (MAUS, Exhibit 9, p. 77)
SOUCHER testified that he provided information relating te the attachments for the February 10, 1964, letter. He said he was not sure if he reviewed the letter prior to its submittal. He stated that the information he provided concerning the correction of TER deficiencies, as shewn in the attachments to the February 10, 1984, letter, were accurate and true to the best of his knowledge and belief. He stated that his knowledge of documentation needed to support qualification was obtained through interaction with MAUS and he did not attend any "meetings outside" relating to documentation needed for environmental qualification.
(BOUCHER, Exhibit 10, pp. 7-12)
CHISHOLM testified (Exhibit 8, p. 21) that he did not recall having any input or review corctrning tne February 10, 1984, submittal.
CRONEBERGER testified (Exhibit 7, pp. 27-28) that he did not recall having either input or a review function relating to the February 10, 1984, submittal.
Testimony of both KAZANAS (Exhibit 12, pp. 35-36) and GUIMOND (Exhibit 16, pp. 40-41) indicate there was no QA review of either the May 20, 1983, or the February 1C, 1984, submittals.
Interviews of HUKILL (Exhibit 18), TOOLE (Exhibit 19), Paul LEYINE (Exhibit 20), TMI-l Senior Engineer, and SMYTH (Exhibit 22) indicate that the submittal was hardled properly by site personnel and TOOLE did not have knowledge that the submittal contained false information when he signed the document for HUKILL. LEVINE (Exhibit 20) pointed out that not until very recently were the EQ files available to site personnel. Prior to the February 10, 1984, submittal, the EQ files were maintained and controlled at GPUN Headquarters in Parsippany and were not readily available for a thorcugh review by site personnel.
Further Escalation of 81-02 Audit Findings On March 9, 1984, KAZANAS, and members of his staff, met with Robert L.
LONG, GPUN Vice President of Nuclear Assurance, to inform him of the problems which QA had identified to Technical Functions with their (Technical functions) EQ program between 1981 and 1984.
Case No. 1-84-021 25
KAUNAS testified that QA was unable to get the QA identified EQ problems (lack of a complete file of auditable records and lack of procedures which address organizational EQ program responsibilities) corrected through his organization's interface with Technical Functions. He said the purpose of escalating the problem to LONG was to give him a "heads up" and let him know that the "problem was real" so that he would pursue it with R. WILSON, the Vice President of Technical Functions. (KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, pp. 27 34)
LONG testified that his QA staff informed him (at the meeting) of an upcoming NRC inspecticn of the environmental qualification of the THI-1 emergency feedwater system and that a recent QA assessment of the EQ program had determined that the plant had not been walked down to deter-mine how or where the system components were installed and that approx-imately 3/4 of the Systec Component Evaluation Worksheets (SCEW) were inadequately backed up by documentation. LONG said that he informed WILSON (within days) of the information that he had received from his QA staff. LONG provided Exhibit 11A a copy of his notes of the March 9, 1984, meeting with his QA staff. LONG stated tilat his staff had brcught the problems to his attention because the Technical Functions staff people were not being as "sensitive" to the concerns as they (QA) felt they should be. LONG recalled MAUS' name being mentioned, but could not recall at this tire what other Technical Function Managers, if any, were mentioned. However, LONS agreed that the circumstances indicated that the environmental qualification problems extended into the managenent levels above MAUS on the Technical Function side. (LONG, Exhibit 11, pp.
5-13)
WILSON tes ,ified that he recalled having several conversations with LONG ir, the 1984 time period, t,ut he did not link the contacts with LONG to meetings LONG had with the QA Cepartment. (WILSON, Exhibit 5, pp. 31-33)
March 20-21,1984, NRC Audit of GPUN E0 Files On March 20-21, 1984, the NRC staff and a Consultant audited seven emergency feedwater electrical equipment environmental qualification files for THI-1. All cf the files had noted deficiencies relating to the lack of documentation to support qualification. The audit findings were formally transmitted to the licensee by letter April 25,1984 (Exhibit 48). The enclosures to that letter contained recomendations and cited specific deficiencies coegarable to those previously cited in either the GPUN internal audit, the GPUN assessment, or the Franklin Research Center TER.
The enclosure to the April 25, 1984, letter to GPUN contained the following statement:
During the course of the audit, the staff and its consultant asked questions of and provided coments to GPU concerning the files and documentation reviewed. Some of the coments are applicable to all the files the sta'f and its consultant audited, and are very likely to be applicable te all GPU EQ files. In addition, coments on the specific files audited may also be applicable to many other files.
Therefore, GPU shculd review all EQ files and update them, as necessary, in accercance with the coments identified below.
Case No. 1-84-021 26
I Tec of the comments identified by the staff as being applicable to all the EQ files it reviewed during the audit were:
- 1. The EQ files contain no indication, other than SCEW sheets (some of which were in the process of being revised) and some brief handwritten sheets, that the documentation has been reviewed by GPU nor that it has been concluded by GPU that the equipment is qualified.
- 2. Most of the handwritten material in the files is not signed or dated and shows no indication that the statements /information contained on these sheets has ever been verified by a checker
, or approved.
A letter to GPUN dated May 25, 1984 (Exhibit 33), requesting additional information regarding GPUN's THI-1 EQ program, states that:
Based on our audits of EFW system to date, we believe that the identified deficiencies raise generic issues requiring resolution.
