ML20111C112

Notice to Commission,Aslb,Aslab & Parties Forwarding Pr Clark & Eh Stier Rept Re TMI-2 Polar Crane Procedural Violations.Svc List Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20111C112
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/12/1985
From:	Blake E GENERAL PUBLIC UTILITIES CORP., SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP), Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#185-006, CON-#185-6 SP, NUDOCS 8503140209
Download: ML20111C112 (105)

Text

r 006 .

%TED

~ ~

March 1F,jfh{85 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION GFFiLE ::; itert br 000nETmG s SE?V!f.:

5;ANCH I

In the Matter of )

)

METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY ) D o c k e t . N o .-- 5 0 - 2 8 9 S P

) (Restart)

(Three Mile Island Nuclear )

Station, Unit No. 1) )

Notice to Commission, Appeal Board, Licensing Board and Parties Enclosed for information of Commission, Appeal Board, Li-censing Board and parties is copy of a letter from P. R. Clark, President, GPU Nuclear Corporation to Harold Denton, Director, NRR, USNRC, dated March 8, 1985, forwarding a report by Edwin H. Stier on the subject of TMI-2 polar crane procedural viola-tions. The Stier Report is also enclosed.

l Respectfully submitted, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE '

N.h ,

Ernest L. Blake, Jr., P.C. l Counsel for Licensee i cc: Service List Enclosure ef 3 m

w

• GPU Nuclear Corporation NUOIN ygr[TE- 100 Interpace Parkway USNAC Parsippany, New Jersey 07054-1149 (201)263 6500 TELEX 136-482 Wnter's Direct Dial Number-

• s W 13 All:48 (s(,1 ~ ?? Ll;k 000tn.T:'s A.:trV 1:

3RAhLM March 8, 1985 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop P-426 Washington, D.C. 20555

SUBJECT:

THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 1 _

DOCKET NO. 50-289 Last November I asked Edwin H. Stier to review for me the documents released by NRC at that time in connection with Congressional inquiries regarding TMI-2 polar crane procedural violations. Enclosed is a copy of the report he has provided to me.

Very truly yours, fb 0 P. R. C la r,k President Enclosure cc: James M. Taylor, Director, Office of Inspection & Enforcement vBrnest L. Blake, Esquire, Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge i

l l

l l

GPU Nucleaf C .. - ~ .ts d ary cf Genera! Puche Utiht es Corpcration 1 L

)

O b e re n*

USQc \

o; v.,

'm 13 gggg G.=:;n ,,

'a -

.,YY  ?, [

.:"X?EF :. z; COMMENTS ON NRC' STAFF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS,FROM UDALL COMMITTEE CONCERNING TMI-2 CLEANUP PREPARED FOR j PHILIP R. CLARK, PRESIDENT GPU-NUCLEAR CORPORATION 2

a i

BY

EDWIN H. STIER e

a I

h 4

FEBRUARY 27, 1985 ,

l-i i

i

. . ~ . - - .- . - -. ...

. l INTRODUCTION I

l e

In early November of 1984, the NRC released a group of documents prepared in response to a series of questions posed to the NRC.by Dr. Henry-Myers, a congressional subcommittee staff. member. . Philip R. Clark, President of GPU Nuclear Corp., requested that I review the NPC material and provide him with my comments.

4 Myers' questions all relate to the preparation and contents of SECY-84-36, the background of which requires some explination. SECY-84-36 is a ten-page document submitted to the NRC Commissioners by William Dircks, Executive Director for Operations. Its purpose is to present the staff's views on an OI report issued on September 1, 1983, dealing with OI's I

investigation of the King, Parks and Gischel allegations that cleanup operations at TMI-2 were being performed unsafely.-

(

l 1

In SECY-84-36, the staff found that a number of

procedural violations had occurred during the TMI-2 cleanup effort. They described the cause of those violations as "certain management control deficiencies which have been and

will. continue to be addressed by the staff and the licensee."

a The staff also found "no evidence of deliberate circumvention

, of administrative procedures."

i l

l l 1

I l

Among the questions posed by Myers were whether the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) agreed with the staff's statement in SECY-84-36, "that there was 'no evidence of deliberate circumvention of administrative procedures to avoid technical requirements" and whether OI believed this statement "should be rephrssad to more 3ccurately represent the 01 findings with respect to the extent of evidence indicating whether circumvention of procedures was deliberate."3 During the NRC's efforts to prepare a response to Myers' questions, the staff modified its findings. That change is described in a memorandum from Dircks to the Commissioners dated October 29, 1984. In his memorandum, Dircks states that on October 18, 1984, the staff was advised by OI that in OI's view, "TMI-2 senior personnel were aware of the need to comply with GPUN administrative procedures; they did not do so in all cases even though they were evidently aware that such compliance was an NRC requirement; the circumvention of

requirements was at least to some degree deliberate; and their motivation appeared to be expediency not confusion." On the basis of this OI conclusion, the staff decided to " supersede i the relevant staff views previously provided in SECY-84-36."4 The only explanation for the staff's change of position appears to be a new OI analysis of the same evidence that had l

l l ,

l l

l l

been previously discussed in OI's September 1, 1983, report.

The new OI analysis comprises three documents. The first is a memorandum by Ben B. Hayes, Director, Office of Investigations, t dated October 18, 1984, addressed to Dircks (Hayes memorandum). The second is a three-page memorandum entitled

" Summary of OI Analysis" (OI Summary). That document incorporates by general reference the third document entitled,

" Annotated Index of Related Documents / Statements"(OI Index).

It consists of seven pages containing 36 numbered paragraphs, each describing evidence gathered by OI in the form of documents and statements of witnesses. The three OI documents are not cross-referenced. That is, although the OI Summary states that the Oi Index includes all of the documents reviewed, little attempt has been made to explain how any specific document or testimony has been utilized by OI in its analysis.

l Both the Hayes memorandum and the OI Summary make only limited references to specific documents and make no reference to specific testimony. No names are used except for King, Parks and Gischel. Imprecise phrases, such as "TMI-2 personnel," are the only identification of individuals whose conduct is being discussed. As a result, it is difficult to match document descriptions and testimonial references in the Hayes memorandum and OI Summary with the evidence cited in the OI Index.

l l

l l l

l l

? .

l

ISSUES OI's conclusions in response to the questions raised by Myers are not clear. Hayes identifies two issues to be resolved. The first is whether any evidence exists of

' deliberate circumvention of administrative procedures. The second is whether procedural violations were "more the result of confusion than deliberateness" (emphasis added).

The first issue imposes the lowest possible analytical burden on OI. That is, if any evidence exists implying that-any individual involved in the TMI-2 cleanup knew of procedural requirements which he then violated, the staff's statement that there was "no evidence" of deliberate circumvention would be incorrect. At the point where such evidence is identified, the analysis can end. No effort need be m&de to consider it in the context of other evidence.

1 The second issue requires a balancing of the evidence by OI and a finding of whether procedural violations were more probably caused by confusion or by deliberate intent. Rather than focusing on the intent of the individual, this latter f

issue requires ~ finding the predominant attitude among management at TMI-2. In order to resolve this issue, it is e- r - - - - - - -,

l necessary to examine the knowledge and conduct of many individuals at various levels of management.

The Hayes memorandum spends considerable time explaining that it is responding to the first issue, and its conclusions appear to be responsive to that issue. That is, Hayes states,

" circumvention of the required administrative procedures by TMI-2 personnel was at least to some degree deliberate" (emphasis added).6 He does not specify which TMI-2 personnel he is talking about, nor does he indicate to what degree their conduct was deliberate. Toward the end of his memorandum, Hayes summarizes his findings by saying, "TMI-2 senior personnel were aware of the need to comply with the GPUN administrative procedures" and "did not do so in al'1 cases." Again, he does not identify the personnel to whom he is referring or how many cases he has found. These conclusions suggest that once Hayes found any evidence that implied that any TMI-2 employee may have intentionally violated i

procedures, he had to disagree with the staff's finding.

, Hayes also makes general statements that suggest he has 4

reached conclusions on the second issue, i.e., he has weighed

, the evidence to determine the predominant motivation for procedural violations within the TMI-2 organizati,on. However, his discussion of the evidence he considered,-and the 1  :

- - - ~ r w- -- ~ - * * '

1 conclusion'he reached, is vague.- His reasoning starts with an

" assumption" that GPUN and Bechtel peraonnel knew of_the requirement to follow GPUN procedures. He then states that his

" assumption is strengthened" by documentary evidence that

" senior GPUN/Bechtel managers were aware not only of the requirements, but the fact that Bechtel was not complying with them."O He notes that the " evidence also indicated" that Bechtel felt that administrative procedures were too cumbersome. Finally, he reaches the conclusion that "this

[Bechtel's attitude toward procedures] coupled with testimonial

. evidence supports, in our view, our conclusion that this circumvention was motivated primarily by expediency."9 Hayes does not describe his reasoning process in any more detail.

The OI Summary also contains findings that-appear to relate to both issues. At one point it states that they have found a " considerable amount of evidence indicating that circumvention of procedures was willfull."10 Although this suggests that the amount of evidence found is more than a bare minimum, there is no attempt at this point in the OI Summary _to balance evidence of willfullness with any other evidence.

Therefore, this conclusion appears responsive to the first issue. However, in the next sentence OI states, "the weight of the evidence indicates that-the circ ~umvention was a deliberate decision apparently based on a sense of expediency and was

{

\

l l

4 largely unaffected by confusion." (emphasis added).11 This.

statement suggests that they have engaged in a balancing process and have concluded that the overall corporate intent at TMI-2 was that procedures should be violated for the sake of expediency.

It is unclear how the analysis of the two issues by OI 1 has influenced the NRC Staff's revised findings in SECY-84-36.

Both OI and the staff now agree that some evidence of deliberate circumvention of procedures exists. However, it is not clear what either of them has concluded regarding the extent and magnitude of the violations or the identities of those involved. If the staff has now determined that the weight of the evidence establishes that the predominant i attitude anong TMI-2 management was toleratior. of procedural violations, it is a significant change in the staff's findings. The NRC documents do not make it clear whether such I

a major change in the staff's conclusions was intended or i

whether the staf f has simply recognized that i ts categorical phrase, "no evidence," was somewhat overstated. ,

In order to analyze whether the staff has found an i

evidentiary basis to make a fundamental change in its conclusions, I will attempt to identify each piece of evidence-relied upon by Hayes and the OI Summary, and I will discuss its l

Y significance as an indication of the overall intent of TMI-2 management. My conclusion is that OI has not presented evidence to support a conclusion that the prevailing attitude among TMI-2 management was to tolerate procedural violations.

Therefore, I do not believe that the staff could have found a

sufficient basis in the OI analysis to have significantly altered its findings in SECY-84-36.

J In preparing these comments, I have reviewed the documentary and testimonial evidence which is cited in the OI 4

Index. I have also reviewed evidence gathered under my' supervision during the preparation of a report issued November 16, 1983, entitled "TMI-2 Report / Management and Safety l Allegations" (Stier Report). That report dealt with many of the same issues addressed in the OI material, and I will refer to it to the extent that it is of assistance in evaluating the OI evidence.12 l

6 r - ,

EVIDENCE CITED BY OI Hayes Memorandum While the NRC documents imply that GPUN Management as a whole tolerated the procedural violations described above, the evidence they cite does not support such a conclusion. In his memorandum, Hayes states the proposition, " senior GPUN/Bechtel managers" were aware of procedural requirements and "that Bechtel was not complying with them." He then cites a memorandum written by a " senior GPUN manager" addressed to Bechtel " noting that 1) Bechtel was not complying with these procedures and 2) that they must do so." The Hayes memorandum goes on to state that a written response was received from Bechtel promising to follow GPUN procedures, but they did not, in fact, do so.14 The implication is that these documents are evidence that the " senior GPUN manager" was aware that his directive was not being followed.

i In attempting to identify the specific document to which Hayes refers, I have found two possibilities. Hayes may be referring to a letter, rather than a memorandum, written by M.

Kenneth Pastor, Recovery Programs Operations-and Construction i

Director, TMI-2, on February 23, 1982, to David M. Lake, Field Construction Fanager for Bechtel. In the letter, Pastor identifies the GPUN procedures which have to be followed by

'l Bechtel during cleanup work at TMI-2. He states that if they "are not already doing so," they should "begin complying with them." The tone of the letter suggests that it is intended to assist Bechtel in understanding which GPUN procedures apply rather than to criticize them for violating procedures.

Although a response was sent by Lake to Pastor on June 29, 1982, indicating that GPUN procedures would be followed, this exchange of correspondence does not appear to fit Hayes' description that Bechtel's failure to comply with GPUN procedures was noted in the GPUN " memorandum."

The other' document to which Hayes may be referring is a memorandum written by John Barton, then Deputy Director of TMI-2, to Lake on August 26, 1982.17 In this memorandum, Barton notes that there had been a number of procedural violations by Bechtel and that such conduct was unacceptable to GPUN. Barton specifically refers to procedures that had been revised to permit Bechtel to perform maintenance work. This l- memorandum not only identifies specific violations, but it expresses the clear intent of TMI-2 management in August 1982 that GPUN procedures should be followed. While this document appears to fit the description in the Hayes memorandum, it is omitted from the OI Index listing all of the evidence OI considered and therefore may not be the memorandum to which O

Hayes was referring.

! l

l l

Although both documents place Bechtel personnel on i

notice that GPUN procedures apply to cleanup activities, f neither relates to the polar crane refurbishment project.

Nothing in the documents shows any awareness on the part of Barton or Pastor that the procedural violations that occurred later in that project were likely to take place. Indeed, both documents served to reinforce GPUN's policy and to clarify procedural requirements. The Barton memorandum even refers to

the specific procedure which was used to authorize Bechtel to j undertake the polar crane refurbishment project during the preceding month. Neither of the documents, absent additional evidence, can support the inference that either its author or TMI-2 management as a whole was less than sincere in attempting to assure compliance with GPUN procedures.

1 1

4 The remaining evidentiary references supporting the

]

Hayes memorandum cannot be specifically identified. Hayes

, cites " assumption", " memoranda and Quality Assurance Reports,"

l " evidence," and " testimonial evidence" without further description. Presumably, these phrases refer to evidence more

i

.l specifically identified in the OI Summary and OI Index.

Therefore, the evidentiary basis of the Hayes memorandum cannot be' analyzed further without turning to the evidence cited in

the OI Summary and Index.

l t

i

..d

l i

OI-Summary and Index l'

The first references to evidence in the OI Summary establish the requirement that GPUN administrative procedures be followed'for cleanup activities at TMI-2. OI cites the e

GPUN/Bechtel contract and the letters from Pastor to Lake of February 23, 1982,20 and from Lake to Pastor dated June 29, 1982, in response. These latter two documents were briefly discussed earlier in connection with the Hayes memorandum and are unquestionably evidence that GPUN advised representatives of Bechtel that' procedures approved by GPUN would be required a- for all work during the cleanup at TMI-2. I have no disagreement with the way this evidence is used in the OI I

Summary.

The first reference in the OI Summary to evidence that TMI-2 management was made aware that procedural violations were

! occurring is the statement, "notwithstanding this agreement (to follow GPUN approved procedures] senior TMI-2 management was repeatedly advised that administrative procedures (AP) 1043 and 1047 were being circumvented."21 -In support of this j proposition, OI cites "three quality assurance reports."

-It

! does not further identify these documents.

I have reviewed all of the documents identified in the -

OI Index and have found ten emanating from-QA. In order to i

i l

l l

._. _ _ _ _ = _ . __

j determine whether any of these documents fit the description in the OI Summary, they will be discussed individually.

i OI INDEX #3 - Letter sent to Bechtel's OA manager advising that Bechtel's QA manual had been approved by GPUN. The letter once again confirms that GPUN Technical Specifications apply to the work Bechtel would perform at TMI-2. Nothing in the letter suggests that GPUN QA was aware of violations of AP 1043 or 1047.

OI INDEX #6 - Monthly report dated May 1982, prepared by GPUN QA for TMI-2 management, describing QA activities during the prior month. The OI Index makes two important comments about this report: first, that a Stop Work Notice was initiated by QA on May 21, 1982, because 1 .,

of violations of administrative. controls; second,

" management at TMI-II appear to have the attitude toward administrative control programs, that it takes too long to get work authorizations approved and into the field." The implication of the second comment'is that, according to OI, QA is pointing out an improper attitude on the part of TMI-2 management.

In fact, this monthly assessment says something significantly different from OI's description of it.

l t

l The report notes that a Stop Work Notice had been initiated but goes on to say, "the Stop Work Notice was not issued as Unit Management took immediate action in stopping activities being conducted in the field that had been identified by QA as well as several others discovered during the meeting on the problem." The report then describes the action taken to correct the situation. Finally, the QA Report states the following:

As the real source of the problem appears to be an attitude that Administrative Control Programs take too long to get work authorizations approved and into the field, Unit Management has committed to investigate and evaluate the present programs so that recommendations can be made and implemented which will allow QA Program compliance but still meet the

. schedule needs for timely and efficient work completion. QA will track this committment and support it but present programs must be complied with until the changes are made.23 The clear import of this OA Report is that TMI-2 management has been cooperative in trying to bring about procedural compliance. Nothing in this report criticizes TMI-2 management or suggests any inadequacy in its attitude toward procedural compliance. t

, Furthermore, this QA Report does not suggest that violations of AP 1043 or 1047 had been uncovered.

e b

..~

7-OI INDEX #9 - Quality Deficiency Report (QDR) dated August 9, 1982.24 Although it describes violations of-administrative procedures which occurred during the

" Quick Look" project, none of the procedures violated is identified as AP 1043 or 1047. However, the issue of the proper use of Eechtel work packages is raised. It was the improper use of work packages during the polar crane refurbishment project that constituted the majority of procedural violations.

As part of the QDR, QA included a memorandum sent by Pastor to B. E. Ballard, Manager of TMI QA, dated July 13, 1982. It discusse's in detail the appropriate use of Bechtel work packages as supplementary instructions on the performance of work authorized under GPUN procedures. Pastor explains that work packages are permitted under GPUN procedure ADM 3240.1, " Access to and Work in Containment," as a means of defining detailed instructions to carry out work under a job ticket or an Engineering Change Memorandum (ECM),

depending on whether the task is a maintenance task or a modification to a plant system or component. The Pastor memorandum goes on to say that organizational changes-and changes in administrative procedures were then taking place-and that, as a result, the appropriate use of work packages would be defined more precisely.

s ,

^

l l

OI INDEX #10 - QA monthly assessment for August, 1982. 6 The report discusses the QDR described above and recommends that the administrative and procedural changes mentioned by Pastor in his July 13, 1982, i memorandum should be undertaken as soon as possible. No mention is made in this report of violations of AP 1043 or 1047. The implication in this report is that procedural uncertainty concerning the appropriate use of work packages is being resolved.

OI INDEX #12 - Monthly QA asse'ssment for October, 1982.27 Two significant problems raised in this report were mentioned in the OI Index. First, O'I notes that confusion existed concerning proper safety classifications of plant systems and components. The QA l

monthly assessment correctly suggests that the solution to that problem is the development of an updated Quality Classification List (QCL). Bahman Kanga, who had recently been appointed TMI-2 Director, ordered the completion of that list which ultimately contributed

~

significantly to the solution of the misclassification problem.

The second problem pointed out by OI is that a "Stop Work condition" existed because of a failure to -

r +y-- mnn, ,- , , .--w-, , , , ,--. m ,-e

obtain engineering documentation and work authorizations prior to the performance of certain work. QA notes that work had been undertaken on the basis of verbal instructions from engineering. QA describes a meeting l

held at TMI-2 with management and states that

" acceptable corrective action was taken." QA explains that the corrective action was a temporary solution and that efforts were underway to find a permanent solution to the problem. The clear implication in this report is that management had been responsive to concerns raised by QA that procedures were not properly being followed.

OI INDEX 417 - Memorandum prepared by Ballard for Kanga at Kanga's instructions to review the activities relating to the refurbishment of the polar crane.28 It is dated February 23, 1983, and mentions for the first time, among the documents cited by OI, that i

modifications had been made without proper procedural authorization.

OI INDEX #18 - QA comment on the Polar Crane Load Test procedure.29 It-points up a number of deficiencies in the draft procedure which was being circulated for review and comment in late February 1983.

e r

l 1

1 l

l OI INDEX #20 - QA monthly assessment for February 1983, containing a description of the review of polar crane O

refurbishment that had been ordered by Kanga. The report states l

Quality Assurance has reviewed the Polar

Crane Load Test Safety Evaluation and has provided comments to the Director Unit 2.

