ML20207A480

Partially Withheld Summary of Interview Re Tee Shirt Incident

ML20207A480
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Comanche Peak
Issue date:	04/09/1984
From:	Hunnicutt D NRC
To:	NRC
Shared Package
ML20206S800	List: ML20206S792 ML20206U969 ML20207A048 ML20207A055 ML20207A061 ML20207A073 ML20207A079 ML20207A084 ML20207A092 ML20207A099 ML20207A106 ML20207A111 ML20207A116 ML20207A121 ML20207A129 ML20207A135 ML20207A150 ML20207A154 ML20207A158 ML20207A163 ML20207A173 ML20207A178 ML20207A184 ML20207A193 ML20207A197 ML20207A203 ML20207A208 ML20207A212 ML20207A216 ML20207A221 ML20207A225 ML20207A229 ML20207A235 ML20207A240 ML20207A243 ML20207A249 ML20207A256 ML20207A261 ML20207A267 ML20207A273 ML20207A280 ML20207A283 ML20207A290 ML20207A294 ML20207A299 ML20207A306 ML20207A309 ML20207A312 ML20207A320 ML20207A325 ... further results
References
FOIA-85-59 NUDOCS 8607140127
Download: ML20207A480 (4)

Text

Q)

April 9, 1984 Si1MMARY OF INTERVIEW WITH 6

1. 6did rfot know of anyone that contacted the NRC ag a result of being sequestered.

p) called the newspaper and probably called the He said that e thought that M was " stupid" and never did He indic at NRC.

understand anything and had no business getting involved or involving the sequestered people.

M stated that none of his personal property had been kept by the 2.

management.

stated that the materials removed from his desk and work area are 3.

not requ red for him to do his job.

He could care less if these materials are ever returned as they are available though other sources.

' 4.

stated that he felt they did work for NRC or at least do work as esentatives.

He could not determine the usefulness of the NRC at the place of sequestering.

He would not want his picture taken by the licensee and told the licensee that.

He would not want NRC to take pictures either.

5. Mdid not know of any notes cr records that would indicate something,

was not being done that should have been done in accordance with requirements.

stated that materials taken were avialable through other sources.

6.

OK. ' H I ' 7. g s stated He stated that some procedures had been made ut that the requircments were still above the minimum ss res ric ive, requirements to meet the work.

felt that feedback from management could be better. 'He still does ow where he stands 'as a result of the tee shirt incident.

av D. M. Hunnicutt rih,4,3 park 8607140127 060627 DE 9

PDM

~'**"~"

April 9,1984

SUMMARY

Of INTERVIEW WITH 1.

'd not know of anyone who contacted the NRC nor of anyone who reques e that*someone contact the NRC.

4 2.

6 cords (whd included NIS(Nuclear Instrument System) records 9

but personal property was not taken.

l

3. 6 did not desire that any materials be returned.

He stated that he had two copies of his work' documents, so did not need the materials to i

l do his job.

[

4. Mtated thatmanagement " blew the whole thing out of proportion".

He stated that the NRC should have been contacted, but didn't know why or 1

what he expected the NRC to do or accomplish.

He stated that no way would he have allowed the NRC to take pictures of him. He stated that he was among those who told the licensee that they could not take pictures or him.

.He stated that Brown and Root stated that B&R had no problems with the people wearing the tee shirts, but management made the decision.

He said that B&R took 3 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> to detennine what the problem with wearing tee shirts was.

l He stated that the tee shirts had nothing to do with anything, except a stigan I

slogan "- -

"_, as a result of a discussion with a craft foreman.

He felt. the press was inaccurate and unjust.

He felt that the firing had nothing to do with the slogan.

He stated that he had worn t e ce I

shirt twice before without incident.

5.

tated that he knnw nf nn+b47+"'">*di"*^ *a-a+bina 9

.not bn; nn Anna enrenet1" er that any notes or records taken indicated that type of problem.

6. M stated that he got copics of working documents and didn't need that materials taken.

7.

D. M. Hunnicutt 9

4

'**w to

_ _ -.. > eo -

• e,.

.,m+..

+ -

w e., m. _

_ w

4. nee _. um os.-g, e v ** M _ _ _

r

,i,,

l April 9. 1984 e

?

SUPRARY 0T INTERVIEW W1TH 6

[

1. p did not cQntact anyone and request that person (s) to, contact the NRC or p

anyone else.

j'

2. 6 stated th

(

3.

as no desire that materials removed be returned.

He has prepared r

rep a ent documentation from other sources.

I 5

4. J@ definitely did not desire that any pictures of himself be taken by anyone -

can think of no purpose that the NRC could or should have performed.

[

e t

either With the tee shirt or in any other clothing.

I

5. Mkept records for his own personal use due to the " poor paper flow" that he felt would'be useful to provic' information, if it was necessary to re-inspect items at a later date.

None of these records were removed by 6.

M had nothing taken that was not available from another source.

}

7.

or e

D. M. Hunnicutt ee I

9

-=

1.

Did you cr any of the other persons sequestered have somone d call the S If so what time?

What message did this person convey or was asked to convey to the NRC?

4 Can you give the name of the person who called or was asked to call the O that allegedly h< <

2.

Has your personal property, if any/was removed from the Safeguar ds Guild; been returned?

If yes, when was it returned and was it in good conditi 3.

Do you desire that the other materials removed be returned?

4.

What purpose did you think the NRC could or should serve before, during, after you were sequestered?

5.

Were there any notes or records in the material that was taken from your desk or files that would indicate something was not being done in accord; with requirements?

6.

Was there anything taken that is not available from another source today' 7.

If "yes" to 6; What was it?

tS 8.

Do you know of any thing that has been done that was not in accordance w' specifications or requirements that has not been corrected.

~

i

)

F3A-85-59

~

\\ 38 1

I

~~

' ' 'L ; ;

C.'i L.

C e' ", ~i r. e' '.

~

tA

• l.n.ev 05*t33A COCke: '.' e s. '

50 445 and 0 - ~, ~, o.

t'EMGRANDUM FOR:

The Atenic Safety and Licensing Board for Cc anche Peak,-Uni:s 1 and 2 (P. Bloch, W. Jordan, W. McColicm)

FF.CM:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing SUEJECT:

BOARD tiOTIFICATION - TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY TRANSMITTAL OF A FINAL INVESTIGATION REFORT - INCIDENT WITH ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAti ELECTRIC STATION (50*ED NOT!FICATION NO.84-110 inis Natification is previded in a:: rdance with NRC precedures recardin:

5:a-: Notifications.

~

E-:'.csed for ycur inferna:i:n er: use is a ce;y of a Texas Utili ie:

Ge : stin; C:- any transri-si c' a final investi:ation re: r: ca:ed Pav 22, 1954 This investigatien rs:Or: da:s d t'.a,. 15,1954 iden-ifies 1.ssues su- :unding an inciden

a cc:u-ed 2: - e Ccma cht-Peak 5: car Electric 5:stien wi:h ele: rical ins;e::ces en t'ar:n 8,1924, referred :: as the "T-snirt incident".

The :arties to the precescing are being informed by copy cf this cerorandum.

s....-. 3 e.d.tT

,_, e.

ar cli G. Ei:crnu:, : ire:::r Cisisi:n cf Licen:in:-

E-:':!u e:

r A * ! *. J : e.*

cc:

SE;Y (:)

OPE

' e y J r* ^* Ab k " I -

.O j

O L' 7

<-i7 r' 8 7

I tids :C the t

O rc g.; j i e

/

. ;... i L.,,

,,.'.t

(

a l'

r s

f, c.

p f

e '

I l

• e.

c ; ',_,

r q,,,

e

\\/,~g5

0!A-85-5S

ggt ticq..

!('g,,., l

\\'o, UNITED STATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION j, c

. I WASHINGTON D. J. 20555 l

m +.( :

4.,,..'

MAy 2 51984 l

Docket Nos.:

50-445 and 50-446 l

MEMORANDUM FOR: ' The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board for Cemanche Peak, Units 1 and 2 l

(P. Bloch, W. Jordan, W. McCollom)

FROM:

Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

BOARD NOTIFICAT!0tl - TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY TRAf4SMITTAL OF A FINAL INVESTIGATION REPORT - INCIDENT l

WITH ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS AT COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION (BOARDNOTIFICATIONNO.84II9 This Notificatien is provided in accordance with NRC procedures regarding l

Board Notifica icns.

Enclosed for ycur information and use is a copy of a Texas Utilities Generating Company transmittal of a final investigation report dated May 22, 1984. This investigation report dated t'ay 15, 1984 identifies issues surrounding an incident that occurred at the Cemanche Peak Steam Electric Station with electMeal inspectors en March 8,1984, referred to as the "T-shirt incident".

The parties to the proceeding are being informed by copy of this remerandum.

\\

2' f s BKC % b.

varreNG.rEisenut',D\\ rett ctor Division of> Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated cc:

SECY (2)

OPE 03C E00 Parties to the Froceeding

[

r.

