ML20214F525
| ML20214F525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Braidwood  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1986 |
| From: | Weil C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| To: | Norelius C NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE REGION III) |
| References | |
| OL-I-ROREM-042, OL-I-ROREM-42, NUDOCS 8705260127 | |
| Download: ML20214F525 (18) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - - _.
w m
..,.9 (4.XHEIT" N W(fgf3 W
j c; O.J j G, l N e~i - 0 O N 4 +~2 h
UNB1ED STAf ts
~
.eals.
h 31
-e28th c,
h/2C =~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMisslON REGION 818 g/
q.
f.L Ete E LL VM. BLLloeOIS 60137 f
(
.....f APR 5 685
'87 AFR 22 P6 54 Off n.
COCC!j.
nw.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Charles E. Norelius, Director Division of Reactgr Projects Charles H. Weil, Investigation and Compliance Specialist FROM:
SUBJECT:
ALLEGATIONS RE:
L. K. COMSTOCK QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM AT BRAIDWOOD (50-456; 50-457) (ATS NO: RIII-85-A0072)
~
On March 29, 1985, at approximately 10:00 a.m. the Braidwood' Resident Inspectors (L. G. McGregor, R. D. Schulz, and W. J. Kropp) telephoned the Region III Office and advised that six L. K. Comstock quality control inspectors had visited the residents' office that morning..The Comstock
~ inspectors provided several allegations which are suirmarized as:
Comstock is asserting the ~ quantity of inspections rather than the 1.
inspection quality. Therefore, the quality of the L. K. Comstock
~,
inspections is suffering.
2.
Rick Saklak, Comstock QC Supervisor, was not qualified for his position, as he was not certified in all of the inspection areas which he supervised.
Saklak was constantly intimidating / harassing the Comstock inspectors.
3.
4.
Ninety three hanger inspections, containing 1100-1200 welds, were signed off in one day by an unidentified inspector. The allegers considered this to be too many inspections for a single inspector to make in one day without the quality of ~the inspections suffering.
N (phonetic spelling), a Comstock QA inspector, is 5.
assigned to the records vault for the sole purpose of closing nonconformance reports. M never goes to the field to verify the condition before closing the nonconformance reports.
All of the allegers claimed to have spoken to the Braidwood Quality 6.
First Team without gaining any satisfactory response to their concerns.
The allegers indicated that they represented 50-70 Comstock quality) control if inspectors and there would be a job action on Monday (April 1,1985 something was not done about their concerns.
8705260127 860618 PDR ADOCK 05000456 G
9
~
~..
Marles E. Norelius 2
APR 5 19 6
. {s..J The allegers were
@(alN,M,h j
q M and phonetic spellings). None of the a lagers requested confidentiality and each agreed his identity could be used if necessary.
(NOTE: A series of allegations ir)volving L. K. Comstock at Braidwood were received by Region III beginning March 9,1985.
These allegations (R))I-85-A-0058; RIII-85-A-0062; RIII-85-A-0067; and RIII-85-A-0068) generally encompassed those identified above.
Further,6 was the source of a'11egation RIII-85-A-0068 which concerns the push of production quantity over inspection quality.
On March 29, 1985, the allegations were discussed among the Region III Staff
-(C. H. Weil, W. L. Forney, and C. C. Williams).
The Regional Administrator, D2puty Regional Administrator and the Director of the Division of Reactor Projects were also inforned of the allegations.
It was decided that the allegations should be forwarded to Connonwealth Edison Company for resolution.
However, the allegers should be contacted before providing the infor1 nation to Connonwealth Edison and infonned of the proposed course of action.
Accordingly, at 12:00 p.m., March 29, 1985, the Region III Investigation and compliance Specialist spoke by telephone with the allegers assembled in the sident Inspectors' Office.
They were informed of the plan to bring connonwealth Edison into the allegation resolution process and none of the allagers expressed any dissatisfaction with the concept. Further, they
)
restated that they did'not desire to remain confidential. Other Comstock inspectors accompanied the original six allegers to the Resident Inspectors Office.
The total number of Comstock inspectors eventually numbered 24.