QA will also be reviewing the completed document packages for Polar Crane refurbishment, prior to Load Test, to verify acceptability of modifications, replaced material, inspections and tests that have been performed. Quality Control has test witnessed the operational which was performed (no load)1 satisfactory.3 This report discusses generally the problem of procedural compliance and notes that the Unit Work Instruction (UWI)

system for documenting work should help alleviate the l

problem of procedural compliance.

OI INDEX #23 - Quality Deficiency Report (QDR) issued by QA on March 8, 1983, for violations of procedures during several modifications of the polar crane.32 OI INDEX #24 - Memorandum from Ballard to Thiesing dated March 10, 1983, describing in further detail the results of QA's review of polar crane refurbishment activities.33 1

i l 1

i It is apparent from the review of all of the OA documents cited by OI in its Index that among the first five documents there is no reference to violations of AP 1043 or 1047 which were brought to the attention of management.

References in those documents to violations uncovered by QA suggest that management had been working cooperatively with OA to resolve not only the specific problems brought to its attention,.but also the underlying causes of those problems.

d The last five documents identified by OI all were issued following Kanga's instructions to QA in February 1983 to review the polar crane refurbishment and to determine whether there had been procedural compliance. All of those documents were prepared in late February and March, 1983, during which time the violations were identified, and corrective action was taken by TMI-2 management. Certainly these documents do not suggest that the prevailing attitude within TMI-2 management was toleration of procedural violations. Therefore, the QA l

references in the OI Index do not support the proposition for which they were cited in the OI Summary.

ILmediately after the discussion of OA reports to TMI-2 management that procedures AP 1043 and 1047 were being circumvented, the OI summary states, " Note also that Messrs..

y -- - r --- 4-

1 Parks, King, and Gischel had repeatedly pointed out the need to comply with these procedures, but their attempts to correct the condition were rebuffed."34 The OI Index contains numerous references to statements made by King, Parks, and Gischel in paragraphs 27 through 30. I have reviewed each of those references. They include.not only factual allegations by King, Parks, and Gischel, but also a great deal of their speculation and opinion. OI makes no attempt to distinguish between factual allegations and opinion, nor do they indicate which factual allegations have been verified by independent investigation and which have not. After investigating the allegations of King, Parks and Gischel, it has become clear that their statements cannot be accepted at face value. As we observed in our report:

It has been essential in this investigation to review carefully each source of information I relied upon by King, Parks, Gischel, and Wenger.

Many have been found to be misrepresented in the allegations. The sworn testimony _of many witnesses refutes the statements attributed to them in the allegations. In some instances,-the

contents of documents have been distorted.

Therefore, to understand the underlying facts accurately, it is necessary to turn to the original sources of information and not rely upon ths contents of the allegations for factual information.

It is equally important to recognize that inferences drawn by King, Parks, Gischel, and Wenger are based upon a presumption that GPUN and Bechtel operated-in bad faith. The willingness l of King,' Parks, Gischel, and Wenger to infer j wrongdoing at times from the most meager.of facts I has made it difficult to rely on their perceptions in evaluating the evidence we have gathered.35 l

l

. __ _ ~ . _ __ _- .

'i i

i I have attempted to sort out from among OI's references to Parks, King, and Gischel, those which might be construed as factual allegations concerning violations of AP 1043 and 1047

.and will describe briefly the evidence uncovered by our investigation of those allegations.3 '

It is alleged by Parks that' key members of TMI-2 ,

management expressed the view that the ECM procedure-was too cumbersome and, therefore, they advocated circumventing the

procedure in order to expedite the cleanup work. During our

. investigation, we interviewed all of the individuals cited by i

] Parks as either expressing that view or being present when it was discussed. The testimony makes it clear that although there were discussions about the slowness of the ECM approval

process, no one advocated circumventing required GPUN procedures. Rather, they discussed the development of a new procedure that would expedite approval of modifications.37 While employed at TMI-2, Parks did criticize the polar crane refurbishment project for violating AP 1043 and 1047.

I When Parks raised those concerns with management, Kanga l immediately initiated a OA review of polar crane refurbishment. That study resulted in a finding that violations had' occurred. Although members of the Recovery Programs Department did notJagree with Parks' criticisms of the l

1 l

- 21~-

e v.,.wy - - - - - , **~g +,.

l procedures followed during polar crane refurbishment, ultimately QA and Kanga required Recovery Programs to remedy

~

the procedural deficiencies tnat had occurred.38 None of the references to King deal with expressions of concern by.him that AP 1043 or 1047 were being violated during polar crane refurbishment. Rather, they deal with the adequacy of the polar crane load test safety evaluation report.

Specificially, it was King's contention based on Gischel's analysis of that safety evaluation report that ANSI Standards were not complied with in the design of the polar crane load test. None of King's general claims that management was unconcernedaboutproceduralcomhliancearebasedonspecific, factual allegations that can be readily investigated.

Like' King, Gischel did not make specific claims that procedures AP 1043 or 1047 were violated, nor did he contend that he ever raised such claims with TMI-2 management.

Gisch91's concerns were in two categories. First, he argued that the polar crane load test safety evaluation report failed to conform to ANSI Standards. Second, Gischel alleged that modifications were being misclassified as "Not Important To Safety" when they should have been classified as "Important To Safety."

1 i

l

J L  !

4

~

When the sweeping, unspecific allegations made by King,  !

i Parks and Gischel are carefully analyzed, it is clear that only l Parks pointed out the violations of AP-1043 and 1047. This occurred in February 1983, and Parks' criticisms were quickly j

-confirmed and resolved. Therefore, I do not find support in the material cited by: OI in its Index for the assertion that ,

~ King, Parks and Gischel repeatedly raised concerns about' violation of AP 1043 or 1047 that were rebuffed by management.

After stating that the complaints were made by King, Parks and Gischel that procedures were being violated, OI states, "Indeed, there is considerable evidence that employees-who attempted to raise these concerns were subjected to

. harassment, transferred, or otherwise pressured by management."

(emphasis added)39 our investigation dealt extensively with the allegations that King and Gischel were subjected to harassment, and we concluded that they were not.40 Although we did not investigate the allegations that Parks was' subjected to harassment, several of his specific cl. aims concerning reprisals for expressing safety concerns were investigated. In those instances, the evidence indicated that the action taken-against Parks was not motivated by an intent to discourage him from raising concerns about procedural violations.41  !

The NRC Staff in NUREG 0680, Supp. 5, discusses at great length the claims that King, Parks and-Gischel were subjected D

g - - --- ,. --

a --, -s,

to harassment.42 Although they found that acts of harassment were directed against Parks, the NRC Staff concludes that a neither Gischel nor King was harassed. The author of NUBEG 0680, Supp. 5, has stated before-the NRC Advisory Panel on TMI-2 Cleanup that OI is in agreement with the staff's conclusions on harassment. In view of the NRC Staff findings i on harassment, and the fact that no additional evidence has been cited, the sweeping statement in the OI Summary regarding the attitude of TMI-2 management is weakened significantly.

The OI Summary next states, "There is also evidence that there was a conscious decision by TMI-2 officials to circumvent these procedures."43 OI cites two examples to support this statement: first, that a decision was made following the TMI-2 accident that design reviews would be eliminated; and second, that the minutes of a March 4, 1983, Test Working Group (TWG) meeting refer to a modification which was to be made in advance of an ECM for the sake of expediency.44 Neither of the

examples cited by OI supports the general proposition that, "a conscious decision" was made by "TMI-2 officials" that procedures were to be circumvented.45 l

The decision to eliminate design review was made immediately after the accident in order to permit work to be performed without delay in a time of crisis.46 The decision l

e

2-was made openly with the knowledge of the NRC. The policy was discontinued in April, 1981. At that time, OA felt that the policy was no longer necessary and. issued two QDR's requiring

'that all modifications made subsequent to the accident be reviewed and design verification be performed where necessary.

Management never concealed or denied the decision to eliminate

, design review. Nothing in the evidence-suggests that a similar decision was made in connection with the polar crane

-refurbishment project. On the contrary, the evidence indicates that GPUN management expressed the intent that there be strict l compliance with all procedural requirements including those governing modifications.

O In describing the second example, the OI Summary states, "The theme of expediency is touched upon also in-the minutes of-a Test Working Group meeting held on March 4, 1983. These document a consensus regarding the applicability of AP 1047.

However, the minutes further indicate that a modification of the polar crane would take place in advance of Engineering Change Memorandum (ECM) approval for the sake of expediency."47 The clear implication of OI's description of the minutes is that the action discussed in the minutes was

. improper. Such a characterization of the minutes is inaccurate.

The description contained in the OI Index of the March 4, 1983, TWG meeting minutes is somewhat more accurate

than the OI Summary. It states that the work was to be performed under "another administrative procedure."40 In fact, GPUN procedure AP 1013 was used. This was an appropriate procedure for making a temporary electrical modification.49 Nothing in the minutes of the TWG meeting of March 4, or from 1 any other source, suggests that the decision to rely on AP 1013 was an attempt to circumvent procedural requirements.

The OI Summary next deals with evidence indicating that there may have been confusion on the part of Bechtel employees concerning the applicability of GPUN procedures for -

refurbishing the polar crane. O They cite two pieces of l evidence indicating that such confusion may have existed. The first is a March 1, 1983, memorandum from the acting Site Operations Director to the Startup and Test Supervisor (a Bechtel employee) concerning the applicability of AP 1043 and 1047 to polar crane refurbishment. Parks participated in the preparation of this memorandum which states:

Recently, much confusion has existed over the applicability of AP 1047 and AP 1043 to the Polar Crane Refurbishment / Test Program. On February 23, 1983 a meeting was held in B.

Kanga's office at which time the attendees were informed of Site Operations belief that the Polar Crane Refurbishment Program has to comply with AP 1043 and AP 1047. This belief was reinforced to the attendees by B.' E. Ballard, Sr. - Manager of QA at TMI. Subsequent to this meeting, the Test Working Group'was convened on 6

February 25, 1983 to review and discuss the necessary methods for ensuring that testing performed to date and any future testing complies with AP 1047 requirements.51 It is, therefore, apparent from this memorandum that as of March 4, 1983, Parks and others in Site Operations attributed the violations of AP 1043 and 1047 to " confusion."

The second piece of evidence is Construction Department Project Instruction (CDPI)-20 prepared by Bechtel which provides, in part, that GPUN procedures would not apply to work performed on equipment that had been turned over to Bechtel for repair. There is no doubt that, to the extent CDPI-20 indicated that GPUN procedures were not applicable, it was 2

invalid.

CDPI-20 was an internal Bechtel document that was never reviewed or approved by GPUN. It was written in the mistaken belief that the procedures under which polar crane refurbishment would be performed, permitted equipment to be turned over to Bechtel under a GPUN job ticket and administratively severed from GPUN control. The procedure under which the polar crane refurbishment job ticket was issued (MP 1407.1) had been revised immediately before the job ticket was issued. Very few GPUN or Bechtel employees were familiar with its provisions. The fact that CDPI-20 was prepared tends to confirm that Bechtel was operating on the mistaken belief

-. - -- -.. . .- .- ~ . -- - ..

that the revision to-MP 1407.1 could result in a waiver by GPUN

) of its' procedural ~ controls over work in containment.

The last finding in the OI Summary is that even if t Bechtel was confused, GPUN was not.$ This statement standing alone is true. . Testimony taken from GPUN employees indicates that they generally understood that GPUN procedures applied to polar crane refurbishment work. As our report states, "Although a misunderstanding existed between Bechtel and GPUN, the documents we have examined and the behavior of

. key management personnel during the relevant time period, demonstrates that GPUN expected compliance with its procedures."54 However, the OI Summary goes on to say

" memoranda and QA reports" indicate that GPUN personnel were aware that " administrative procedures were not being followed, and so advised senior TMI-2 management."'

i I have reviewed all of the QA documents cited by OI and discussed them above. They indicate that when issues were raised concerning procedural violations, TMI-2 management l worked toward assuring compliance. Beyond the QA documents, I have found only two instances in which-information was brought to the attention of GPUN personnel that Bechtel was not following GPUN procedures during the polar . crane refurbishment.

project that were not acted upon immediately.

l 28 -

p ._ - . , _ , - . , , , , , _ . 3-w_.- . . - -._,_.s , , . . ~ . - ,y , - , .

.. . ,~ - -- - - - . -. .. _ _ - - - . . - - . .. . - - . .

W

-The first instance has not oeen referred to in the OI material. -However, it was discussed at length in our -

report. It began when' Design Engineering (a Bechtel group that was part'of the Recovery Programa Department) questioned whether modifications to the polar crane could be performed -i without using ECM's. They were advised by'others in the Bechtel i 1

i organization that the polar; crane had been turned over to Bechtel ,

and that GPUN procedures would not be-followed. Design Engineering personnel had reservations about that advice. 'They

• later noted in a memorandum to the TMI-2 Licensing Department

, that an ECM would not be used for a particular modification.

Licensing asked the Plant Operations Review Committee (PORC) for -

an opinion on whether an ECM was required. 'PORC issued a written i response to Licensing that AP 1071 and 1043 applied and that an l

l ECM was required.

1.

l t

j. The Licensing employee who raised the issue with PORC then j contacted Design Engineering, and was advised of Bechtel's I

j understanding that GPUN procedures were inapplicable to polar

! crane refurbishment work.- The individual handling-the matter in i

the Licensing Department never pursued it further. Although his .

?

f supervisor had received.a copy of the correspondence from-PORC, he also did not pursue the matter. Our investigation. uncovered no evidence that their failure to act was motivated by a desire-l t'o expedite the work on.the polar _ crane, or'that it was based on l a' management decision to permit. procedural violations.-

l i -129 -

l l

. _ . _ , . _ _ _ _,- . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .... _ _ _ _ _ ~ . _ . . - . . _ . . _ , .

The second situation in which a procedural violation was brought to the attention of GPUN is mentioned in the OI Index.

It involved the review of the polar crane no-load test procedure. As the procedure was being circulated for review, PORC advised the Polar Crane Task Group that the format of the no-load test procedure did not conform to the requirements of AP 1047. The Chairman of the Polar Crane Task Group testified that he believed the information he received from PORC was advisory and not binding on him.

This situation graphically depicts the uncertainty about the correct procedures to be followed which existed during the polar crane refurbishment process. The test procedure was reviewed extensively because it was classified as Important To Safety. The reviewers of the procedure included the chairman of TWG, PORC, QA, Site Operations, and the NRC. In fact, King personally signed the procedure, even though it violated the requirements of AP 1047. As noted above, only PORC identified

the deficiency and notified the Polar Crane Task Group.

Finally, when QA reviewed the polar crane refurbishment, they ,

recognized the procedural deficiency in the no-load test and issued the QDR in part on that basis.

f The OI Summary ends this discussion with the statement, *

"Yet this circumvention continued even after the initiation of the investigation of the Parks-King-Gischel allegations."$

1 l  !

d The " circumvention," and the " investigation" are not described.

further. Therefore, it is impossible to discuss the evidence upon which their statement may be based. The record is clear,

- however, that the efforts to identify procedural deficiencies and assure compliance with procedures began before any NRC inves,tigation of which I am aware. As soon as Parks-presented t'.s concerns at the meeting o'f February 22, 1983, the review l

process that ultimately led to the issuance of the.QDR began, f

d i

j 2

4 4

9 l

e 1?

CONCLUSION The OI material I reviewed is not written with precision. It is extremely difficult to identify the specific i

evidence relied upon by OI in support of many of its >

conclusions. .Much of the language in the report is

]

i ambiguous. The time periods when events occurred, the .

I j individuals involved, and the acts of alleged misconduct are i

1 often not specified.

t

! I do not disagree with the NRC Staff position that some evidence exists indicating that someone in the TMI-2 organization may have known of violations of GPUN procedures

! and permitted those violations to occur in order to expedite

! the work. Reasonable minds could find such evidence in the mass of testimony and documents that have been collected in the investigation. However, if th1 staff has also found that management'at TMI-2 as a whole permitted procedural violations-to occur in order to expedite cleanup activities, not only do I disagree with that judgment, but I believe that'the evidence cited by OI supports the opposite conclusion.

The evidence shows that the failure to identify and correct procedural violations-occurred during the TMI-2 management reorganization, and that the situation was remedied

- . _ . u - _. , ... .._ . ._ - . . . - _ . . _ _ . _ . --, _ ,_ .~. ,_

when the new Director of TMI-2 recognized that a problen existed and took action. Therefore, while SECY-84-36 has been modified to indicate that some evidence exists of intentional violations, I do not believe there is a basis in the evidence l for a change in the conclusions stated in SECY-84-36 l

- concerning the overall intent of TMI-2 management.

i no m

33 -

h

E NOTES 1 Myers is Science Advisor to the Subcommittee.on Energy and the Environment of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

1 b

^

2 SECY-84-36, p. 3.

3 Myers memorandum to Haller, June 4, 1984, p. 1.

a 4 Dircks memorandum to MRC Commissioners, October 29, i

1984, p. 1.

5 Hayes memorandum to Dircks, October 18, 1984, p. 1.

i 6 Ibid. p. 2.

7 Ibid. p. 3.

8 Ibid. pp. 2-3.

9 Ibid. p. 3.

i 10 OI Summary, p. 1.

11- Ibid.

i

f-i t

L 12 The three OI documents make no effort to place the i' evidence they discuss in an historical context. That is, the reader'is never told the background to which

', the evidence relates. The organizational and

procedural changes hat were taking placo at TMI-2

during the period when the most significant procedural

violations occurred must be understood in order to

!. . correctly assess the evidence cited by OI. Therefore,

, I have prepared Table 1 which describes the chronology '

!. of management changes, procedural revisions and i cleanup activities that occurred at TMI-2. See alsos j Stier Report, Volume I,' Summary and-Conclusions; ,

Volume IV, Background Organization and Management of j TMI-2; Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations; Volume IV, 1 Allegations of Safety Review Deficiencies; (footnotes j have been omitted when quoting from the Stier Report.)

1 1

13 Hayes memorandum, pp. 2-3.

L 1

14 Ibid. p. 3.

l 1

j 15 OI Index, #4; Stier Report, Tab 60.

i 16 OI Index, #7; Stier Report, Tab 62.

17 Stier Report, Tab 333.

18 OI Summary, p. 1.

19 OI Index, #1.

• a 35 -

5.

W

- + . - , - - . , n, . - - - . _ , - .p,,---w..-.. ,3,, , ~ , - -

..,_,,y

, ,%.., . _ - , , _ . , . ,or . - , , - , , _ ,y.,, _ . , , , , . _ , _ mm.n.. , e- -

l' l 20 It should be noted that the OI report is incorrect in stating that the letter was written in 1983. The correct year of the letter was 1982.

l 21 OI Summary, p. 2.

i, 22 Attachment 1.

12 3 Ibid. p. 3.

2'4 Attachment 2.

i i 25 OI Index #8.

26 Attachment 3.

i 27 Attachment 4.

28 Stier Report, Tab 114.

j 29 Attachment 5.

30 Attachment 6.

i 31 Ibid. p. 2.

32 Stier Report, Tab 50.

33 Ibid. Tab 51.

4 4

l 34 OI Summary,-p. 2.

l i

i 35 Stier Report, Volume I, Summary and Conclusions, p. 14.

4 I

36 I have limited my discussion here to allegations about AP 1043 and 1047 violations because the OI Summary j states that TMI-2 management was warned of these t violations by King, Parks and Gischel. Our report, however, deals at length with all of their 4

allegations, with the exception of Parks' harassment claims.

4 i

37 Stier Report, Volume IV, , Allegations of Safety Review

Deficiencies, pp. 9-11.

38 Ibid. Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations, pp. 67-87. (It should be noted that in the description of Parks' allegations in the OI Index, it 4 is stated that. concerns.about procedural compliance

were raised as early as November 1982 by l correspondence from either Parks or the Site

, Operations Department. I have not been able to-

identify any such correspondence going back to

November'1982 in the OI Index).

i i

i

4 l

l 39 Summary of OI Analysis, p. 2.

40 Stier Report, Volume III, Harassment Allegations.

41 Ibid. Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations, pp. 79-81).

l 42 "TMI-l Restart" NUREG 0680, Supp. 5, pp. 10-1 through 10-23.

43 OI Summary, p. 2.

44 OI Index #22; Stier Report Tab 90.

45 OI Summary, p. 2.

46 Stier Report, Volume IV, Allegations of Safety Review Deficiencies, pp. 29-32.

47 OI Summary, p.2.

48 OI Index, #22.

49 Stier Report, Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations, pp. 22-23.

L t

i

! 50 - OI Summary, p. 2.

l l

\

51 OI Index, #21

Stier Report, Tab.119.

] 52- Stier Report, Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations, pp. 7-16.

1

53 OI Summary, p. 2.

54 Stier Report, Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations, p.

i 12.