DISTRIBUTICNLISTFORECARD![DT!?ICATIDN

'Cc enche Peak Units 1&2 D:: et f:cs. 50-44E/416 ACRS Me-ters

- Fe er B. Elech, Esq.'

Dr. F.cbert C. Ar.tmann Mr.,Jchn T. Collins Mr. Myer.Eender Mr. James E. Cummins Dr. Max W. Carben Mrs. Juanita Ellis Mr. Jesse C. Ebersele l

Billie Pirner Garde Mr. Harold Etheringten

~

Ellen Ginsberg, Esq.

Dr. William Kerr Herbert Grossman, Esq.

Dr. Harold W. Lewis Renea Hicks, Esq.

Dr. J. Carsen Mark Dr. W. Reed Johnson Mr. William M. Mathis

r Waiter H. Jcrdan Dr. Dade W. M:eiler

r. F.er.neth A. McCollem Dr. David Okrent Th: mas S. Meere, Esq.

Dr. Milton S. Flesset l

t;icholas S. Reynolds, Esq.

Mr. Jeremiah J. Ray Alan 5. F.esenthal Esc.

Cr. Paul C. Shews:n Mr. Larny Alan Sinkin Dr. Chester F. Sisss i

!'.r. Michtel D. Spence P.r. David A. Ward l

E::ert A. V:cicridge, Esq.

M. M: er C. Schmict 1

r. H. R. R: c k At:-te Safety and Licensing

!:ard Fanel At:mic Safety and Licensing A;;eal Panel i

Decketing and Service Section D:c;.-ent Panagement Eranch Mr. A. T. Farker itsstingh:vse Ele:tric Cce;;rati:n t

l avid J. Freister

.m,

3. 5. Cle~ents il d *

• i t ?. A. !;rchette, Esq.

r I ( E *.

" 1,

' a n :"V,d. '..'i l l i t !

i r

t 6

?

I l

l I

i l

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPA.NT F K YWA Y TOW E R

• 4 00 NO RTH O LIV E STR E ET, L.S. 81

• D A L LA S. TE AA S t 3 2 0 %

..".'.9,!.".5h52.".!.5...

May 22, 1934 l

l Mr. John T. Collins i

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l

Office of Inspection and Enforcement 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, TX 76012

Dear Mr. Collins:

Enclosed is a copy of our final report dated May 15, 1984, l

l regarding issues surrounding the "T-shirt incicent" of March 8, 1984 I believe this rescrt, together with its attachments, accurately reflects the seriousness with which senior management views such matters and the level of effort we put into tneir l

investigation and resolution.

Should you have any questiens, please advise.

Very truly yours, l

l a

k h

l BRC:ln Enclosure cc:

Carrell G. Eisenhut w/ attachment i

w A

- Y h

v ir wg67,7 + 1 i

f 1

l 4 veiis.s.,v e,r r,i = r7,u rse = #

,cr,,,,

,,,,,r.. s v

[

TEXAS UTTLITIES GENERATING COMPANY TUQ-2D4 OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM D. N. Chaemin c:en %,, Tex 2, May 22. Icga n

Transmittal of Final Recort on Issues Resulting subject From Interviews with Electrical Inspectors This will formally transmit the subject re, port dated May 15, 1984.

The report concludes that there was, no. intent on the part of the inspectors,

to convey any concerns or any message that would reflect adversely on an inspector's objectivi.ty.

Accordingly no repercussions and/or disciplinary actions have been or will be taken.

Of the six inspectors that I interviewed on March 9, 1984, two are still working in Unit No.1 Safeguards Building; one is working in the Unit 1 Control Building; two nave lef t of their own accord; and one is working in Unit 2.

All reassign =ents h4 % beererada_.,d s pi,

/pt->MEhidefYMr.-the-Ur#AJy,gggd.hs.did10_g an4ageq%

fC3Mc fessges.-mtne=see2uma We will continue cur efforts to prc=cte free expression of concerns withcut fear of retributten and to maintain a strong and effective QA/QC program at CPSES.

y

. Vega TUGC0 Site QA Manager AV/bil cc:

M. D. Spence B.

F,. Clements

.TtG-2074.k TEXAS UT!LITTES GENERATING COMPANY OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM n

D. N. Chaaman cien nose. Texas May 15. 19Ea Sebject Final Recort on issues Resultino from Interviews witn Eiectrical Inspectors This will document actions taken as a result of interviews with six (6) electrical inspectors who, on March 8,1984, wore T-shirts with the phrase "I'

a report of wh'gegipe;s-ofrMcAingy.311sf'.

Upon receiving is, iUGC0 site management decided to locate them in separate quarters to protect them from potential adverse reaction by other site personnel and to have them conveniently available for interviews.

Th 'TMMns wesewadvisedrtha5sthesesshimtwaf4ec.tep tr ua maiv_on_thei r trofg,Qogli,sjh4odgkie,ct.t.v.i;tyr sdn,spe,ciorg.

a o

a Concurrent with this action, the inspector's work stations were examine:

to obtain and secure company property that might be compromised if disciplinary actions were taken.

The items secured included copies of Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's) and Inspection Reports (IR's),

and original IR's, Master Data Base Work Fackages, controlled and "information" drawings, and miscellaneous notes and notebooks.

The miscellaneous notes and notebooks were returned to the inspectors the next day.

Immediately after, on the same day, an NRC representative confiscated the remaining documents.

The following week, we reouested

.he NRC representative to Xerox the original documents in their possessi:n.

and return the originals to us so that we could proceed with our work.

The NRC representative complied with our request.

$he inspectors subsequently were interviewed separately by Mr. Boyce1 45rier en March 8 and 9,1984, and by Mark Welch and myself on MarcV 9, 1984 Mr. Soyce Grier's report is included as Attachment A.

During these meetings several comments and concerns were voiced.

Additional interviews with Mixteen Elegg3 LOC insope, cagy,s were conducted to obtain as mucn in~ format' ion as possitile"in areas of concern.

The following salient points were made during the meetings with ciffere.:

degrees of concurrence among the inspectors interviewed:

1.

The inspectors stated a strong displeasure at the publicity that

, had been given to their wearing of the T-shirts.

They attributed a phone call to a newspaper to one person whom they described as "being intelligent but with very little common sense".

The person who allegedly called the newspaper was also described as having coined the phrase, and they stated there was no connectier, between this phrase and any other previous incident at Comanche Peak.

TAa 1nsoec ors 3 ;c ht,her..e,nwas n,hin_tcnt.fc,c gv_ey.Ay v

x t

W5 I

They further pointec O S.M9,2 L CK 6A M I==h Mdout that approximately twenty (20)'b itA M 3 inspectors had worn these shirts the previous Monday and that "nobody made a big deal abcut it".

' ~

~

v 2

4 2.

They sta{ed that up to about a week before then, there was " finger po,inting" Qoing on between building management personnel and

- QC.

They believed QC was being described as uncooperative and

' causing unnecessary delays.

They stated that the main reasons for the delays were inadequate inspection packages provided by the Paper Flow Group and the craft turning in work for inspection prematurely to obtain progress credit.

They did note, however, an improvement in the inspection packages since the program was initially implemented as part of_ the.luilding Organization Concept.

3.

Some. inspectors voiced a concern with respect to inspection procedures.

They-believed that procedures have been changed too frequently and that changes have been in the direction of relaxing re,quirements.

4 A concern was voiced over cable terminations.

They stated their inspections were identifying problems with lighting terminations and had heard rumors that inspection procedures were being changed to delete such inspections.

5.

Some inspectors voiced a disagreement with "use-as-is" dispositions on Non-Conformance Reports (NCR's), principally because of the number of such dispositions.

Management's commitment to quality was questioned because a "use-as-is" disposition dic not require

' craft to build it per the original requirement.

Two examples were cited.

The two NCR's are included as Attachments B and C.

. 6.

Concerns were voiced on documentation.

Some inspectors were experiencing problems with incomplete document packages and with duplicate packages with different numbers for the same component.

Several inspectors indicated that retrieving Inspection Reports (IR's) has been a problem.

During our meeting, the following peints were established:

1.

TUGC0 Management has been and remains totally commitec to a safe hnd reliable plant in full compliance with all applicable requirements.

2.

TUGCC Management has been and remains totally dedicated to a strong and effective Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at Comanche Peak.

3.

There was a need to place more emchasis on communicating information to inspectors, especially when inspection procedures are revised such that inspections are reduced in scope or deleted.

The reasons for these actions, such as ecuipment declass1fication; alternate inspection programs; or inspection or test provisions (such as prerequisite or preoperaticnal tests) during other project phases, should be communicated.

Euch ccmmunication was also necessary on certain NCR's dispositioned "use-as-is"

4 There was a need to promote more feedback and discussion, not only within QA and QC, but with the Engineering and Quality Enginee-ing function.

On March 16, 1984, I was assigned to Comanche Peak as TUGC0 Site QA Manager.

Concurrently, Quality Engineering was organized also reporting to the Manage,r, Quality Assurance in Dallas.

During mee tings at the site on March 16, 1984, with QA and QC supervision, TUGCO's comitments to a safe and reliable plant; to a strong and effective QA/QC organization; to free and open communication at all levels in QA/QC; to an emphasis on QA/QC procedures that assure design commitmen:t are being met; were communicated.