In the one half hour period of the telephone call (the call taking place between 12 and 12:30 p.m. during the inspectors lunch period) thirteen inspectors wem briefly interviewed. None of the additional inspectors requested confidentiality. The Resident Inspectors were requested to obtain the Comstock inspectors' address and telephone numbers for follow-up by the NRC (e.g. furnishing the inspectors with copies of this memo and subsequent reports).
INSPECTOR COPMENT 6
Rich Saklak continually violates procedures during inspector certifications.
,e Saklak threatened 6 for not closing an inspection 1
report which still had an open engineering change notice.
6 refused and Saklak stated, "if beating was legal you would be dead." & later checked with QA and found that his position on the issue wa: preper.
A h
John Walters (h lead) and Ken Worthington (M supervisor) told 6 that he would lose his job if he did not hurry up and produce more inspections.
,..X : naries E. Norelius 3
APR 5m
(
)
Saklak threatened an inspector (unidentificd) for not closing an inspection report even though the engineering change notice had not been issued for it.
"Comstock wants us to work with blinders on."
M "More than a little bit of intimidation by more" than one supervisor."
6 On November 5, 1984, Saklak told him to finish an inspection even though drafting errors were noted. M complained to Comstock management about this issue, but did not receive any satisfaction.
& observed a base metal reduction problem in a structural weld. @ told his lead, John Walters, and Walters told M to stay within the scope of his job
~
and not worry about base metal reduction. h also told Daryl Landers.
Landers informedh to keep up his production or he would lose his overtime. (See allegation RIII-85-A-0068) lE' M M Inspector productivity overrides the quality of the inspection.
(At that point a show of hands was done.. The Resident Inspectors indicated that the Comstock inspectors agreed 100% with that statement).
(NOTE: m provided information under allegation RIII-85-A-0067) 6 Comstock emphasized inspection quantity first, not inspection quality.
Saklak berates inspectors.
Many inspectors have been discriminated against at one time or another by Irv DeWald, I
Comstock QA Manager. DeWald's attitude is "how can I hang you, not how can I help you."
r N
Constantly intimidated by Sakla[.
Saklak lied to get 6 fired. M stated that he has written statements from several witnesses to back-up his statement.
Saklak uses fanns contrary to procedures.
For several months Mwas the only welding inspector, and everything was done on a hurry-up basis. Comstock has consistently been undermanned and has one crisis after another.
j
/
v j
l 1
I'
5w
. A Charles E. Norelius 4
l i
6 is constantly being watched by his supervision.
As an exanple, he recently visited the NRC office.
The following day he was transferred without reason from field inspections to a job in the records vault. (NOTE:
the
~
Investigation and Compliance Specialist provided the Resident Inspectors with th.e address and telephone number
)
for the Department of Labor, Wa e and Hour Division, and requested that it be given to should he desire to i
furtherthiscomplaint).
~
(On April 1,1985, Daniel P. New, Area Director, U. S. Department of Labor. Wage and Hour Division, was contacted and informed of M information pertaining to alleged employment discrimination. New advised that the Wage and Hour Division would await the filing of the written complaint required by 29 CFR 24.3 before initiating an investigation into the matter.)
s p
Hangers aren't even being inspected, just as-built.
No inspection reports or nonconformance reports are written.
Walkdowns are being done and drawings made to show as-built configuration.
W Comstock management promises more money to inspectors who are certified in multiple areas. Although it's nice to get.more money, an inspector cannot remain proficient in all of the certified areas; therefore, the quality of inspections goes down.
6 m (phonetic spelling) is both an inspector and auditor. h will inspect something then do the QA overview audit. M believes this to be a conflict of interest.
At approximately 12:45 p.m., March 29, 1985 Eugene T. Pawlik, Director Office of Investigations Region III Field Office, was informed of the allegations and concluded that an investigation by 01:RIII was not warranted at this time.
At approximately 1:15 p.m., March 29, 1985 Tom Maiman, comonwealth Edison Vice President and other Conunonwealth Edison officials were telephoned at the Braidwood Facility by Messrs. W. L. Forney, C. C. Williams and C. H. Weil.