1 i

55 OI Summary, p. 2.

56 Stier Report, Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations, '

i pp. 13-16.

i j 57 OI Index, #13: Stier Report, Tab #88. Stier Report,

! Volume IV, Polar Crane Allegations, pp. 28-31.

j i 58 OI Summary, p. 2.

i 4

I i

t

-,-e ~ . . , . .

, - .. .- ..,..,-,.,_.4 _ . - - . , . , ~ , _ . . - - _--

1

{

ATTACHMENT 1 .

l l .

O 9

• • ' " $ 2 INf0 ETAT 10N ONLY JUN

- 8 1982

___-w

'LL! Nuclear T-19EE IV _E IS _AN D N UC _EA;9 STA-~lON (A ECOR)

OIGj!A'. COPY.

1

.c.W w a N.. . % %.

a3 rQ.a

.?:'%h  %>Ah .R

~ C.Y '

T:.'

_ \Ed-%w'N %.; e.3 ASSI55:2:T" 07 TEI

!.22L?l2:rCATIO:I M D 1772CT*.VI2 E33 0F I'-!I QUALIT? ASSUR.CCI PROG?At 9

To: Vice-?residen:/Direc:or, T.II Uni: II Director, Quait:y Assurance .

cc:

Vi:e-?residan:/Direc:Jr T:!I Uni: I Exe:utive Vice Presiden:

Vice-?residen:/Direc:or, Technical Tunctions 71ce-?residen:/Direc:or, Ad::rinis::ation Vice-President / Director, 2(uclear Assurance Vice-President / Director, Paintenan:e and Construe: ion Vice-? resident /Dirac:or, Radiolcgical and Invironr.en:al Controls' QAD Secti:n Psn.tgara

3. Kan3s

. To: Vice-Pecsidcnt/Dirce:or - TMI Unt: II Trom: Manager - IMI QA Modificaci~ons/Cpera: ions Subj: Monthly V?/Direc:or's Report !c May, 1932 Ceneral Discussion This repor: is submit:ed for infor:a: ion and use in man 23e=en:'s con:inual assessmen:-

of :he imple en=acion, s: acus, and e!!ectiveness of the Q. A. Program on :he Unit.

• Input in:o this repor: is provided by the Quall:y Assurance Design /Procuremen:,

Modifications /Cperations and Prograc/Audi: See:icn of the Q.A. Depar::ent.

Recoc=endacions or cons:ructive criticism on :he con:ent or scope of this repor:

are encouraged and requested. The ini:ial distribucion of this repor: is 11:1:ed, but Divisions are. encouraged to dis ribu:e copies as they see ft: vi:hin their organizacions. As this report is a Quality Assurance Record, copies ara main ained in the sice's Q. A. Record Vaul:. When significan: events or problems require formal

=anage=ent action to be taken in accordance vi:5 Q. A. Plan requiremen:s', these ac:Lon:

may periodically be identified and requesced in this report. These type actions vili nor: ally be limi:ed to caose proble=s or even:s which are of such significance or na:ure : hat they ei:her require core chan one cesanization or division :o resolve or are significan: progra==acic problems cha: require high level managenen: no:ift:t:1:n.

ACT!VITY/NCNCDP2LIANCI S'C .0%RY ?!CTRI3 Ac:tyt:ies Performed: Month YT3* Findinzs Issued: Month YTD*

No. CQA Moni:orings: GL 200 QOR's: 3 27 No. QC Inspec:Lons: L33 c7 MNCR's: 22 73 No. QA Audi:s: I 5 Audi: Findings: 1 13 No. QA/1C Occumen 720 I;70 Reviews:

• Year :o 02:e 3t't!S 0NAL NCNCOP2L:ANCI SDa'iSV WCCCpl FCR RI?'RT MCG Initial Response Corrective Action No. Geen_Lo-zer Than Six Overdue (QDR's/ Coralecion Commi:- Months (QCR's/Audi:/

Audi: Findings) g,ene Date Passed Findings /MNCR's/RCN's)

(QDR's / Audi:

Findings) To:al No. (A)* (3)* (0)*

TMI Divisisn:

Opera:13n2 0 1 4 Engineering L(0)  !(6) 2(2) 1 3 16 3(13) 3(0) 5(2)

Maintenance 0 0 L3 3(5)

Adn.n. 6(2) 4(3) 0 0 la 7(6) 4(6) 3(3)

Recovery Engineering 0 0  ? 4(2) O(0) 0(0)

Recovery Ops & Const. 0 0 2 0(0) 1(0) 1(2) 0:her 0 1 3 1(2) 2(0) . 0(2)

s .

Uni: II Pcgo 2 Initial Response Corree:1ve Ao: ion No. Ocen Longer Than Six Overdue (QDR's/ Cc=cletion Com=1:- Months (QDR's/Audic Audi: Findings) =ene Da:e Passed Findings / CIC1's)

(QDR's/Audi:

Tindings) To:al No. (A)* (3)* (C)

Other Divisions:

Tech Func: ions 0 0 1 0(0) O(1) 1(0)

Naint/Const. O L 1 1(1) 0(0) O(0)

Rad / Environ. 0 0 2 1(0) 1(t) O(0)

Admin. 0 0 8 8(7) O(0) O(0)f Nuclear 0 1 4 2(2) O(0)

Assurance 2(2)

All Division Totals: 72 36 13 13 (A)* - Division Action No:.Complaced (3)* - QA Closecu: Required (C)* - Co==1:ced Imple:en:ation Due Date Not Reached

() - Last Mon:h's Da:a TOTAL I'tI UNIT NONCCMPLIANCE TR2NDS (ALL DIVISIONS)

Initial Rasponse Corrective Ac:Lon No. Open Longer Overdue (QDR's/ Completion Co nt:- Than Six Moe:hs Audi: Findings) men: Date Passed (QDR's/Audi:

(QDR's/ Audit Findings /MNCR's/

Findings) RON's) .. .-

... 2.

(A)* ( 3) * (C) * (3)* NJ. !

193'. Annua'.!:ad la Av3/ 20 Avg /

Averains 73 A'y Monch Moe:h Man:H l932 Monthly Actuals January 9 23 32 11 17 36 96 Feb rua ry 2 11 37 13 2 30 37 Mar:h 1 6 25 12 10 29 70 April 2 3 21 13 7 31 71 lta/ 1 7 20 21 2 29 72 (A)* - QDR's (3)* - MMCR's (C)* - RDN's (0)* - Audic Fladings '

~

. ~

• Unit II Pcgo 3 NOTE: Those deficiencias open lon'ger than six =caths are subdivided and repor:ed in the four dif feren: ca:egories of QA Capar: en: deficiency repor:s.

A. QUAI.ITT DEFICIENCY ?J.20RTS (QDR's)

Deficiencies c:her than =a:erial nonco:pliances of hardware 1: ens, usually issued to documen: sof tware of ac:1vity items such as p'rocedural nonce:pliance, procedure inadequacy, f ailure to mee: co=21::en:s, e:c. ,

B. MATERIAI. NONCOM 70RMANCI ?I? ORTS (>CICR's)

Material deficiencies per: airing to hardware s::uctures, sys:ees, or co:ponents which render the qualicy of :he 1:e unacceptable or indete::in a:e.

C. RECEI?T DE7ICIENCY ?2? ORTS ( RDR 3) '

Used to docu en: and track purchased i: ens which a::ive on si:e lacking ?urchase Order required docc:enta: ton such as Cer:ifica:es of Compliance c: :es: repor:s. RDN's are always issued agains: :he C?;N Ma:erials ihnage:en: C::up for resolu:Lon vi:' vendor. A .

copy is provided :s he za:erial user.

D. AUDIT TINDISC Used to docu en: and :r2:k QA progrt::a:ic deficiencies of ei:her G?CN or vendors / con::ac: ors.

Iach =ca:h a de: ailed repor: on :he s:a:us of MSC?'s, C??'s, Receipt Deficiency No: ices, and Audi: 71adings is issued (separa:e f ce :his one) t0 all appr0pria:e levels of uni: canagemen:/superfision for : heir review and ac:1:n. These repc :s indica:e responsi' ole par:7 for ac: ion, :ype deficiency, subjec: area, vender, e::. i so cha: ziddle and firs: level canagemen:/supervisi:n are aware of quali:7 rele:4d deficien:les, : heir s:a:us and :het: dispositi:n.

3 urs.o.t- t .-eA. . . . , 2,. . . . s. . .,. . n. .o

. . . ..r ; . --.;m~. . 7. ,. ; a : -r . ;.. e.a-

/

d L) A QA 5:op Work Notice was ini:iated in TMI Cai: II on luy 21, 1982, as a resul:

of repe:i:ive viola:Lons of ad ints::a:ive con:rols for condue:ing verk activi:ies.

Construction work had been imple=ented in the field vi:hou:

app;oved engineering documen:s and work pe::i:s which define and au:horice the ac:ivi:les. The cos: recent incidents involved velding ac:ivities and

2:erial subsci:utes. The 3:co Work No:i:e was no: issued as Uni: Manage:en:

cok it ediate action in s:opping 'adWiifWs'5eidrcondactedW:h'effeld sha:

' ~ ~

'\ '~ hFi. bee. 'OeiiifreT by'?.ifas tell as ie 7er~al ~o sher 3 "discovere4 during :he mee:ing

/ _on.1h2 2.rablen.. _ In addi: ion, :ee:ings on the subj e:: vere held the sa:e' day-by engineering and notif t:a: ion was provided to cons: rue: ion :ha: voek activi:les were to be conducted in a::ordance vi:h properly reviewed and approved work tuthorita:iot.s and engineering docc:en:s. As the real source of the probles appears cde _an._attiFdd~e'that the Ad inistrative Control ?:ograms take too long to get work authorizations approved and into the field. Uni: - --.M..a n a ge:en :

, has...Socciated to. inyestiga:e .and evaluate the present programs so. that reco cen- .

dations can be made and imple:ented which vill allov QA ? ogra compliance but still tee: the schedule needs for ticely and efficien: vork comple:Lon. QA vill withtrackun:ilthis the cec =i:c:ent changes areand:ade. suppor: 1: but presen: programs mus: be complied 6

s -

' Uni: II Page 4 2)' The'1931;QA'Caparr:en: Annual Assessmen:' presentation was given during the

( 'monch ' for IMI' Units I and II. Both uni:s were well represented in_che presen:ation and discussions concerning quali:7 : rends and problens were ic to r=a:ive. "A wri :en repor: su==arizing the implemen:ation and ef fec:tteness

- 1: ems discussed and the crends coted will be orovided r, the t;ni: V.?./Ote:::: s

• and che Direc:or QA by the end of June for inclusion into' :ne oversll QA Department' Assessnen: repor:.

. RECOMMINDATIONS/AC ION 3 RIctf t120

-No ne .

• i-4 h t. hc L .

3. E. Ballard, Sr.

' Manage'r - IMI QA' Mddift:a:isns/ Opera:Lons T

I J

r 4

i i

D -

6 r - - .v- -

y w

l I

l ACM VITIF.S SLW.LOY l Month / Year: Mav, 1932 Unit: DC I l l TMI II I X l COA /0C MONITORINO AND INS?ICTION SLW.ARY {

-. i AC'17ITT MONITORIN:*. INSPECION ' MNCR/CDR Sched. Parfo =ed Sched. Perforned #

Issued Mon:h TTD* ~~

Month YTD* Mon:h C Coerations/ Tech Specs: 18 l 13 I3 0 4 Backshi: Monitoring /Insp:

Encineering  : ;0 0 3 OQA - 5 o e QC - 20 Start +n/ Testing  : 1 0 0', 0 0 R2d. ?:otection  : 22 19 76 1 2 Chenis--r  :

Admin./Securi:r  : 15 10 62 O O Trainiit 2 2 9

o t 5 4 25 0 0 0 0

?_advas e  : C Fire ?:otee: ion  : 4 2 10 0 0 0 0 1 areheusint/S:oras . 5 ;l i 7 50 45 233 12 56 I

i

?: eve--ire Maint. .

4 Mech.  : 21 0 t 1 0 2 0 0 I'.ec/I & C  : 6 3 0 0 0 4 0 0 l Co nec:1ee Main:.

) w s- - 1 0 4 16 2 3 0 0 Ilec/I & C  : 3 0 to 9 I t. 3 0 0

'Jelding  : ___h I 0 2 2 2 22 0 l

__0_

Mods / Instal 12:ic.s Mech.  : l0 ( l0 l l1 ll13 l l 11l (32 l [ 3- l }3 Elec/I & C  : 3 0 l_2 11 3 1I [2 3

'Jelding  : 1 0 4 51 51 33 2 9-Civil /Struct  : 0 0 0 11 , it 14 3 S-NDE  : 3 2

_1_ 2 13 0 2 _0 ISI Exans  : o n n n 0 0 Per:o cad senec. -

Sched. P er t c =ed Issued Iotals: 96 S t.

te;

13) 23

.- ACTIVIIIIS SCW.GY COSTINUED -

II.

Q. A. AUDIT

SUMMARY

Month YTD4 Men:h YTD*

Audi:s-Scheduled Audits Perforr.ed 3 9 1 6 Audited Areas: (Month) Findings Issued Findints issued Fire Protection i Train'ing **

Energency Planning- ** - - +

Materials Technology **

l' III.

QA/QC DOCUMENT REVIEN To:al Revie:.ad Wi:h Commen:s QA Entineerint Month YTD*

1 Mon:h Y!J*

i Soecift:a: ions, SDD's/0esign C':1:eria Coc. , Sys:es Des::1p tions 0l

, _l 4 f0 1l ICM's/?CR's/FQ's/DRI's 3 33 4 f32

?urchase Raquisi: ions *** 38 209 L8 30

?ur:hase Orders l ajp3_ I i i 43l 3 13 ;

Infineeria; Ivalua:icas inc. Vendo:

1 3id Ivalua:i:ns/Venda: ?: cedures {14 l43 0 'O l

A Manuals and ?

ocedures 0 3l 0 2 M:dification

?2:inger Final Occurenia:ica 0 [. 0 0, 0 0:her-6

.[ 0 0 0 l0l

_C0A/QC Issuei

?:ocedures/?lans/? : grass 60 l239 3 :l 0 Work Au:hori:acions/3chedules 121

-lall l 0-13 - l Engineering Cocunen:s/ Vendor / -

Con::2::a: Do:unen:3-

_0 0 .0 -0 0 1

Other 0

0 0l 0 0

• YTD - Year to Da:e

~**In.?: ogress .

• • • Conbined Unit I'and II To:als" '

l u

l NONCC)?LI ANCE St209.RY l v 3Y' togs I Iton:h/ Year: Unte: TMI I TM1 II I.

QUALITY DETICIENCY RE? ORTS (QDR'S)

TIC Division Issued: Closed: Total Coen Status Month YTD * ' Mon:h YTD

• Awaiting Ini:ial Response (No: Overdue): ~P Opera: ions  : l, 7 3 13 Initial Res,onse Overdue : 0 Engineering  : 1 1 1 7 Initial Responsa Unaccep:able : 0 Maintenance  : 1 5 1 5 Correc:ive A:: ion Completion Pending : 1 1

Administration : 1 2 0 1 Corrective Action Cocolecion Overdue : ! 0 0 '4."-' . .

• L 2 0 0 Corre::ive Action Verifica:ica h nding:lt 1 0:her Divisions Ooen Period Tech Functions : 1 2 0 3 Maintenance & 0-50 days: 11 Cons::ac:fon  : 0 0 0 2 60-120 days:

Radiolegical & 2

-Environmental  : 1 3 0 7 120-180 days: '

a 2.dninis::a:ian :

clear 0 -0 k0 0 130-365 days

20 Assurance  : 1 2 0 1 0:her  : 0 0 0 0 To:al Issued by QA  : 3 2' E E7 To:sl Issued '

0 0 by 0:hers  : [0 0 II.

MATERI.M. : 0:;C0?:7C??A;CE RE?CRTS (10;CR' S)

Month YTD

• Totel Coen Sta:us I 22 70 <

Isrued:

Awaiting Ini:ial Response; 12 )

Closed: l' l1 48 Ini:ial Resconse Cnacces:able: 2 l

Issued bv Corrective Action Cocpletion Pending: 33 O

0:'ern rean oat- C . _ _ ,

Disposi: ion Verifica:Lon Pending: 0 l

s Corrective Action Verifica:1on Pending: 0 Ooen Period 0-40 days - 16 60-120 days: 6 120-130 days: -

7 130 .365 days: 20

• w e-

i . v ., uv. ..o t. :. 3u.*y>_.: Lu:, i.si;m l III. MATERIA? HOT.D TACS ,

! Month YTD

• Ooen Period -

I Issued:

21 97 0-60 days : 31 120-130 days : 7 i Closed : 33 63 7 I'60-120 days : 180-365 days ;

IV. AUDIT FINDINGS

. Month YTD

• Total Ocen Status 1 13 Issued: .~ Avaiting Ini:ial Response (No: Overdue); 1 vlosed

- 7 36 Initial Response Overdue. -

1, Response Ivaluation In Progress ; O Initial Resoonse Unae:mo able : 2f Correc:ive Action Cc=pletion Pending ; i j Corre::ive Ac:Lon Congletion Overdue ; 11 Corree:ive Ac: ion Verifica:ic ?ending; L3 Cren ?eriod 3 0-50 da;.s : 2 60-120 days: 120-2'-0 days: 4 7 240 days 1

l '. l (30 days: l 1 l YTD*-Year to Da:e O

b 6

6 4

6 a

-- o we

I 5

I i

I ATTACHMENT 2 1

i

,. e

. / /.

3 ;

s

// :V f2, " -

bs f-

. p. .

\

i :l2j e ::

. Q 2. No.: #7#7- [f'-M Tile No :

f-I ne attached QD*. has been evalua ed by 00A a .d #ct: .d pere::ially rep ah' e.

..,s.

v_:.y ....,.. Q a. s. a,..a. . , k e a .- . * .'.. v. ." c. ..s ' ' a. - - . ~- . s = -v . o .'.._

r.S.. . . .1.s . . , n.Q.w . . . . v..,_. 5."!.

. .. . . a.. 2 c:*a../ 2. .- :.- % 3 - -: . _= . ..- ="--

= * .. .,2...- --* v. O - ... _ . . ..__,s..e

_ r e . . . . . . a .. ... O . . t . 2 . . . . . e. . ~ . .,. . . e : r = w . - = u s - = = . -_# ==- ---'

.....a. .. w-.=3.. .-

' - = . 3 -- .. . 2. _' l i s =. :

f. . ... _: J. 4-w .-,. y.. ..

.y _t...J

. .. g y g_i ... . . . .I a. .. .... =...-.. .3 4.*,.. .* .* _ J-

, =- g* 6- .*..= ==~=7-...w=_. *3 . -?= '

• % C..

g ...ea...=.....>*n*..*. s..-a..=..-......-....aw..'-...

-. 2 ' = .=. s . . . .. . 4 - . --

- e- . s.. .

, . ,t.._ _ , . . Oe .:C .. .= . .: %.. e .,, .e :. , , . a... ..

. . .f . _ : . .. . .

e 2

.a . . .. . _ a . a w _, _. ,- %_ n. . :. r .u.. ._. _. . ,. _ . _: . . e E ._ . : .;

. y _ _t t u. . e .- . ' . . . a. .

7. . ,

. . u... . v- . .:. , u.n .u. 5 . . _: . 3 . .- . .. ... . > , . . . .u. ,. e. ..q. v..,._,,..

v.o = e - .p..s.=..' . .' ...'sh. . - _ ' . . = . . . .=..'.....'..'g=..=....

. .. . . . . .= - _ _ = . u. . . .. _'-.

7 ..

=

. u.. $

. .. . . .s . : .. ,..t.

g-- . . .=...,.e.

.. s . . .=. .- ._ =.

. _' n' .:. = . . . ' . s.,.......s-'."..=....s=_-..'--v=_'.=.' .=.-;.-....._

_a ,-

.... J.3 c.".=. .

.. - ... . . . , ..m .. = .. . ,

. - _. . . -.. .--==*...a.

. . --. . - ... * . .../....

.. a . a. . . a.'.- . ,_ e . a. J, . . . .

I

e. .

...gs . :__._

s

. . . . . . . . g_., ..,.......

2.g... . .,_.. . . . ..: .s..,. ....

....f.- ..

...s.

g __ , ..,..: . , _ _ .

...*s,_..*.**.'a...-*.*. a . . .. .

x..=._.=.....3.".

. w

_. ==.--=.=Q

. . . . _=.=._J___,.

. 3 . . * . , . ..

. _.s .'. . .v . . '_ _ =. .

...,3, .. ,._..:'..

.. a...-'.=.'.-...'a..3-..