Subsecuent to that meeting, I issued a letter logged TUQ-1982 dated Warch 22, 1984, entitled "QA Policy" that reaffirms these commitments.

A copy of that letter is included as Attachment D.

Since that letter, I have held meetings with every element of QA and QC organitation here on site.

TUGC0 top management, including Mr. M.

D. Spence and Mr. S. R. Clements, have attended some of 'these meetings with me.

A memo t'o file dated April 30, 1984, reflectinf top management involvement, is incluced as Attachment E.

{fInregardtothe" finger-pointing",theQCinspectorscitedinacequate

/

y inspection packages and premature submittal of work fbr inspection

' as reasons for delays.

The Inspectors stated that they had seen significant improvement in the quality of the packages, attributing the initial problems to " growing pains" with the Paper Flow Groups under the Building Management Concept.

However, I have directed that a surveillance be. conducted in these areas of concern.

A copy of this directive is included as Attachment F.

In addition to the above surveillance a task force (the CPSES Monitors Team) has been commissioned by the Assistant Project General Manager anc myself to' perform an oversight function on the entire records processing activity at Comanche Peak.

The Pacer Flow Grouc in eacn Building Task Force vou g g rply Lcs within the inspection scope of tbjdW4erstaEsygiua.

ine document ecmissioning this effort is includec as Attachment G.

This on-going effort will continue to assure QA records are being processed in an efficient and correct manner.

a j

IqfsEMMJzE:EmAtEE._5Mmitucho&.fo r,M n s pgec t-i o net $$ait_m Li

[ %o'n~te_ag'beanReques't iC%R C oggec TUQ-1955, designated CAR-036, dated had al cent.i.ged gy-our trending,g.oSrf@.

A Corrective 1) i March 1,1984, was issued requiring corrective action in four areas where a problem with " failure to assure work is completed correctly prior to a request for inspe'ction" was identified.

The Corrective Action Request is included as Attachment H.

-4 The concern on cable terminations has been addressed.

On January 24, 1984, we verbally informed the NRC of a deficiency regarding cable terminations.

On March 29, 1954, a final report was submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 50.55(e), describing actions taken.

Supporting documentation is on record at CPSES.

.. Terminations used in junction boxes for po,wer and control cable for lE applications are qualified in accordance with IEEE 323-1974.

The report has been reviewed and aoproved-as meeting all requirements.

Contrary to the rumors, Revision 16 to the procedure, which was issued on. March 12, 1984 and remains in effect as of this date, continues to provide for removal of the covers,o.f Class.lEJ Qxege nd_coAtzol,

g qtf Mogg, and for inspections.

~-

In regard to the lighting terminations, the inspectors were advised that lighting fixtures are not Class lE.

Concerns related to failure of the lighting fixtura terminations in the open-circuit and short-circuit mode were discussed with the inspectors involved.

Engineering documenta-ion addressinc both-failure modes was reviewed with them and discussed h at length!

T b i, asp _e g [rs were satisfied that the inta %

• g g g g

CDS 1F_ cowman.Ccis,t [W{Q{rg%cNfg.

[]\\

a gF4Fzr912EM $i(.d$t5:endtEi. ant. to corveyggyLggc,cf.ca i

' ' gf-greater number or, inspectors nac wcrn the snirts previousTy witnout t

t a

incident.

The investigation clearly indicates thgo h?>

Esd7#MiiEs CI=EIEstaMg$gygagepg,gt.fg);fagpp,tfes 3

i[

4NoGAMEEERath' af c

3 ra r.g g.l9 b Ihis oyer-reac: ion in itsei7 dL gave this incident inorcinate and inappropriate attention.

L Our s orts to encourage QA/QC persennel to voice their concerns is continuinc.

We continue to emphasize an open-door polic~y without fear of retribution.

Mr. soyce Grier is making every effort to provide greater visibility to his presence on site.

We are continuing to place emphasis, during our training meetings, on reasons for procedural changes and continue to encourage incuiries on dispositions of NCR's, or on any other area of concern.

We believe our efforts are being successful.

We continue to maintain a highly effective Quality Assurance.

Quality Control and Quality Engineering organization at Comanche Peak.

We believe that our combinee efforts continue to assure that we are building a safe and reliable plant that is in full compliance with all applicable requireuents.

^

g.

M/

Vega n.

TUGC0 Site OA Manager AV/bil cc:

M.

D. Spence S. R. Clements

TEXAS UTII.lTIES GENERATING COMPANY ATTACHMENT A O F F I C E M E M O F. A N D U M March 15. 1954 R. G. Tolson cien ame. Texu n

subj.ct Interviews of Electrical OC Inscectors Safeguards Building Task Force 1

On March 8 and 9,1984, I conducted interviews ofggeggg%

. inspectors assigned to the Safeguards Buil' ding Task rorce.

A summary of the results of the individual interviews is attached.

The following l

is a sum.ary of my analysis of the results in the principal areas l

discussed during the interviews.

procedures Three-fourths of the inspectors interviewed have concerns with respect to inspection procedures.

They believe that procedures have been changed too frequently and that changes have been in the direction of re1 axing requirements. Meir-perces. trio 3fgge.qujrements are being relaxed because inspectors have found too many problems that impact on s chedul e.

They believe this is the reason that post construction inspections are being held up while the procedure is being revised.

One inspector felt that inspectors should have more input into procedure changes and opportunity to com.ent on new procedures a'nd proposed changes.

Two inspectors had no problems with procedures and two were silent on the subject.

1 Documentation Three-fourths of the inspectors interviewed have concerns about documentation.

l They were experiencing problems with gmpj,etQocagpagge3 and ewPQkkcalaaackaces qdifferer.tsumoersdot=i;nc2siynasc. po,nes t

Several inspectors indicatec that retrieving IR's has been a problem.

Five of these inspectors believed that the situation with documentation is improving while two other inspectors said they saw no improvement.

Three inspectors had no problems with documentation anc one was silent on-the subject.

Training Three-fourths of the inspectors either have no problem with training or were silent on the subject.

The remaining one-fourth felt that training could be improved.

For the training currently being conducted they complained about the instructors who only read a procedure and answered cuestions during a training session.

One felt the training would be more helpful if the instructors woule discuss examples of inspection problems and describe how they were resolved.

e

ATTACHMENT A - con't:

R. G. Tolson 3 age 2 March 15, 1984 NCR's None of the inspectors interviewed stated that they have any problem with

-issuing NCR's.

One inspector did say that he had had scme problems in the past but none now.

One-half of the inspectors stated that they often disagree with the disposition of NCR's, principally becauq@,ygesj.gg -

_an excesy ve r m e " ra q s_gogoAeA'?us_e-4%

i b

Manacement Two inspectors expressed concern because management did not seam to care about quality.

Two other inspectors expressed the view that Area Management felt QC was overdoing inspections and causing delays in meeting schedules.

Two other inspectors were concerned about pressure they perceived frem management to meet turnover schedule, and one inspector felt the shutdown of inspections in the areas of post construction ver:fication, separation and lighting was harassment by management.

If you have questions or wish to discuss this matter further, please let me know.

I A +21'.

[B. Hforier SHG/bil Attachment cc:

B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman I

,a

---r

ATTACHMENT A - ccn' t Summary of Interviews With Electrical QC Inspectors - Safeguards Task Force Inscetter A Did pre-post construction inspections.

Found many problems in first rocm -

inspected.

Room not ready for inspection.

Followed procedure as written.

Found 50-60% bad terminations.

Noted evidence of rat damage to cables.

Could not get SWA's to look at equipment.

Only one,5WA issued for pump motor.

Training has been good.

Documantation is a problem bec_ausg,gf, Meh *en-ants i n falde.cs.

Thettoackages coh1_ne_oggcyge (DCA's, CMC's, IRE' ' WM dag.

FdibTs~situa'tfoMitn cocumentation 15 not improving.

Has no pro $i~eis with issuing NCR's when required.

No problems with NCR dispositions.

Inscector B Short time in Safeguards Task Force.

Feels cooperation in Safeguards is l,,__

not as good as in former group where everything went smooth.

Regularly opened junction boxes during post construction insnect' ions in former grou:.

Training going good and has been helpful.

Instructors mostly read procedures l

and respond to questions.

Should bring up more examples of inspection cr:clems encountered and discuss resolution.

Has no problems with issuing NCR's.

No i

problems with ' ispositions.

d Insoector C Concerned about newspaper article and statement about damage being dene curing'

inspection.

Concerned about Area Management statements that QC inspecters are " overdoing their jcb".

Feels that inspection procedures are changec too frequently.

Believes terminal blocks which do not have lugs should nc-be used on safety equipment.

Feels reaction when anyone goes to the NRC is intimidation.

Believes Safeguard Electrical QC group is feeling heat because they spoke up about problems.

Has no problems issuing NCR's.

Feels too many NCR's are dispositioned "use-as-is".

Believes inspectors need more freedom to do their job.

Suggested that interviews of inspectors be concucted routinely with random selection of inspectors to be interviewed.