Consnonwealth Edison was told that the NRC had received general allegations form twenty-four Comstock inspectors and in general terms the allegations concerned i
Comstock's push for inspection quantity not quality, Saklak's perceived performance and the inspectors perception of the performance of TAC Quality First Program. Maiman stated that Comonwealth Edison would begin to look into the matters that afternoon and would recontact Region III with an action
- plan by the close of business on March 29, 1985.
.,m..--_,__.m.
APR 6e 5
A) Charles E. Norelius
. /
~
At approximately 4:30 p.m., March 29, 1985 Conmonwealth Edison officials telephoned Region III.
Connonwealth Edison had decided to act upon the issues with both short range and long range action plans.
The long range plan was not _
developed, but Conmonwealth Edison would be in contact with Region III during l
the week of April 1,1985, to discuss the long range plan.
The short range plan identified below would be ac.complished by the close of busines,s on March 29, 1985.
1 I
i 1.
Conmonwealth Edison Management at Braidwood met with onsite Constock l
management officials in production, quality control and quality assurance.
Conmonwealth Edison. discussed areas identified by the
)
Braidwood Quality First Program and the above identified allegations.
The Comstock officials indicated they were generally aware of the concerns with Saklak's perfbmance.
Commonwealth Edison emphasized the need for L. K. Comstock Company to perform within the Commonwealth Edison and Comstock quality assurance programs.
Connonwealth Edison officials were not certain if L. K. Comstock site officials had informed Comstock corporate of the problems.
i 2.
Saklak was administratively removed from his supercisory position until the allegations are resolved.
~~
3.
Conmonwealth Edison issued a memorandum to all L. K. Comstock QC/QA i
personnel in which Connonwealth Edison announced a meeting for 8:00 a.m., Monday, April 1, 1985. At that time Connonwealth Edison i
plans to reemphasize its quality assurance policies, as well as allow the Comstock inspectors to air their grievances. Cosmonwealth Edison will also announce a method for a private airing of grievances should that be desired by an individual Comstock inspector.
i 4.
A Cosmonwealth Edison Quality Assurance Project Letter was also issued to reemphasize the Connonwealth Edison Project Quality Assurance Policies.
I le I
,-----.,c,---.-.-.
n _--, - - -,, -.,., _,, -,., -.,, -, -, -,..,..,,,., _ _ _. -, - - - -. -,,,. - -,. - - - - ~. - - - - - - -,,. - -...., -,
mm
,.,.a.
w.
orelius 6
APR 5 885 1
Imately 5:00 p.m., the Regional Administrator, Deputy Regional
,' tor and the Director. Enforcement and Investigation Coordination a
.re informed of the Cosmonwealth Edison plans described above.
l l
l
/
Charles H. Weil
'j Investigation and Compliance Specialist
/
- 1osures:
/ AMS Form
[ March 29,1985 memo, McGregor.
/
and Schulz to Warnick and Weil i
cc w/ enclosures:
RIII:RA0 RIII:DRS
~
i-01:RI!!
j E. G. Greenman
. ~
J. F. Streeter SRI-Braidwood h
l l
l l
se l
l
_------,----.<-------<-,,----w--e----
-- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -, - ~ - - - - - - ~
- - - - - = - - - - + ~ ~ ~ - - - ', - - - - - ~ - ~
w-
UNITE D 5T ATES j'
NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~
),
V e
RE GION ill 8
790 AOostvf LT RoAo SLEN ELLYN. ILLlhots 50137
/
March 29, 1985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. F. Warnick, Chief, Projects Branch 1 C. Weil, Investigation Coordinator FROM:
L. McGregor., SRI Braidwood R. Schulz, SRI Braidwood
SUBJECT:
QUALITY CONTROL ALLEGATIONS FROM L. K.
COMSTOCK INSPECTORS On March 29,~1984 at approxima'tely 08:15 hours, six quality control inspectors from L. K. Comstock walked into the NRC Braidwood office with numerous allegations which "effect" the quality of work being accomplished by the electrical contractor.