Principally, these questions relate to the methodology used to identify equipment that must be environmentally qualified as well as the adequacy of existing supporting documentation. We have, therefore, been unable to conclude that you are presently in compliance with 10 CFR 50.49 as stated in your letter of February 10, 1984 (as modified).
The GPUN Internal Audit 0-THI-81-02 (Exhibit 5) identified deficiencies and comments similar to those cited above. For example, page 3 of 10 in At.dit 81-02 states:
- 1. No objective evidence that the GPU Engineering Standards nor Engineering Procedures were followed for the establishment of the master list and qualification documentation file.
- 4. Master list does not address all equipment that is required to function under postulated accident conditions: Also, lacks qualification documentation in central file for these components.
The following is noted on page 7 of 10 in Audit 81-02:
No evidence of direction for GPU review of qualification data. This concern is related to the extent of GPU review, coment, resolution of corrnents, approval and incorporation of vendor documents.
In Audit 81-02 on page 10 of 10, the following two recomendations were m.a de:
- 1. Documented direction be generated in order to assure meeting the requirements of the bulletin, to include organizations, departments, sections, and individuals (Headouarters and site personnel). This should include interface responsibilities and define the corporate position en the bulletin.
Case No. 1-84-021 27
i
- 2. A complete review [ emphasis added] should be taken to assure that the qualification documentation is complete to support adequacy of the equipment.
MAUS testified that he did not personally review each component file to assure that the TER deficiencies were corrected. He indicated that such a review was assigned to BOUCHER and added that HARDING from Licensing also reviewed some of the GPUN EQ files. (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 15, 16, and 19)
HARDING testified that he was aware that the DOR guidelines were the basis for environmental qualification, but stated he was not intimately familiar with the actual technical information that was needed to qualify a certain piece of equipment or component. (HARDING, Exhibit 21, p. 2)
BOUCHER testified that he only reviewed the files if they were brought up as a problem. He said he did not have time to go back and look at all of the existing files when he took them over in 1981. He said that he never conducted a complete review of the files to insure that the documentation was complete. (BOUCHER, Exhibit 10, pp. 39, 40, and 47)
GPUN Management and QA/EQ Sections' Testimony Concerning the GPUN Environmental Qualification Program Philip R. CLARK, Sr., GPUN President, testified that to the best of his recollection, EQ problems were first brought to his attention by Richard WILSON, Vice President - Technical Functions, at staff meetings in "early 1984." CLARK said WILSON indicated that the EQ Section needed a lot more attention, needed support from the plant divisions in particular, and QA had identified a number of deficiencies which the EQ Section was addressing. (Exhibit 25, p. 7) CLARK indicated that when he personally started looking into the EQ program in Spring /Sumer 1984, it was clear to him "that the documentation wasn't in adequate shape even on the scope that we had understood" what the requirements should be and second, over time, "the scope became greater than we had understood it to be." He further stated it was his understanding that other utilities were finding the scope or the interpretation of the scope [EQ requirements) a greater project than they originally understood it. (Exhibit 25, p. 13)
In support of Mr. CLARK's "understanding," Exhibit 25A contains NRC IE Information Notice No. 85-39, dated May 22, 1985, wherein it is stated that:
The staff has conducted a number of inspections at licensees' facilities to review licensee implementation of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements and to verify that TER corrective action comitments are being properly implemented. These inspections have identified deficiencies in the content and auditability of document files used to support equipment qualification.
Case No. 1-84-021 28
I CLARK did not have any recollection of either the May 20, 1983, or the February 10, 1984, GPUN submittals to the NRC concerning the GPUN Environmental Qualification program. He further Jtated that he did not recollect having a review function over either document prior to their submittal. (CLARK, Exhibit 25, p. 18)
LONG testified that he had neither a review function nor input into either the May 20, 1983, or February 10, 1984, GPUN submittals to the NRC. (LONG, Exhibit 11, p. 18)
WILSON's testimony indicates that he had very little involvtment in the Environmental Qualification program during the 1982-1983 time period. He advised that it was his recollection that he did not becon;e actively involved in the EQ program until the Spring of 1984, following either the first or second NRC inspection of the TMI-l Environmental Qualification program. WILSON related that in 1984, it became apparent that the GPUN EQ program was in a substantial amount of difficulty both from a programatic point of view and a quality point of view. He said he personally started "digoing into the files" and looking at the specifics of w*at was there and the basis for it. He characterized what he found as "not being a very quality job" and "sloppy." (WILSON, Exhibit 6, pp. 9-12) WILSON opined that the major problems with the EQ program that he observed in 1984 were that the program was not "well defined, organized and directed" and the work that had been done was "not of a quality which should be there and therefore, the conclusions that were drawn were not adequately substantiated by the work that had been performed." He said that GPUN had not yet "moved to a point of getting the programatic follow on activities in place which would have assured the maintenance of qualification ence it was initially established." (WILSON, Exhibit 6, p.
16)
WILSON stated his opinion that the understanding of the leve' of documenta-tion requirements needed for qualification was not recognized as being the same in 1981 as it was in 1984 (WILSON, Exhibit 6, pp. 28-29)
WILSON said he did not have either a review function or input into the May 20, 1983, or February 10, 1984, GPUN submittals to the NRC. Cone g the "compliance" statements made in both letters, in retrospect. WP v.
believed that the individuals involved, who were responsible for d.,
statements, thought they were accurate at the time. (WILSON, Exh W 6 pp. 35-40)
WILSON stated that MAUS was relieved from his job as EQ Supervisor (becauseintheSpringof1984 it was determined that the EQ program hao
' substantial management problems."I He said it was concluded that a "lot of the program deficiencies," "the quality of what was done," and the information that was being fed up the management chain as to the status of the program prior to that time, "led us to the conclusion that it was inappropriate" for MAUS to continue on the job. WILSON personally concluded that MAUS was not ca bleopullingtheprogramtogether.