Feels craft personnel were back of lock-up of inspectors wearing t-shirts and search Of their personai effects.

Has been unable to find some IR's in vault.

l ATTACHMENT A - con't e

Insoector 0 Feels Safeguard QC group has too many agreements with construction and dcesn't follow inspection procedures because of infomal arrangements.

Concernec about newspaper article and statement about damage being done by inspectors.

Finds this statement directed toward entire group to be intimidating.

During

&aining some of the QE's just read procedures and scmetimes cannot respcnd to questions.

Has problems with docume,ntation packages with missing DCA's and IR's.

Exog;ieh'the,Athy_Jtan 6ette sees,.cg is much_N W.r g,[$$ f A

S.Q as,Fg dGiE A M :Ma$eSu3s Bina? sin Me a*

__bacmq,eg' mRete '.ndete.

No proc em w1th 1ssulng NCR's.

Feei s.;cc i u

and lighting %5sguyegh Feels shutdown of PCV, separation rg" ^ -

~

inspections by Sareguarcs group when other area groups are nc:

shut down is harassment by QA/QC and craft management.

Insoector E Has no problem with inspections but feels pr.;cadm;,,naghg, gag;;ggequa;;Q.

-Feels training is alright.

Has problems with cocumentation and receiving incompiete packages from PFG., F g g e s t.7.An A d f A y lockingd g u

go.g(s.

Feels situation with cocumentation is improving.

Has no prebie:s En issuing NCR's but feels,t,oo_many are disocsj_tionad "ute.;itsy?iments.

c Seifeves p'rocedure changes are in directT6'n"W-FeMEffris"*psiffiorE75~'uT q

Concerned that management doesn't care about quality.

Would like to feel that he did a good job in his inspections.

~

Inscector F Has concerns about lighting teminations where cable slack is not as prescribed.

Inspected three rooms and found problems with 90% of teminations in two w

rooms but no problems in third room.

Variation in results apparently due to difference in workmanship.

Feels training is going well.

Has had pro:'. ems with incomplete document packages and IR lists not complete.

Has no problems with issuing NCR's.

Feels QC works well with engineers to resolve NCR's and has no problems with disposition.

Insoector G Inspections have found problems with lighting teminations, also with power and control terminations anc conduit identification.,F,,agde,ancedy;gJ,s,)g s

goed begggpy g s,haya_),e.e Q o g g tar. Anaers,tandwCitassm an gan&nYi's not to oe pg p%. Concerneo cecaEd9vidence or rat damage e

naheNo'5ErWdPtiefs pusn rom Area Management to meet turnover senecule.

Has no problems with issuing NCR's.

Has no problems with document packages.

l L

ATTACHMENT A - can

Insoector H Has had problems with interpretation of post construction inspection procedure.

Procedure is being changed and feels problems are being resolved.

Training will be conducted in revised procedure.

Documentation has been a problem because.of documents missing from packaces.

Feels situation is improving.

Has no problem with issuing NCR's.

Sometimes does not agree with NCR disposition.

Insoector I Concerned that inspection procedures are being changed to eliminate removing of covers on junction boxes.

Feels this r4yJe c,clGI7fd;;Mg(ua@ga;ge inspections will be only a cosmetic look.

Has problems with response trem QE on questions.

No problems with documentation.

No problems with issuing NCR's.

Sometimes does not agree when disposition is "use-as-is".

Insoector J Has no problems with inspection procedures.

Feels training being conducted is coed.

Has had problem witn incomplete document packages but feels situation is improving.

Has no problems now with issuing NCR's tut has had problems in the past.

hal e M eydtyQge-agQiggggy.

Has gone to supervisor, QE and engineer to resolve alsagreements on oisposition.

reels post cc struction inspections are being limited.

Concerned because QA management and Arer.

Management don't seem to care about quality.

Opa,sgon,,t;,e,],igy.eJ.heQMnv

--4"3 g = ment is beinc damaced bv inscection.

==amarrameran=cawsmsersh-m Insoector K Concerned because of problems with procedures and shut down of inspecticns.

Has" no prcblems with training.

Has prcblems with incomplete document packages.

i Insoector L Ha' 'found number of problems with lighting tenninations during inspections.

s Feels inspections now being limited.

Understands inspection procedure is being changed.

Beggdgew ;::acgd Training now going on is reading procedures anc,ujn g11 not.4i;nd gcobleins.

responding to questions.

No problens w1th documentation.

No problems with issuing NCR's but some problems with dispositions.

ATTACHMENT A - con't Inspector M Concerned because inspection gdys, a.ca beh&geg;.qgg.

Scme procedures have been changed 3-C, times since Task Force Was tormeo.

One procedure was changed twice last week.

Has found problems with documentation packages.

Found four packages concerning same cable tray with different

' numbers assigned to the packages.

Also problem getting DCA's.

Previously had own prints but now car.'t get prin_t when someone else has it checked out..

No problens issuing NCR's.

Insoector N Understands post construction inspection procedure is b.6een 1"dentified witn reouingmap at r

'TfgRfi ni~te rminations.

Feels procedure requirement for STE or EE present when ecuipment is opened inhibits inspectors.

Has no problems issuing,NCR's.

Feels electrical problems are not limited to the Safeguards Building.

Training

'being conducted consists of instructor reading inspection procedures and answering questions.

Feels documentation support is improving.

Has had problem retrieving IR's.

Concerned about promotion policy.

Feels his pay increase is overdue.

Insoector 0 Feels inspection procedures are a problem.

There is no_svstenferinspectog hchan9Niemor.sg ca&ar for cor:menting on new procedures. ~BEleves there should be system for feacback from inspectors.

Feels there is pressure on craft to meet turnover schedule resulting in conflicts between craft, Area Management and QC.

Feels PFG was not ready for Task Force operation.

Has had problems with duplicate documentation packages and with retrieving IR's.

s-Two people are assigned to the records vault to correct problems.

Has ne problems issuing NCR's or with dispositions.

Believes inspector training should be improved.

Feels testing for certifications is not strict enougr..

Insoector P Has no problems with inspection procedures.

Believes Area Management feels that problems with delays are because of QC.

Has no problems with training.

Feels 'that. documentation problems are being resolved.

Has had problems retrieving IR's.

Has no problems issuing NCR's.

Feeis thy:lieves ;sepatiti,9 E i Ca on was N @in separation criteria was ladfGg. jgp.

cons truc:i on't t-5 4 O JE3 Ee; M 1e.93La,c 1 Bapg

ATTAC iMENT 3 Ex As.utimES COMANCHE PEAK STEAu c ce-o.e e-..~

I,R 'H:0 W A M N 04+' % g. m,.

. gNEAlTiNo co NONCONFC

-'uNr i s:AuCruAsisYSTEM l ITEM /CCM PCN ENT T A G/i:: NU EA LOCATICN C A ELEVA nC Ai: NC j

h m 3$

C L. e L E i

I l'.5 a ? o v e r-4.

Coa h'.+

Ci% mn T lo' i

N/A I

~

NCNCCNFCFMING CCNCITION I

f

} h <. cc I

• rn. n u m k.b (v endo,- s pp l?d) w h 'r s k l e s co n d '. a C.15 C, r ; t.7 't q & cK.3 4o C 71 - h E A T KW - C a rn

.$ loc 5c. This ha s her i5en4: :sd on s

fg7 Gndrw e Ic e- \\/crikI("kIC^ D IC E, o N !.D.' O tOSi E,.T i e M.!,

'^'4 LO Ca 4 'w. i

".1 E

• N t.

• 1.h 3!c3,i C 4ner.b r e n S ki d, 7

g$h i-l C, td 43 y pt:<a.

gRSS ca 5"'0 y

i rQ./

i s gs I

.h U

oA #

cEFEAENCE ::CCuMENT.

- O 9 t\\.3 e la 5'

nEv p,mA PEPCRTED SY:

CATE:

5 L

I is i'Av !

E AEVIEW/ AAmmovAL

DATE:

,C,. 1 ),

TACTICN ACOAESSEE V

~

/ is irv

/

CEPARTMENT h

n p n -E $

C' b 2. A./Y/

$5 '

8 n s y 8 OtSPCSITICN; AEWCA<

AEPAIR uSE AS IS MIY SCAAP 7^E accc.ra.sss or THf vocox 1.ip.N.ico ano sa.G'u.sa.1 1 is M n

.. Y5$ d,.0 W N&*"OACC O-Cf5 $NOV&M YC ALL.J J EC3 C M / N e* f $ / f-s'6 N H G N To ms~~~~ n LQ c:~ &olartav. wctr.M w:si? ANO.Sv.575^^ INTEGRC~C HAv5 ~'~

iWD; c:mp2:n/160; rue.csont, iamuuri:~' it -acesarsecc:trd&.31

-f l

ENG. REVIEW / APD ACVAL

)

/

CATE;

w i i,c e,

s

~

CE AEVIEW AppACVAL:

CATE.

0

• T fkalf f

/s*rs%

p.. w l

l !_E ' %4' SPCsmoN VEAIFICAT!C l'CLCSUAE;

/

OATE.