The meeting began with the resident inspector advising these men of the right to remain anonymous and if they choose not to the NRC would' like to have their names, phone number or address,in order' to obtain further information and/or to advise them of the
's results of this meeting.
The six individuals gave the following information:
Inspector X:
We were going to have a lot of people come over but we figured it was better to have a small number. We have 109 people there now and all are about to walk if conditions remain the same.
Inspector X, who came to the NRC with allegations on March 23 1985, said:
My supervisor Rick said to me "You should close them" (ICRs) (normal route is through engineering)
"out and be done with the thing." He said "I should evaluate it myself and close it out".
Rick said "you know what engineering is going to write and what the disposition will be so close it out".
I said "That's not my function." Rick said "No wonder we have such a back log of documents you won't evaluate them or close them out".
I said "I have to follow my procedure - It's not my decision to close out ICR's or NCR's."
Rick said "I can put you in the vault or whatever and make you do it all".
Rick came back to my desk and said "At times you make me so pissed off that if beating i
was legal you would be dead" I have several
l
!~
witnesses to this statement.
I didn't agree with the man but he meant what he said.
He has jumped 1
on my ass before - he flies off - just like that.-
i i
he has done it many times before. The biggest thing is this is not the first time and everybody knows about it, but nothing is ever done.
He (Rick) is not certified in my area and he 'is telling me what to do and my Lead is not certified l
so I am stuck in.the middle so far as procedures go.
I gave the hRC these problems March 13, 1985 '
and I don't know what is being done about it.
I Rick doesn't want to admit he is wrong, which he was - dead wrong and I didn't agree with the man -
its' always been an Engineer.ing function when and ICR or NCR is involved so I don't know where he got the idea I phould close them out.
He has jumped on my ass before - he has always been wrong
- what do you expect, the man isn't qualified and '
yet he is giving orders to inspectors on things he doesn't know anything about - areas where he is l
dead wrong.
It is done just $o get the paper work completed so the numbers look good. ~
I Another Individual: One of the biggest things is this isn't the first time he done this and we are getting tired of this shit.
I know of at least five guys that he has jumped on and nothing gets
/
done - they just give him a new title or transfer him to another area - they have cut his responsibility down to four areas, yet he J
is only certified in one of those four areas and -is still telling inspectors what they should do.
Why is he threatening me with other things - he is telling me what I have to do - he is not certified in my-area - he doesn't even have a background in calibration.
I know he got John out of there l
(an inspector removed from his job) - he was railroaded out.
It wasn't John's f ault j
because the department was messed up - nobody i
was certified in that area.
Rick had a grudge against John so he got his moved out.
They have to do something about this guy -
know they have taken some of his power away -
I don't know if he is holding that against people or because he has lost files there or i
what.
They got leads now - new leads, and I could 4
walk up to them - except for two guys and ask them a question in their area and they cannot answer it.
They are getting in a bunch of new people and making them Leads - NRC why is that? Because they will do what they are i
m.
4 told to do - sign what needs to be signed and
)
get the NCR's or ICR cleared away.
This is so because the new people are under 4 90 day period of surveillance and could get fired at any time.
They want to keep their job - who doesn't. These people are closing out NCR's and they don't even know what the hell they mean.
They have no idea that there is a i
disposition needed on them and they are just signing the's off.
Our Leeds were more or
~
less told in a meeting last Friday that as long as our numbers stay down (the numbers of NCR's or ICR's they generate) they (the inspectors) won't be evaluated.
If you don't keep them down to a fair level then you will go back on eight hours you will lose yuur overtime ahd they will jump all over your ass.
This is not one area but in all areas.
They are. going through out status now (numbers of inspections completed and number of NCRs or
~
ICRs written) they are always interested in numbers - not quality - in fact we had a guy
~
written up last week because he didn't have
T enough numbers.
The quality first or what
/
ever you call it sucks - It's Ceco working
~
for Ceco and all this bullshit reporting anything hasn't done a damn bit of good.
I have not seen one improvement since it started.
We were going,to take 50 guys and walk over Sere and do nothing until something was done t'out it.
I was in a room - I started doing insoections - I started writing up, NCRs -
cabic pans - the welds were bad. Then I 4
starte,1 on configuration.