(WILSON, Exhibit 6, pp. 41-42)
Case No. 021
l i
KAZANAS' testimony indicates that a fair assessment of the 81-02 audit is ,
that it was critical of both the GPUN EQ documentation to establish cualificetion and the lack cf management direction within the program.
(KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, p. 8) He indicated that overall, Technical
! Functions responded in a responsible manner in correctir.g the deficiencies :
i and the problems that QA was finding and reporting to them in and following l l Audit 81-02. However, he said QA had a lot of trouble, especially in the 1 beginning, in getting Technical Functions to recognize that they were not t doing a professional, careful, programatic look at the files. He indicated that this action took awhile because Technical Functions was !
"fighting it, despite how much we were elevating it, in their house it '
was clear they kept coming back and poo-pooing it, a1d indicating that it h 't as bad as sa t was." (KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, p. 27)
KAZANAS went on to say tha it EQ was a "difficult subject" and w subject to a lot of ,
adjustments as requirements ctianged. In retrospect, he indicated that i things could have went a lot smoother if QA wou.d not have had a; souch resistance up front f rom Technical Functions, particularly in the file area. He said that the "pulling together" of the EQ files was a "herror story." He indicated that QA had received particularly good cooperation i from Technical Functions pecple on other programs. (KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, pp. 41-42)
CRONEBERGER agreed that both the 1981 Internal GPUN Audit (81-02) amd the March 1984 NRC audit indicated that the files were "not auditable" as the auditor interpreted the rules to require. (CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, pp.
28-29) i Concerning MAUS' removal as EQ Supervisor, CRONEBERGER stated:
Mr. MAUS was both fron a management standpoint responsib1 or this function and it was clear he did not do an adequate job. i i
l
}
CRONEBERGER testified that neither BOUCHER, MAUS, nor CHISHOLH had requested assistance for the EQ program. (CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, p. 26)
CRONEBERGER testified that prior to the first NRC audit on March 20-21, 1984, he did ilot personally look at any of the environmental qualification i files, it was his understanding that the documentation needed to support qualification was that which was conveyed in the GPUN procedure that was issued in January 1984. (CRCNEBERGER, Exhibit 7, p. 40)
Case No. 1-84-021 30 l
)( /7 eLY
I !
I The procedure referred to by CRONEBERGER is GPUN Procedure 1000-ADM-7317.01 (Exhibit 7A), which replaced EP-031 (Exhibit 78). It should be noted that EP-031 was effective October 15, 1981 and 1000-ADM-7317.01 was effective July 1, 1984. However, in a memorandum dated January 12, 1954 (Exhibit 70), GUIMOND reconrnended to XAZANAS that the subject procedure (1000-ADM-7317.01) be approved by Nuclear Assurance.
BADER opined that MAUS "truly believed" that his EQ program was adequate to meet the requirements for environmental qualification. BADER further indicated that GUIMOND may have been asking "too much" of the EQ program in that he would not close out an audit finding until a program was in effect to assure that the same finding would never surface again.
(BADER, Exhibit 14, pp. 24-26)
Bruce W. ALATARY, GPUN QA Engineering Manager, testified that when he and GPUN contract employees reviewed the E0 packages in approximately mid May of 1984, he found that the Environmental Qualification Sections' perception of what was an auditable piece of documentation and his idea of an auditable piece of documentation were very much separate. However, BADER declined to provide a direct statement as to the accuracy of the compliance statements made in the May 20, 1983, and February 10, 1984, GPUN submittals to the NRC. He described EQ documentation as a "grey area" and conrnented that his perception of what documer.tation is needed to support qualification may net be correct either. When questioned further, BADER acknowledged that the documentation that is currently ir GPUN EQ files is substantially different from the doci. mentation that was In the files during the May 1983 and February 1984 time periods. He further stated that he believed it was necessary to have the detail of documentation which is now in the file in order to support qualification. He acknowledged that those types of details were not in the file during the May 1983 and February 1984 time periods. In conclusion, ALATARY agre3d that when the May 1983 and February 1984 submittals were made, all the documentation necessary to support those statenents of qualification did not appear to be in the file at the time. (ALATARY, Exhibit 17, pp. 5-11)
GUIMOND testified that based on the QA assessment conducted in December 1983 and early 1984 (Exhibit 7G), it was his personal belief that the qualification statement made in the February 10, 1984, GPUN submittal to the NRC was not a true statement. However, he said he "definitely" believed that MAUS and BOUCHER felt what they were doing was correct. He opined that neither individual had any "inkling" of what they rere supposed to be doing concerning EQ. (GUIMOND, Exhibit 16, pp. 40-43) l CHISHOLH testified thst he did not recall either BOUCHER or MAUS specif-ically requesting any assistance for the Environmental Qualification program in the 1982-1983 time period. He stated that there was a per-ception on his part that the EQ program was not going to "last forever.'