. ' _ _ = . . _ = - ._3..._'.

. '. s..=..s . ..-..

.v.,_,_.. _3.. ..-. ap,- . o . .-- .. t .

T'-- a._

.. ..  %. ... . ,., g' .J _2 _ . _t . .. .,. *. .. ,

....,:.._..,.... . . . . ..- e, )..,-_,..._..._ _ . . . . ..

, s: _.: ..___

.. . .u. . .

. s , . . . .

. 3, ... . .._3.. .- , _ _; :. 3. .- . . - , _ . _ _.. ..- ....... . ,_,_..-..( e. .s _..,. .._. .. .. _. )

u.-.. ( 3. .... . . .,_:__,

. . _ . . ., . , ,....._..m.,..,

< ) ,.. . . ...:. .... :.. ,-

. . . . . - . .a.ss.=..-.=...=...=.-=.-

. . /. > 2 _2 . .. , .:. .:. . ;_ _: . ,..-..

s . ) . ..., _ . ., . ._. ... n, .a. v. .. 2 .: .:. ._. ,_ _, .: .. ..s f . ., _. .: . . . -

( ) . _.. _: _. y. ., ._. ,_ . . .. _.__

r, ) ..: .. . .-. u.., ., .v.3. . . .m,. s . . ..s = . '

. .: _- .'. . =_ s . 3-. ( )- _.:. _-

... _'.-.s_..,

2 0-( . . . . . . .

. .. .. ,. :. .,. .. ..  : . ...... .-......;3,.... ,, w . a v. s ._ , .

.e. - ,,

...s._... .

1

_ s s _ _ a ..........,a.,....._ -..u

. . -. _ - ,. 1, ..

_ .. - - . ,- . - , , g_3- -

. . . - ..--- --s-,--,--

--s - ~.. . .

s ..-.

.. . _ . . 3.. ....

. . .. ....,a..

\

. t. g) m, . ..* .v.... r

. _ _: - . . g A ....\

3 I

i l

l

. Das.1132 Quality Deficiency Report (QOR)

= 3. Description of Deficiencies l

a. Completed by initiator: '

Oes . !'cdco-ir.e Ld. - N '- l

'l yn,c ~ II initiator: E.T. Fitchell  ::c. s,ceoa . . on..r:-,

s.

I .

i Recuirement(s): Recove: / 0A Plan. ?,ev. O. da:ed 7-14-80. See:icn 3.1.1. scares . >

to

'":~ae 'CII Ou21ity Asstrance P oc~c rec". ires that ac:ivities I.-2!n- Jor21:-

'~=-'"-c Su'a_ ~ bew -)rG Su-_ s_h_e?, bV dc~ ~2m. - . .o_s m _ m_ c =_5_ _~=_ s

• m ~- "c-'~~c _

1. -bSen graa W e_ g e gr_a _i vi r_-i_ e g be_ m_,'

• _r 9. 1_i eb ed __ ---

-5*.~ u-b f-b e 4 --O m-o-* - s -# n- '.

l I, F_.me r_. -

t s,-..-,.. I i,

y t-I  !

t b. Deficiency:

Coa.:ra-i to t. e aoove re .: re .e , .on S f-u

.t

-62

. e,_n ~-i u e d a Cort '

i

_ ..e- . . . - - -. i. 2 . . ._ n-L- . C , ._ _2 , , nn. e ._._ r_ . ,-__  !

,. ; ,, . . .,. ,. . ., S . . .W- GC U.S4 ~... 3GC.,. e a . _

I. .,.., . .._% .. .

o

) .- - m a ~ o Mn. . 1 T ! 1%n i -= = n-

3. 3 0. , v. . s_ 4. .-s ? 10i 1.0 f,-

9_1_0/. 1_^-7. _l '_ e m - -

,2 s-. . J ., 3 - 1,. 4- , , -

J.-... J .2 ... T fn...... =2- - --

...:.,. 2 < ' ~ ~as 4 .,

m-4 Q % -1 a. a 3 '_ '._ . ' t) T s -s e

.r 2 5.S ?. . G w. . . . . . . - - - - _ - - _

%.- ~ ~- s =-c'.

-%: - . - ,4 a 'a . . ~ . .e : ~~- Ja ve--s * = s-~ .%~ . C - as I

) -}.,- ~ :4,% : .* .

4-2  :: 1 .m.....,,..-,-~

.-se.:em- .a -%1 e -nm . .s-a:-,p

-m-

, .=g 2

a - -,- = ,-  : , .= e ~,=>,,a a  ;

- v. a , _~_ a_ _r_ m_ . . _ n r. ., 9 .,e e em.: e - .- 1 : -%-,.,, r1 29 .

-, a_ c -, n ' .e - =-.- - n- .

-..,,-,,n-e-,,e

. . g

- ~-..A n, - n - e .- . ~. .

= . s, . 3 ,n I: nac been oreviousi.v icenci:iec in se ~.o._L35C-82-OLl.7 ,

' :.a: t

. ~ . :.e. .,, , t..- , ..._. . _. -._

. , .,o s.-..:, s 4 ., . e :. .~ . ~. .,. _s. _,,_

_ - . n_ r_ e_ - _.

e

J.ED G3S.Y 'IO 00.\ LW.GER (O':5ITE I'.?I D_:._3. QA :':C{.c.:.:'.7."G .G.GER (O~JSITc.,  :

_. : ,....:.'L,, O. , : . . e. . .~. . ., . . : . ,

... _d.- .-'~31 0., .. S' = .- . -,x- ., .- .

i t

2. cust.tv Evaluation Ys: N: Y ,. s No ,.. ,

1 .:: .2 .; :: 5:fe:y: .

...=.=.:., s.

.:.- - . s--- ,

. . , .s,.....,

.- : : e- . : 1. ..:- -

\

a. ...

2...,...==

. .n.

.r.

: * - d a'. *. .,0.2. . 7.2 E p::er.: 3. p ,c.:o 21 *-

/ - . .... ]

5. anat.c gr  ?. . e . $MWk  ;

w. 7.. .".: ;c .e1.-

r

.. 003. .'::'.i:cr ! d. cei n .

, g 2.,

.1...

. . . . . ..... . . . , . . . . . , . . . , . _ . .-~

i

, ./.n- ,.n~ ~f~ . E.r. . . . . .

. m e w_.'>. a -.-

. :ve 7. e

)

if evaluated to be potsntisily reportable notify Unit:: re--r or Dury Supt, and send copy of QCR to Licenssng

, y ,. . -. . s .,, g .~ :. s .... . . . . : :. .: ,. a.

eesit ; Nehec Yes .No 3

ve? ,

P3r :es res:cnsicie f:t corrective action: MCo'*e' r 0-=-=. ic .s 2: Ccast-acri - Dira: or II I " *** _ ? S c -

i i

,,..'4~~ .

, ]. L,* 3 ' j g= .qg, O , ,' [

• .. rec *ts0 495e Oa:e: *

• ' " I f]41;. h ,t i '

~2:3v 3 Or ess ' :-- '?sesmi::a' 03:en . .

.ac a y CA. 3 c. a ,, .,

Art.tCMsear .

ACCCO375 l l

l 4

I

12 Wha,3.; g% murc=rm= : n ... .... -j g ...

Assigned to:

3. Act'on (as recuired)

~n, .

=g Cause:

,,,.,,,, s,e n . - a s s' J m I *- te-rL

• u e l '- - 3

• a s &=hl 9

• L 1- >1 Corrective Action: (including action required to prevent recurrence)

? ,.l..c a 2.L. 9,.j w W B Lrn t* O W e M J C J to .t9 4 L .

m n ,,, .t tu 1 4.. etc. os a etn . 4 s- s u . , c s 2. .

f. - ~ ~ w . : m ccom % et,e - m 7_- < w. L. h ,,

.RJiO A e -h ub'e

. e 3 e* 8 um_

f.sv . -t -

c., Wi , w. d 4) e c r , e.3. o- a.4_h* m b A 1._. m 4 m .u C 4t %2 %, L l.. ,

e.L..Jc . t.:  % d., .

. r4 e a - , # A a m N- = L.1., O M u ,,_ 4 3,.,

i l

i Corre::!va .::i n will be com;:ie:ed :y: l o - t - 8 1.

l 9- 17-6 L, Par *y Aesponsiste t r Correcm Act:an lla t e l l NOTE: A.:TER COMPLETION C: TH!S SECTICN RETURN T'r ~ COR TO THE OCA SUPERVIS l

/ '

Correc:ivg Action ' ' .; -

Concurtsnes /. f.o

(

l4.

%L = ... \

M..,fa/

1 .,.=

l vl .I _,

.e t f ..L-i ste C a a Si. e.v.sse

!5. C.A Verincapon and C:osa.Out i f.'.etn=d!s) c' Veri 5 cation: a.., .,.,,J.,- , , , , _ , /, ; ;

% , e s ,- .; .,f.,.,, ,.- . . - '.,. .

A.,..,~. _! r/ s.: u- f _ s k. ,l' L1, , A, . , s z_ _,,, ,

's

. e . :. . = ,.

"W'

• n + ., , , 1 ,.r - . s S.- +L s o t*_ "' "

, n.ja , , .3 2n1 c... .*t ela.  :

. - : . - e. ) n , .1 ce se- o., , ) _, .

> L . _. ! A r . s. >~o.*- l,. ri Ls,s. .v 1 s /*, ,,-

-,,.).

. - _~ . . . c $, e , ",e  %<,n-  ?.1. . . ) ?.!

~

r. .. s '. -.

. < ~_ a s c.

s k h n l. a )

I - /,s /r3

'y s..;f'd Sy:' I I_

c

' i ),'E_

Ca:e C:m::e:er incut Card Com;:Is: d: S

Cl:se-Out by:TWb -' N C 1. */sht i

s

~':: e l'lat e Name

. S. Fine: Fackags Revievt I

I 43 G- f" -o 4 8 7 r1 7.! ** m.. Um r*. cwer $s o ,s -_

i A::acamen:s: m e-4

~ ~ . m . , . n - , _. e - c

. , - , ~.s s a r ,. h r, ,, ,.,

l _eu 1,m - s,.. - - , ~ 3...o,,-, ,. og n o

a av v 37, s1. 5. . y a...:e., e

. y: 1 Dw 7 d. ir (7 /d3 COI. Swoorv ser * ,, , Ca p #

-e 4 v 3 ..I Ai'T!.?)w!h! ! FOR.'.1 C/. 3 : 0 2

1 1

1

.. . l inter Office Memorandum a July 13, 1982

)

ject Work Packages for Quick Look ?:ogram Locadon DF.I-2 B. E. Ballard 4350-82-0417 A question has arisen with respect to the purpose and use of Work This Packages letter su=-

and their relation to i=plesenting the Quick Look cask.

=arizes how Work Packages are used in conj ucetion with GPU-autho:L:ed 'docu-

=sa:s such as procedures and ECM's.

are described in Work Fackages as speci-All ac:ivi:les i= the contai==act fled in procedure AJM 3240.1, Access To and Work in the Conta'--=~ r The Work Pa:kage is in: ended to be used as a =ethod of defining supple =en:ary ins::cetions dee=ed necessary to perform procedural opera: ion, cc:ple:e a tie-in or per=aner plant change under an ECM, or =ake a :e=porary =odifica-tion in accordance with C?U procedure A?-1013. Work Packages are also used to acco=plish recovery tasks which are deter =ined to be wholly or partially 12dependen: of the CPU procedural syste=.

Work Fackages are not Latended to substitute for ser=a e procedural require-

=ents. Likewise work packages will not subs:itute for i=po :an: to safe:y tasks which are perfor=ed under appropria:e procedures, =ain:enance job tickets or ECM's.

• The work package does not devia:e, add to or change the require =ents and scope of a G?U-authorizing docu=ent.

This is illus::a t ed by the following exa=ples.

A :odified ni:: ogen sys:e= is necessary to provide cover gas to :he top of ~he

he RC5 high p ints at the hat legs, pressurizer and the reactor vessel.

tie-in to t?.e per=aneet system occurs where a nitrogen regulator is in s tal-led for use during the Qud.ck Look. The tie-in codification is included and has been approved on an ECM. Downstrea= lines to ce=porarily supply the ni:: ogen fro: the in-contain=ent header to the high poin:s will be docu-

=e::ed for the Quick Look using the te=porary =odificatio: procedure A?-1013.

and ni:rogen The procedural operations associated with coanecting the vec:

hoses and valve operations will be perfor=ed under a detailed procedure.

Work Packages are used to provide supple =en:ary worker instructions to i=pl e= en: these docu=en:s for such ite=s as =a:erial and tooling ide==Lfi-ca: ion and staging, pre-work checklist and no:ification require:entc, se-quence of work ac:ivities, disposition of da:a and ca:erials, work cleanup taska, e:c. These supple =en:ary instructions =ay also include activities tha: are de:er=ined to have no effect on nuclear, radvas:e or fire saf ety in :he plant such as plug-in electrical power sources, =aterial handling, or hoisting provisicas, etc.

A00Co648

. l

.- - ,p, July 13, 1982 B. E. Ballard In nacy cases, recovery work may be In de:er=ined such cases,to not verkrequire an ECM, can proceed tie-in au:horization, or procedure. Quick-Look tasks associated with as outlined in the Work Package.

radiation surveys, moving the television ca= eras, decon amination of are e.u=ples the "B" steam generator area and installation of the hoist of work au:horined by CPU Managenent Like underise,thespecific Quick-Look WorkProgram which Packages did cat require ECM's or procedures.

were judged to not require GPU approval as they did not f all within any of the conditions listed in Procedure ADM-3240.1 (Section 4.1.2.2) .

l It is recognized that a procedure does exist which defines the in-Thenot l

l and use of the Work Package. forthcocing organi:ational changes ten:

and acconpanying ad=inistrative procedural changes vill correct this situacion.

this le::e Un:ll tha: :i=e, and specifically for :he Quick-Look ?:ogra=, .

is p::vided to s:a:e the posi:1on of GPU Manage =ent.

r") .

M. K. Pastor Recovery Progra=s Operations &

Construction Director, TMI-2

. ~P : ?J.1: cal .

'l ec: J. *.*. Thies ing D. M. Laka

?.. L. Rid er

• J. ?. M1:sde J. J. Sar:on 3 . 7. . :*.2:3a~

L . ? . " in 3 C.GIRS A

BechtelNorthern Corporation 3 n" al-MQ( -

Engineers - Constructors.

AC

% L -

.">43 ~

15740 Snacy Grove Road ,

';._ - Gcitners::urg. Maryland 20S77 I.)

- hh1  ;

301-258-3000 ti dRARY_ Sep te=ber 10, 1982 l

glIl'p gg '

In Response to Quick Look - QDR-z M-s5-a2 U " _-

Mr. M. K. Pastor Recovery Progra=s Operations and Cons::uction Director C?U Nuclear Corporation P. O. Box 490 Middle:o t, PA 17057 Quality Deficiency Repor:

T.. ee Mile Island Uni: 2 Contain:en: Recovery Engineering Sechtel Job No. 13587 File 0255.3/0494/10209 BLT - 0498

Dear Mr. Pas:

or:

Tae opera: ion surveilla=ce perfor:ed during the conduct of the Quick Iock entries on August 4 & 5, 1952 resul:ed in a cuali:y Def t-ciency Repor: E M-55-82. The following responds :o : hose ice:a under

he supe-.ision of the Quick Look Group.

1. Work ?acka:e R-026, Au:ust 4, 1932 Tne QDR states a CRDM cop closure was re= ved using work pach-age ins::uctions ins:aad of Procedure 2104-1C.6 c: 2101-10.7. Tais closure had ce'en previously re=oved on July 19, 1932 as part of :he firs: inspection. It was ta=pora:Lly reins:alled as a dust cover following the firs inspectice. T~ne second re oval was judged to no: require a detailed procedure, sinca the pressure retaining fun:-

tion of the closure head had not been necessary.,

Resolu: ion - Subsequen work si ilar to the closure re= oval noted in the QDR has been perforced by procedures.

2.  ? ocedure 2104-10.3, Au:us: 5, 1982 Tne Q3R sta:es that the in-contain=en:

t e.z: vas not direc:ed signed step-by-step by the Task Supervisor and-:he s:aps were not off as they were acco=plished. Tne work was perfor=ed by the in-r contain=ent crev vho had been throughly trained on the procedure.

~

Direct observations of the work were concincusly =ade byIf theany Task devi-Supervisor. Ic was not necessary :o direc: each step.

ations haf occurred they would have been no:ed by the Task Super-visor'and proper direction =ade.

~

' Bechte! Northem Corporation

1. Page 2 Septa =ber 10, 1982

If Mr. M. K. Pastor Resolution - No change in the =eched if supervision for such tasks are dee=ed necessary. The Task Superviser was instrue

ed :o sign of f pro-cedural steps as they are perfor=ed.

3. Procedure 2101-10.4, August 5, 1982 The QDR states that the blanks in a procedure s:ep (locating the bandsav support stand on the CRDM =ctor tubes) were not filled in prior to placement of the support stand and the ins:allation steps were per-forced out of sequence.

Resolution - Task Supervisor vill fill in black spaces or unnecassary informa: ion require =ents will be deleted from procedures where radia: ion exposure vould be incurred on future : asks.

The re=aining iceasdu che QDR vi:h respec: :o ?rocedure 3240.1 vill be Please con:ac: Tc: Morris if you addressed seperately by Cocs: rue: ion.

have an'; ques: ions.

Very cruly yours , .

L <- v R. L. Rider RLR:rav Projec: Esjineer A::ach en:s: 1. Quality Deficiency Reper: -(QOR) cc: J. W. Theising, Sech:e1 Northern, v/a C. E. Corley, 3echtel, v/a

3. 3allard, G?C;C, v/a T. E. Merris, Bechtel Northern, v/a D. M. Lake, 3echtel Northere, v/a R. W. Jackson, 3echtel Northern, v/a s

Bechtel Northem Corporation Engineers - Constructors

!=

..a.

15710 Shady Grove Road ,

Gai:nerscurg, Mary:and 20877 301-258-3000 Septe=ber 22, 1982 .

Pe. M. N. Pastor Recovery Programs Operations and Construction Director G?U Nuclear Corporation P. O. Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057 Quality Deficiency Report #QDR-85-32 Three l'.ile Island - Uni: 2 Bechtel Jeb Nu ber 13557 CI.0-0360 NR File: 0273/0165

Dear l' . Pastor:

log anInandOutofContaiY=en:

Procedure 4300-ADM-3240.1 requires thatof tools and cocbustibles needed be for caintained the execucion to record of Entrythe move =entQDR-85-32 tasks. the time, therecords a violatien.of provisions of the procedure by Cor=and Cen:er personnel. A:

LOI No. 5 vere being followed. A change to 4300 .CM-3240.1 has been Accep:ance of this vill sa:isfy subni::ed in accordance with I.OI No. 5.

1 the discrepan:v.

!b Very trul-i

• veers ,

l *fif

u ll\.s y} }. . Ql, / w

, D. x. ua Manager, Recovery Opera ions E?'.;! ss i cc: P. R. Bengel .

J. F. Det:orre-O e

e

1

\

Inter Office Memorandum:

Os:s Octoher 22, 1982

[ Y 4 %p

% 5i w.=%ri O gjf O A3Y EL a . wr1ll2 Su:.ec: IMI-2, RESPONSE TO QDR 85/82 E. MITCHELL LccaDon n::-2 T:

QUALITY ASSL1 GCE 1360-52-0'98 l

This will confir:2 our telephone conversations regarding the respense co :he subject deficiency repor: dealing with modifica: ion of the l

contain=ene en:ry procedure to revise the equipmen: log :.ain:enance procedure.

The original response s:ated tha: he request for change had been sub=1::ed. A: :he time, cha: was a : rue s:atemen:. Hevever, :he reques: was re:urned by :he Precedure C:ntrcl ;; cup wi:h a rez;e.=:

.- =. : :he change :eques: be appr ced by :he .ana;er . ?.e::ver" ? r:;rans .

The reques: f or revisien has been subri::ed :0 :h-: >~ana;er, ?.e:: vary

?-  ; ars. It is an-icipa:ed :ha: :he .2 ues: .il'_ ie in :he hands

f :he Procedure Con:rol g: cup by :: vember 5,195;, and tha: :he con:ainment entry procedure will be revised b:. ::cvember 30, 1952.

n o I f'?

, r~n .# s_'~C $

Y.. :'. ?asto:

Fragra: Cen:::is Direc:a:

Rec:very . Pr:;:ans . I': -2

.,.a.a

J.7 Thiesing b G' .^TV9 ff,4-fVf Oqg ,

y (U./ w/ '

g -

n (_ j l. 4 2 (t t I 30!B .