I started to find many problems and writing up NCRs so they threw me out.
They don't want somebody that will do the inspection they want someone to sign the paper.
They went and sent five engineers up to that same room and they did i
every cable hanger and didn't find one problem not one - no deficiencies.
They are as-built walk downs.
They make the i
problem fit the as built condition so it doesn't look like any problems exist.. We have done - I don't know - one hundred and some odd hangers this past week on a walk down probably a hundred - all but one or two are no good.
...__.-.._.,,.__.,.,y
,_.,m__.__,-
.,,,.,_-e,,
One supervisor who was not certified in my area wanted me to close out several of my ICRs and I refused to do it and so I got a disposition from engineering.
Rick said "We know what's going to happen in this area -
why don't you just close them out".
They are going through our status reports now and the word is out now that they are going to weed out.three inspectors and that what they are basing it on is the number and not l
the quality.
l
.I
- M.9C: Are the new people, the people who get the NCRs or ICRs completed, getting the 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> or overtime?
Yes, they are getting bought-off - they are going Individual:
I straight to the' vault closing the documents out -
4 hangers might not even be there.
Another craft may have cut it down and this guy is saying I
" accept as is" and the hanger is lying on the ground.
NRC: Do you men find any problems with the ' craft - problems of intimidations or. harassment of any kind in the field?
)
Individual:
No, we never have any problems at all - There are a few inspectors claim they have problems - but I think its mostly a personality conflict.
i The new people are afraid of Rick because of the 90 day period - I have had a couple of people (the new people) tell me we are with you but we can't do anything until o*ur 90 days are up.
There are approximately 40 or 50 new people.
I can show you time sheets if you want to know the truth - how many guys are working Saturday, Sunday working at home and getting paid because they have We suction power or whatever you want to call it.
have been training these guys.
The easiest way to do it'is to walk into the office and 'ask them how many certs (certifications) do you have and ask him can he accurately do one? For example, Judy asked our Lead if she could get some cable pulling She asked going because she is going on nights.
t if she could do some actual inspections so she l
i could catch on.
She just got certified last week.
He told her no, she has 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br /> of training and they are going to throw her on night shift with no These new practical experience in cable pulling.
people don't even know where the work points are.
I have bitched to CECO about the engineers (L. K.
g}
Corstock has only 6 actual engineers) completing
~
the NCR's with "use as is" I must have over 1,000
/
NCR and only 5 or 6 have had actual rework.
I have seen a cable pan voided on an NCR. This person passed 93 cable pan hangers with 1,114 welds and all these welds were accepted. These 93 cable hangers were completed in one day. They had a guy from QA assigned here for approximately two months who was closing ICRs.
QA doesn't do Level.
II inspections in the field.
How is this guy going to do a QA audit on himself? They have now pulled him out - he was. working directly at the vault.
Inspector A:
I was told flat out Friday that we are making these people (new hires) the Leads because they will get the job done.
That's what my supervisor said you know what kind and amount of paper work they will complete.
Inspector 8:
I have been inspecting for 15 years and this is the first nuclear job I have-seen where quantity is first - not quality.
~ -
,q Inspector C:
I was a Lead at one time and give it up because of the intimidation.
I was present one day when Rick l
was using extreme profanity towards one of the inspectors. This inspector asked to please stop it but Rick refused and kept on.
His attitude is how can I hang you and not how can I help you.
Inspector D:
My Lead (Mr. A) told me unless my production is increased overtime would not be warranted.
I also witnessed Rick trying to order an inspector i
(Mike) to sign off an ICR.
Rick said it is being addressed - sign it.
(he pointed his finger in j
the inspectors f ace and said " sign it off - sign it off - sign it off - now".
i Inspector E:
It is true we have intimidation from more than one supervisor or Lead.
Inspector F:
I have had so many run ins with Rick.
Rick demanded that I should write up an electrician and if I didn't I would lose my qualification.
It had 1
something to do with items not up to par or not j
correct on a drawing.
Inspector G:
I am now being watched all the time - I must work to an hourly schedule of specific jobs for each i
hour. They are keeping book so they can fire me.