l He acknowledged that perhaps he had the wrong perspective on the progran in terms of his feeling that the program would only last a couple of years and would be phased out. (CHISHOLM, Exhibit 8, pp. 12-13) He stated that prior to 1984, he did r.ct review the EQ files nor did he l
provide guidance documentation. to the EQ Exhibit (CHISHOLM, personnel 8, pp.concerning)what 28-29 constituted adequate l Case No. 1-84-021
! 31 l
L
i BOUCHER testified that in retrospect, he agreed that complete and auditabir records were not available in the GPUN EQ files during May of 1983 or February of 1984 when GPUN sent letters to the NRC claiming compliance with D0R guidelines and/or 50.49. He stated that the input he provided concerning these letters was accurate to the best of his knowledge and ability. He further stated that he did not know of anyone else who intentionally lied concerning the submittals. BOUCHER was not sure if he received adequate management support concerning the EQ program. He stated that he had "complained for years" about the workload in EQ but added, "everybody complains." He said that management made the C On on how to operate and he was just "doing the work." (BOUCHER, Exhibit 10, pp. 49-52) BOUCHER stated tFat he had indicated to MAUS on several occasions that the work was just "too much" and MAUS told him to just l address those item: that were currently being identified as problems and not to go back and redo old files. (BOUCHER, Exhibit 10, pp. 38-39)
MAUS testified that BOUCHER did bring te his attention that BOUCHER thought the EQ job was more than he could handle and that he needed help.
He acknowledged that BOUCHER brought this to his attention "periodically" during the time MAUS was Manager of EQ. He said that he agreed with BOUCHER and "occasionally" passed the information on to his Supervisor, CHISH0Lii. (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 22-2A)
MAUS indicated that in his opinion, the GPUN EQ program did have complete and auditable files when audited by the NRC on Mcrch 20-21, 1984. He indicated that he did not agree with the NRC's conclusion that the GPUN EQ program did not have complete and auditable files. (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 56-61) MAUS cpined that the additional docunentation to support qualification currently in the EQ files is there because of additional requirements which did not exist during earlier time periods. (MAUS, Exhibit 9, p. 68)
Wi11 fulness / Intent Regarding the issue of whether the material false statements made by GPUN in submittals dated May 20, 1983, and February 10, 1984, were willfully made with the intent to deceive the NRC regarding the true status of compliance with DOR guidelines and 10 CFR 50.49:
- 1. LAGRANGE testified that his March 20-21, 1984 audit of the TM! EQ files determined that GPU did not have "complete and auditable" records to support their "qualification / compliance" statements made in their May 20, 1983, and February 10, 1984, submittals to the NRC.
LAGRANGE emphasized that GPUN THI-1 EQ files were "exceptionally bad" even considering the subjective interpretation of "complete" and "auditable" files (Exhibit 4A, p. 3). A copy of the March 20-21, 1984 NRC audit is Exhibit (4B).
- 2. CLARK testified that when he personally started looking into the EQ program in the Spring / Summer of 1984, it was clear to him "that the documentation wasn't in adequate shape even or the scope that we had understood" what should be the requirements (Exhibit 25, p.13).
Case No. 1-84-021 32
)
- 3. WILSON testified that when he started reviewing the files in 1984, he characterized what he founo as, "not being a very quality job" and further referred to the files as "sloppy." He testified that the major problems with the EQ program that he observed in 1984 were that the progran was not "well defined, organized and directed," and the work that had to be done was "not of a quality which should be there and therefore, the conclusions that were drawn were not adequately substantiate. oy the work that had been performed." He testified that GPUN had not yet "moved to a point of getting the programatic follow on activities in place which would have assured the maintenance of qualification once it was initially c4tablished."
(WILSON, Exhibit 6, pp. 9-12, 16)
- 4. ALATARY testified that based on his review of the THI-l EQ files in May 1984, all the documentation necessary to support the statements of qualification made in the May 1983 and February 1984 submittals, "did not appear to be" in the file at the time (AL/(ARY, Exhibit 17, op. 5-11).
- 5. GUIMOND testified that based on the QA assessment conducted in December 1983 and early 1984 (Exhibit SG) that it was his personal belief that the qualification statement made in the Fcbruary 10, 1984 GPUN submittal to the NRC was not a true statement (GUIMOND, Exhibit 16, pp. 40-43).
- 6. BOUCHER's testimony indicates that in retrospect, he agreed that complete and auditable records were not available in the GPUN EQ files during late 1983 or early 1984. (BO')CHER, Exhibit 10, pp.
49-50)
- 7. CHISHOLM testified that he was MAUS' immediate supervisor and that he was not "closely involved in the details of what was going on" concerning the EQ program. He described his program responsibilities as "administrative" up until the NRC inspection in 1984 at which time he became "more active." He said he did not personally recall being involved in any meetings with QA concerning the environmental qualification program. (CHISHOLM, Exhibit 8, pp. 4-5)
- 8. BADER testified that it was not clear to him what the formal Corporate position was concerning who was "ebsolutely and positively" responsible for environmental qualificatton. He opined tht the 81-02 audit ,
findings may have stayed open as long as they did because a procedure could not be written until cne knew who was resonsible for the overall program. He said QA "probably st' vid hae done more to get them (81-02 audit findings) closed out sooner" and that in his opinion, EQ was not the highest priority problem in the company and it fell victim to other priorities (BADER, Exhibit 14, pp. 22-34).
- 9. BOUCHEC testified that he never conducted a coglete EQ file review and when discussing certain specific deficiencies identified in both the 1982 TER and March 1984 NRC inspection, he could not identify what, if any, licensee action was taken to correct the deficiencies between the time of the two reviews (BOUCHER, Exhibit 10, pp.