. t'.! C o, & J

/ i /u-lv

CuuENis. fr. val 1h2 7-/-cc/ge9cs

, t u..;. -u %.,:p.

.s. u A :... t..

c, ELE,na rtuc Co NONCONFORMANCE =Eponi (nCR)

V8

)'p

,.a

.e a -. _ _., _

3'%Ciu E SYS*Eu i f E u s C C'.u C N E r8 7 '

itC.80PJuMEEA

' t.CC a f CN CA Ei S n

"4 n

UNei o

i n.,>c l

v.,

$dk,;.,u.,,-4.

l u >..<. A i C i ', c../)r-n T 10 N.

1 e

.i NCNCONFCFMING ' CCNOITICN

} h <, u l.4 rvi.'rt w evs L b IV eMo.- d.p')l N d ) w h

• r s k i e x t c,,, et,

i a

g g$(,,-,, y )

y g N.,,, (. > lo C 71 - h C A rKw.ca m ;3 loo.sc. Th e has b e c',

ids.s4.\\

e I

v..

=

f c,$t MN E!o.s V e e.' b c 4 lo ^ D eb.c ' m.( R p e. + I O F c i U W. E [4....'J

,=

L s.i c a l*...

2 - d c.s 1.h 'D.*c3 1 ((, rp.,. h r Sk.d.

i.,

o as c

g, I.y.*pI.<c.

C.* !d s

g O

4

J C

i REFERENCE OCCUMENT-bI O P II 3 N Ib AEV PAAA i

AE*CATED BY:

ATE.

% 3~k I

5im

-- ' E REVIEW / APOROVAL:

/.

DATE:

,/ M,_'

i s,,

/

I,$.

t 1.<.e s

o -

.C ' ACTICN ACOAESSEE

' OEPARTMENT

• s ?n p, ~4.' $ ! l. C )*n i. *f-/Y/.

h 5 ' *-C':* ' _. C '... J y CISPCSITICN:

i AEWCAK REPAIR.

USE AS IS NY SCAAP I

t 1

y l,$)

N&

b /PM C9' r.b b l

. h.

b7f C

NY fuga bd,k A j y-b Frarc, b&

W a 3 y ' f-i 5 L6n

-2Aadn46 L

ha k_A[!

O."

}

)

f ENG. REVIEW / APPROVAL i

f,, f[

C

/idi E4-

~

^

CE A

• lE*vY APPRCVAL:

C#

? > S ? u p$ fQn l

7 l

! "3 CISPCSITION VEAIFICATICN & CLCSUAE:

CATE:

{

}

i

/

/

<s s

YM -- -

[ [%N Eno turnDU ATidal AMIV @rNgN

=

~.

$ y

t,n _.a Uf

)

l

^ * !;

"::M p--CMELf. E ;X

, N8.t,....

' d 3'

1

..'. yQ -f -

M..ul,qyec7;cH. cg!![,ucgpA~C -

w n

~ \\w,c._r/J/)Ja,.99/,,l

n. cs :,r :::urr.:n C I s s4 ';i~L:

l. W % un M.

1 l'.ni's i ac T.#- wwa i

\\

Corvdut O I 3dl2.$ 'N e

. ?C

?/O ' St; #

- -- M u.ci m al../c i.ar/fm. RS' sl v.: c 4.Ev.

< I+;/. c.; ecc. a 4 c<. a :w.4,c./DI-QP //. ?-23 fes 9 t

6$-lO 0 t.

.2-1 y IN E-- a C F"v! 'nt A' L: A len C in:~1L' :-'os gnu.

O per n-l 3

m=cn cmcar.cn nn:rt:~ :n n m en

.y_:-.cn

.MEP.

V__-*~ 73 b.?t::":M

=2de' !""O, MJ. AP" :.'.4LZ 17 Dea :AT:m'Ac en?

pgM

/[f;[p/

Q snzet:~;n

w"Z~t:, t.:ns.msen.:::n? n~tm t : c sc.~a l **

'"*Y*T*"

ll situ no.

,c:

INSP*c~"."iCN t..iet!SUTE3

.C e

37I

=

aamAr.:xt i

/ \\ MS &~ AS 4.T

! A2 b) di< o u ) % o-P lt n I

,r

~

iA/ct # W-con O'Y, nrs nn;/~!..>

,.) ki s%h&A l l l

l l i n. ; a-. a.,- d G.,/1 % :,j~, ;uc %, v.J l Ii I

i.

l l

/

~

riI l

I I

I II I

I I

I I

II I

I I

I II I

I I

I II i

i i

1 II I

I f

I I l l

\\

I I Ii i

l I

a_

l iI I

I I

5W FLT. RECoon i l i l

I I

I "';'

l"^ h 1

II I@,

I I

Tsoa, l _ J ( w?.27 l

l 1 i map' i/

I

~

-- cn o n,,,

1 i !

/1

..,m,_

_ f y.

j h

.I i

! i If I

i i I I/F 1

{

l I

i l

'l l

I

~

l l l l

l M i H- (d tse M e.p>d i

I \\

f L

1 l

I.

I i l I

i acaem c c,:rt=,. :a

,) h A/d

~

m-xar

\\

i I

'q'

/~h U'000 Y f

$ '~5

• Ll&

.mo m,mm a=.*

^F

~ ' ' ~

" *g @f f) E CC N L'* t T *, R g,

n.a.n m, nw aw ye

+/rO,4r f

/

~~

/

ATTACHP.EN7 e

. T EX A S.ufiLITIE S COMANCHE PEAK STEAM C8 C'"'C'"

~

~ GENEA TJNG CC NONCONF(

' !03MA..KH0<3<Jg. 4.0, UNif ST AUCTU A E/SYS T EM ITEM /COM0ONENT TAG'/O NUMEER LCCATICN C A ELEVA*1CN Si: NC s.

T m. S5 C u w, L G i.1 s 6.w coma c meomo E i o' N/A l NCNCONFCRMING CONDITION f

T h <_ Ei <.3 cond J Sor C lag OWi4 i.5 lo o s c bob on I

c.nd 3. 'T k. 3 k a d b-e

• n ' hn4 : S': 4 o n. 'P c> d Q c>, d M,e m i

h c E. c : e.q 3 e p o cE1 D.

o to'3 i D[SC' t,,

l Ucc: ( i c A '.e.

,J D,cv \\ G

<~4cr PeY < + b e E. O. b'.9 3 A~ -

i j ec d.L

.n I

C9 I - to A P t u.ca. e t +w< u d ena,e? &wc L ;,3,1 c,, n.,.%. sc w a.

J b}eiJ b.), o o l : e.L Qv EEFEAENCE 00CUMENT.

f-O d.B -

O l3 nEv

,,n, i

r

' REPCATEC EY ATE:

b& b m.

\\ / 5 /?Q l

. OE REVIEW / APoACVAL:

/

DATE:

/

f4

/

l.5 " / C C/

~

i l AC~lCN ACOAESSEE DEPARTMENT l

/ r_-) %' *. 0 O }-1 L /$ W./

Elet.Y sbh 07~.

f l

e OtSPCSITICN:

l AEWCAK YYV A EF AI A USE AS IS /VV SCRAP

.1 'THE L.0c5 E N E S S O F TM G. Pt.e.>< A'T THC E c oiP MENT E nth s% N G.

ofvt.V 70 WEAO ~ A!../r' /N & $$ /*/fr/tvt.r

~%~~~ d ChdAfC.} 'YM$ ll64*" "O o&r$' 8 GV/MEsu"~

}

l

}

Y*"SAS /.I SAWA. ?WAl.4 O EN & <4&GA^C **( AAfO **M6 4 / :'*CL'N / 6,,.ws0 trWS svC7" j

tsu cm promiw_e ; r-ea ge ec swwusriem is u..a,ss a.s w w t :. waE nu c~.s r r~a e-caou ec~ w,es~c.u rc

.-rcx neA REconc l

TW CA R CVICW I i

in rud 1

e P

FILZ No.

pS%S W./

\\

(.

\\h.- : c n ou.ri.

~ o.

U' d.) M3 j l

i

' ENG. REVIEW / A Po ACVAL

')

j/

OATE.

l

_ w (.

0,h l / /$ ! $ f

' CE REVIEW APoROVAL:

DATE:

i C ? T /b'slr'"

.Y.

/m A yi.-

l //P / W JISPOSITICN VE AIFICATION & CLCSUAE.

/

CATE.

5

/ / /'*'i E V t wi./

' CC4JuENTS;j: /,Vf;4 I4 E -/~ d d /3 r':','t i

e i

ATTACHMEtiT C - cen'-

.Dik H[i e@yjpa

,? ExAk *,ur:uf E3 C Vt.iA,NOp 6'.