All of the inspector's stated that they thought quantity was
,c m.e,w-._wm-,.
.,-y e,
.---.,r--.
--.e.-,w_.--
c --,i.-,
---r-,,-m,-,-w.--,,--e,, -
.me,-.,v--,
,..,y-
first and quality work or inspections were secondary.
~
me S
1 e
e 6
O f
g i
9 O
e I
l
~ k-+
[.
3 The resident inspector called the region for a conference call when the second group of inspectors cpme into the office.
The resident inspectors feel that the region shod 1d send an inspector to the site to interview these Q.C. inspectors individually and i
l to investigate NCR-1616 and ICR 2900 which the inspectors clain have been inappropriately dispositioned.
It appears at first glance with the information we have received that a shut down or some other aggressive action of the electrical work may be necessary to establish the qual-ity of past we'rk and the quality.
of the ongoing work.
The lack of action by Ceco QA in this area needs to be addressed along with Ceco managements slowness or inability to take corrective action.
The resident inspectors appraised Ceco management last fall of the problems in L. K
)
Comstock Quality Control Department.
~
e L. McGregor SRI Braidwoo,d
~
R. Schulz SRI Braidwood 1
)
9 I
l
/on mee\\g UNITED ST ATES
.y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I
RE GION lit i
f too moostvatt noao yC/W
, 9..... f otsw rLLvw. eLLewoes sem Ma'rch 29,1985 MEMORANDUM FOR:
R. Warnick, Chief, Projects Branch I C. Williams, Chief, Plant Systems Section FROM:
L. McGregor,' SRI, Braidwood R. Schulz, SRI, Braidwood
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL WITH COMMONWEALTH EDISON IN REGARD TO L. K. COMSTOCK QUALITY CONTROL PROBLEMS.
During the course of the normal work day (Friday, March 29, 1985) the NRC Resident Inspectors were confronted twice by L. K.
Comstock Quality Control Inspectors, first by six inspectors and again later that same day (noon hour) by twenty-four inspectors.
all with allegations of 1) intimidation, browbeating threats of cuts in overtime hours, harassment and to put bodily fear in front of the quality control inspectors, 2) quality control inspectors are training their lead inspectors and supervisory *
,.s personnel who are managing the L. K. Comstock QC organization (management personnel are not qualified or certified within the disciplines which they are governing) and 3) the' quality of inspector work has become secondary to managements insistence on quantity of and completion of inspections.
This memorandum i
outlines Commonwealth Edison's corrective action program, as described to the NRC, to alleviate,the immediate problems and inspire a conscientious quality assurance and quality control program at the L. K. Comstock Company.
Present in the residents office at the Braidwood site are L.
l McGregor, R. Schulz, (NRC) and from Commonwealth Edison (Ceco)
Gene Fitzpatrick and Lou Kline.
At the Region III office are. R.
l Warnick, R. Learch (sitting in for P. Pelke) R. Mendez, C. Wiel, and C. Williams.
1 i
i f
a
- ~..
a Warnick/ Williams 2
March 29, 1985
'I')
Mr. Fitzpatrick stated:
Commonwealth Edison (Ceco) actions will include both short ters and long term items.
First of all I'll tell you of the short term actions that we have already completed or are in process of completing which will be finished before the end of the day.
The first thing we did was (Ceco management Maiman, Fitzpatrick, T. Quaka a'nd D. Shamblin) to meet with Comstock site management to express our concerns over (1) concerns submitted to the Quality first program and (2) the concerns over the allegations made today.
Point I of Short Ters: We told L. K. Comstock that Ceco expected them to perform their work in accordance with, or consistant with the quality assurance and quatity control requirements and in particular with their own policy statement, which is section
)
1.0.0 out of their Quality Assurance manual.
Comstock said they l
were aware of some of the problems and were investigating them
)
under their program and especially concerns er issues of Mr.
Saklak.
Part 2 of Short Ters:
Ceco has requested, a'nd L. K. Coastock' has agreed to administrative 1y remove Mr. Saklak from his duties l
^
pending completion of their investigation relative to allegations concerning harassment by Mr. Saklak.