20-40).
Case No. 1-84-021 33
I
- 10. MAUS testified that he did net go over each component file to assv e that the TER deficiencies were corrected and indicated he assigne:
that responsibility to BOUCHER (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 14-19).
- 11. BOUCHER testified that he had indicated to MAUS on several occasions that the EQ work was just "too much" and that MAUS told him to just address and not tothose items go back that and were re-do oldcurrently (bei; . identified files BOUCHER, Exhibit as 10,prcblects pp.
38-39).
- 12. MAUS testified that BOUCHER did bring to his attention that BOUChER thought the EQ job was more than he could handle and ieeded help.
He testified that he agreed with BOUCHER and "occasion 311y" passed the information on to his supervisor, CHISHOLM (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp.
22-24).
- 13. CHISHOU1 testivied that he did not recall either BOUCHER or MAUS specificCaly requesting any assistance for the environmental quali-fication program in the 1982-1983 time period. He testified that there was a perception on his part that the EQ program was not geirs to "last forever." He acknowledged that perhaps he had the wrong perspective on the program in terms of his feeling that the prograr wculd only last a couple of years and the program would be phased out. CHISHOLM further testified that prior to 1984, he did not review the E0 files nor did he provide guidance to the EQ person e' concerning what constituted adequate documentation (CHISHOLM, Exhibit 8, pp. 12-13, 28-29).
- 14. HARDING testified that he drafted the May 20, 1963 GPUN submittai tc the NRC based on information from MAUS, BOUCHER, CHISHOLM, and BROUGHTON. He testified that the portion of the report which claimed that the THI-1 electrical equipment within the scope of 50.49 was "qualified in accordance with DOR guidelines dated November 1979" was provided to him verbally by both MAUS and BOUCHER. He identified CHISHOLM and BROUGHTON as having provided input into other portions of the submittal. HARDING fsther testified that ir general, some individuals give him what he would term "great itput" for licensing submittals, but that he would not categorize input from the Environmental Qualification Branch relating to different licensing requirements in this category of people (HARDING, Exhibit 21).
15.
The files rep (orting Exhibit 3A)investigator concerningcan the testify May 20, that he reviewed 1933 submittalLicensine's and their was no record in the file showing that either MAUS or BOUCHER had acknowledged the contents of the submittal.
- 16. MAUS testified that he did not recognize the May 20, 1983, submittal, was not aware of providing any input for the document, and did net recall ever reviewing the document. (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 8-14).
- 17. BOUCHER testified that ne did not recall having either input or a review function concerning the May 20, 1983, GPUN submittal (BOUCHEE, Exhibit 10, pp. 5-6; 8; 15-16).
Case No. 1-84-021 34
I
- 18. CHISHOLM testified that he did not recall having input into the May 20, 1983, submittal and further testified that he had no specific recollection of the document at all (CHISHOLM, Exhibit 8, pp.
19-21).
- 19. BROUGHTON testified that he did not recall having either input or a review function concerning the May 20, 1983, submittal (BROU5hTON, Exhibit 23, pp. 4-7).
- 20. GPUN Audit 0-THI-81-02, donducted between March 26 and April 1 1981, concluded that Management direction to correlate the efferts needed to meet the reouirements of the Bulletin was lacking (Exhibit 5, p. 3, Finding No.1) and determined that the EQ program lacked guidance to assure that complete and auditable records were naintained and updated as required at a central location (Exhibit 5. Audit Finding No. 3). The maiority of the documented individual deficiencies related to cither the lack of documentation to support qualification or the lack of file auditability (Exhibit 5, Audit Finding Nc. 2 and 4-11). Exhibit (SB) decuenents that Audit Findings No.1, 3, and several other findings were not closed until Jene 1984 and later.
- 21. WILSON testified that it was Technical Functions' responsibility to correct or otherwise resolve the deficiencies identified in the 81-02 audit. He testified that during the two or three years following the audit, he periodically talked to CRONEBERGER abou the EQ program and was led to believe it was making progress, overcoming difficulties and would meet the NRC compliance date. He testified that he expected CRONEBERGER to oversee the EQ program and to, from a management point of view, see that it was adequately pursued and came to a logical conclusion (WILSON, Exhibit 6, pp. 5-10; 13).
- 22. GUIMOND testified that ir approximately August of 1982, he draf:ed two memoranda addressing the inadequacies of Technical Functi:rs' proposed corrective actions concerning the audit findings in GPUN internal audit 81-02. He testified that the memoranda were provided to QA management but were never officially transmitted to Technical Functions. GUIMOND testified that he was requested to draft the memoranda by his QA Manager and his actions are further supported by the QA procedure in effect at the time. (GUIHOND, Exhibit 16, pp.
8-11, 14, 25-27, 35, 36). The two memoranda drafted by GUIMOND are Exhibits SD and SE. The pertinent QA procedure is 7-18-01, Section l 8.8 and 8.9 (Exhibit SC).
l 23. CRONEBERGER testified that it was his impression that when Engireering l Procedure-031 was issued in October 1981, the 81-02 audit findir>gs i
that pertained were closed out. He denied all knowledge of GJIMOND's August 1982 memoranda (CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, pp.19-20, 33-35).
i l 24 CRONEBERCER testified that subsequent to the 81-02 audit in 19P 5e l did not specifically recall attending any meetings with QA cenr.erning i
the open audit findings until the 1984 time period (CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, p. 8). However, he further testified that he was r. ace I aware of problems between QA and the EQ Section by STROMBERG, but it l
l Case No. 1-84-021 j 35 l
[
I wasnctcleartohimwhatwerethenatureoftheproblems.[His conversationswithSTROMBERGweremainlyaboutpersonalityTroblem which e isted between MAUS and GUIMOND (CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, pp.