9 w]

i - fi gy N Il I h

/rM &J

_. m u". ' s n.1 -: . *O r Q pg]

s

'/// / ./.h .

f .- "/ .

• • /.

/

'/ ,: .- ' V)

Y p.

Inter Offico Memorandum .

.:a:e January 17,1 S83 Suoiec: QDR ETM-85-82 _.

To J. C. Fornicola t.ecation Three Mile Island Unit 2 -

4300-83-0082 l

l l

l It is my understanding that all items noted in QDR-85-82 have been closed out with the exception of a violation of Procedure 4300-ADM-3240.1 related to maintenance of the in and out-of containment tool and equipment log in the Co=tnd Center. It should be noted that the procedural deficiency was c:rrected some time ago by placing the required log in in the Command Center, and I have, on this date, confirred with the Entry Superviser that the log is, in fact, in the Command Center.

An upcoming global revision to the Containment Entry Ftocedure (4303-ADM-3240.1) will delete the requirements stated therein for the ecuipment and tool log. The requirements for, and pro:edures for maintenance of, this log are currently reflected in a Recovery Operations internal procedure which is soon to be issued as a GPU Procedure. This deletion fecm 4300-ACM-3240.1 is being made to avoid adding duplicative requirements in different procedures.

Please call us if this is not sufficient to resolve the outstanding issue in the QDR.

s

. W. Thiesir- I s E) nager, *::::veryDrograms N

Jn'T :j rb cc: R. L. Freemerman P' ease extend until " arch 1,19?3.

D. M. Lake .,

R. L. Rider ./.,, ., %7_ a ,

J

} t , , " , y* s . QL ,~~ % 'd - ,

• . '~d .

Q.*i,,1.2.:q 7

)

g.

l<_

i ; e,; -. , - !

y> _, . ,

, j/

_ l // G a a

. U .: /,IQ f^ m e,a

,b,,, ; n, .? b

i i

' l>

al' 4.j tun 1 e

"" 3 4 g *1 a  %.

is6 6 mg*** Q mW a g O9Q3 )

c 1, 3 t

.l'usOr ln 8

• s.ouw ts to*

rgb n) oo

)

u ro~ ,, O. .

DJl t*

t

a= 1lNlcuItt 8

[i l) , . *

• 8 psh

• r .

{naOg> s ipD e a ,.i u -

s 1o 6l:t 1 n 1

ali a o.

J )=DrDs e' 4 1

o I - <t ee .>

r =* )s"e

)

l03

• 4 8 )e 15lt t - o ).

,

• h) )f1 r=

• t Dl

')

' '$ 0 -

j rrD r. (

j O:5 cmc r r)!t*sl 0!s ir OOs1 -

• DotE t e 1.80 uO.tO:s 4 l

l i 'i

• s:

-( ;(

L-d :6 o .

. >. 3 I 4 /s

. )*: I l 4 t

O O :. r 0 3 o us:1 c.

1 6

• t j$o40 t iD a a e a -

• u ;< 6 la

• O :.i aO rfD 3 l n u 4 1 ( 6 '

c s 1

s a s ei4 8

< 68; t .

ll * ' ' <

9. ****s

• D Osli .as : p 8'

r 'DI lsoounliti 8 a i I.4:a **, e so.s

.Y seo: r. ' .,0:s 1 . 1uvD aOlD 6Oirl a on-ii 8

- a ' (

- o3 g:5  : i a s

s 1sl( t

.r 6; ; :r'p*sl ir

• s, 4 t d-u1L D ( O.C -1*3Mp3 r *st iO o1O O5e O **3 OO1 s s s ;:o:

p3 r.

( e:tr 6Otr: s )F s0Oiu gL(

- ai tt t

(

s1t .:

t:

2 s .

s> 3 *> i ::) /.I . .

'1pi .;=s<3a 6 O 1:. 1 O ;- D M s' En<u e

r O*.e- *1 t1 3

= 1 nogo g-1 s e o *$l oA *t $'OOD8dsu

' t( < 6 a i 8 a e *

o s s .ar. a.

s, * . -

. d:n *3- *1ale '

. e. e .

sD3;'-sle sp )t 3 0 b a

r. p * -):b- a

• t a: oa ,$

.g;,

ipo. k 4 4 en .

e . i 1

e . .n ' -

• t.

i td n' e I.o c p :V. p 1 u :. su e a, o. hi asOo><aG$u s

• e h. .3.p.8 . . e: b.

• n1 s. 39 a. :tpnI i

+ .. s e . ass:

i : -

s. < th. :ss i -e .* s

. i *s -

• s:o s e san s p . )a s e

• o o e, D r9 n:* }

-. . * . o,. : ,

a ei n i oS

• ir9 .. h.

a +, t s, s * :9 e' s ). . i . *s .

c, e ,

i . , ,

s .e ia # 4

. . . e: 4 . a s: s i.s i: s.  ;*p:- ,: . l

inl a ss

r. r . i>e<

s

• s *

h. >. a e

f

b. e :* e -

p:D e .9 ajp '

i* .

l p-a 3.i a* . ' e . e . e a: ;a a #

r *. r. r 'D;a p:= en t. .e.s, r ,;$p a3l1 e

• os39 i - . e t:4 4 .s .-  : i: ;i ogo2 - . ips i3* i .

)- .

% p f.

e ..#C .

. . t < \s~

. . ;s gr O. e, s -ayh .4- )ge'g;. g s e 3 t g

3.o.g- 5nepg if.. )(.,O:.93*.

. s ,

y 3o,.pgm e

,33 g

i e:i..*,. 5

. . . . a, s.c , 3. *

i. . ,.

gs.9. p 1,:,3- ,

g j.o3

. ..*a s. * ,.p3 3

. i o.

ni . . .

e .*a .3 (,p 06 D O ,.4 .g , , o,[ ,*: *I t'.g ' - - ', - y# ]

ie" ' ,s - { L c 3 0e4 *l [- L ' ,3 . g) g ; I.

i ld r ' t/ f

-l

). -

,di..*'-.

. .g. ,

)

. ( *, sg . C,m.,

~ -)

,-( -

- ' ,( ~

{*.J .L.

• - . - . 68

1 Inter-Office Memorandum July 7, 19S3 P e J Nuclear Cate 4370-83-' *

~

Subject Q.D.R. 885-82 To J. C. Fornicola Location Three Mile Island - Unit 2 Operations QA Manager Trailer 105 File: 0303.5/0165 R

REFERENCE:

1. Q.D.R. S S- S2

2. IOM 8.4300-S3-0032 l 3. IOM

• 360-52-0493 1 4 LTR. 8 C LG - 0 S 60 All of the referenced memo's address the need to revise the

" Access to and Nork in the Containmen: Su;1 ding" procedure 30n- AD :- 3240.1 to resolve the Tool and Equip..en: Log defi-ciency. In 1:eeping with Mr. Thiesin;'s T. enc '2300-33-0092,

'a cry of the log is kept in the Cormand Center, yet butapproved.

been the

. " . .;1c':21 revision" of the procedure has no . . . .

.ne respcasig111ty ror t..nis ,,glo. cal revision,, .nas since oeen pinced with myself and Mr. J. Chwastyk. This revision will delete the reouirement for the log, but until the revision is-issued we will comply to the recuirenent as stated in the QDR.

A 5-32.

Please consider this memo final ci secut /

for .O R

' /

j ' ' . C', La,:e

'k h V '

an ag e r , Recovery Cpera-icts s e. = ,

• l t. %.,

A::ach.ents: References

-;;; ist

X.

.; q .r. OQA* Manager

are

- /# ,b/ ^ ( mn .

- , n.

4 . . .

. _ , .= -

. s.. .<

. 4, '. . "i~

t # .1 :

=.-

s

. .y F ,_ a 2

~

'./.Z.4 .

-dd .fg .;,

E

-e

- E-jec : D? .o.: V E 8, */ .

92 ~ile No. / # '/. 5 Id I

,,3R has w.e,.n ,y.1u .,.2. y . a ,.s. = ., 2 ...34  : . c . a. . . . .' a ' ' " . =. :, o. . = =. .

he a.... .s.

....,.es,.-. .o : .:..- 2.,. ,n. ,....

,na ..e , zw.: . . -. .-. :. .. o..gs -.- a,.

.... . ,a s ., ,., ..,\.: ... .. . .ye 3.:. , ... .

. ~ . " =.-=...-=..".=.c.=~-

. . . . . e s . : . , =. . a n. a - =. m. . . = n z. d ..'".' .. . . .-- .. -

,. . - -" . . =. =. * ' ' . . =. . . ..,. .-

,, t ..

+ .

s. . . ., ,e,-..

.... -. .. -- . . ., .,.s-,. ,-

. .i ..

. o .-.2 . . . ,r . .s.... . . . . .. - ,w.a. ... ~. .. ..- .- . - ,. . < . --

. . . .. s.... - ..

e n o o. , e, .g e ys .. . r ... .,. s s. ,. 1.--..! . s n ,. .:, ,. . s. . . . . .-.

p ov..2,. .w.,.. o. -- . .. . . , . .. --- . . . .

'o. .- ... =.~.~..  :=. .=",..' =.

y. ,. .a . . ,. ..u ,. A ~s~ p. .s s '.o-va . .'.=.^ . . .

~.... , .' a. = s =. a. . .= . . s * . . .

.n. u ,. .r . .. . . . . . . . . . , , . ,.. .-...

./ . . .

. . . . *.. .s ... ,

s n ..f , .,.s..n .. o .

aec..or. a --.. ..,.,. .. , .

e

.n.--

.: 1 e w,

.*: .g .2 ..,..:.,c.. ... . o n. .t1 .a . o . .*,.,e.,

e.... .o. .1 , ..: " . . . . . . . g.

.. . . . . . ~..

.. ... 7 . ... . , A. . .'.,....5.

. a. .. s.... . . . .

.. .. . . . . . . . . .a..,. ,-, ..

. . . .., ., . ,....,a..,a

... . . . . .. .o :.o t.. . g u. ...;,. . . t .. .. .. .. ,........;.,3.3 ....:.. .. . ..

....: e.

. . .s =. .e .. .!. .. . s .' .

= .

.. . ..... .-...w - .. . ..

• ...<....><~.~.~y-.....g '. ..-  :... ,..- -,.a....?.'...- s ..:.

.-.,..-,........-..-.,,-,.,e.,...

~

-. ..s .. . i . .. . ,. a. . ....s .s . .s. . . .s '. &. . . . . . . . ,

i . . . .

.,... - 2g

.. . . . . s..- ,. .. .. ., .. - ,.s...,.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . ... ... - . . ...... .

J. + +

.. . .. w. . .. .,. .: . . .. . .. ......-..g...r....

. . y. . ...-. .j .. . , a g.

. . . . :J . ... .. . . . . . . ....7 1

~  : **.*.,.s...I".,. 3 . . I. .=.. . .1.:

1 ** J.".,..

i .....'""

• .#.3....f.,..,.2... .. =. 3..... ... . . A.JD . . .I..J .a.4..2 -. .b..