"CENERATNG CO

',$ k,( Cr Q @ M A h

_.hMg, g@,

=

Vt -

'1 1 4

..f2 '. IC YUs.ie E 2 L OCA NON CA ELEVA"ON

'a','S SC UNIT TTAUCTUP E/ 5YST E M ITEurCOv5CNENT G

F T m. 2?u C \\...,. I u.

b b e.,. d Coad...t 1 Cilq vrefy 5 I O' I'J /i4 t

i NCNCCNFCRMING CONCITION i

- L < C. 1 <- 3 co u J foc e oscory

,3 t <, c, 3 e I

c, c,, n,

)

l W

c.nd s. TM3 k 'c 3 b.< < n ' L n4 : i..a o.s % d g g,. A,,

2 pg l

C Ac q cDor Q {cft hle y C r.'

i c;; 4 h. c ^

, )

f.

. (..

I lL g

b c i..t

n i),,.,,1 G..-<... L

,

b?s5 # v % e E o. b.,. 2. s.....'

h C.9 l - D Q A ? D W. 63 m

.g.i

+- h. <. '8 c. 6 6 ibf h. <., < \\ 6,,..

J. D s'

'A 2.

4.1 e f d h.3.i C t,; l '.- J.

a i

r MEFERENCE 00CUMENT-Of~b'

'I

'NC I3 AEV mARA j

AEPORTED BY:

C A TE.

A h b n Ns

\\ / 5 I h.

CE REVIEW / APPACVAt.:

'/

t e

CATE:

C' Ah*V

/

/d** I)? V ACTICN ACCRESSEE

/.

CEPARTMENT

/ e) N / 0C 1 f YA* ? '

,El t ? E)? OP.

e 3

CISPCSITION:

lg REWCAK h X M AEPAIA USE AS is !/ IXX SCAAP 4

fl 6

W./

A i

p

/

s ll 6 J,r~

A. - ~ i ac $;t 25,ta.1.' y.#W i

,5bs bha-Y YW/

Ocur

~

.f//MCWN

) Nk

[y j

)

A --

A

.,a,, s n-:z%.m AJAAa,ndid % M SY Adc eJ. wiu 4

l ENG. REVIEVi/ APPAOvAt.

/

j //

CATE.

W

-l Ib 18d

r _.

v x -

CE REVIEW APPRCVAL:

C A TE:

Th W

/?? ?Y

/

OISPCSITION VERIFICAT>CN & CLQSUAE.

CATE:

i be y

i i

COkMENTS' i

I

ATTACF

-.H<B03;tiEN'C-cer':

' i--rr.e.t:-

re L

<$ F.- y %.

i e9caq%m

~

+-

MINdEdNE.4 eW.E@5

[pTph.,

.l 9ln s JG (%2v :4-

i. m r. m.. a %

r um, me r x

=.;~.r.,

m

.n C

Cia. 6 0 </79'/

~ x f+

210 ' 5.G, t

& 25~ d w:..e e,.

e. c ; a c..

<c,.

• u w so.

5.5-/ o0 -

A. 6n -o o n. S as 2.9 d -. - - u a. ur me.4m.s.

uo a pe euu cpn mch.ur.cn Cin 1s.g:=n c4,m apn,n n

oe 1=.cn vc m : r.en u a n..

um- :n

m:r.:n M.

Rv" "_73

" WCH CO M" C"'C. AU. W :A4LK ITZMS SAMAC* 7t'r

{ ]g( } _ ( 3_tf(,s C :=m. - en c=w r u, uu.mme n iras us e w:w.

"7' lT Ed MC.

eC; e - l ;t;j :j urz.

g, Insps m en A..aisuTrs e

e 1I 6/2G 047?V f/ce'/,-< A - -., 4/e 4 A 2 I

II I

I Iwhe-e i+ e. s ee d s L, k.- -n h eLJe.d cos - 1 II I

I c

I do ;f e <

oe-d.', n~,We s

,.!] Al cp F 2' u -

I lI I

I Icocuq

'/.4e

• 3,

IVI I I

i i

lll l

I I

I II I

I I

I II I

I I

I I

II I

\\l l

I I

II I

\\1 i

i i

! I I

\\!

1 I

I I I

.3

\\

l l

Il I

'c 5 I I

I li l

cRl I

l ll I '%Ia I

I l I l

l T

l i

PERM. PLT cern=n

! I I

I i

i t aTn i s n f. i c c.

I I I I

f~

-I l-l 17.1.99.21 l

i

! i l

l l

I l.~ a.. -

l

, ~,-..--..

I l

l 1

I I i l

I i

iI I

I I

il l

c

= c:v.=, r=a f

/t0Y" ? O' 0!0$' Aj Y'!Y fW bf{k $$cl~000 U.

j e

l

)

l mn:, c a

.c.

~*"~~ ) 4 '--

-an E ?U - COC (f ti g ' c. _. _

. m -.,..

ut s,i

.d 4 cc n:-1:::n r

c c.V i <. - d b fem L t y e g __ - -

h-.c

///fM

ATTACHMEf47 C - can'-

~

'![O.

t

'VW'1'0J1HE"d?t#-

~

CM.?N CME 'PE/14. 31

.4 v.. w.

• FIN 35ECTICN dREM**G

?..m.

-_1

~-

g,ggf,

,j p/./~' C n y u 1.f N0/M nY994 36f$k ?-

A

war.w

. n..ra r. n,a u:.w, unct.n z.~.r.w I

g_ c., c.

u..

e e: :cc. a m.. c. %,c.

g-wc 2 mr w.ce r :c.

f,$ /0 0 L v 0 / Q S lh 3*.1b ll 9

fh o'

C 8>. m n a p vNc.;.r.cn e ~: u.u :a ain: m-==.

crm m = r t=

l pr.::;rt:: cn iMart n M mer-"::M

w. c as

~ ' !N:P'.:n:M G n:pe::.m ::w= m. e e=ue.:.m r arosa :A =ne :n

/ L,

,,j

/- /J - P4' O we: en c=wu t::, u.v.c=n.: :n irz:4 us z:: ac :w

.e Es *:.

4 INST-ECCN A. a etiSUC

y ;A t yc,{y si m

1.

l LF, la TA. c

/? c~ -v e d pov iIi i

i 14, ien ard; a r ien x s=<-s-s e e v c in i I

l i

l Ii l

l-I l!I I

i I

I Ii I

I I

l1I I

I i

i li 1

i

~

I l

11 I

I l

l l \\

l l

' ~

1 1 i l l

1 l

1 il I

I I

I i l i

/

l I

I I ic

/

I I

! i@d

/

I i

i IMI /

I I

i

! IN I/

i i

i I !

/

1~

l

/F l

! i l

1 I

i i/d j

l l

\\

\\ \\

l

\\

l I

I i I l

i cr..mvi FL.T. RECORD i

i I I

t ld?

l nd wc.

ii I i l

i AOsAnc (: q :p=4 g ;j E

8 / 3 *OD d I

~

MJ BFIL.E. '.CC,

- CONDUlT NO. -

I

/ /)) f / C / n C <*-/n.t * +k si a w.:

• c:t >c

.sgu. c c c ' c j

'*^C,,,"_

..im: s.

"4 an Ai4 l

= 1-cc "m:m

.o g

(

m

/

e

h 1

ATTACHMENT D TUO'- 19S2 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANT OFFICE MEMOR ANDUM 7.

Si+= Ga/0C De m el dei m... T u.

W 5 ??. ' :a Subject OA poliev Effective March 16, 1984, I assumed the position of TUGC0 Site QA Manager

~ at~ Comanche Peak.

~

I ask for your support in carrying out' the following policies and objectives:

1.

TUGC0 Management has been and remains totally committed to a safe and reliable plant in full compliance with all applicable requiremen:s.

2.

TUGC0 Management is totally dedicated to a strong and effective Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at Comanche Peak.

3.

TUGC0 Management strongly supports and encourages all QA/QC personnel to express quality related concerns.

I wish to promote free discussion between inspectors, their " leads", QC sucervi:: ors and QA management.

I wish to encourage the use of the Request for Information and Clarification (RFIC) as a means to comunicate questions on procedures and irstructions.

I also wish to point out the availability of Mr. Boyce Grier to listen to any of your concerns.

While your first recourse on concerns should be to your supervision, if you are not satisfied with the response from supervision, or for any reason you prefer not to go to supervision, Mr. Grier.is available.

I maintain an "open-door" policy.

Please feel free to visit with me at any time.

I encourage you to voice your concerns without fear of retribution.

We will make every effort to address your concerns in a complete manner.

4 Quality Engineering is being reorganized reporting directly to the TUGC0 Manager, Quality Assurance in Dallas.

This provides an added measure of independence for that organi:ation in order to assure tha-inspection procedures and instructions accurately reflect design recuirements.

Quality Engineering will also be working toward imprcving our program for training on inspection procedures and instructions.

We intend to place more emphasis on systematically inforning the affectec inspection forces of changes to inspection procedures and instructions, especially when changes appear to relax or delete procedural requirements.

Our objective is to comunicate reasons for the above changes, such as declassifications, alternate inspection programs or inspections or test provisions during other project phases such as preoperational testing.

Our objective i.: to continue to promote a high degree of confidence that inspection procedures anc instructions, which prescribe ins'pection work activities, accurately address design requirements.

ATTACHMENT D - can't

-2 I again request your support so that together we can continue to work tcward 'a safe and reliable Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station.