23-24).
- 25. BADER testified that he recalled attending a meeting with CRONEBERGER, MAGITZ, and STROMBERG in order to try and get CRONEBERGER to address the 81-02 audit findings. He said that during the meeting, dis-cussions addressed the fact that EP-031 did not satisfactorily resolve the problems with the EQ program that were identified in audit 0-THI-81-02. BADER said that CRONEBERGER requested to know in what manner EP-031 was deficient and GulMOND's memorandum was a result of CRONEBERGER's request. BADER said GUIMOND's second memorandum addressing 81-02 audit finding was also a result of the 1982 meeting with CRONEBERGER. BADER believed that the memoranda were not sent because, after talking with KAZANAS, it was decided that the problems identified in the memoranda should be further evaluated. BADER testified that the concerns identified by GUIMOND in the two memoranda were discussed with both CRCNEBERGER and MAUS during the 1982-1983 time period, but the discussions were more informal than formal (BADER, Exhibit 14, pp. 8, 12-15, 18-24).
- 26. MAGITZ testified that the contents of both memoranda were discussed with CRONEBERGER and MAUS "continuously" to about August 1982, and less frequently after August 1982 through 1983. He also testified that the memoranda were the result of conversations between CRONEBERGER and the QA Department concerning audit 81-02. MAGITZ further testified that he recalled attending meetings in the 1983 time period where it was indicated to both CRONEBERGER and MAUS that the EQ files were not in accordance with either D0R guidelines or 10 CFR 50.49. He said both CRONEBERGER and MAUS indicated they were "wcrking on it; that they would get it in condition." (MAGITZ, Exhibit 15, pp. 16-22, 25, 33-34).
- 27. GUIMOND testified that from 1981 un through 1984, he continually informed CRONEBERGER of the correcE ve action that was needed to address the open 81-02 audit findings, that QA supervision was present at some of the meetings, and that he felt neither Technical Functions nor QA were responsive to his 81-02 audit findings (GUIMOND, Exhibit 16, pp. 27-29).
- 28. On February 18, 1983, the GPUN Corporate QA Review Comittee met to address "EQ progran problems." As a result of Comittee deliberations, the problems of "lack of a complete file of auditable records" and lack of procedures "that clearly define (EQ program) responsibilities" were escalated to the level of Director, QA, GPUN. A copy of the Comittee meeting minutes is Exhibit 28,
- 29. KAZANAS testified that he met with the Comittee to assure that they had exhausted the normal means of getting the problems resolved and when the identified problems were not corrected in March 1984, he personally escalated the problems to LONG, Vice President, Nuclear Assurance. KAZANAS testified that between March 1983 and March 1984, he talked to CRONEBERGER about the EQ problems "a number of Case No. 1-84-021 , ,,
36
)
times." .He testified that during this time period, QA had informed
' Technical functions, to include CRONEBERGER, of the inadequacies of EP-031 as it related to the lack of EQ documentation and program responsibilities (KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, pp. 27-35; 30-33; 43-44).
- 30. 'MAUS acknowledged that throughout the time he was EQ Supervisor, GUIMOND had continually advised him that he was not satisfied with '
the EQ documentation. MAUS further testified that he disagreed with GUIMOND's 1983-1984 assessment of the EQ program (MAUS, Exhibit 9, '
pp. 40 41, 70-73).
- 31. KAZANAS testified that QA had a lot of trouble, especially in the i beginning, getting Technical Functions to recognize that they were '
not doing a professional, careful, progrannatic look at the files.
He stated that this action took awhile because Technical Functions was "fighting it," despite how much QA was elevating it "in their house." He testified that it was clear that Technical Functions
- kept coming back and "poo-pooing" it, indicating that the EQ program was not as bad as QA was depicting it. (KAZANAS, Exhibit 12, p. 27) 5 3 2 '. MAGITZ testified that he did not feel that the 81-02 audit findings were handled in a responsible manner by Technical Functions (MAGITZ, Exhibit 15, p. 28).
- 33. By letter dated December 10, 1982, the NRC transnitted to GPUN, a SER augmented by a TER for the EQ of safety-related electrical i equipment at THI-1. The TER identified numerous deficiencies relating to (among other things) the lack of documentation to support qualification of equipment (Exhibit 26).
! 34 CR0hEBERGER testified that he did not review the TER "in detail" and indicated that he did not take any action to correct the deficiencies
- identified in the TER (CRONEBERGER, Exhibit 7, pp. 22-23).
- 35. WILSON's testimony indicates that he had a general swareness of the a
TER, but was not involved in any action te address or correct the identified deficiencies (WILSON, Exhibit 6, pp. 21-24).
- 36. CHISHOLM testified that he was not "actively" involved in responding to the deficiencies noted in the TER. Concerning the TER, CHISH0 Lit testified that the EQ section did not receive "a lot of supervision" i
from him or anyone else in the Technical Functions organization that he recalled, a
i 37. Between December 27, 1983, and February 1,1984, GPUN did an internal QA assessment of their EQ files. The assessment, as did the 1981 internal audit (81-02), identified the lack of approved written procedures and/or instructions that assigned responsibilities in the establishment of a qualification documentation file and noted many individual deficiencies relating to the lack of documentation to support component qualification. The assessnent (Exhibit SG) as
, Case No. 1-84-021 1 37 1
.,--,---,-n.. ,,_-,--,.n_._n------.,- - - - - - -
1 well as a telephone conversatier (Exhibit 34) between the reporting investigator and GUIMOND on May 7,1985, indicate that the information contained in the assessment was provided to MAUS by GUIMOND both during the time the assessment was being conducted and during the weeks of March 5 and March 12, 1984.