. b. . .* .g *9 3. . .. . ..

~~~~

. - . . "* .2--2, .,."..3.,?. .~.*~.-.;.'.......

.. a. s . ,. s.e..a...l.,.,....- . . - t , s .n.a. ,.a-e 7s. . ..

t . s..sp S .

1

• , . s . , ....

.....y.. -s...

7 . . ... . ,1. . .

I

. .. .. ,. *. .r.:.

4 2. .:...wr . . ,. i. . .

1

. ..,e_,..-

l . .. :. .. ., .. .. - .: . . . . .. .

. * - , . , 3.. . .? .: .*

t . ... ....

..._.~,.. . * * . . e . .# . ,. t . *...2.?..s . 1. . .. . .g... o.

.? . f . )

g

. . .;. 3. a. .g..

.s ... .... . . . . . . . . .~...s.3,.. .

7 . ....

~

\ i .'- #-,, 'a 1"I#

I -"

t *1

.. . ". *.* . . . 1 . . "..* #. . . s .1. a*a* 'w.- a. m. .a a. ". A *. S -ba. .a

*'"~'..#..

• *?. s. . s3.. "" , * *. ' . * *

'( . ' y *f.... s . _,. 3,. . '. .l. ':.J. .J. . .f .- s.-. .f... '. g i .%. ,. 4. .=. .s. *.! .^ .'.i . .t .

\'

( g . . . *: , . _* *: 3....

.. . . - . , . . .z .. ..... .

3 .A. :- .... .a. .s .e t. . ,. - ().... .

-*?- , . .r .!

3 Cc.v.As?' .  ; **'- s:1 : M U m W E P ~~

K ^ C. ] g . Beut4-l + f t_ f w c./

t' % R R i n.- G . A m +r1

'N- ... . , -

e . . . a .. .. ... .. .. ., .a. 3 ,. ... .. .. .., , , 3... ..t

. ,3  :, ,

.: . a. .. . , 7.

i..,..v.-... . ..: ,a, 2:.. . .-

. . ,. . . ......i..,. .. ..... ._,.,..,.-. .. . . . ..; . . . -,.....

..r .: . . - ... .

-e.

.c.,.......,. .. . . . . 3.. ....

. . . . .f........ .

..... ....e,...: .... ..

.a. . . .. ....e 3.. ,y...3. . . . - .

.-o..*.

..g.,..

• - r .- , _ , , , g.

G r

ATTACHMENT 3

August, 1982 If#uRtilai,mi uni _y l .+

[rM] Nuclear TH REE IV LE ISLAN D 'N UCLEA 9 STATLON Q.A.RECOR 01G SA_ CO?Y

. 41  %

, , r y, -, . r -

.h

. fw':'~~ ?; % b.~ ik;-e & m- .~. : w? 8

'Q M . .:- . . . 1 Ik

'h,,

ASSESS:!ENT OF THE I!TLEMENTATION AND EFFECTIVENESS OF Td5 QUALITl ASSURMICE PROGRRt l

l To: Director, IMI Unit II Director, Quality Assurance cc: Vice-President /Directo r, TMI Unit I Deputy Director, TMI Unit II Executive Vice President .

Vice-President / Director, Technical Functions Vice-President / Director, Administration Vice-President / Director, Nuclear Assurance Vice-President / Director, Maintenance and Construction Vice-President / Director, Radiological and Environmental Controls QAD Section : tanagers s

i i.

To: Director TMI Unit II From: Manager - TMI QA Modifications / Operations Subj : Monthly V?/ Director's Report for August, L982 General Discussion This r'eport is submitted for information and use in management's continual assess- ,

ment of the implementation, status, and ef f ectiveness of the Q. A. Program on the  ;:

Unit. Input into this report is provided by the Quality Assurance Design /?rocurement, Recoc=en-  ? -

Modifications / Operations and Program / Audit Section of the Q'.A. Department.

dations or constructive cri icism on the content or saope of this report are encourage and requested. The initial distribution of this report is limited, but Divisions are As this encouraged to distribute copies as they see fit within their organizations. '

report is a Quality Assurance Record, copies are maintained in the site's Q.A. Record Vault. When significant events or problems require formal management action to be "

taken in accordance with Q.A. Plan requirements, these actions may periodically be identified and requested in this report. These type actions will normally be limited .l co those problems or events which are of such significance or nature that they either require more than one or3anization or division to resolve or are significant program- L matic problems that require high level management notification.

The;e are four dif f erent categories of QA Depart =ent deficiency reports discussed in this report. They are described below. ,

E A. QUALITY DEFICIENCY REPORTS (QDR's)

Deficiencies other than material noncompliances of hardware ite=s, usually issued to document sof tware of activity items such as procedural noncompliance, p rocedure inadequacy , failure to meet commitments , etc .

3. MATERIAL SCNCONFORMANCE REPORTS (MNCR's)

Material deficiencies pertaining to hardware structures, systems, or components which render the quality of the item unacceptable or indeterminate.

C. RECEIPT DEFICIENCY RE? ORTS (RDN's)

Used to docu=ent and track purchased items which arrive on site lacking Purchase Order required documentation such as Certificates of Compliance or test reports.

RDN's are always issued against the CPUM Materials Management Group for resolutio with vendor. A copy is provided to the material user.

D. AUDIT FINDING Used to document and tr.ack QA programmatic deficiencies of either GPUM or vendors contractors.

Each sonth a detailed report on the status of MNCR's, QDR's, Receipt Deficiency Mo' tic and Audit Findings is issued (separate from this one) to all appec'priate levels of un management /superiision for their review and action. These reports indicate responsib t party f or action , type deficiency, subject area, vendoe, etc. so that middle and firs their status Level management / supertision are aware of quality related deficiencies ,

and their disposition.

• Unit II Page 2 This nonth's report is reorganized in regards to statistical data provided. More emphasis is placed towards showing the number of QA deficiencies in a Division's house that need action of some type. The report also indicates the number of open deficiencies that have been open greater than 90 days, as well as those open greater than ISO days. This 90/180 day data is orientated to those that need Division Accion i.e. , response due, committed corrective action incomplete and response due, etc.

To assist Division personnel who are responsible to track QA deficiencies in their own hou'se, the Septe=ber report will provide a special list by deficiency number of

• all 90/180 day deficiencies our logs show in their Division. This list can be compared with their own records and can be used to assure the tracking systems match each other.

SIGNIFICANT IMPLEMENTATION / EFFECTIVENESS ITEMS L. QA Engineering review of Receipt Deficiency Notices (RDN's) relating to lack at Certificates of Ccmpliance indicates in the last six months that 237. less RDN's have been issued for that reason. This implies that the C of C guidance provided by QA Engineering to Engineering last year has reduced this type of deficiency to some extent and potentially has stopped some of the inappropriate requests fo'r C of C's from vendors when not needed.

2. TMI Unit I has still not issued the Drawing Utilization Procedure in the A?1001 series. This procedure would requir.e that up-to-date drawings are used. It requires the use of a controlled copy or a verified copy of a drawing to perform work. 0QA is working with the Operations and Maintenance Director to obtain issuance. A similar problem exists in TMI Unit II.

3. Quality Control has identified a problem in getting Technical Functions onsite to sign Conditional Releases for Operations on TMI Unit LI. QC is being directed to of f site dersonnet for sianature. This is not timel.. Ef Technical Functions ,

continues to direct qC offsite, the :CNCR procedure will have to be chan2ed to give TME Unit II Recovery Programs the signature authority or the site will have to rely on Plant Engineering signature only.

L.

TMI Unit II has converted over to the Maintenance Work Schedule Review Program for QC activities. This replaces a significant portion of qC in-Line review of in-scoce Job Tickets and has proven to be very ef fective and ef ficient in TMI Unit I. Minor problems were encountered at the start, but have been corrected by TMI Unit II Maintenance.

5. 0QA Review of TML Unit II completed Job Tickets is still in progress. This review is to assess the adequate documentation of maintenance activities which could aftect design and to determine if adequate up-front Job Ticket detail was provided to Maintenance to assure design is not compromised. Aonroximately 10% of 800 Job Tickets reviewed to date have been identified as potential nroblem areas and are beinz forwarded to Plant Enzineering, Maintenance or OC for further evaluation.

0QA is reviewing Job Tickets in Unic I to assure similar problems do not exist.

. ~

e

Unit II

~

" Page 3

\

f, '

6. Recent monitorings of TMI Unit II Quick Look Program activities had identified problems with Bechtel Work Packages. The Bechtel Work Package is not proceduraliz and cannot be used to accomolish important to safety work activities on the unit.

B RECOMMENDATIONS / ACTIONS REQUIRED s

z

1. Bechtel Work Package use should be proceduralized as soon as possible and should not be used to perform Important to Safety work activities unless sufficient b,3 administrative etc. , are notified controls appropriately are applied before that assures work Plant Operations, coc:mences and are givenQuality Control the opportuni for review. .

2 Administrative Procedures for control of drawings in the Unit and their use in

(,N . work activities should be issued as soon as possible.

3. Maintenance should assure that sufficient design details are provided in Job

, Tickets prior to commencing work and Maintenance supervision should assure suf fici

' detail is provided on the completion of work activities such that de termination ca

,j be made that design was not impacted by the maintenance activity.

Y c._ C b c_Li u 2,.

3. E. Ballard, Sr. ,

Manager - n!I QA Modifteations/Operattons

_ - _ - _ - _ _m_____

e e

O ""7 '

Ne- z o

O 4

-=- .

neem mamm GE S . - .

samma ymmme gf$

U "J C

m C C - - 0 0 - O C *f Oj r p-N

[ p g < }

g 3

-. } _3_

4 ka m

W% a

- g. . . _ _ _ . . _-. _ s_ - -. - --

W 7 i summ. -m'-= -

emme memn s.

C S ,,,, ,,,,, ,,_ ,m m , -

m unmes Q e J C 4 23 0 -

a O O m o n' A 4 , - ~

=

g u vg g ~

- 4

m. _ -

- - mm m -

X

{,l g a 3

g g mm mumm,, m

,=-_,,,,_,_,,_,,,,,,,,,_,,,,,,,,----=i=.=

,a g l-O 9

';; g= g a= c

= r o e

- e o

~ o

-- .=l=-

- t. 7- _ _ _ _ -

M

=

- 3 "p ~- a ___.-..--.-.---7o e M Q N - m j c s e c J Q A numai w w

9 w

=

C C e

. - . mum N

==

-- i.mmam ==m--. m-- . i ===='

, j =

, y - - --  ;

1- - C g..

g *

"* m .. ummme , < meme

.O, en u C se M e aa as C W-

- e C C C 0 C C Q  %

o

• C. .C. =e == == **

== c m g e na 4 4 w **

"9

= a V 1 E Z e 4 3 f. *3 e "e J

• m.m E .ee me E E' 8 -

Q d me d E o e e e == e 0 -

G G # - **

3 w %9 a. > > g 3 3 y e 4 O 9 O U Q t ee == es 3 a=

we .E 3 3 a ==.s a u a - s **

g ,, e ., w g y g es ='d a 3 -8 4 to K e y g g g w 1 M O O y 3 - D W ** = **C 88 J g 3 3 N. U M b 7 ** g w 3 n  % 3 > .U ***. 3

$ be 83 3 g J 30 D na 3 E

.E.

ame S "3

• 3 3 Y-e Vt i.

G Z m% Q Z O O "$ Z  %"

umm-- em musum m seem p b 3  % 0. = b"" Q 2. '

=. "3 ,8,,

> g =3 C

g c 3 e ** J ." .l".

U. &. v. - u d u ud - .

3 me C -O O'

x - w > w w w

- == - #

d M 3 5

m.

C 3

.,. a .

haum meme mumme m.m. .c m

==

6 e

m

=*

v /- Uz 2 w w w a E

U C ** a A -  !

as the O ec #.

g t

- i- - . m _

ia > ==

=>

=

-m.m -

b

- -c ti< 1 iis -

- ~ c. .

2

$ 0

• 4 4 - - 3 v et W $

= -= -

2 , 0 C

= . h 1 e #

A , es 7 "3

- = Z 4 W 3 2

.u. == 3 .G. 2 w a. =

< w  :. m =* 1 3 e 1

> 8 9 3 M M E .

4

- .S 5 a. 3 m. ""-'

- vt u we < <C g

v _--m -- -

1 E E =

e - = =  : ( =l n, - t l = i l

'l~ -l

= .=-,3 m

, -l .l _ L- ] ,_ J

.d "3 - - - 2. -xa ,_ _ , _ _, ,,,,,, ,,

= z 3

-  : o = o  %-

" g= mm.m um mm -. -

7 7

==

Q N ---7 4

• • 3

-. ** M l -.e ,N a. == N == .N "J M O == -.  % ri

- e.

33" - mamma mamm samma i mi -- um-i E sumium nummme mums men- .mma ,

3 nemme nummme w ,,_

o a - ---a s-i== ---

= c - - - ==-

2 .* e S a= ].= - - - . - . - - - .

= m 4 m - -' le er L e

- _, . =-. -

.= gl= ' ._ .

g. ._

,$, 3. .

. - - -l -

- l- ,

-===== '

g nm.m .-

mi

.m.. .mmm. . .mmmm.,

< c

- - = , -

-t

.um-.

=

--.=

= 1 g .

i< -

1----

l o.

mmm w m l

===== L ' i== -

le ' ===='

l 3 ]i

"" == s = = = .-- ==.--

gi}

$i "y" 0  %

.s

- - i I

lO

.- = .

=

y 21

.[

33s ai 1 $3 a

• J 1 7 es 4 w g es n.

O  %

3 w g C = as =

38 - g

$ ** 2 4' 3 ** O e w y - - C ==

g o -

3 w

Ci

• b C as

= w h.e ut #

e m

s -

• E 3 -

2 E 5 4 3

=

33 w-2 e

f3o- .

• • q

• y w e

3 3 .

p

== **

3 =

b w

g

==

ae 1  % 38 g .a  % .e - M 3 he

• * '* ed *he a'8 40

))=

=

8

=w

"* g

. A.

g =5 w w w

=

w

=

=

3 w

. .a.

w w

= 1 = = 3 g a .

-  % ,3 ,

3 y , - == 3 m a. d ,

u === 3J . se 3 m -s a w 1

• 1 8 :r ** ,. . ., .

= 3 == w 3 *J

. n u =

3 A D 3 .s.e y 6 g a

vt

==

t.

S. Q 2 8. G W== == =

I U* 1 X< e,.

g 3

= = = 3  %  % -

D "u 3 *3

g. - - g e .

w

,= ,;=, y a

y v

g r

w -] u se .u$ # ,,

= w w w us 3

• 18

- =-

a>

a.

= = --o o

2g 3 e-a

,=,

i w

s, a J,

,e

= : 2 5 a z 2 3 - -

s u 2 a.

1

= -- -

e "g E

• p ~

, g.

aI o .

.. s- .m m. .m m , .. - sum.m. g .J*

- - . men. m

.* ,, - m s J *h. C N C C C 3 * * $ C' 3 ., N e

,3  % 4 N 4 a

N r=

.C . - 7 U - - - _

.p.0..e C ma

=.

,,i - ,,

• • .J " -. -

C ,d - W d".

4 < ~ .5 r ~

l a.

3

<."==

23 2' =2 g e m

QC C . D. < .=. - . - . - = =,- .-== - - - ==- 2 - a e se. .e .o = O Q C = Q -

= = -. - -

e c c c =

e. i .=g

-o A ,e,s

= . - . - _,- ,.-. J__-- - a 4

g

=

j CAQA - . .

=, .: -

w. . .

. =

gl .; a

~ ~ e - e - -

.. 3 ~ ~ ~ < ~ ~

., a.

s

. o. -

g, g e. _ --. .- _ _ _ - _

a6<; a &

g .,

- -. . - o - _

. c.

eo I

_ _ -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ g _. -

,.; y y -

e o -- o - o _

a _ <, e ~ - = ,,

a 3

z  %. *. .n.  : r., ; ; = .  ;

- _ - - -- - o _

g g.=g3 _ _ _ _ - -

%. M

• 3

.'*==

g W W .

p "u en an g . <

cQ . Q. W 5 . m 2.g a.s Ea.s #

J

==-- -. - .- - - - - ===. - - M -

. $ "j q -

- - . - = ~ .  :  ::_

m

.r -!aa p .

=

E 4._., t

$ i .- .

,s = a a 1 z, .

t= 0 F

, =, - -

8 - ." ^

O' __ - < Md l3; --

-g =

=

-g _ ___- - -_

= <  ; E " , .- - -

^ ,

c  ;; ~ = ~ .

M..< : j

~ w -- ms -

J

,3 2- o

<._~ .-.

, w ng ca  ;  :

i

- . u m 3 - - _

. g,, -

u_ .

- ---_ - -___- - .= =r g : ;i J _

- e e - = ~ i

, - ,== . = ~ , - -

- n o =

m . 2

-<-o-.--__

_ .. .= =a .= , ,.

w .

=- - .

y

, , . ,-- - ,, 3

, o e - - _ _ _ _

o - e o , . ., , .

~

- o ,,

,- - =

.- , .== . <

< -ea .- - _- _ =, --. .d g

w a .-

3 e.

u.

-2. ~u o 2.

E -

m - e e . ~ ~ ,, =

~

- ~ -

~,- m ,. , .

o

-a gc a;

- _ _ _ m. _ - - . _ _ -  ; ag a

< , ~ :; ,

- - - _ - _ _ - - - -3 -

c - = ~ e = - = = = = = 1

.a .

E .?

2 -

= 25

~- 2 - _ -- - - .

= - o = ,

c. -3 . .

b j

=

[]E mm. --

e a o o a - = =,

a - c - - -

';

• 2 i t  ! ,- (-~

.- .= ~

- - _ _ - - _---- _ p =j 3 ;

2 a l

a. A aC l

,O

.-me .m.m -m. - .- mm -,

} .

E' C C = Q C C C C 3 - -

i- u o imummme. um m.

m. h - _ -

"i .,

.=-" .==. .- - m _ === ' - -- i m.

[: # **

-,,_y .,,,

s, "

E ~ < ~ - -

g . ~ = e = ~  : i R!, =i ;t -  ;.__ .- -

- ,g 3 to a ,

- - - - - - - - , ,=

, l = -

l 2, . - 2

, =- - .m - == --. 4  %~~

as l h m.m.= -

• m.m=.- .-.= e m. . - .

g g

?

3

($

.=

5 .=

3 o - - - = - o e o o o -

=

M 2

O

• C -

33 2 " " " " ' """"" """" "'""" """'" """

n .*

7= & W

==

b

.e as

.""""."'"""""""'"""""h.'

C 3 =

o 2

" .= ..

=

C

• .=. to C

3

.s 5

C' = = a 3 3 .e es Ea.  %

• g es . o.

h e O aa .e 3

w y a - = " e Z

• == .. C w g

a. ==

=.

W e #

3 h < e.

-"r E =*

5 .e 9 C == 4

3. .D.

• 2 - a. 3.

1

3. w4.c

.A. 3 1 me J

> Z d 3

• D =.

m h.

. 3 .> w< Q a

3 ww = ,c.,

i .m , s .v.

- . .C . s OO E, .d $ h O , S .8 ) .$ O b .8 M $ . t S 2

-E a 4  :  % = =. c. =..

"; ==

to =.

'as ==

= c g =*

>=

J w *.* 3 3 9 i.3 1

= 1 w

on 99 J 3 == ..

= Z & 4 1 . as C -f . 1 1 7 C' 2. Z to Zt

.a I'=' Q M Z 3 at - '30 W Z M ""C

• 2 =C

l .

ATTACHMENT 4 i

October, L982 NFORMATiON OhLY , . . , .1 .

[riE Nuclear

(,

- E REE V ' ._E IS _AN J NL Ci EAR S-~ATION _

Q.1 RECORC OR G NA_ COPY

. h_,m..

r P. a:s

.$y-J *: ;pe%

-f %) Ly W .g?

eW -

M-- ' ee  :.p..-

[4

-. k'.h-?.. ik ASS ES S:tE!;T O F THF.

I:TLE'IENTATION A';D EFFECTIVE iESS OF THE QUALITY ASSUuMCE PRCCRXt To: Director, TML Unit II Director, Quality Assurance ee: Vice-Prestjent/ Director, 73I gnie t Deputy Director. TMC Unit EI Executive Vice President Vice-President /Directo r, Technical Fune t tan.,

Vice-President /Di' rector, Administ ration Vice-President / Director, Nuclear Assurance Vice-President /Direc to r, ::alntenance .:nd Const ruc t ton Vic e-? res iden t/ fs i rec to r . Rad lological .ind Environr en tal Cont rols i'A3 See t ton ::ana:ers s

To: Director, T12 Unit II Fecm: Manager - TMI QA Modifications / Operations Subj: Monthly V?/ Director's Report for October, 1982 General Discussion This report is submitted for infor=ation and use in manage =ent's continual assess-sent of the i=plementation, status, and eff ectiveness of the Q.A. Progras on the Unit. Input into this report is provided by the Quality Assurance Design / Procure =ent, Recommen-Modifications / Operations and Program / Audit Section of the Q.A. Department.

dations or constructive criticism on the content or scope of this report are encouragt ar.d requested. The initial distribution of this report is limited, but Divisions are As this encouraged to distribute copies as they see fit within their organizations.

report is a Quality Assurance Record, copies are maintained in the site's Q.A. Record Vault. When significant events or problems require f ormal management action to be taken in accordance with Q.A. Plan requirements, these actions may periodically be identified and requested in this report. These type actions will normally be limited to tho.se proble=s or events which are of such significance or nature that they either p rogr am-require = ore than one organiration or division to resolve or are significant matic proble=s that require high level canagement no tif ica t ion .

There are four different categories of QA Department deficiency reports discussed in this report. They are described below:

5 A. QUALITY DEFICIENCY REPORTS (QDR's) 0eficiencies other than caterial noncompliances of hardware items, usually

~

issued to document sof tware of activity items such as procedural noncompliance, procedure inadequacy, f ailure to meet coesitsents , etc . .

3. MA!ERIAL NONCDNFORMANCE REPORTS (MNCR's)

>bterial deficiencies pertaining to hardware structures , syscams , or cocponents  ;

which render the quality of the item unacceptable or indeterminate.

C. RECE!?T DEFICEENCY REPORTS (RDN's)

Used to '.cu. ant and track purchased items which arrive on site lacking Purchase Order required documentation such as Certificates of Compliance or test reports.

RDN's are always issued against the GPUN Materials Management Group for resolutta with vendor. A copy is provided to the material user.