Ceco will be involved in the review of Comstock's investigation and depending what that review indicates we may have a clear course of action or we may have some additional digging.
Pa.rt 3 of Short Ters: There is a memo being issued this afternooon setting up a meeting (requested by Ceco) with all quality control personnel of L. K. Comstock (managers.
supervisors, inspectors) to (1) reiterate the Quality Policy (2) to confirm Ceco's concerns about the concerns given to the Quality First Program and (3) any other concerns that may be lurking out there that we are unaware of at this point and time.
We will give them (inspectors) an opportunity to express either openly or privately throughout the Quality First Program or i
through other vehicles that they may elect to choose other than the Quality First program. Ceco will make a firm commitment to resolve those concerns and any other concerns that they have.
Part 4 of Short Term: We are issuing a joint quality assurance l
project letter reiterating our commitment to a strong quality program in support of L. K. Comstock corporate Quality Assurance, Quality Control policy.
i x _..,,_._, _ __ _,. _ _ _.... _. _,.. _,. _. _. -. _.. _. _..
Warnick/ Williams 3
March 28, 1985 These are the four actions we have going or have completed today and we have also an expectation that we will be prepared by the middle of next week, to meet with the residents on the status of a longer range plan.
Any questions on what I have said?
Region III:
When is the meeting to take place?
CECO:The meeting with L. K. Comstock Quality Control Organization will take place at 8:00 Monday morning.
Region III:
As you think about this long range plan you might give consideration as to what Ceco wasn't doing or what you can l
do to keep a better finger on the pulse of what is happening at j
Comstock and other subcontractors so that your guys get feed back, as to the problems as they are formulating rather than waiting till the problems get to the point they are so severe; the individual feels they have to go to the yRC to get some action and relief.
~
4 Ceco: " Yes, that is the ideal situation to be in - we have an awful lot of things going on - that for example we were aware in the past of moral problems in L. K. Comstock organization.
A lot of that was attributed --- to perhaps the dollar situation and
-w 4
l the certification process these guys b d to go through.
Region III:
Has L. K. Comstock corporate been readied at all i
with this?
f Ceco:
No, L. K. Comstock corporat,,e personnel are on site for this meeting today. We will make sure they are informed, but l
that has not been done as yet.
l l
l l
l
Warnick/ Williams 4
March 78,1985
- (},
Region III and the residents were satisfied with CECO's comprehensive and extremely swift corrective actions taken this afternoon.
An agreement was made to keep the NRC appraised of
~
the meetings to take place early next week and Ceco's long range plans to address quality assurance and quality control problems
~
identified at L. K. Comstock Company.
L. G. McGregor 8
R. D. Schulz o
e e
4 9
e e e S
l l
I l
l l
~
Use4TE3 STATE 5 p* ** g NUCLEAR RE!ULATORY COMMISSION e
' ?,
nEoion m
. i,
, 7.
- j 799 moostvtLT mo Ao
^
e otsu sLLyn,iLL Nois uin
)
'( )
%,.'.'... /
April 8, 1985 Richard A. Snyder 100 Latern Rd.
Gardner. IL
Dear Mr. Snyder:
On March 29, 1985 you provided the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission with infonnation concerning L. K. Comstock Company at the Braidwood Nuclear Station.
The NRC has requested the Connonwealth Edison Company to innediately 1
investigate your concerns. The Region III Division of Reactor Projects will audit the Connonwealth Edison inquiry to assure compliance with Codes and 4
Federal Regulations. We expect to complete our inspections within the next ninety days. We will provide you with a copy of their report upon completion of the inspection,.
The enclosed memorandum documents our understanding of your concerns.
Please write to me at Post Office Box 2027, Glen Ellyn, Illinois 60138-2027, or telephone 1ne at (312) 790-5500 if you have any additional infonnation, 1
corrections to the enclosure, or questions. Your cooperation with us is appreciated.
Sincerely, Charles H. Weil.
Investigation and Compliance Specialist
Enclosure:
4/5/84 Memo, C. H. Weil to C. E. Morelius 4
8 9
1 e
,