- 38. LONG testified that on March 9, 1984, the QA staff informed him of the upcoming March 20-21, 1984 NRC inspection and advised him that a recent QA assessment of EQ files determined the plant had not been walked down to determine how or where the system components were installed and that approximately 3/4 of the System Component Evaluation Worksheets were inadequately backed up by documentation.
LONG said he informed his Technical Function counterpart, WILSON, within days of receiving the information (LONG, Exhibit 11, pp.
5-13) LONG's notes of the aforementioned meeting are Exhibit ilA.
- 39. LAGRANGE can testify that the results of the March 20-21, 1984, NRC staff audit contained recommendations and cited specific deficiencies comparable to those cited in the GPUN 1981 internal audit, the GPUN 1983-1984 assessment, and/or the 1982 Frahklin Research Center TER.
- 40. HARDING testified that the statement in the February 10, 1984, submittal aavising that the TMI-1 EQ program was in compliance with 50.49 was provided to him by MAUS (Exhibit 21).
- 41. MAUS testified that he did have both input and a review function over the February 10, 1984 submittal. He testified that he provided input to HARDING indicating that *as far as EQ engineering was concerned" GPUN was in "compliance" with 10 CFR 50.49 (MAUS, Exhibit 9, pp. 9-11).
- 42. LAGRANGE testified that it was apparent to him in the late 1983 and early 1984 period that MAUS did rsot know what he was doing, was not capable of handling the job, and that the program was receiving little or no management involvement. He opined that the THI-1 EQ program was too big of a job for the existing GPUN TMI-1 EQ Section, which consisted of MAUS and 80VCFIR (LAGRANGE, Exhibit 4),
- 43. LAGRANGE further testified that he thought he could find similar invalid statements made by other licensees based on the actual condition of their files (Exhibit 4A).
44 MAUS testified that when the TER was received, he did not understand l the deficiencies well enough to take corrective action, and he requested a meeting with the NRC "to get additional information on i exactly what was meant on these TER deficiencies." (MAUS, Exhibit i
9, pp. 14-19)
! 45. HARDING testified that he telephonically contacted the NRC on two i
occasions in early 1983 in order to arrange for a meeting with the NRC to resolve what he termed ' misunderstandings" that GPUN felt existed in the TER (Exhibit 21).
Case No. 1-84-021 38
I
- 46. GPUN sent a letter to the NRC dated March 1,1983, advising that until the misunderstandings [with the TER) were resolved, a schedule for corrective actien could not be developed. (Exhibit 27)
- 47. LAGRANGE testified that he met with HARDING, MAUS, and 800CHER on October 5,1983 to resolve qualification deficiencies identified in the FRC TER. He testified that it was apparent to him that GPUN Representatives did oct have the deficiencies resolved and were not ready for the meeting (LAGRANGE, Exhibit 4).
- 48. MAUS' notes of the October 5 meeting indicate that GPUN requested the meeting because they did not understand what responses were required for the deficiencies cited in the TER dated December 10, 1992. The notes of the meeting indicate a prior lack of under-standing by GPUN in the areas of documentation and testing needed to support qualification (Exhibit 4D).
- 49. HARDING testified that he thought both the May 1983 and February 1984 submittals were accurate when he drafted and submitted them to the NRC (Exhibit 21).
- 50. MAUS testified that ne never intentionally allowed false information to be submitted to the NRC (MAUS, Exhibit 9, p. 77).
- 51. BOUCHER testified that the information he provided in suppert of the February 1984 subnittal was accurate and true to the best of his knowledge and belief (BOUCHER, Exhibit 10, pp. 7-12).
- 52. CLARK testified that in the Spring / Summer of 1954, when he began locking into the EQ program, it was his understanding that other utilities were finding the scope of the EQ program, or inter-pretation of the secpe, a greater project than they originally thought (Exhibit 25, p. 13).
- 53. NRC IE Ir. formation hetice No. 85-39, dated May 22, 1985, supports CLARK's understandir; SUPRA. The Information Notice states in part:
The staff has conducted a number of inspections at licensees facilities to review licensee implementation of 10 CFR 50.49 requirements and to verify that TER corrective action comit-ments are being properly implemented. These inspections have identified deficiencies in the content and auditability of document files used to support equipment qualification.
(Exhibit 25A)
- 54. WILSON testified that in his opinion the understanding of the level of documentation requirements that was needed for qualification was not recognized as being the same in 1981 as it was in 1984 He testified that the requirements for documentation of the EQ program grew out of the discussions and interaction that took place in the Spring of 1984. WILSON stated that he believed that the individual responsible for the statements nade in the May 20 and February 10 submittals thought they were accurate at the time (WILSON, Exhibit 6, pp. 28-29, 35-40).
Case No. 1-84-021 39
- 55. BADER testified that in his opinion, MAUS truly believed that his EQ program was adequate to meet the requirements for environmental qualification (BASER, Exhibit 14, pp. 24-26).