Thank you, N

A. Vega TUGC0 Site QA Manager AV/bil e

e i

l 9

I

TEXAS (fTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ATTACHMENT E OFTICE M E MOR A N D U M April 30,19M to

.cren no=e. rexas subject Too Management Particioation in

~

~

Site Meetings with QC Inspectors This will document Mr. Mike D. Spence's involvement in meetings with QC Inspectors at Comanche Peak S.E.S. ' These meetings included both informal meetings and fonnal training classes ~.

The attendance rosters for the formal meetings are attached.

Mr. Spence, as Presi: dent of TUGCO, presented top management's prior.ities and cor:mitments as they apply to Comanche Peak.

The meetings between Site QA Management and the insoectors were uncertaken to personally re-emphasize the QA policy elements documented in memorandum TUQ-1982, dated March 22, 1984, a copy of which is attached.

Mr. Spence stated that Texas Utilities because of its size has many im;:ortant priorities.

However, Texas Utilities has no higher priority than constructing Comanche Peak correctly.

Mr. Spence stated that Site QA Management's commitment to an open door policy and more informative communication is a reflection of his policies.

As examples, he stated that inspectors have the right to ask for information and receive information on use-as-is dispositions on NCR's.

He supported the intent to inform inspectors of underlying reasons for changes to inspection procedures.

Mr. Spence also emphasized TUGCO's responsibility for the safety of Comanche Peak.

He stated his belief that this is a responsibility that TUGC0 has accepted and which it cannot delegate to any organization.

He stated his belief that quality cannot be legislated; that it must originate with top management support for quality.

He further stated that quality cannot be inspected into the plant; that it must be built by the craftsman into the plant.

He discussed the economics and the management support for " building it rignt the first time" as opposed to building it right on the second or third effort.

Mr. Spence stated he saw Quality Assurance as an essential t:ol in assuring an effort is done correctly the first time.

Mr. Spence then opened the meeting for questions, declaring an "open seascn on the President of TUGC0".

i n,

t ATTACHMENT E - con't File Page 2 TUQ-2046A

)

'During this part of each meeting, the inspec;or's questions, concerns and comments were addressed.

These included:

- The effect of security measures, in the permanent plant records vault, on inspector's accessibility to records.

- The review of QA records by non-QA organitation personnel.

- Possibility of across-the-board salary increases.

- History / purpose of Component Modification Cards (CMC's).

- Plans related to the completion of Unit 2.

- Sources of financing for the project.

- 5tatus of the licensing prdcess.

- State of the nuclear industry, especially plans for new plants, in' the present regulatory environment.

- Inquiries as to what TUGC0 is doing to present the positive aspects of Comanche Peak.

I believe these meetings have made a significant contribution in imoroving communications with the inspection forces.

--_s,

/.-

ZAW

. A A. Veca TUGCO' Site (b"anager AV/bil cc:

M. D. Spence B. R. Clements D. N. Chapman

.-.c...,..

1 m;,iw.,

.=.=r.

• *. =..'. =_ ' ~ '. ~. c. 't C _c ~, ' ~. I ,','

'~

u C '_'t ' '- ~' ".~ = t'; =-.4' *.

/

/ ~[- 7. T L

r.. :-.,

f

, ~.

THE L7CE:.5:G;;ED t,O'104 :._EGE RECE!FT C: S:EC! A'.! ZED TRAl tilt;c. I;;;

s (f.

m/ ( ( ) [,_.

-g'

'/ ( ~

f

(,,

I

/

t '

• j"

//

o w.

DECT, I.jgETcg) THIS DATE, AT CC.V!:CHE F _AK F:

i r

/

fe~ / "/

' ~ ~

~ ~ '.

/

GIVEtl EY:

,I

, ~~' / /

t&~ (: mT:N e i t:m.Ti e,r, 2_.,w : 5

e..

,h u{ hh f. 'r,,, b' f i.. ). - b lf h'm.-A-wgy M e;y N n ' 'a * / l k. NNkll;hs~,.,*Q,p,m,y .s.... i. x s,Ti$yw e n, y.se / (\\ ( /,, dw dh f 0 i' ? hv s .:y j ,Q*'y~ L, %'V '

• C's *&; :~

e c

s. v3;. T' E ' ~ -, :1 : < ui I s- '.h-j /',,yf/.,,, / l,.'.:',,, /?, . f %f. ', ' y,* y,.j._., Q,....# s s,,, (, f,V ~ ,m ' '.A ' 'O '

• r - /'f *,-.

i ( M h[,* ., ',.f.,./..,. M.. J. %,._lM,',, s, n O t 9 6 6 'T a ?%4 t -"it.' r

• s. ', F.

c l' O^^E f-.C./ Mrv.d p p P* s, pg is. 3' L' [ ,_,D s, ') [

• - ~q ' 4(&? ',..

l I'M,yvv.rhg$k5);k5th'.4 / /$ l' i / m.w$dke,, aw + .M;d [_I'd.,.. / ( y.w2 mK C f i n 'n c,e

p. gy,?q.m;yM+* Q,e,

. p.:n. t.qkw ar-Q gy .4 c m / \\ q v1p m w:,of M~q q g, s!.f w d / .. ]w) -1 i,,,.,, . ;. :, s 4.qat),%t9gp]v ., s ! *.. , a. J J'$g%.>j.%, ? g Re. ~ i i' l.l'f ~f 4 e - &w/e, e 1 ,yl; AQ+'.;.: ~

f,. (

, jf"l,' _ [ i t t s we.' yh..".@>I.n',{3 } ft';( m. I/ I 'l ',t. i' i i*/ '/, i kQ .* w. .1 >r Y,.* - - ~ -M ee rl . r -/ / ,? / [ %E,- p .q w as % * (* ( j - s. a e g* /, l_4 # )* ~ i.ILb ed 'y /,p s J e D \\"i ! Lil.' f,, /*, i4 I l's ,' / ,~~ .*,s I t, ':, C F TRi ! N I, M - f v s' W /, .T ,a.- m .-,*~e

• -----__..v,.
• e

~ ~ * - , ?u 1 __....e-- .s a. e %. I __

...,.._,.r.-- .u c er =. ". ~. ~. ' C ', ',', 'i i n' ' C *J' ' '.' .. t'; = s' ' ', *~. C_.s' ".. t C: / / ' / ~ ' - C A I.:,.- / ~ C ~ l n' '. !.7._3 ~s r~.,',l,", l k: I,",. v..'.

1. r~ ~sC..

T.: gw-:.:.:.c l r u.: D,',C.i"CW C ' a. .s' , -. /': fpw,__). l' '~- v ' ' ~ s' / v',( J r,.37pg70i?) THI S DATE, AT CCl%NO-i PE.' K PFCJECT. o~ .-.,/ / /.~f. / / e y, '/ c ' _- Y : ,., d

A re:: f

-ey ,.E4 ( : INTD) s tr.NATIi r m h.,).{[}!h.A'o*y m, T., - f., 7 's. :*, ':..~ ; d

• 5 $,dk$I' Yh

.dde.nM LM'/I,

b....)

bO$?I / 3 +' W~* >'] * ? ); :,$ k ' ' I ?r V, : ;?,,s.b' i;l hj ' 't y e,',j.i^,j,$.'k,li : \\ ). p l Ja Q // j' i m ~ ~/ / , l ll / ' i*h /-. f */, b / (.Y 3

• • • ~~~

,<rs ', , s ,4 b /r ,j 'b f, s [- //{, ?,c. e==. u.s.p, / \\ !w u ~ / s..: f r,.,<. .ren -m / .,. i.,.....:. p t h,. u :, .. /:. j.> e 8

-/'

he .:v -.-.a c.. v. J. a L2 ..a_ v .'M 8 as.

• "%e.

g L.,, J.,,.,(' 0 } ','h, ~~~' ~ f// ,/. ',, : ~.. .~. s lg O Mg,g Y, gP-Wg NYf ', I U L %*% 6 LF' #". ,,7 s<..