D. AUDIT FINDING Used to docusent and track QA peogrs=matic deficiencies of either GPUN or vendors Contractors.

Each month a detailed report on the status of MNCR's , QDR's , Receipt Deficiency Notic anu Audit Findings is issued (separate from this one) to all appropriate levels of ur management / supervision for their review and action. These reports indicate responsit party for action, type deficiency, subj ect area, vendor, etc. so that middle and fir Level management / supervision are aware .of quality related deficiencies, their status and their disposition.

Unit II Page 2 .

SIONIFICANT IMPLEMENTATION /EFFECTIVINESS ITDiS (1) Activity / Deficiency Su= mary Figures / Trends Activities Mo nth YTD Month YTD' OQA Monitorings: 66 (87) 692 QA Audits: 1 (l) 13 QC Inspections: 133 (57) 825 QA/QC Document Reviews: 159 (204) 2608 Deficiencies Issued Closed Total 'Maaining Quen*

Month YTD Month YTD 'YTD 90 davs 180 dave

! QDR's/ Audit Findings: 3 (14) 58 5 (5) 106 71 (77) 4 (1) 23 (40)

ENCR's/RDN's: 14 (9) 154 9 (7) 111 52 (53) 11 (7) 26 (14)

YTD - Year to Date () - Last Month's Figures

• Indicates those with Division Action Due (2) Operations Quality Assurance has completed the review of Unit 2 Job Tickets as part of the response to NRC Inspection Repo'rt 50-320/82-10. The review was' perfor=ed to check the adequacy in addressing technical requiraments in the preparation of work requests and for the adequacy of detail in the Job Ticket resolution. Of the 1,137 Job Tickets reviewed, 117 were identified as having potential design concern. Quality Control is performing field verification on 31 Job Tickets to check as-built conditions. 86 Job Tickets were forwarded to Plant Engineering for evaluation. Some additional administrati probless discovered were also sent to Plant Maintenance for review. Engineering and Maintenance are planning to disposition the items and issue a final report and status. Corrective actions, where required, will be identified in their reps

//

(3) There continues to be confusion and concern about the use of ES-Oli to determine safety classification for components. ES-011 currently provides system level info r=a tion. In January, 1982, an action plan was developed and agreed upon by Quality Assurance, Plant Engineering and Maintenance departments of both units, to provide component level infor=ation for saf ety classification. This involved Plant Engineering reviewing the previous quality classification list (GP-lG08),

q' updating it to reflect the ES-011 categories, and then incorporating it into b ES-Olt as an interpretation. This has not been dona in either Unit. Unit 2 has drafted a component level list for recovery systems but has not issued it yet. Lack of action in this area continues to cause problems and delays in job planaing, procurement of =aterial, and withdrawal of warehouse material.

Priorities appear to be a significant problem in solving this issue. Initial indications are that TMI Unit I personnel may still be usiag GP-1008 versus #

g the new ES-Oli process for interpretations. ,

.(4) A Scc p Work condition occurred in Unit 2 involving repeated violations of QA "'

// Program requirements for work being performed prior to the engineering document /

work authoriration being issued. Engineering personnel were verbally dictating

, ,q changes to construction personnel and work was being perfor=ed prior to

- issuance ot the necessary design changes and work authorizations. A meeting

- Unic II Pogs 3 was held with Unit 2 management and acceptable corrective action was_taken.

Short-term corrective action was completed i=cediately and the Stop Work Notice was not issued. A similar problem occurred earlier in the year which was resolved to some extent by a procedure change that provided better flexibilit7 to perform work. This is being reviewed by Unit 2 personnel for possible application in Unit 2 as one of the per=anent fixes to prevent reoccurrence to the problem.

b' 1

RECOMMENDATIONS / ACTIONS REOUIRED y 9

It is recommended that Management assess the priority of establishing component level information for safety classification.

Y 0 QJJ0.a.- o B. E. Ballard,.Sr. ,

Manager - TMI QA Modifications / Operations

~~

Huntle/Ysdr i Oc t ol*c t u l182 4UAI.ll'V ASSURANCE ACTIVITIES surutAuv Unitt 1118 - I C THi-fi h .

QA/ E L*.scument Wevleus QA Audits QA Nettsrloa QC l**p*ct h 11D VTD Witti quM/HNCit Noint ti YTD Honth YTD Nath TTD Nuth YTD Comments Immued I 13 101 049 Seg,eJuled Ibn Procedures / Plans / Programs 67 12 Started Scheduled 6f 692 Performed IM 825 Engiswering Documents / Coispleted Performed VenJur anJ Cuntractor -l 61 (Immued) Findings Issu=J Q6R's/lt4CR's

~

14 QDR's/194CR's

' SI' Immued IssueJ Pusci.ame Rega/ Orders t l 9 s!

Audited Securttv .

Osk llequest/Wask Sctwdules Areau Work Authoriantions 20 f,9' J hintsu.lacc.1 enn a. ..., e s na Ot Isar O 4sivieunmental Cuntrole

• Haterlatu m nagement

• In Progress l

HI)NB10NINC/lHSPECT10N ACTIVITY BitEAKOUT Inspectlon Honi s u r init YTD VTD PerIormeJ qun/tuttit PerIormeJ Quk/tuiCR ScheduleJ Nuth VTD Immued Scheduled Huntia 11D leeued t29 Fire Protection l 0l operettuiw/ Tecti Speca l f 2 22 Receiving A i. i f]6]

E.idi neering civil / Structural Stert Up/ Testing b

Ih Hech Preventive Haint R4J Controls / Environ Hecti Corrective Heint Ciemistry 5

Hech HoJ/ Installation

, Admin / Security Elec Preventive Haint Tr elating l k il f 2

Elec Currective N int Fire Frutection 4

Elec Hod / Installation Weirchuusing/Stures Welding 22 HDE/ Welding I

• IEC Preventive Haint Hedle Prev...tive Haint 0 IEC Corrective Haint f Ncle Cat'rective Haint ILC Hod / Installation l f. l 24 Elec/lc Preven Haint ISI HDE Elec/IC Correct H. sing Hodu/Installatton HDE j

nrrMfl nMrY1fkmo g l

~ " ""

.$ = 7 ,

• 1 y 3 e -

~ Og m.

i I

a aC me-

,38k x, -. --. m .--

n-- - ==- - ==== ,

M e * == C C P == 33 CI m """".'.'"g"""c C 1 N t"*

• N L e m a.

eS en .o -.c.

3C e enum um-, , - ,

W e=a h

, , . . u.--, . mmmm . .am d g ~ ,-

"y . 3 <$ " 2 N D lO M

S

- e. a gCC ===.- - sa=- g g 3 - e =r m.-=.

b ==

6 Q h - i.em- i -.m. . mass , sm-m. samme e o e - e o < g y 3

~ ~

==

- . <x =.e,g e - - c - . , , .

(

• e  %-~ a g = - - - - - < e

5. o a Oe-* - see z e w

-"* .1 C7A2m W 3 =

Q >= 3

• g .e em 3=

S a b a G amm. a. e 9 > 0 ammme --. --, -. - -

e C 3 e ** ** .--,

E a8 **

m.- - -

e < = I

~ < M e 4 - e o -

~

l g .t .y g ". ,g a -

g, g= -_ - - - - - - - ,

l1 e 3 g;d5-ad<

a

==

e=

maamm --

l "" Y J O

.U p

, *; 8 g-e ,--- - - - - - - - , -

e. 6 , -

q g < c c c C 4 = m g 3

a C = c c =

w g e C ,a 'e -mm

• > ,j - -

x -

l g $ ,8 g 3 - - .

"* m W

eO a e

=

i HW b - ---

]

.= d N ~ug ---,

w

1. C 9 w=-. -

a q

• .C

~ y =g e C h=

u

$*.g~g 3 c a - o -

• o o - a 4 2l me m .

j E g 2* U 4 '8 .-mmu ==.- mm-me .-mm- - - . . .---- m.m.- - mesa.- ==-

O, C" -== ,

h h 24 D '

=

- g

> U C 2 w M ., , w

< C "C 3 sue g 3 amma summme unusuu ummum m- m mmmm ummum *A e

O c .

my

- E mamm summe mammme s-amm ummmu

& E .C -.

, 8 0 =r == C == 4 m a,, a

'A a

• • • • • =*

a a ** y r 4 ,0 4 =3

~ -

2 3

a.

W ea g, a m

=e ga m%

O 2,

3 ** U - m=

3

• • 7O4] mens mem- ummm , muusi .umma mumu ,

mumme mammu . .

mm-m .

- 5

>-5 h3

> a c:

h d~

d

'e w y

== fn 3

e * -

U - j C,

7 - - - - - - - - -

e e J z

w e

o e -*

C C N M N 4 - c c -

-= e

• g y - ,

a ad *5 =5* W Q s "*"' ~ """=' '

• C 3 =* b _ , , - ,,,,, ,2 2

>= aC W Q - _ , - . - , ,

=

b 8 - - - -

z .; y e 2 . , , ,

=

- o a e ~ e - 3  ;;

.. e 4 e e e ~

m r= = . , , , } --

a -s u a a a 3= =. =C =

< ** G" C - - - -, -, .--- - - .-- m. - - ,

- W - 4g a 'S

• • X u

J

" * W 22 3 es a 2 s"'"

• • W 23 aa 3 w m- W 3e- p.

==

m.mmmm. -mem , mm-- , - - . - - summma - mum _ .

=

Y -

" * ~* W G

$ M J 3 M e e M N N M se.

J-3 **

3* = . 4,e 3 m - - . .* "8"* "3 y ., . n w as 8

as a p

,e

_-,se,- - .- _- ,

.nemmum m-., - ,

7"*."

3 at

.g g u--- - m--' m-==. mm-- memes

_ 3 3 r g g .",=  ;:; ,

o e a c o ~ o o ~ --

.= g .3  ; = - -

's

.a =s 3

8- ,,

)

-A '* ~ - --- .,,,- - - - ,

" " O D Q- U 3

g3 whw j

8 1 "*'" '*"""""'d d"" Q 3" h """

.- umumm 3 f,l, m.m- sm-mm ums-m -- ,

e-mm unna -mi .--a mamme amm.au - = j W 7 2OM O == C == =* =* A e C C Q 4 -

• 2e

>* =i C C 3 ** 2 ---. - - - - m,

" =" m, .h ~~ $ ,

w - - -

- -

• E%- 4 == .- ml

%.J O em

.y J . -mu , -

-, an===i 8 Z e 'J 3 "2 mumm. me.-- s-- --.m. .-m-. m -mau m-, . - - ,

il Z A at ----

'C -

e e o o e e o e o  ;

g ..; e e o "

2 - _ .-- - - .- -- - -  ; g,

.- E 9 b 3 m-, ==== .--.- - m-u ** = == m

==.ma c'.,

S e

M C N O e C ** 3 E

a 3<

==

~ \ f,3 -

N O O,- is e e  % 3% T

. =

P >* 3 W

3 g j = g._l-l gg .

- .- - ammm S *g m s

a. 3

• 3 == 5 , - . ,

as .

• • *C ==,,

.m , , , , - - ,

m C 3 c c 3 ** 1 g w 2 %e .

ee c == == - 3 2

.3 3 .g g

c e  ;

% e g 1 y

g 3g1

}--_..-. . -

e a

w i

• C e he a 3 k.{ 00 3 = 3 =

3" e.

o e - o w o e ~ w 3 a i

s-e a w w o = w e a =* = w w *w

.o. e w 8. u == .a= me a O 9 a <

8 s .. * *

.a. a* p y C w .C.  !

3 c C 8 h 4

• • ** =l == C C ** ** == aJ at 3 g

. - 3 ha W C to Q D4 2 3 CJ P Q ho 3 <C

==4-.

3 f,

W P

• ai=. C  % 4 -

> es 2 U * =e 4.= ,h .n.

== 9 3C e C U C D. $.

,= i . E ~=

a 3 C se .

3 e $ **

+ s ' n.d.. - g- >

.3 - - a o - .

as u

=

==

Z y

as -.

1 u

W 9 8 -

E g

y U

Z 1

al =< z 7 3 -

g w,

3 y 9 $,' 4 Q E" Z m 'C H c > ci s * > zI k >=

I

, - _ . 3

I l

l 1

1 ATTACHMENT 5 m.-- -~ - - - -

Page /_etj QUAUTI ASSURAtlCE MOCI.clCAT10flS.:GPERAT10f15 SECTI REVIEW

SUMMARY

l Reviewed Sy: GC / OCA D.A. No: 20095-8S 1

/ /

U n s.....

p.:,iew er:

~

, AttAH' N $hAJ2. Y$%. Due Name 0ccumen: Tit:e: l J/T L &AA b^Jf Ad -lESV

/ Rev: .

Oate: S '/[-83 Occumen: No:%- -% / ~ U-7~P r'4t ur/_ t ro /W7x ~r3 Ify:e 09- C:~ !;a-c. 1] _

J.

c . --: r,! C ::(

F =c varv en'!: aesurance 9r Cemliar :e: Ig Nc:

S e t. U. sat. A :!!:/-

A. ( :

r I I I I I V'

1. Organi:ation e .C T' - e' e - 6 I -

.a _  ;  ;

2. Cuali:y Assurance Program

.M,=. - 4 Jt  !

L. %bG

-6 '

'.-~r.;,

ue . r-(y [.7e n- r9. ..p

, --  % - r i

3. Design v,,en: :,. J.'j, ' *k

' i i j , ,

l '

• i 4 Pre:uremen: 00:umen: C n: :: , 'e '.! -

i i , ,

5. ins: ructions. Pr::edures and Orawic;s

! r i

C: ument C:n: -!  : i f l I i  ! i

7. Cen: :! Of Purenase f.tateriais. E:ui:mer.:. 4 .: Services S Iden: fi:sti:n and C:n: ! :f .'.13:eria!s : arts 5. C:m;:enen:s _,

' .i  :

,, l, f -

. C ntre' :: s sc:2..-r::ss:es i .

l 2

- l /-

C. 'ns:e:::.:n I

-s i

! f-

Tes: C:n::::

• '. 00.-:.:! Of '.;eascri. ; and Tes: E;ui::me9: -

I

/: .

s j i ' ' V l .C. Han : ;. S::::;3 a.-d Shi: .n; i j I .

1 In s: e::.ca. Tes:. and 0:ers:i: ; 5:3:us > . ,

l

! I  ! I i v

' 5. .;cn::rf er. :n; ?.'.a:erials. Par:s. cr C :-: ents N -, I i

l I '

b-

• 3

. C rte::!vt A :icn CA :.e::r:s 9 .

I .- .

1

'* M

5. C '. : *

• 1 - : - , p l/ A I 4 L

, "/

5 C.::a. e.- 0:.- r:: .:es:: s.:n r

, 1 C. US*.PC :e;W ::ry Gu.:es

• - . * ~.. * * : " * : a

. '::: jQ o ).*

1 l

i 4

l I l f I 1

a* &-*,e a l

Inter-Offica M,emorandum .

P y

n u.2rch s, i m I.3 0-S3-3% 2 r[ [

%]hghh[

Sw:;ec: Co.=ient Resolution: Polar Crane Load Tes: Procedure .

'Oca90-Three ".ile Island Uni: 2 To J. C. Fornicola Trailer 103 . ...

Operations OA "anager  :., ., e : 0 ,20 3. 2,f a, ,,00 .u.

The Polar Crane Task Grvup has revieeed ::: cc ne .:s on the Polar Crane i_ cad The resolution Tes: Procedure as pre,ented on D.R.N. 205C3-53 da:ed 3/3,'S3. .. .

c:. each of chese cor.. tents is presen:ac ce,cv:

,. r- m .

e. f r % '

~

3 m r. e. n e. . ..s. .v.

e F " . -- .

C 3w. . ,. ,.u- e. .O .

4 . .

I "ove r ?s:e ?.e . ised .

, , v. ., ..s. ,. ., s. a.e ;. .

s .. .,. . . . .

--<.4.,.

. t.. ., 3 ,u.....

.. .m ,,

i $.

. .. .,. .. . . : - ,. 4=m.

. . e. : .

(d) Sec:ic: added.

(e) Starks added.

(f) Not necesser'r in this crocedure.

.in, .

.- .= . . c. 2. . . n o. . ... .,.

f. 3 ,,

7. .. .- +. . . '. .'. . . ' >. . . 3. .s .' '. . .i s. . . .- 7 .' : . ' . , - . . - -

( h ) . .= >- . .

...u.. s. . . e n. .

• e ,:: . , 2.

i.' . .. .: .. .. .. 2. ..3. 2

<1)

,. , . ; s . . : .; . .. g . -. .., . . ..

. . . . . :....,... . 3..

u . . . . . _ . ...

3 Dele:ed by ^J

_2...

.= ....... . ... . . . ..., .... . , .4 .. k...., ... . .., ..

..w. . . . . . . ..

,e : ,- 2 . , . .

, 2. ., e ..

. . 4. c. .... , e v. ... . . . < , . m. .

., ,..... .. .. u 4.

.=~.'..s.2".2..' .. ' - c..;' . . . . #. 2'7 m..>. . ' . . .

4 su-.=....'..'.

3,. w.,,0.,,$. , r.r e3.~

1.> q..) . . T ; - 0 ;, O /*

5

.g .ee'.

. . . . = . . . - > . . " . <. . .--~.6=..=.

=>..

. . . = . . . . . ..- '. bl.'

6 i

l

~

l n:rci l

' 7 Tor.oera ure cill be obtained " re-,s.4. Du::., .t . , . < d,2 .ee,.

.L,, o _.. n. , ,. ...e..v. .. ( 2. n m. . , .

2...,....,; < n . a . . . .6

.e...,1,.,... 2......sss. .

. . . . ,. . J,a n. - , . .... . . , . . ,

.. 2.e

.e .

a....

=,*,.,.. .s..

. e2 .... .u,,.s..e.

c 2....a. . . -- . . :.. ... . . . . .. ....,s.,..2 . . . . . . . c. u. .s .. . . ..

.4..,.

. a . < . . .: c . t. y. , .

"* AA **

& Y Mf* $*** hl/

. * )

k/C< b Dt'kh- W $*Crrs%c Sf.>/tG^J h-Wp, "*SAs! CCAJs~AC.,:?

4x ,4 e a c a, x. ., ,u 3 d.u 6^1 n Asc G &<c:.t) n Gw'fA tr <.. ,e ~ ;: ,. . a n yn ,,. . .

4

. 1 i . - .

4370-83-5002 March 8, 1983 J. C. Fornicola Page 2 I

I.

! l RESOLUTION COMMINT NO.

l 9

There was no confusion prior to this con =en:.

Any indication greater than 360,000 pounds will enhance load test results. .

10 Coordination with SL'5T Manager will be cade to insure tes and scop'e are placed in MTX.

11 All T.I. 's have been reviewed.' Adjus =en:s to this procedure have been cade where deemed appre-pria:e.

~

You should expect :o receive revision 3 cf :he Polar Crane Load Tes Procedu're fer i signature this week. If there are ane quas: ions , please codtac ':ike Rad':ill a:

ex:ension SS53.

/

g/'l

. y[$t' <

/D. M. Lake Manager, Recovery Operations h

(bik-ME?.:j=b A :achnen:: Docu=en: Review No. 20093/33 s'a ". ~ cy ~

f%

cc: R. L. Freenerman, w/a V frf' I- 0- ;. / -

T"'

M . ..s. ?ss:or, we,a D. . Suchanan, w/a e n n .e R. .~. 3arkanic,.w/a * -N ..'s; !.,. /g. . e ;- i y y R. L. Rider, w/a .

d,$1'.(% yu. r, A

Jk//'[/e^ .

2 1

e

a : a c..z.a - : .  ; . 2 - > >. . - u . s . .: , ,

~

4~

QUALITY ASSURANCS MOOlFICATIONS/ OPERATIONS SECTION Page 1 of

~

k DOCUMENT COMMENT

SUMMARY

N W #"A E

~: c k- Y '-

T'D e

• l-

' L.ccaD on -

Ncmu -

The subject documen has been reviewed sad the c:mmentslisted below are transmined for your ansn tion wita :ne identified reviewer.

• BOA /) YsM~ #0/2 G $ A f ( fEs'7AJ f Document

Title:

Revision Nc: 2 Document Ca:e: 7 7/'--P3 Dacument No: 4'4.7 4'3~1c- 5M/ .f C3 C'D 4" ' ,C M,%.-; 3~5'>- ~

- 3 ~TI' ~>5 Document Review No: '1 4 0 9 3 - i 3 op Dats of Review:

a'd4*b"'25 l #W7 $l$0 0 ~'AOfl?" SS'['b' Olsu'~0 51yitw Based On: ' c@

A?/eOv J r# c<

l > 5'.'4 / 't A e/ . 'ihi- 2_

. . r -- , ..

6 % QU l'[{We'r C:mmen: L~ M. k.*d i U ~~ r ?

Commen-Fage Sec !cn. Pars, w :x w'::w;;a u : u. ... '/ ,

No. ,.:ne or Cwg. ,

%n_3/.//-r .a -etw w c ,~c.4t m - o y <.

4. e ccaira s.un i

t L;w'~ / fa/ . ?f? 6',/ , 4.s2^<" 6 7f.6 7' ,c' i h sc r 8

! A C c's~ MAT < sC/~

p sJO Th.!r, r2 P/',c' a vw c. es 7ss--

e l \ \ l /. f S uc ^7'$ . .

I I

p .:.t f

s vMicuh 1

V >R'O :, t 5'Ai6- C6 ta O 12' F w '/79A:r t) 6 6_~> mc. 7- S%

-- i t L/A.J/ / / /DE /J L' J'f('f/ //2 A /'rJff)TS

-/ -racas . s/2 s-- /

s o e ?Wft/f /E!) s e.> i 2.

, ' - fnti. ,a es nes ~7 i

/d, I

'ic) A.a o s -J i ~~' i n t A < sa -> se S fea Fus4cic s s /,

s t ()*:

^.iu s>*s-s =A' s n$ s;.se .://s/ps)

~'

t t t e.=* #f vo r c n f f l l so* - TM=$ j. '('/* f ' A f s-V A /j/* A f / 4 4 .* y-t< r.-sh -= 4 , s , - uj r. o.' C#J ,~,s (r f 41,+ f.u g 6 M e / i, s -

P'KA s's s*"s-- Tsu AJ /

t I .r2 e_ .e'_* :b. 1 is *'4/}:///fA f) s--C# A n'/d 6*'

ii" S w.' U c f) iSA sJ s'. 7A/) /*4 b l M ? *s=**% 2 1 s #- AJC 7

>r .asss='l AJ/A iv < / f 7~scos.) 2, l \ 1 s .. M*.A

-r ,- p r a s. ;/ s r/p c ,* ,, e i . , ,; :. . e .! .- .

ic ) , , ~

1- e. s . crL t C , , s n ;c , , ,s I ic n * .- x . .e , v e. ,, a:

o o t /) *)s/ AjtS$, s p." A. F 9' ' * *

• sC's,J

. J 7" _$ ,,:s o i c?:

t t s t

• s 2A a/ so s acrie v < s' 2.

t a r - isss s is s:n .sa c , w ,=ciz rps , ! a.; ,, , ,

t s of  !

/st:ff_'i f.s9 y r3, ,- f $

9 > l S') An , ss e / ? 7'/csJ G ' ' u /.i,3 SP e s t .5s.c n c,v c./ o i t -

i- )

I of s t'l m ' A)L

• b 1* s C ; J c. LJ QA /OL . 'r (2 A/'t so 1

! s,c7- /> r n ce.:,-r . su r 4;~O.c /% -

t e

~

7 .*- A-e 6 6 s p;~O/'.. i . t.,'4A st'. S s . - / 7"is; c. .:> //' ' f> d *'" ys:. ss t l 6 4' fr rs o-r%r Gr a <~

l i  ! ,

~

t/I f J P f>* ' / l L Y /2 7" ~/ *d p~/J O c'. A /'A-C o 4 0 !) Am ') o+OOe+D

~7~~r +d F C ' ' % .* M 6-t 6 .' CCs.L.1, f. . t nA.* f f!- .S';C Yte e -

i s ' rJ sus 'We~ ~ 'sL .>-*7'"*

, *i f f V rh ~ r'~i s ~~6 /& #J >~~ i%

4

• Commer:s mar'=.e4 with an aste_isk do ne: requir cc: '

, )} tssp:~.ss or resatution wit:' DJCC... , .

Nr. $.e.'/ ' /k &dL t - fl3,

/i Reviewer:

A'Y),'I4 "+y 7 (, /

t i <Y MG?.!SU?V:

m' GrIf /%Cf,4 r f, -

File:

U"l bf, s) 7

_b' e

9 l6 dl C {j)g A 3 iDj&

\

\

\

i 3

• /

f f

MQ.40s.1qq,,

TMI.217 1 80 _

n. -.--

l 1

o .:o . _ _ j.

• \ -

l c ,

DOCUMENT COMMENT

SUMMARY

J 4 CONTINUATION SHEET shen f or I d 9

'DRN No: 20 d TS 's 3 '

- -= )*?>

.g3 8

m ' a Comment Page Section Pars.

No. 'Une,or Dwg. ***"

/

3 [ -. #

d [ ,9 i e i 6 e i .

6 4 I  % /, / i '5 H/'!/ ? /) A.o' 7~

s d /4 7 6E s tf /'9 / W * ~7 C/

1 l t I o & w /s. /p mu es A7- ir i c,- -

2

/A,)s rsx L/ s/ s.J 6 s._ )

, I l /' A M Xsts.t L.Ce c<.,,AP' / 7-- p I

Y>a /1 SA~ 7"U f le/N' /*$ l}/'/ Ch _l i I

• 1 -1 4 I

• i

!- t t I

, i i

^f., ~7 t o O/r ! t 4. 5. / /"f. 9'. 1t /. !ss /A /**

f55 f~/> Md' v'EODA/6 /__ YA s77/'* ffAfi-s)sr%

I Mio L C.

t // ~' 8 G1, / *b t l \ \ f a

& />'J/h A st)s/s7* /=> /*sG g f' l t t a

'r/+fdM?r.ls**A72df' / f/92is*/AJHf* T~ c* /

s fcuy-/.c A D : * > ::' ? c r 3 <<=-m

'_._ l i r$.s !"* e,/" e

/ .1s,>,,.._-s s s

, 4*.-, M O ) .

4 tr e t t

t' /2 / . 4 Lant rie:M' 4.34 TP AA x.f-(cdDf 4

e '

i

)  ! l

! 1 e i f i 3 l l -

i 1

, l / t ./ t "4 a M 4.t Ah / s /isja tA 7-* e: rf w

} 6 l / o.+> vft' rs r,'s" 5.

/)f /?16AJ $ 7X' nd 78 W/C ' < 7*;e's f W4/r! A { ci A s 7c e

t L t s nl '

1 AJA s/!_M G:A//n /U /96 e s 7~-*' 8,4 9~H c= .d#.' rAc', ss* s*, w /:F u s/ =,-

s 7o /J/=r w A WA n .

/ /

. J'#ff.Aff 41#27 / N. 4/,Cl' A'.*rA.M

\ / /*

\s n fLM C #^)/A TA YaA y-

~ 7" ,-

AJ nf

's.)s 6.

in c s fcio-r

~

.d //$6f/*x*sttfto /= s_) 'Ts,+F