- 56. GUIMOND testified that he believed that both MAUS end BOUCHER felt what they were doing was correct and that neither individual had any "inkling" of what they were supposed to be doing in the area of environmental qualification (GUIMOND, Exhibit 16, pp. 40-43).
- 57. A November 19, 1984 NRC Region I press release addressing EQ, states in part: "Submittals by the licensees showed that the NRC had underestimated the extent of the effort necessary to either establish the environmentai qualification of the equipment or replace unqualified equipment." (Exhibit 30)
- 58. Inside NRC quoted the Comission majority as writing: "Qualification has proven 'a ruch more difficult and extensive t&sk than originally thought' with some efforts 'at the edge of modern technology and material science'. The majority said if qualificatier. were as simple as UCS contended, 'the Comission and its licensees would not have been struggling for some five years to corrplete the progran'."
(Exhibit 31)
- 59. Vincent NOONAN, Chief, NRC EQ Branch, was quoted in the November 7, 1984 edition of the Harrisburg Patriot as stating that until the late Spring, the GPU huclear equipment qualification staff "didn't really know what they were coing." (Exhibit 32)
Agent's Conclusion This investigation established that the material false statements contained in the May 2C,1983, and February 10, 1984, submittals were not willfully made with the intent to deceive the NRC regarding GPUN's compliance with 00R guidelines and 10 CFR 50.49.
Case No. 1-84-021 40
i LIST OF ET-IIITS Exhibit No. Description (1) Request for 01 investigation, January 24, 1985.
(2) GPUN response to 10 CFR SC.49(g),:4ay 20, 1983.
(2A) GPUN Licensing Procedure, March 1,1981.
(2B) GPUN file documentation, R'E: Exhibit (2), various dates.
(2C) IEB 79-018 with attached CCR Guidelines, January 14, 1980.
(3) GPUN response to NRC, February 10, 1984.
(3A) GPUN file documentation, RE: Exhibit (3), various dates.
(4) Report of Interview with R. LAGRANGE, February 6,1985.
-(4A) Report of Ir.terview with R. LAGRANGE, December 6 and 14, 1984.
,(4B) March 20-21, 1984 audit of GPUN files, April 25, 1984
- (4C) GPUN audit response, May 31, 1984.
- (4D) MAUS' and HARDING's notes :f October 5,1983 meeting with the NRC, various dates.
(5) March - April,1981 GPUh Ir.ternal Audit 0-THI-81-02 EQ Program, June 25, 1981.
- (SA) QA rejection of Technical Function's audit response, June 25, 1981.
- (SB) Technical Function revised response to 81-02, August 21, 1981.
-. ( S C ) QA Audit Procedure 7-18-01, Fovember, 1981.
- (50) GUIMOND's memorandum, RE: EP-031, August, 1982.
- (SE) GU!MOND's menorandum, RE: Exhibit (5B), August, 1982.
-(SF) GUIMOND's memorandum, RE: Exhibit (58), April 4, 1984.
-- ( 5G ) December 1983 - January 1954 QA assessment of EQ files.
May 16, 1984
- (6) Transcript of WILSON, May 7,,1985.
Case No. 1-84-C21 41
Exhibit No. Description (7) Transcript of CRONEBERGER, May 1, 1985.
(7A) GPUN EQ Procedure 1000-ADM-7317-01, July 1, 1984.
(7B) Technical Function's EQ Procedure EP-031, October 15, 1981.
(7C) Memorandum, GUIMOND to KAZANAS, RE: Exhibit (7A), January 12, 1984.
(8) Transcript of CHISHOLM, April 25, 1985.
(9) Transcript of MAUS, April 25, 1985.
(10) Transcript of BOUCHER, April 24, 1985.
(11) Transcript of LONG, May 8, 1985.
(11A) LONG's notes of meeting with QA, March 9,1984.
(12) Transcript of KAZANAS, May 8,1985.
(13) Transcript of STROMBERG, May 8,1985.
(14) Transcript of BADER, May 2, 1985.
(15) Transcript of MAGITZ, May 2,1985.
(16) Transcript of GUIMOND, April 24, 1985.
(17) Transcript of ALATARY, May 2,1985.
(18) Statement of HUKILL, April 9,1985.
(19) Statement of TOOLE, April 9,1985.
(20) Report of Interview of LEVINE, May 10, 1985.
(21) Statement of HARDING, April 23, 1985.
(22) Report of Interview of SMYTH, May 10, 1985.
(23) Transcript of BROUGHTJN, April 24, 1985.
(24) Transcript of WETMORE, April 25, 1985.
(25) Transcript of clark, May 8, 1985.
(25A) IE Information Notice No. 85-39, May 22, 1985.
(26) NRC SER/TER, RE: THI-1 EQ files, December 10, 1982.
Case No. 1-84-021 42
Exhibit N o '. C+1c-iptien (27) GP.N letter to the NRC requesting meet
- ng te resolve TER
'r'senderstandings," March 1,1983.
(28) C-:AR meeting minutes for February 1983, March 2,1983.
(29) Retcemse to Exhibit (28) by KAZANAS, March 9,1983.
(30) Re;ien I press release, October 19, 1984.
(31) Ir. sics NRC, December 10, 1984.
(32) Article in Harrisburg Patriot, November 7,1984.
(33) NR: ietter to GPUN requesting additional EQ information, Maj 25,1984.
(34) Corve-sation Record, MATAKAS and GUIMOND, May 7,1985.
Case No. 1-84-021 43
_ _ -