1. % J l I. LJw $@8hD '

as a g. ,a ff.---"-. 'I 's,,,.,- L,,r- -..,.,,b. .. m

• w i

i' ,.-.. f ._7.,_-...---f----___.. i g, s a, d 4 ',,,,/ p .g e

ATTACH:<E:i' E - 6 s rea. n t e.- n ::.~w CCr%NOiE FE'f. 5~EA". P :CTRIC STATICN ' "[ / Wc.- t/ / cATE: THE IJCERSIGNED ACCChtEEGE RECEIFT C: SPECIALIZ_D TRA!Niln Iri: h? ff .// ~~ [W f~h=~//f h f GIVEM SY: / 4// /; / F'* / < m/_I[t:5 L CR) THIS DATE, AT CCPANCHE PEAK FR5 JECT. w= M umm) s rmur c= vm=2 m fY .l _a _a 89. e SGNG -]d HA).58e/ Ibb ~5L 00 % ljnt i Jya t _ / s: m.-f.h{$rj @rK.%;\\ L M 'I ' ,,/ '.~. M L / v 'n 1 // HO v i !... s M % v,, . 6;s. ;;g..q ~ m.1,-.ng4xn}? 5 h $!W k%.n s ) 44 !:a d40 f ,f f f }&L 24 1., VP'?O DA v.:.o i :: Txc.= c c : ( l 1 \\ ~ ) ) ~ ) / l \\ 5 ' i "r( - ~r (?/ i' / j,,A.' / j _ A,Q ltiSTRIETTS' $iG55i1FE y.Jy'

1. Z,3 .

'? }hms CF TRAlt!!NG:

• • /

// ).' E %.-- Q<* ! -).- 4,.l/_].l, ____,._m~.,"' 'I !.o.c.. i %q-m-^m'-wT yW -1?e w s-m '

* ~; C.m E ~ E -

,4Ije,,,,f* , h e. w'i"d I 4"O g

=.e

,C 5,. he.f .-., -.. =s., -..s .y in. si is. <, I e_.s / M 1 0.. / TriE L"CEO.SIG.NE.D ACVJTA.EEGE F.ECEIPT C.: E.:ECIALIZED TFAINItG [N: ,' h &l) /f-C.o ICc. //. W ~ l & /[/, C/2 /Wrv_ ___([NSTRLCTOR) THIS CATE, AT CCW.lC"E PEM PfJECT< f w GIVE!! EY: / e m.aw:n un:_E c; uw= (== prim) s f,s.s,y g o 5 ' = m--

[* Y s '* N N. '

. ^*A* A'G~ M jQ9i y)'d.;'l$[*fh%g*L'f' 5 H D w / l._} A 6 V! Y 5 2 h J m~o, e./.n 7,,.W;qqy. _ g 6>ggf.%.e,. avw y/l/ i,,y f . ms, ALu/- 1 d/*'-C 7 ..,','.W b l ' Q, {.% '.

• ' < g sp.,.

...,s s l'/ /' . /, r s 7 ~. 's O '$ l. _W_ . * )s ' OOf$ hl l D h l* lh . ;,.7.., - Q :. " /M )'y*.- )Ames d e h Ie,K. Oc. e ch ).L ' ., e 1

l. m. 4. +;.xm. w 8

M as e, c 1 ! C h /Y1 O_ r, i b. Y e v s'c W , r.> e t1 ( w w a a n.. . x.,a. 1 ~' . i + m. aa y,.. *s p.y'*. } g'y o' '. *;,;1'z y Y' ^? ::. *+zr e** /** a /k4 p' a-. g /* pr h / -n g ( ( ( \\ / / N /**" / e e' ~ Y e.$ 4 y wj 'n Gi f f./, /, /.s > f/. D .,, p ll-.' ', 4 ' p / y y a. g i a "u^*. 4==r. g ., v. La vs 6 iia a ti iLM es ** .7%et'e.s 'N l ', w g.- ~-

• r.e l'.

a% L .o (, l f* ~ ' ,Or/ pq /,* o i _ _ ' _ _ ~. _. v,u wo, ,,r., t.,,,, g...

00-1962 TEX AS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ATTACHMENT E - con't OFFICE M EMOR A NDUM n Si+= OA10C Damemal c:en no. T n W -+ 77 1CSa Subject OA Policy Effective March 16, 1984, I assumed the position of TUGC0 Site QA Manager at Comanche Peak. I ask for your support in carrying out the following policies and objectives: 1. TUGC0 Management has been and. remains totally comitted to a safe and reliable plant in full compliance with all applicable requirements. 2. TUGC0 Management is totally dedicated to a strong and effective Quality Assurance / Quality Control program at Comanche Peak. 3. TUGC0 Management strongly suppcrts and encourages all QA/QC personnel to express quality related concerns. I wish to promote free discussion between inspectors, their " leads", QC supervisors and QA management. I wish to encourage the use of the Request for Information and Clarification (RFIC) as a means to comunicate questiers on procedures and instructions. I also wish to point out the availacility of F Rovee_GHar to listen to any of your concerns. While your first trecourse on concerns should be to your supervision, if you are not satisfied with the response from supervision, or for any reason you prefer not to go to supervision, Mr. Grier is available. I maintain an "open-door" policy. Please feel free to visit with me at any time. I encourage you to voice your concerns without fear of retribution. We will make every effort to address your concerns in a complete manner. 4 Quality Engineering is being reorganized reporting directly to the TUGC0 Manager, Quality Assurance in Dallas. This provides an added measure of independence for that organization in order to assure that inspection procedures and instructions accurately reflect design requirements. Quality Engineering will also be working toward improving our program for training on inspection procedures and instructions. We intend to place more emphasis on systematically informing the affected inspection forces of changes to inspection procedures and instructions, especially when changes appear to relax or delete procedural requirements. Our objective is to comunicate reasons for the above changes, such as declassifications, alternate inspection programs or inspections or test provisions during other project phases such as preoperational testing. Our objective is to continue to prc ote a high degree of confidence that inspection procedures and instructions, which prescribe inspection work activities, accurately address design requirements.

ATTACHMENT E - can'; I again request your support so that together we can continue to work . toward a safe.and reliable Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station. Thank you, 9 N A. Vega TUGC0 Site QA Manager AV/bil e e es e ow-7 l

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ATTACHMENT F OFFICE M E MOR A N D U M ~ T. C. H. Welch- ._ Cten be. Teru March 21, 1924, Subject _ In50ector Interviews CONFIDENTIAL Concerns have been expressed related to'dotument packages and duplicate packages with different numbers for the same components, presented to inspectors for their use in conducting inspections. A concern has also been expressed on the retrieveability of IR's. The problem appears to have been observed during the establishemnt of work packages related to the integrated building management system. An improvement has been noted in some instances. Please arrange for a surveillance of this activity and advise me by March 23,_g4, of your schedule for conducting this surveillance. 1 r ?. f6 C-7 A IVega.. TUGC0SitsQn/anager M ~ AV/bil cc:

8. R. Clements D. N. Chapman B. H. Grier m

i 8

TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ATTACHMENT G OFFICE. M E MOR A ND U M Distribution can no.., Texas Mars 30. M d ,w f subj.c+. CDMANCHE PEAK STEAM ~LECTRIC STATION 1 The CPSES Monitors Team.is established as a management oversight group under my direction. Its purpose is to monitor records processing acti-vities as they relate to construction and startup activities. Initially, efforts will concentrate on records necessary to complete construction within security boundary of Unit 1 and common. The scope will include all of the departments cited on the attached flow diagram between the points labeled DCC and PPRV/B0P Vaults. Activity reports and recommenda-tions will be made on a regular basis to me and the management of the groups affected. ~j This team is being chartered as a result of an already successful moni-toring effort in DCC and requests made by several, building managers. It, supplements the existing QA internal audit program. / i u269 1- /J./T. Merri t, Jr. '// (

t. Proj t GeneraV/.anager I

W K. Vega / TUGC0 Site QA Manager 4 JTM:AV: pew cc: B. J. Murray G. B. Crane

• F. L. Powers J. A. Dittmar R. D. Gentry H. A. Hutchinson C. Boyd C. Welch C. Osborne L. M. Richman L. D. Platt i

~ s TU0-1955 TEXAS UTILITIES GENERATING COMPANY ATTACHMENT H OFFICE MEMOR A ND UM ~ ' r, J. T. Merritt c:en nou. Tuu Mar:n 1, 1984 Correetive Action Recuest (CAR-036) seje Control of Deficiencies RE: Corrective Action Report Fourth Quarter 1983 ( Attachment) A review of the fourth quarter trend report indicates that the percentage ~ f inspection repcrts documenting deficienc'ies is unsatisfactory in several o arecs and appears to warrant corrective,ac_ tion. The following shows the type of work inspected, the percentage of inspection reports documenting deficiencies, the major deficiency trend cate; cries, and, based on discussions with inspection supervisors, the apparent causes for the deficiencies: 1. Electrical Cables showed an unsat rate of 14%. The major trend ~ category was work incomplete /not per requirements. This tren appears to be caused by a failure to assure the work is completed - correctly prior to a request for inspection. 2. Electrical work other than cables and terminations (E) showed an unsat rate of 12.St. The major trend category was work incom:lete/ not per requirements. This trend appears to be caused by a failure to' assure work is completed correctly prior to a request for in:pection. 3. Misce'ilaneous structural Steel (MS) showed an unsat rate of 14.2%. The major trend category is fabrication errors due to misdrilled holes, improper dimensions, and/or improper material. The apparent causes appear to be a lack of clear fabrication requirements and failure to assure work is completed correctly prior to a request for inspection. w 4. Protective' Coatings (PC) showed an unsat rate of 34.4%. The major trend category is inadequate surface preparation. The apparent cause is a failure to assure work is completed correctly prior to a recuest for inspection. P(ease provide a written response to this office on or before Marca 16, 1984, describing the action you have taken or intend to take to correct these matters and prevent recurrence and your estimated date for completion of corrective action. R. L. Tolson TUGC0 Site QA Supervisor i' RGT/BCS/GWP/ GAS /pr Attachment cc: J. D. Hicks f[ ~, h 5 'N. Chjag ._}}