I,a A>% ._t /s s'>7F e As"P% C6f' n e/W 4.Oso A A /s s. /a.A is sj A /2 #

f i .s'.:.U /_ s2 J'/f/*//ii'/ f '/ /.I!'f.'/A/I I f 6A* O s '7~/ 0 n % '

i/ )

/ kd.nhf/////M n.'W78&

I 8 /./ -:rs n*i, sd S , -nsA > s e.'so

> i / t Ts+A= s 4,w a u /s ids ris

$ fi A G W, /=vs' a.w c .sa'., fa)

• • . Y0 h 2 ) Y) l -s.f 0 /^ *- l '

I sso

_O Yh / AsN l*A= l A* 2 l /I) l ' A* N/?ls.8n ' *=r /.J /1 -** s/2, S A" ,A JJ G'~ / </, ?,' ~ p '> '7 $s i -- s si sis s //s FA s2sJ n rn n **' PAA! rss * >=" L '6 s # o s <4 R rs. /:a st..

-I t* 'n L. I s* f.' .

s /wimy) s WA/c s.=-e ri n.o .r. :r /mse &>

l '

/% s' is <, f n l s. 4 7-a s 4

1 l f' / l - rc .c --a.r, S '

$./ l t

ff h6* / /d b){ A - $# ?hff $ g',o pff/ #_ f) h/

V e p/: r.',+#, C-. w s A,s 4 < R <;~ is s , y, s.:s s'3 a , ,c,& g;s; e 1 Ih6/>?E F4

• Ad e

u'rsS Ac A!*A A- < _% 5s'*7- M r)/ ps, j'

I I j

)- 1 I '

~ i

• 1

(,r' s e) o l

[ 1 o l.J l *

~ / .o ' f .

o ?

• A - ' s:. .r 'a/ / o ** * ' ~~ *fi . 4**

' ' s / **i i s u 2.M i st 't 4/ m)  % W f J.**.*'$)/"/ ** * '

~

s t l O g / 7 &L.trJ S .n o'/J-f '7W'Ff~M Ad] M y Wh p,, ou (p o ~:-7s f/54= r 4 ' %,fd 4 %

t. , ,+ ',A. n t

Ftf)/_' S t/f / /os D.

l

, = , _

' Q$' /

fi o ~

i 1

- ,,-.e- - . , , --,.---mi,- ,,re * - - - - ~ . - - ,,=.~-e----,-e--*e,+e* -

s O

k t

l ATTACHMENT 6 W

. 4

' FEBRUARY, 198@

~

GPJ NUC_ENR r[ .

TH REE N L.E IS:_AN J I

N JCi_ EAR STATION l

g=l -

f.-

' h E+ . __

AGSESSMENT OF THE IMPLEMENT ATION AND EFFECTIVENESS

, OF THE QU ALITY ASSUR ANCE PROGR AM

\

1 TO: DIRECTOR-UNIT ll

. DIRECTOR-QU ALITY ASSUR ANCE c c: VICE PRESIDENT / DIRECTOR-UNIT I

' DEPUTY DIRECTOR-UNIT 11 EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT I

VICE PRESIDENT /DIR ECTOR-TECHNIC AL FUNC TIONS VICE PRESIDENT / DIRECTOR- ADMINISTR A TION l VICE PRESIDENT / DIRECTOR-NUCLE AR A3SUR ANCE 1

VICE PRESIDENT / DIRECTOR-MAINT. & CONST.

VICE PRESIDENT-DIRECTOR-R AD. & ENVIRON. CONTROLS C AD SECTION M AN AGERS BECHTEL QU ALITY A SSUR ANCE INFCRMATION ONLY Ok>

w- -

fl@8!NA.. MPY

. 73: Dircctor,' Unit 2 I l

FRCM: Manager - TMI QA Modifications /Cperations , l SUBJ: Monthly VP/ Director's Report for February, 1983

.1 l General Discussion l This report is submitted for information and use in management's continual assess-ment of the implementation, status, and ef fectiveness of the Q.A. Program on the ,

Unit. Input into this' report is provided by the Quality Asscrance Design / Procurement,-

Modifications / Operations and Program / Audit Section of the Q.A. Department. Receu=en-dations or constructive criticism on the content or secpe of this report are encourages cnd requested. The initial distribution of this report is 14 ited, but Divisions are encouraged to distribute copies as they see fit within their organizations. As this report is a Quality Assurance Record, copies are maintained in the site's Q.A. Record Vault. When significant events or proble=s require formal management action to be taken in accordance with Q.A. Plan requirements, these actions may periodically be identified and requested in this neport. These type actions will nor= ally be li=ited to those problems or events which are of such significance or nature that they either require more than one organization or division to resolve or are significant program-matic problems that require high level manage =ent notification.

There are four dif ferent categories of QA Cepart=ent deficiency reports ' discussed in this report. They are described below:

4 A. QUALITY DEFICIENCY REPORTS (QOR's)

Deficiencies other than material noncompliances .1 hardware items, usually issued to document software of activity items such as procedural noncompliance, procedure inadequacy, failure to mee t com=itments , etc. ,

3. MATERIAI. NCNC0KFORMANCE PIPORTS (MSCR's)

Material deficiencies pertaining to hardware structures, . systems er components which render the quality of the item unacceptable or indeterminate.

j C. PICEIPT ::EFICIENCY REPORTS (RDN's)

, Used to document and track purchased items which arrive on site lacking Purchase order required documentation such as Certificates of Compliance or test reports.

RDN's are always issued against the GPCN Materials Maragement Group for resolution with vender. A copy is provided to the material user.

D. AUDIT FINDING Used to docu=ent and track QA programmatic deficiencies of either GPCM or .*endors/

contractors.

Each month a detailed report on the status of MMCR'sf QCR's , 7.eceipt Ceficienry Notice and Audit Findings is issued (separate frem this one) to all appropriate levels of uni management / supervision for their review and action. These reports indicate responsibi psrty for action, type deficiency, subject area, vendor, etc. so that middle and first level manage =ent/ supervision are aware of quality related deficiencies, their status cnd their disposition.

0 4

Unit *.. .

P2g3 2 j SIGNIFICAN"' IMPLEMINTATICN/ITFECTI'/ENESS I'"ZMS (1) Activity Deficiency Sc= mary Figures / Trends :

Activity Month YTD Month YTO CQA Monitorings: 37 (33) 70 QA Audits  : 0 (2)

QC Inspections 2 76 (181) 257 QA/QC Docu=ent Reviews: 137 (140) 277 Ceficiencies -

Issued Closed Total Remaining C;en*

Month YTD Month YTD Total 90 days 180 day QDRs/ Audit Finds: 4 (2) 6 13 (14) 27 25 (36) 7 (0) 12 (15 MNCRs/RONs 13 (10) 23 14 (15) 29 51 (52) 8 (2) 16 (19 YTD - Year to Cate

( ) - Last Month's Figures

• - Indicates with Division Action Due (2) Bechtel has indicated disagreement with the alternate position included in sev. 2 cf the Recovery QA Plan ( Appendix C, Part 2) regarding GPUN's c =pliance with Reg.

Guide 1.29. Sechtel has proposed alternate wording which is being reviewed by GPCM for incorporation into the Recovery QA Plan.

(3) Effectiva ea'-"ary 24, 1933, AP-lG42, Revision 2 (TM -1) was officially approved.

As a result of this approval, the TMI-l Wezding Progra= will no longer be limited to IT3/N3R welding, but has been extended to include all welding related activities.

(4) Investigation into the probler with Ray Miller =aterials identified on II Notice 83-21 is continuing. Ten (10) Purchase Orders fr:: Ray Miller, Inc. have been identified to date . 3&W has also inforced us of three tanhs furnished to TMI-l --

Causti: Tank, Lithium Hydro::ide Tank and the Mke Up Tank -- that have fittings furnishad free Ray Miller. The Ingineering groups en site are evalua:ing the end use appli:ati:ns for all the =aterial identified. Unit 2 Ingineering groups have evaluated the end use applicationa and have determined that there 3 no impa: on them. Cnit 1 Engineering evaluation is still in progress.

(5) Inspection discovered rust / corrosion problems where firewall 50 caterial contacts galvanized pene trating items. Plant Engineering has decided to postpone evaluation via a restart ite=. Letter to Licensing is to be forthcoming. A question of fire barrier cateria's affe::ing stru:tgral c:=ponents

. (i.e., c a% '. 3 trays, :enduits, e tc . ) has been asked to TMI-l Engineering in regards to P' ant Appendix R cods.

'5) Quality Assurance has revie~ed the Polar Crane Lead Test safoty Ivaluation and has provided co==ents to the Director Unit 2. QA will also be reviewing the c:=pleted document packages for Pols: Crane refurbish =ent, prior to Lead Test, to verify acceptability of modifications, replaced caterial, inspections and tes:s that

. ave been perfor ed. Quality Control has witnessed Ele operational (no load) test which was perf ormed satisf actory.

Uni: II Paga 3 l (7)' There continues to be problems associated with compliance to the aA-'nistrative

( controls for work in Unit 2. During a review of Polar Crane Refurbishment l

! activities, nu=erous administrative program violations were identified. The

!. original . concept for Polar Crane Refurbishment was to turn the crane back so

! constr2ction, with the work to be ac cmplished per the Recovery Cperations

[- ~Progran. The Recovery operations procedures are internal procedures and have t ot been reviewed or approved by any other TMI-2 cepartment, and-the exist.ng Unit 2 procedures were not revised to define any requirements for -

" turn back" to construction. 'As a result, there were numerous concerns raised

~ as to how the work was accomplished and when the work was completed. The requireq ments and responsibilities for testing and returning the crane to service were not defined, which resulted in delays to the crane testing until they were resolved.

The specific administrative program violations will be addressed separately, however, it is Quality Assurance's cerception that this is not a unique case associated with the Polar Crane bu t continual problem in Unit 2 with implemen-tation of administrative controls. It is recognized that the current activities in Unit 2 may not always fit the established Operational Administrative Controls; however, it appears that when a new activity is initiated in Unit 2 that doesn't exactly fit into the established controls, the tendency is to work around the progra=, rather than making the necessary procedure changes to accon=edate .the -

new activity or situation.

We feel that implepentation of the Unit Work Instruction for all activities in Unit 2 will help to resolve some of the problems but full commitment to the total administrative program by all departments is needed to put this is ue to bed.

Quality Assurance will continue to work with Unit 2 manage =ent in resolving this issue. _ . .

P20CMMINOATION5/ACT:CNS P20CIPIO

.TMI Unit I.I man.a.g.e. ment must assure that work activities are conducted in ace : dan:e

. with-presently appro'lef progry procedures o'r] revise those proceferes appropria;ely to reflect new practices en canage=ent programs. It is recommended tha: -his be-given high priority. A: tion will be directly requested form the Panager - Re:crery ?ro;;a=3 that will assure no further work activities are conducted that violate plant ad=inis-tration program controls or QA Stop Work Action will be initiate'd. The Director.TMI Unit II will be kept informed of the status of this as-ion.

M EBallard,

3. s.

Dt.Sr. o .

Manager - TMI QA Modifications /Cperations D

Hunth/ Yeast ret s ua. y , 1 sia l sp Ag,g gy 3 ;SURANt:E AtTIVITIES StftetANY Unitt lill-I C THi-Il Q e

.")A/ Elks tumen t Re.lews

([A Au.I t t e gA tbnitorina QC Inspatetton YTD .

YTD Witt. Qun/HNCR ttun t l. YTD Cuaunent e immucJ ' Ho..t l. YTD Mon ti. 1TD that t. 1TD rsocedures/Plang, Fro.rmme "

Started I

Sclieduled

" II4 Scl.eduled '36 Eng l..ce r l.i. Ik>csonent s/ Completed Performed 70 Ferformed M III vendor a..J Contractor 20 (ImeueJ) Findinge .

Innue.1 I 3 II 2#

QDR's/PelCR's QDR's/tteCR's P rci. nee liege /OrJera ,

leeued Issued Audited OtCM

• Work Request / Work Scl.edules g trg Areas Wo.k Autl.urtaattons ,

la 20 j l 51 0 n.intenance & Constructio..

• Ot i.c r 2 0

'T.TT'r oj s e s s *'

tt)NIToklNC/ INSPECTION ACTIVITY BRF.AKOUT Inspectton lbntturIng YTD TTD Perfor.*:J QtsH/HNCR Ferformued QDit/HNCR Scl.eduled Hunti. YTil Immued Sclieduled ttantl. YTD lasued Og. ora t to..s/Tect. Specs Fire Protection o ,l 0 l 0

, . ..e e . .. . Q- Q E El ,,...,,,,,

,_e..... la E) >s E)

Sm,t ./Te.o..S EJ El -

El o C, n ,Str.e .,.i Fl El '

Li_1 mJ Cu troi., .. ro E o. El m cl. ,,e.e..u .e ,nt >

Fil O ra C,.e ett, El El 6 El mcl. Com - o.e m int lu_1 I >_1 Fa m m. ,5~ rit, lEl El te El ,

me ,. md, ... . . n .n on FFI [I) 6 9.

1r. .. El El .

ITI n - ,re.e..u.. m , t El Ej > Ej

,,re ,r.t- o.n EJ la - Ej m C r,_o.e . t y El rg o.

omr.l .....,St re. 9 Q t E) n- ,m/,...t.n.oon Io1 El B Fil toe, e i.n... O I ._I Q El ve>Ji - Ld I" 1 EQ liI me,. ....e u.e t 9 El .

El uc r -..o

• i..t El El LU El H_,. o.r ._ o.. m i t G Q2 Ej i tC C.- o.e ~ ,n.

9 P1 >

El n . ,,C ,re.e. .nt El 99 El i,C -Jii...t n o .. 9 El >

El n.,,C e,r r.o .. t El El i o is o,. la 12 1 9

,t.,,,... tan .t,o .

m e a ,m./...t.n.non,- L _I El El El

=

= . . =-

-a.

ar. o e c.

. _ _ _ _ _ __ - . _ .__. 3 , _ _ _ _ .

,s ,._. .

s e g  :-

.ie' co e - o ~ - o

= o o e

~- m

=u.__.__  :'l

.g'

~

= 2. <w e

.. -i =a. .

i.- =- C. m, ,

n. .= , e . ,

e .o e. = _ _ _ __ c .

._._.__i

.l ,

. .. .- , - o = a o - o o o , , -

e E  % % =. a

- e. , -o o < .

r o.

a ae-e

-nan _ _ - _ _ _-- -

=

sai 2 =

0 -

- s -

s. z . . .

. .= = g ll g,  : , - - - - - - -_ _- -

g g' 1; g 2.g -. - o n o a = a o e. m a

- d.. -;

g g 3.

g __ __ _. _ _ _, - _

,. =6< e=

=

g b C 3 0

. s c

. .=..

e o g 5 g z

c--.g '. e o o - o e o - o -

8 .= a s - - - - - - - - -- - 'u ,  ;;n , , ,

W

% '" m e. 3

.k. A.

W 4,,

gn u , ---._

Co 9 W -

s & "g

.a C. - -

g 4.s 5 -

4 M M i8

" & C W - ,_ - - _ -- .- - - - g

= .

g 3

g I i w h. . .- V -3 *= m n # - o o o - o a -

=. a .e. ,

i

.C = b as I .. . 4 , 3 j 2 e - _. - -_

=

=

% y- - _ ._ _ __ _. _. - ___ _ = .g g

ev ,- y S _ e 5

w

- =

Z.i = 3 2

p:

e = -* - > c"

.c h E -

{ O < Ml w C - -

, , , m. - =

<na z, 3 ..

e P 4 - .* a o 2 4 ** o e 6 v. e, a>-D

.i d' m e.

= 8 C. 4 - h @8 9 m 4 6 - s- &% LG

==gj n

,y

> 2

l _ _,- - - -- _ _ e-

-s

=: y=g pg g g.

w!

l - wt v.

! es =

= - - - - _ _ _ __-- - , g ;l g c

= .J -s _-

3 3 =.

cge, N t'. C M C 4 o o = a e P

- 1

• CI.,

z - ,,,,,,,,

in. 2 y 6"= 44 W o .-- __ , , , , _ _ , ,,,,

n p- .ei _,--

Zi -

<- e=

X _, - . - ._- -- m - -. -

c. Is Q g, .

= s g-

_. =c.1

== .e - - w

[

o m < a'.

a e - - + o s e -

,l -

-one y. __ -I_ .-_

~ -

zm .J" -

ag -_ =k =

=

• 4 r= Z a 2; a P .3 a - "W K = **weW= O e

g ph *e a* 3 o P., M

- o O p ae

~

h

• g g

- =; -e > , .

---e.-=. -- --- --. . _ -

f

<"" .g  ;:; , - - --- - - _ . - _ . .

y.: w: ai

~ o e o e - - l, l,

- = D-t< _L -

2  ; j 6 3 gl - ------ - - _._ - .

a i

._J.,= . - - -

+ ,

E 5.sg.- _ _ - -

.-.= .--. - -. --..-.-. . W

• • 2oX N O o O m o o = c = m Oe M- lC ,

g m == .--[

,,- ,1.

-"I 5; - :,- i 3: 1::...l=.:

= -

-f - - - - - ---- ,  :

.s c- <._I,,,,,,,,i.,,,,,,._..,,,.,,.i, e

4}a e

o o

e o

=

c o o o

e o  ;

w .

.- g ,, ,0, g

"* .l , G 8 . - - - - .

'o e o ~ - = , e e o o .

s 4 4  :::

.=J i.

• s.

.a ,

s = =1 % . _ _ _ _ _

-l . gg .

_ _ _ ---- 2 ., , =

N o e v -=

g

,, h j -=_-m- .=-= - ----

o o ==,-=8, gi

.u .1, - - a n - = , o o o .

2 es e T 0 s c

- s -f 3l

• = 3 3 e 3.;.

9 u m C

se.

ee et O C 1.

2 9

C

{ C 3

u et, 3

E $ - 0 i.

-a 3

e ed a w

O.

m

a. e.e -

0 e

=*

.8 e

=

I t.

=

e

=

0

.h' . -'= = E ad r

h.

z T n.

4 e C .c. = J .s a p W

- o -

• . J S e.

.a 1 e

6 -

3. .o a

.=

m.,

i.= .== ,< a e.

5

a. .o > c i 2 3 u e .m

% - . w; e o oc = = - = = >

a o = - oo =

e = - - - e e s .= =

- .e. - a - e 4 a.

-s = . - wv

.= a s

. u

. e.s u. .e:

z .. = . . u w -

- -: 3 ._ e

. .e.s .e M e f A f s. 5 C E a ac e el e 2 E < z < o- n.

u E il i jr lhh

t';e!!  !!

s c i; , ,- e e i ,I gakh - ,

e . . , -

f... ,

c.

E $k

'1 1

a ill -:

5 #

~{k!{

[ j-i $~ > m lh _r, I ig.Iil s

4

, ,rp.

i ,

aia

'd" j E a -

,y 11 6l+11 , 1

-- r  :

l 3 .. ,

!I If e e .. a -

• ni

-h j l11 gl La

!  ! l31 5

~,

3 e i

i ij 1 ii m

, [ UE _

s

]4 e ,

i i g stilt f g

i p

- )

E- j! l

! d .

g -

k.,

=  : ..

j ,'

11 i il. i i.

si a

=

linj sig 1 4 # Y

, d5* I

• k 4

1 I

[

5 li1.ll l i j ls i 1 lg

$ e $

g fil N .

j e, k

I ijf

$ 3

]' ill I

          '}j}                                                    l{[j!!                                            i
          ,             ?l}"![3 s.

11:  !!!a[e i filis

      'E                     j!                                                          s e

f"- C

                                                                    .f i-UNITEDSTATESOFAMERIbhd[

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                                             .--                                          c In the Matter of                )
                                     )     r                                                i METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY     )     $e , . . _ _C'C2[D'o'cket(No. 50-289 SP
                                     )*            5    'c0' Restart (Three Mile Island Nuclear      )

Station, Unit No. 1) ) c SERVICE LIST Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission John H. Buck Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge James K. Asselstine, Commissioner Christine N. Kohl U.S. Nuclear 7egulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Washington, D.C. 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Frederick Bernthal, Commissioner Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Lando W. Zeck, Jr., Commissioner Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Gary J. Edles, Chairman Sheldon J. Wolfe Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555

s . Administrative Judge Mr. Henry D. Hukill Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr. Vice President . Atomic Safety & Licensing Board GPU Nuclear Corporation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 480 Washington, D.C. 20555 Middletown, PA 17057 Docketing and Service Section (3) Mr. and Mrs. Norman Aamodt Office of the Secretary R.D. 5 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Coatesville, PA 19320 Washington, D.C. 20555 Ms. Louise Bradford Atomic Safety & Licensing Board TMI ALERT Panel 1011 Green Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harrisburg, PA 17102 Washington, D.C. 20555 Joanne Doroshow, Esquire Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal The Cnristic Institute Board Panel 1324 North Capitol Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20002 Washington, D.C. 20555 Lynne Bernabei, Esq. Jack R. Goldberg, Esq. (4) Gover ment Accountability Office of the Executive Legal

                                          .'f55 Connecticut Avenue U.S Nuc ear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20009 Washington, D.C. 20555           Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq.

Harmon, Weiss & Jordan Thomas Y. Au, Esq. 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430 Office of Chief Counsel Washington, D.C. 20009 Department of Environmental Resources Michael F. McBride, Esq. 505 Executive House LeBoeuf, Lamb, Leiby & MacRae P.O. Box 2357 1333 New Hampshire Avenue, N.W. Harrisburg, PA 17120 Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 William T. Russell Michael W. Maupin, Esq. Deputy Director, Division Hunton & Williams of Human Factors Safety 707 East Main Street Office Of NRR P.O. Box 1535 Mail Stop AR5200 Richmond, VA 23212 U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 l l J l l ! l l  ! l}}